Linux-Advocacy Digest #659, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Mike Marion)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (tinman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:16:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
[...]
>I don't know, the two phrases "it is possible, but not common" and "it
>is common, but unlikely" look extremely similar to me.
Common is the measure of how frequently something will occur in a given
sample population. Unlikely is the measure of how frequently it occurs
in a single predetermined individual. They are, as you said, extremely
similar. Unless you're trying to analyze statistical data, and then
they mean practically opposite things.
>You just want me
>to say things with the exact same words and exact same phrases that you
>would use. And then when I don't you use that as an excuse to say there
>is a glitch in my brain. If this isn't what the problem is, well
>sorry.
It is what the problem is, and I can understand why you're frustrated,
and I apologize for frustrating you. The root of the problem is that
you aren't (and shouldn't be, I'll admit, but I gotta try) willing to
assume that I have any idea what I'm talking about. That is my own
frustration, because sometimes it really helps if you give the other
person the benefit of the doubt before insisting they are wrong,
clueless, or mistaken. That you would not give me that benefit is OK,
and I as well harbor no ill feelings. But please let me explain,
because this comes up a lot when I try to explain things to people.
Yes, I want you to say things with the exact same words that I would
use. But it isn't arrogance. The reason I want to you use the exact
same words (no, I want you to *want* to use the exact same words) is
because I need to understand what you are saying in order to understand
what you are saying. And if you're just picking words casually, using
general definitions instead of precise, potentially technical, meanings,
then I can't be sure I know what you mean simply because I can parse
your words. I have made extensive and conscious efforts (unknown to
you, but none of them have come up in this thread) to distill an
accurate, consistent, and practical vocabulary, and try to use it within
a framework which is also accurate, consistent, and practical. Forgive
me, I don't have an extensive formal education, and it is the only way I
can manage to make sense of all this stuff. Because I've noticed that
people who do have extensive formal education are unconcerned with the
fact that they use terms often in a way which is not accurate outside
their field, not consistent across all fields, and not practical for
people who have to deal with these things without being within a
specialized field.
So I want you to understand why the precise words I use are important,
and agree with the importance if not the words, and try to be concise
and correct (that is, whatever way maximizes both communication and
understanding of the concepts) instead of making do as most have with
vague, general concepts and assumptions. I'm just no good at being able
to deal with general concepts and assumptions. That's my problem and
this is the way I handle it. I've noticed that it seems to give me an
edge in troubleshooting, particularly in systems where I don't actually
have any of the technical details at my disposal. An educated guess is
not an assumption, unless you forget it is only an educated guess.
[...]
>I just wonder where
>the hell this all came from.
Naked monkeys, doing what naked monkeys do.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:28:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> tinman wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Tinman wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 1> Jumping into conversations again Karl? Cool, have fun!
>> > >
>> > > Still posting for entertainment purposes, eh Tinman?
>> >
>> > That's tinman. ('
>>
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
> Jumping into conversations again Slava?
>
Illogical. Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the question.
>>
>> > And why else would I post?
>>
>> Don't you know?
>
> Why do you ask?
>
Don't you know?
>> >
>> > > Not surprising, considering that you are being digestified.
>> >
>> > On the contrary.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> What I can prove is irrelevent, only what I write is relevent.
>
Irrelevant.
>>
>> > My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
>>
>> What alleged "polycarbonate exterior"?
>
> <*tink* *tink*> This one.
>
Evidence, please.
Slava
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:23:34 GMT
In article <8ke5em$1aif$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nothing anyone can add to software can take anything away from the
>original released version which will be available as long as anyone
>wants it to be.
You know, if you pay attention to the other posts in this thread, you
would realize that the above is merely a figment of your imagination
that others don't share.
>How has proprietary software had any 'dominating influence' over
>apache, X, or any number of freer projects?
Apache, no, not that I am aware of. For X, yes, look at openblow,
ick. One can say that Sun has a dominating influence still. Also, X
almost was turned to the dark side. If it were GPLed, we would not
even have to watch people try. Personally, I'd rather not watch
situations like what happened with X, ever again. GPL prevents that,
and that one instance is good enough for me to want all folks to use
the GPL.
Another free software package, mpeg_play by Berkeley. I suspect there
are plenty of proprietary players based upon it, and it is lagging and
not worthwhile anymore.
In the same way that we lock our front door, not because someone will
walk around our house and take things, but rather, because because one
time in 10,000 they will, or because we simply fear they might. Doing
it gives us a piece of mind, and that it actually worth something. If
you don't fear it, then, there isn't a reason to use the GPL, IMHO.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:25:49 GMT
In article <8kfh73$pci$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please explain what that means, and what is the connection between that
>and slavery.
:-) Obvisouly you didn't read the definition of slavery on m-w.
