Linux-Advocacy Digest #219, Volume #28 Fri, 4 Aug 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Grant Edwards)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Loren Petrich)
Re: Linux as embedded OS (David M. Cook)
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? ("Rich C")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Christopher Browne)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Christopher Browne)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? ("Neil Marko")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 03:14:00 GMT
In article <8mdbkp$2h6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>|>> OS/390 is Unix?! When did that happen?
>|>
>|>IIRC, 1998 or so. It happened when the MVS Unix System Services (USS)
>|>subsystem passed the X/Open conformancy tests. IBM made a big thing of
>|>it at the time; it officially permitted US Govt. purchasers to
>|>purchase MVS under the Posix-compliancy rules.
>|
>|Posix-compliance and the right to use the Unix(tm) are two
>|different things, aren't they?
>
>POSIX compliance is a subset of the standards a system has to meet to
>be officially branded Unix(tm).
So, is OS/390 (or MVS?) a flavor of Unix(tm), or just Posix-<something>
compliant?
There was a very interesting article a few months ago in Linux Journal about
running 4000+ separate copies of Linux on an IBM mainframe (don't remember
if it was a 390 or not). Even low-end IBM machine can run quite a few
copies of Linux -- complete with shared file-systems and virtual networking
between them. You can have one virtual machine be a DNS server, another a
news server, another a mail server, a few user shell login machines, and a a
dozen http servers, and handful of ftp servers. All on one box.
Spending $50,000 on a single computer sounds silly, until you figure out how
much maintenance you save when that single machine replaces 10 or 20 others.
I should look up a URL for that article...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! My uncle Murray
at conquered Egypt in 53
visi.com B.C. And I can prove
it too!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
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: 4 Aug 2000 03:40:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Diehard fans of the theory that Communism is dead will not like this
>book, ...
The only ideologically pure Communist country left is North Korea;
the others have been afflicted by various degrees of creeping capitalism.
>In >other words, what it unintentionally depicts are the very events
>prophesied >by Our Lady of Fatima if the Collegial Consecration of Russia
is not >done.
This seems like a clear case of after-the-fact "prediction". It's
like Bertrand Russell's discovery that the Great Pyramid will accurately
predict the world's history up till the publication of the book
containing that prediction, but will get much vaguer afterwards. ("An
OUtline of Intellectual Rubbish").
[The fall of the Soviet empire, the rise of Solidarity, and the
reunification of Germany...]
> ... The Perestroika Deception, with extensive documentation,
>reinforces his contention in New Lies for Old that all the changes were
>meticulously planned years in advance. It explains how they fit into the
>devious Leninist strategy for achieving with Western cooperation a
>one-world Communist government orNew World Social Order , run by
>the Russians and Chinese, by 2000 A.D. ...
However, it's that year, and the Russian-Chinese combined
Communist goverment still has not taken over. The Russian Communists are
not a branch of government anymore but are only another political party,
and while China is still officially Communist, it suffers from a severe
case of creeping capitalism and it has been unable to take over Taiwan.
> Golitsyn provides irrefutable proof that perestroika
>orrestructuringis >not a 1985 Gorbachev invention, but the final phase of
a plan formulated >during 1958-1960.
A plan 40 years in the making? They could have implemented it in
the 1960's.
> ... That it is >false is >confirmed by Eduard Shevardnadze, Georgian
president and a long-time >Western friend . As late as 1993, he admitted
that elections do not >equal >democracy.
So what? However, in Russia nowadays, several parties compete for
votes, where before, there was only one.
> Perestroika is a game of mind-control based on the principles of
>Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), who devised a new,
>improved model of Marxist-Leninism. Gorbachev was chosen to launch it.
>Perestroika is psychological warfare, involving the use of
>cooperation-blackmail . A theatrical display of democratism[is] designed
>to convince the West that a decisive break with the past has taken
>place.
However, the loss of the Eastern European empire does not fit in
very well with such a strategy.
> ... The KGB was to create >and control Communist Bloc officials of all
political stripes. Leaders >since >1960, including Gorbachev, Yeltsin,
Rutskoi, Shevardnadze, Zhirinovsky >and Primakov, have all been
collaborators in carrying out the plan. >Their >power struggles are
fictional.
