Linux-Advocacy Digest #190, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR (No User)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (mlw)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Se�n � Donnchadha)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Hallock)
Re: A funny thing about Windoze networking (if you can really call it (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:40:56 -0500
From: No User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles
some leftist fool:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>What part of "volountary exchange of goods and services" do you
>>not understand?
>
> That's a very idealistic view of capitalism, something that
>suggests some college student who has just discovered the works of Ayn Rand.
>
> And this view of capitalism has often been used to defend
>Microsoft, which Mr. Kulkis hates.
you've got a point there.
personally given a choice between microsoft and thier enemies
i'll take microsoft
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
soc.singles.moderated faq 1.0:
to post your personal include the word nematode in the subject line
on my signal - unleash hell
- maximus
it's evolution baby
- pearl jam
there are only two ways of telling the complete truth - anonymously and
posthumously.
- thomas sowell
asking nerds for romantic advice is like going to the amish for an auto
mechanic.
- me
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:42:05 -0500
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KnNh5.8483$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:39879d71$0$33843$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > You dare to claim "unix boxes are essential to running
microsoft.com?"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. And based on the existance of Unix boxes at microsoft.com,
> > > Microsoft believes this, too.
> >
> > Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet
>
> Let me take this opportunity to greet you, Mr. Black. If you've read my
> posts I think you know that I am a Windows advocate. I hope that you take
> this the way that I intended it as USENET can mask the intentions of the
> most well mannered poster but I fail to see what you hope to gain for we
> Windows advocates by posting things like this? If you have a personal
beef
> with these folks, and I think that you do if Mr. Kulkis is to be believed,
> then I suggest that you counter him in a more appropriate forum. Like the
> parking lot. nix folks are, in my experience, less concerned with
physical
> fitness than Windows folks are with the former preferring donuts to
barbells
> :-)
Mike (and others) - understand something. I'm a nice guy, really. I almost
never lose my temper or rant or go on like I do here. This complete idiot
kookus has been dogging me with his pet abracadabra for some time now.
Exmine the trail of their posts and you'll find they follow me to every post
I make. there is not a single post I've made that they do not insult and
antagonize me every step of the way. I prove my points and document my
claims and they ignore it and continue to try to insult me and anything I
mention. This aaraon is the newest in the group and he is the stupidest so
far. his claims are so far from reality and his "fact" are so unbelievable
and yet he spues them further and faster than I can even dare expect. So, I
do not have a personal beef but he has pushed me to the point where my
replies to him are far far less professional or respectful as I have for
anyone else I converse with. As I said, you have to see the history to know
how long this has gone on for why I reply as I do. I have more respect for
lice than I do those two. I'm sorry if this offends others.
>
> > > You're the one that argues that Microsoft doesn't need Unix to run
> > > their websight, when each machine costs them a good $100,000 more
> > > than if they were using their home grown LoseNT and Lose2000
shitholes.
> >
> > That is correct. MS does not need now nor has EVER at any time
whatsoever
> > used Unix to run www.microsoft.com. I challenge you to disprove that
> > statement. Go ahead, or are you just a big bag of bullshit? are you a
huge
> > liar? full of unix dreams and wishes never fulfilled. There are some
unix
> > boxes at CD production plants that produce MS CDs, sure, but a unix box
> > producing www.microsoft.com output? hahahahahahha keep dreaming liar.
>
> The only part of this that I agree with is the request for proof of
> assertation. Please play nice Mr. Black. This is really only just a
game.
> Our effect is negligable on the state of computing.
Again, sorry for my side of the behaviour. Just try to understand what has
driven me to this way (and only towards them).
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:43:05 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > You dare to claim "unix boxes are essential to running
microsoft.com?"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. And based on the existance of Unix boxes at microsoft.com,
> > > Microsoft believes this, too.
> >
> > Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet
> >
>
> Look who's making accusations of spreading lies...
Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:42:50 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Lycos switch to Wintel to improve performance and reliability. Think
> what
> > > that says about what they were using before...