>If you mean that somehow "free software" is being enslaved by some
>other software, IMHO you need to stop antropomorphizing.
Why? I find that it annoys the hell out of all the people I care to
annoy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:31:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 13 Jul 2000 04:28:52 GMT
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:58:29 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 05:05:24 GMT
>> [...]
>>>Single-user or not, nobody wants their computer locked up because one
>>>application has a serious bug. Operating systems should be resilient
>>>against programmer error, because bugs happen and they happen a lot.
>>
>>No, desktop client operating systems need to be more resilient to user
>>errors. Programmers are assumed to have done their job correctly.
>
>You're insulting my intelligence with these obvious falsehoods.
I'm trying to challenge your intelligence with this lack of assumptions,
true or false. Put up your dukes.
>Macs *do* crash, applications *do* die horribly, programmers fuck up on a
>such a regular and frequent basis that I often wonder how most of them
>stay alive.
As is the case with PMT systems. What's your point, other than to point
out an apparent lack of difference at the operator level?
>>That
>>this doesn't always happen is not the issue, as lock-ups do occasionally
>>occur (at least X dies, which is good enough for most end users) even on
>>PMT systems.
>
>It takes a lot more to kill X than it does to kill MacOS, and it happens
>correspondingly less frequently. I haven't had X die on me since 1996,
>and I use unix daily.
Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, if there were a truly substantial
greater number of problems on any modern computer system than another,
it is worth presuming that it wouldn't be a modern computer system
anymore, but a historical one.
[...]
>>No. Can you find a way to make PMT as user-responsive as CMT?
>
>I find it to be more responsive. When I use MacOS, I'm forever waiting
>on something unrelated to whatever I'm doing. When I use FreeBSD,
>running several applications concurrently is much smoother.
But you are not controlling for incidental reasons why FreeBSD has
better performance and responsiveness than MacOS. Of course, that also
means that the market wouldn't control for the potential greater
performance of MacOS as a whole, to make up for your assumed decrease in
performance due to CMT scheduling. If they spend their boost on CMT,
then that is their decision, and I won't second-guess them.
I think that is what it always comes down to. Second guessing. You
don't want the app second-guessing "what else might be running", but I
don't want the OS second-guessing the importance of the app to the user.
Tell me, because I'm not really that familiar with this bit, how would a
user that wanted to tell their computer "I want this to speed up" do it,
and how would the computer know when that was no longer necessary. How
would a user say "I want this app to have a higher priority every time I
start it." If these are easily understood and manipulated controls,
than half of my argument disappears.
The other half remains, because if the problem is that the apps don't
know what else is running, than the apps should be written with no
necessity or desire to know or care what else is running. Since the
engineers are the middle-man between the technology and the consumer's
goods, I'd like to hear some awareness that someone's paying attention
to the end user's requirements, not just the technical ones.
>>Then all you're doing is implementing CMT.
>
>You're smoking crack.
Please; I have no need to insult you until you insult me. I'm trying to
explore these issues in a spirit of free inquiry. I have no expertise,
you are correct, in this specialty, nor do I have any assumptions that I
know of. But that means I'd appreciate, if you're going to bother to
respond at all, you simply point out where you think I may be mistaken,
and tolerate, even consider, my suggestions that you might be basing
your thinking on assumptions. Even if you are, it would be appreciated
if you'd explain them to me. Ridicule is not constructive unless your
desire is to prevent people from asking honest questions. I've given
you no reason to believe that these aren't honest, if ignorant,
questions.
>>The result is the value, not the
>>process. I don't care *how* you do the scheduling.
>
>Yes you do; you're advocating CMT. Which is a damn stupid thing to do,
>so I can see why you'd want to pretend you're not.
I'm advocating that engineers not assume that something is stupid just
because that is what they were taught. If all their knowledge backs
that up, I can understand why they would make the assumption. But if
someone can't question the assumptions without being ridiculed, maybe
that's all they are. You were supposed to *synthesize* what you
learned, not just memorize it. I know that to you PMT/CMT looks like a
no-brainer. I can understand why. But it is still possible that this
is the archaic notion, and that the Apple didn't fail to use PMT, but
actually decided not to, because it was intended to be a desktop client,
and PMT "wasn't necessary". You say it is, and have valid reasons for
saying it is, I think. But I seem to be able to ask things which seem
to question the assumption, and I get ridiculed again. Something
doesn't sound right about that. I know it makes me sound like a troll,
but believe me, I'm not going to drag this out if it looks like I can't
get anywhere, and I'm not going to pop up in the middle of other
discussions and say "CMT wouldn't have that problem."
But I'd appreciate an honest assault on my reasoning, not an assault on
my intelligence for offering my reasoning, or questioning yours.
Wouldn't a computer be better off, just like a network seems better off,
if the *mandate* that everyone cooperate is present, and not enforced
from external control?
>>As long as whatever
>>program I'm working in has, as far as I am concerned 100% of the
>>available time to keep up with me, even if it spends a lot of that time
>>waiting. Of course, background processes shouldn't be ignored, but they
>>only rarely have true priority.
>
>What does it mean to "have priority"? I think that your conception of
>the problem domain is too fuzzy and metaphor-dominated.
No shit. I've been waiting for just one of you geeks to give me some
goddamn data to work with. What is "priority"? How do you control
which program gets which slice of the pie. If you can't use any
metaphors or illustrations, then just say "I'm too much of a specialist
to explain it; sorry for wasting your time."
>What does "pretends to be CMT" mean? CMT is when applications keep the
>CPU until they explicitly relinquish it.
>(If someone has a better
>definition, please correct me.)
No, CMT is when *processes* keep the CPU until they relinquish it, to my
understanding. That's one of the arguments against CMT; not enough
deterministic relationships between user activities (applications) and
the software processes which provide them. Then again, PMT has the same
problem, doesn't it?
>CMT is a mechanism, and you have
>somehow equated it with a fuzzily-conceived observed behavior of
>"responsiveness", and now you're suggesting that a "responsive" PMT
>system would therefore be "pretending to be CMT". You're making my head
>hurt!
Thank you, I try. I guess nobody ever explored this, maybe? What *is*
the best relationship between the operator requirements and the process
scheduling? Is CMT so bad? Is PMT the best we can do?
Its equated somewhere in there. You're the engineer, though, so you're
going to have to tell me where it is.
>>>Anyway, the type of multitasking and the behavior of the GUI are not as
>>>tightly coupled as you think.
>>
>>Yes, that's what I've finally realized. Yet I suspect they are not as
>>unrelated as theory indicates. I would still always like to have the
>>GUI have preference in multitasking.
>
>Which theory are you referring to here?
Whichever theories convinced you guys never to question whether PMT is
the optimal strategy.
>I would guess that someone before you has thought about how to tweak a
>scheduler for the best interactive experience. I would further guess
>that they did not recommend implementing cooperative multi-tasking.
And I would guess they were taught in school to ridicule people who
suggested it, too. I don't think of my interactive experience as
"best", and have never seen any opportunity to adjust it beyond "nice"
(I'm not completely ignorant) and Task Manager, and neither of those is
what I would consider a user feature. Give me something to control my
interactive experience with; not some engineer who decided what is best
with no more clue what I want than I have how all these algorithms work
that perform all the magic for me. And it wouldn't be bad if it was a
self-correcting system in the marketplace, like CMT or the Internet.
[...]
>Given that a lot of people who have to understand this stuff for a
>living disagree with you, what do you think is the probability that
>you're seeing something they're not, versus the probability that they're
>seeing something you're not?
Since you ask, I'm going to have to answer. Not anywhere near as
terrible as you assume. Not very good, no. But if I can understand why
they would disagree, I'll be smarter than they were, because I've got
all the other stuff that's been developed since they decided and a fresh
pair of eyes on the subject. Plus which, it kills time.
>When I hear people going on about the "end-user's perspective", it seems
>to me that they're usually defending a position of ignorance. Ignorance
>is not worth defending.
Yes I know. That's another point in my favor. My "end-user's
perspective" is one of knowledge and control, not ignorance, ideally.
Most people say idealistically. But that's the one thing I'm sure of;
people want to learn. If they didn't, we'd still be living in caves.
The food was cheap and you could always club the neighbors if they got
noisy.
Ignorance is intolerable in my book. Which is why I wonder why
engineers find it so easy to ignore the market success of the Macintosh,
despite its supposedly fatally flawed use of CMT, even many years after
PMT was developed. The engineer's only have theory on their side. The
market is the true empirical test, ultimately.
>>>But on unix, the background task will only slow very slightly, while
>>>interactive apps are still nice and responsive. You should read up on
>>>the algorithm used to do this, it's quite clever.
>>
>>I have no use for clever algorithms!
>
>And they have no use for you.
Ah, but they need me. I am the market. If it weren't for me, they'd
still be floating around in some scientist's head, not fixed in tangible
form to do my bidding.
>>You speak in theoretical cases.
>
>I speak of algorithms that run the systems that I use daily,
>professionally.
You speak in theory and anecdotal support of theory. I speak of market
behavior and reality. CMT allows the market to encourage sane
engineering design of independent systems. PMT merely side-steps the
requirement for theoretical performance gains. These remain theoretical
even if demonstrated in practice, because demonstration is just that,
and it does not stack up against market behavior.
>Yes you do. If you have four browser windows downloading pages, and
>only the one in front gets to run at all, the other three transfers will
>timeout and fail. If that's what you want, why open four windows in the
>first place?