> >
> > I can't speak to anything YOU think, but Lycos still uses FAST. And if
> > you happen to do a search on Lycos, you will see the FAST icon at the
> > bottom. Check your facts first.
> >
> >
> > These are facts:
> > Lycos IS a customer of FAST.
> > Lycos does use the FAST search engine for web search.
> > FAST does use FreeBSD as the search OS.
>
> RELATED TO MY PREVIOUS POST TO mlw:
>
> I stand corrected. Performed about dozen searches using lycos, FINALLY, when
> I tried "fast search engine" I finally saw the "FAST" icon at the bottom of
> the search page. Clicking on it I read a little about fast.no. Got some news
> for ya mlw - times are changing, look for that relationship to be severed
> shortly. Lycos has already begun scaling back it's use of fast and look for
> it to be 0% soon.
OK, now your turn. Where did you get that bit of information? AFAIK, and
I am still in touch with the guys at FAST, there is NO anticipated
change in the relationship. Be very careful now, because statements like
this can affect the stock market and if they can be proven to be false,
you can be sued for damages.
Admit it. You are making it up.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:44:41 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> >> Making someone who earns $10,000
> >> pay $20,000 in taxes -- *THAT* is punitive.
> >So, stop punishing them, and lower the tax rates FOR EVERYBODY!
>
> However, Mr. Kulkis's beloved head tax would *RAISE* tax rates
> for many people.
Precisely. Once they realize that all of the "government goodies"
don't come for free, they will start looking at how parasitic the
bureaucracies of all these programs are.
Who wants to pay $100 for $20 worth of retirement benefits?
>
> >> > Food is incredibly cheap, and not only that,
> >> >you can even GROW YOUR OWN!
> >> You need land to grow it on. And you can't buy land if you don't have any
> >> income because the government taxed you at 150% under your proposed tax
> >> system.
> >> You'd need to rent the land from someone and pay for the right to grow food
> >> their .. wait, you can't afford anything because you already owe. So we
> >> go back to indentured servitude ...
> >You can always go out and get a job. (FUCKING HORRORS!!!!)
>
> Presupposing that there are plenty of well-paying jobs to go around.
>
As long as you don't overly burdent the people with taxes, there will
be plenty of jobs that cover everyone's needs.
> >> Who'd fund the people who cannot pay up ? I guess the alternative would be
> >> that the hospitals go bankrupt .
> >There are always philanthropists in every society.
>
> In Mr. Kulkis's ideal world, there would be none, because not
> having much money is proof that one is not worthy of any.
Have you ever considered the possibility of getting a job and EARNING
MONEY
>
> >> Oh, so you admit that you want your kids to land on top of the social
> >> heirarchy regardless of how dumb or incompetent they are ?
> >Nope. I want the *fear* of winding up on the dung-heap to serve
> >as a motivator to achieve....so that they will take steps
> >THEMSELVES to avoid it.
>
> Which is why safety devices must be outlawed, right?
"Ooops, I don't know how I got pregnant--In the middle of the night,
While
I was sleeping, someone must have tapped me on the forehead with a magic
baby wand" payments are flatly unconstitutional.
As is AFDC, WIC, and Section 8 Housing.
>
> Which is why operating systems ought to fail as hard as possible, right?
>
> Operating systems like DOS punish people much harder for failure
> than those like Linux, and according to that argument, are therefore *good*.
>
> >You seem to be unable to grasp how much money would be freed up if
> >the tax rates were lowered. Do you know what the tax burden of the
> >average American is??? over 50% With "the rich" it's even higher.
>
> ROTFL. This presumes that all of the money goes into a black
> hole somewhere.
Do you have a better name for
* WIC money for crackhead whores to raise crackhead punks
* AFDC money for crackhead whores to raise crackhead punds
* Food stamps for crackhead whores to raise crackhed punks
* Public housing for crackhead whores to raise crackhead punks
(until they destroy the premises, and then have the gall to
blame the lousy condition of the buildings on you and me!)
>
> >And 80% of it is wasted on goddamned idiotic nonsense, a good
> >portion of it to pay to house and feed junkies and welfare whores
>
> Just plain wrong. The biggest part of it goes to middle-class
> entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and this is closely
If these programs are soooooooooooooooo good, then please explain
to use why Congress is NOT allowed to participate in Social Security.
1. Loren is resorting to lies again. Social Security is an off-budget
Item. 2/3 of the budget is spent on various "Rob to productive to
give to the lazy, irresponsible, and drug-addicted" schemes.
2. Speaking of Social Security..........
Congress has their *own,* special plan. Why is that?
Could it be because those who set it up KNEW they were perpetrating
a fraud on the American people, and thus created a loophole to
get themselves out of it?
No, of course not. Politicians would NEVER do anything so
self-serving, would they.
> follwed by the military and Treasury-bill dividends. I'd *love* to see
The military is constitutionally mandated, asshole
> Mr. Kulkis denounce retirees, soldiers, and T-bill holders as
> bloodsucking parasites, since he has implied that that is all that they are.
>
Ever notice who Loren can't go a single paragraph without concocting
more lies....
> Furthermore, in the absence of taxes, one would have to pay
> bills, so it's not clear that one has really gained anything.
Another strew man. What part of "replace the INCOME tax with a
SALES tax" do you not fucking understand?
>
> > INCOME TAXES are the "old-money-preferential" system.
>
> And sales taxes are not???
Absolutely not.
Let's take.....blue-blood Republican Jay Rockefeller, for example.
He's living off of grandpa's money. He makes..what..$70,000/year
as a Senator (give or take a few)...that is his taxable income.
I'll damn well guaranted to you that the man SPENDS a hell of a lot
more than $70,000 each year. His taxes are completely out of line
with how much he impacts society through resources which he
consumes (thereby making them scarcer for everybody else).
Conversely, let's look at your typical family earning around $40,000.
They try to save as much money as possible. Thus, their burden upon
society (how much resources they use) is substantially LOWER than
$40,000/year....we tax them on how much they CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY
(i.e. the income) as opposed to how much they burden society
(closer to $30,000-35,000, assuming any decent habits for saving
money for retirement, etc.).
And you call this an "ethical" system.
You're absolutely full of shit, Loren. The current system is
completely indefensible. It punishes high-income/low-burden-to-society
people for the benefit of low-income/high-burden-to-society people.
Only a SADISTIC ASSHOLE LIKE YOURSELF can defend such a system.
>
> > Tell me, how much taxes are the Kennedy assholes paying on
> >all of their millions? Barely a whit.
>
> However, Mr. Kulkis normally claims that pointing that out is
> class envy. Go figure.
How much are the Kennedy assholes contributing to society (other
than the entertainment value of watching people with more money
than brains concoct not-so-bright ways of removing themselves from
the gene poool.)
>
> >> Under your system, thugs and delinquents with wealthy parents would still
> >> be free to attend school.
> >Absolutely not. In a rational society, thugs and delinquints wil
> >be kicked out of school, and they can go work as sewer rats.
>
> However, the parents can promise a *big* gift of money -- as long
> as their kids can attend.
Woooooooooooohoo. Another telling insight into the twisted, sadistic
mind of wannabe-Dicator-For-Life LOREN COMMUNIST PETRICH.
So? What you are saying is... if presented with the option of
lowering academic and behavior standards....you, LOREN PETRICH would
sell out the student body for your lust of money.....provided the
payoff is big enough.
> And between bankruptcy and accepting
> badly-behaved offspring of major sources of money...
Why would the school be on the verge of bankruptcy if they were
educating the children properly? If the school is doing a good
job, they should have NO PROBLEM convincing the parents of the
entire student body to come up with enough tuition money to keep
the school runnning.
Like any other enterprise, barring the presence of Microsoft-like
organizations, any business that is doing it's job well is going
to stay solvent.
>
> Consider what incompetents Dan Quayle and George W. Bush have
> been in college.