They will only time out and fail if the browser or the stack is
broke-dick. Time for a new browser, written by smarter engineers.
>>My point is that cycles spent waiting for the user on a desktop client
>>system are not *wasted*. They are *spent*. Waiting for me. Engineers
>>have a warped, not inaccurate, but different, view of "noticeable" than
>>end users do.
>
>If you notice time intervals that are measured in nanoseconds, it must
>be very interesting to be you.
If you notice, you can only think in terms of these nanoseconds being
important, because the real seconds that I am waiting for the computer
to do something which I would prefer it puts *first*, vastly preferring
it in scheduling to some or almost everything else, is having to share
time in an algorithmic egalitarian process, instead of a cooperative
process which provides for the user to control things.
If nanoseconds are all that is important, how come my computer gets
slower some times for durations that are much longer than that?
There is an abstraction between cycles for processes and seconds for
humans. PMT might seem optimal if you stop at the engineering
least-requirement level, but better things can be considered, I hope.
>>>That's because you overestimate the role of multitasking in determining
>>>how the GUI functions.
>>
>>No, I overestimate the role of approach in how engineering gets done.
>>I'm very ruthless in this regard: the user counts; the engineer's
>>theory's don't.
>
>So: anyone who knows shit from shinola is an "engineer", and "engineers"
>don't count, therefore no one can argue with you.
No, I didn't say the user was an engineer. Why do you think I said
that? I also didn't say engineers don't count; I said their theories
don't count. If the engineers theory is that one way is always better
than another, but the market accepts the other, than there is simply
something the engineer is not taking into account. Case closed. You
cannot argue with that, no.
You can, however, always argue with me. I encourage it, I invite it, I
treasure it, I hunt for it. What I don't appreciate is ridicule.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:33:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 05:05:24 GMT
>> [...]
>> >Single-user or not, nobody wants their computer locked up because one
>> >application has a serious bug. Operating systems should be resilient
>> >against programmer error, because bugs happen and they happen a lot.
>>
>> No, desktop client operating systems need to be more resilient to user
>> errors.
>
>True.
>
>> Programmers are assumed to have done their job correctly.
>
>No. Programmers should never be assumed to have done their job correctly.
>They are the single most fallible part of the development process.
Sorry, I know this isn't going to get any better, so I'm going to cut
you off here. I'm not sure when the last time you checked through all
your source code to verify that your programs were done correctly, but I
know I have no interest in doing that, and wouldn't even if I was a
programmer.
Programmers are assumed to have done their job correctly.
Would you like to start over?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:39:38 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> I am not a big fan of C++, Java or PERL - that leaves quite a bit... I tend
> to favor VB (in it's variations) becuase it's easy, fast and universally
> understood and available. And cause I have little time to code like I used
> to.
Last I saw VB only existed for windows. That's _not_ universally
available.
>From the experience I've had with VB, it sucked. Perl is much more
powerful IMO (and I can use perl on almost every platform out there).
"Universally understood?" Hah! There's no computing language (or any
written/spoken either) that's "universally" understood. If there were,
programs (and translaters for written/spoken) wouldn't be needed.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
When you say `I wrote a program that crashed Windows', people just stare
at you blankly and say `Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*'
-- Linus Torvalds
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:39:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It doesn't use CMT. The TCP/IP stack and several other faceless
> background tasks are preemptively tasked against each other and the rest
> of the system. Mac OS has PMT features, they just can't be used by
> anything that calls the toolbox because many toolbox calls aren't
> reentrant.
Actually, from reading the Open Transport docs, it seems that it
*only* supports async I/O; no blocking. That would explain TCP/IP
apps not stalling the system despite the CMT.
Slava
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:41:18 -0400
In article <bVub5.36$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> tinman wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Tinman wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1> Jumping into conversations again Karl? Cool, have fun!
> >> > >
> >> > > Still posting for entertainment purposes, eh Tinman?
> >> >
> >> > That's tinman. ('
> >>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim?
> >
> > Jumping into conversations again Slava?
> >
>
> Illogical. Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the question.
What alleged "the"?
> >>
> >> > And why else would I post?
> >>
> >> Don't you know?
> >
> > Why do you ask?
> >
>
> Don't you know?
Illogical. Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the question.
>
> >> >
> >> > > Not surprising, considering that you are being digestified.
> >> >
> >> > On the contrary.
> >>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> > What I can prove is irrelevent, only what I write is relevent.
> >
>
> Irrelevant.
On the contrary.
>
> >>
> >> > My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
> >>
> >> What alleged "polycarbonate exterior"?
> >
> > <*tink* *tink*> This one.
> >
>
> Evidence, please.
Reading comprehension problems, Slava?
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