How come Quayle was able to identify the problems of single-motherhood
a full DECADE before your buddies in the Hollywood Left.
>
> >The whole idea of all of these social programs is to promote charity.
> >Except there's one thing wrong with it....it isn't charity if someone
> >points a gun up your nose and tells you "give, or else".
>
> >That is NOT charity, it's fucking EXTORTION. ...
>
> Only because it is a cause that Mr. Kulkis dislikes. If it was
> one he likes...
Threatening to put me in jail for not contributing to the charity
of YOUR choice, denying me the right to contribute that money to the
charity of MY choice is EXTORTION.
Extortion by any other name is still extortion, regardless of how
many greedy low-lifes "vote for it".
>
> >> Yes -- in the US. Other countries with leftist governments soundly whip
> >> the USA on international tests.
> >That's because the US educational establishment has been overrun with
> >Communists (truly!) who have embarked upon a mission of causing our
> >society to collapse from within.
>
> >It's the same old Communist technique. First, install Communist
> >teachers...after that, the rest is easy.
>
> From a grove of birch trees it came.
Ever notice who whenever I make a really telling comment about
the basic methods used by the Communists, Loren always attempts
to stifle further discussion of the idea.
Name ONE COUNTRY where the communists have taken over where they
did not replace all the teachers. I can name a whole bunch where
they did....and to make sure that the old teachers didn't return,
the standard practice was to slaughter the teachers in cold blood,
and to leave the bodies in the center of town.
Amongst those countries are:
Russia
Belorus
Ukraine
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Georgia
Azerbaijan
Bulbaria
Romania
Hungary
Czechloslovakia
Poland
East Germany
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Communist controlled parts of Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Mongolia
China
Cambodia (now Kam Puchea)
Viet Nam
Laos
North Korea
Nicauraga,
Communist controlled parts of El Salvador
Cuba
Angola
Botswana
Zimbabwe
Zambia.
There are others, but this is all that I can think of right now.
>
> And Europe seems to have escaped that. As have the better US schools.
The "better US schools" are those not run by the government,
nor dependant upon government bribe^H^H^H^H^Hgrants.
>
> ["user pays" approach to education...]
> >Yes, it is truly amazing how intensely interested people get about
> >the quality and value of services performed when they are the ones
> >writing the check...and how apathetic they get when they get the
> >idea that they're getting it "for free" because someone else
> >signs the check (even when they are really paying for it, through
> >indirect means like taxation or insurance premiums).
>
> So why not run the military and the police like that? And the courts?
See: The Tragedy of the Commons.
>
> >The current system irrationally punishes the high achievers for
> >the benefit of the non-achievers (both rich non-achievers and
> >poor non-achievers alike. The last two generations of the
> >Kennedys and the Rockefellers are PERFECT example of rich
> >non-achievers who benefit ENORMOUSLY from the current system
> >of punishing the achievers).
>
> ROTFL. Mr. Kulkis would call it class envy if anyone else said that.
Wrong. Both families consist of nothing but parasitic scum, who
pay nary a penny in taxes while being a great burden to society.
>
> What they've benefited from is *inherited* wealth, and a
> transition from income taxes to sales taxes would *not* make that go away.
Actually, SALES TAXES are the best inheritence tax there is.
>
> The Leona Helmsley Brigade ought to consider how easy they make
> life for the Kennedys and the Rockefellers of the world, by protecting
> them from having to pay taxes.
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:50:34 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote:
>>
>>What in Windows is "inseparably glued together"? Certainly not IE and
>>the OS.
>
>Well that's not what they said in the DOJ trail is it?
>
They claimed that IE is now a part of Windows, which it clearly is.
But IE and the Windows OS are no more "inseparably glued together"
than the Bourne shell is "inseparably glued" to Unix. In both cases,
the component in question is "just another app", but simply remove it
and you'll end up with a system that doesn't boot.
>
>And how do I run win98 without running explorer.exe??
>
Change the "SHELL=" line in SYSTEM.INI.
>
>And since when has Windows always been a product consisting of both OS and
>applications. They don't market it as such,
>
Who cares how they market it? Windows has (at least since 3.x)
included both an OS kernel and a bunch of user-mode applications.
>
>and was Windows 1.0 that way
>
Again, who cares?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:51:31 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Tim Palmer wrote:
> What happen's when you open an xterm? A DOS box pops up, compleat with a COMMAND
>prompt.
A DOS box? Really? You obviously don't even know what an xterm is. I doubt you even
know what a DOS box is.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:54:46 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Tim Palmer wrote:
> Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim (little boy) Palmer
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> Or you can get Windo's and not half to ty[e annything at all.
> >>
> >
> >I don't have to ty[e anything on Linux, either. In fact, I can't
> >remember the last time I ty[ed anything, on any OS.
>
> Lier. You tipe every time you log in.
>
>
Wow! You are so dense you don't even realize when someone is making fun of your total
inability to spell.
Gary
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A funny thing about Windoze networking (if you can really call it
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:53:42 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Why would logic say that? A word document is an OLE compound structured
> > > storage file. This allows multiple "streams" of data to be saved in a
> word
> > > document (such as versioning information for instance). This
> flexibility
> > > comes at the price of a certain amount of metadata, much like a
> filesystem
> > > on a hard drive has metadata which controls it's overall format.
> > >
> > > For all intents and purposes, OLE structured storage is a filesystem
> within
> > > a filesystem.
> >
> > This is so typical Windows/Microsoft behavior. The fundamental
> > constructs of the OS are so inefficient, that they must re-invent OS
> > constructs for each application. There is no rational explanation for an
> > empty document to take up 10K, other than poor programmers. You may
> > state "reasons," but just because someone can come up with a "reason,"
> > does not mean another has to accept it as being reasonable.
>
> Of course not. Unreasonable people are incapable of applying reason.
Then again, unreasonable people are incapable of putting forward a
reasonable argument.
>
> Do you think a 10GB hard disk only holds 10GB of raw bits? No, it's much
> more, but after formatting it leaves 10GB of available bit storage.
So, what you are saying, is we should cut Microsoft some slack for their
file format because they need to make it a filesystem. Is this right?
Like I said, it may be a "reason," but it does not mean that it should
be held as reasonable.
>
> The reason for the compound document is to store things like pictures,
> versioning information, etc in a single document, so that if you move the
> document, you also move all it's embedded objects. If you don't call that
> reasonable, then you are incapable of looking at it reasonably.
Why is it, then that other programs, can manage to include compound
documents, like Word, and include text formatting, like Word, and take
up 0 bytes when empty? How come other file formats, unlike word, have
some notion of backward compatibility, unlike word, and can still
accomplish these things?
No, it is not reasonable to claim that this is necessary when there is
proof that it is not.
>
> > > Why do you have 100 users creating empty word documents every day and
> > > storing them on your server? Perhaps you should educate them not to do
> > > that. While you're at it, you might want to educate them about not
> creating
> > > unique copies of their databases every day as well, or not deleting all
> > > their documents, since clearly such users are brain dead.
> >
> > You should take a look at what "average" users do.
>
> Average users don't create empty word documents *EVERY DAY* for a year.
> Where do they store all these emty documents anyways?
Perhaps you have worked with a better grade of average user than I.
>
> > > Ever heard of compression? Even in the unlikely situation that you
> > > describe, empty documents compress down to a very small size.
> >
> > Compression is like an income tax deduction. It is better to not spend
> > money than it is to deduct it. Do the math. Regardless of the
> > "randomness" of the document, it is still not going to evaluate to 0. If
> > the document contains text, it is mathematically impossible, using
> > similar algorithms, to compress a larger document containing essentially
> > the same information as a smaller document to be as small or smaller
> > than the smaller document.
>
> Uhh... and your point is?
There is no need for the bloat that Microsoft puts in their file
formats, and compression is not a reasonable answer.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