That strikes me as absurd beyond belief. Nobody has ever offered
documented proof of this conspiracy -- not even Golitsyn, it would seem.
> Liberalization of Eastern Europe was meant to promote disarmament,
>the dissolution of NATO, the American withdrawal from Europe, and a
>neutral, socialist Europe, a Common European Home from the Atlantic to
>the Urals , as Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have described it. ...
However, that has failed, with NATO advancing eastward into East
Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary.
> A major penetration success is Gorbachev s American bureau, which
>allows him to personally mobilize liberals in the cause of disarmament.
Gorbachev is not the best possible hero -- he's disliked at home
and he let Eastern Europe run away.
> Poland has played a large part in the disarmament campaign.
>Solidarity was planned during 1958-1960 by the Bloc, and Golitsyn
>correctly predicted each stage in its evolution.
ROTFL. A book written in 1984 should have no trouble "predicting"
Solidarity's early years.
And planning something like Solidarity is the height of absurdity,
because Communist regimes have *not* allowed independent labor unions.
> There is clear evidence >that >the Polish Communist Party formed the
original core and leadership of >Solidarity, whilst Lech Walesa cooperated
all along. He has also helped >broaden the Communist base in trade unions
across the world, enabling >them to be manipulated against Western
interests.
Solidarity had been a clear *challenge* to the Polish
Government's authority.
> The collapse of the Soviet Union serves several other purposes. One
>is gaining control of Middle East oil. ...
ANd making Russia seem like a weakling?
>... Gramsci s strategy of perverting the Catholic Church is in >full
>swing. The religion of God is being replaced with the religion of Man
>(and >Heaven with an earthly, decadent utopia), facilitating Communist
control >of >de-Christianized minds. Golitsyn assesses the consequences of
d�tente >for >the Church: Never in its history since Nero has Christianity
faced such >a >threat of possible destruction."
An "earthly, decadent utopia" is the ideal of capitalism, also.
> Free-Marketeers, Beware
"The capitalists would sell the rope that the Communists will use
to hang them".
Which suggests some flaw in capitalism.
> In the last two pages of his book, in a memorandum dated October
>1, 1993, Golitsyn does hint at a secret controlling force behind Russian
>Communism, but he lacks the facilities to study how it might be
>operating .
He's definitely been living in a grove of birch trees.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: 4 Aug 2000 03:42:16 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:55:21 +0200, Tim Magnussen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm working for a company making analyzers for the medical indusstry.
[...]
>of Linux is GPL and you in an embedded product can't claim that your
>proprietary code is independent of the rest, we would have to release
>the source the proprietary code. This would put us out of business and
>is of course out of the question.
Could you explain why would this put you out of business? Since you seem to
be a hardware company, why would releasing software that only works on your
device put you out of business? That your code must be proprietary seems to
be begging the question.
>I hear of new concepts such as Mobile Linux / EmbedixLinux and other.
>But if one is to release the source of your proprietary code this makes
>Linux totally inappropriate for embedded use. What am I missing here?
That many companies are in the hardware business and don't care if the
software that runs on their hardware is open source. The Linux company I
work for has many such customers.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:54:27 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mcnt6$ego$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have heard a lot of things about Linux.
"...........hard boiled eggs and nuts!.......................HMMMPH!"
--Oliver Hardy, in "County Hospital."
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 23:08:43 -0500
I don't think so. I read about the history of microsoft.com and I do not
believe they ever used anything but NT on their site.
"Sean LeBlanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Whoops, Drestin you just dug yourself a hole with the word EVER;
> Microsoft used to use Solaris on their website...of course, I
> don't have references, but that was a long time ago anyway...
> but they did use it at one time, of that you can be sure.
> And yes, it was for www.microsoft.com.
>
> Cheers,
> Sean
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "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
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You're the one that argues that Microsoft doesn't need Unix to run
> > > their websight, when each machine costs them a good $100,000 more
> > > than if they were using their home grown LoseNT and Lose2000
shitholes.
> >
> > That is correct. MS does not need now nor has EVER at any time
whatsoever
> > used Unix to run www.microsoft.com. I challenge you to disprove that
> > statement. Go ahead, or are you just a big bag of bullshit? are you a
huge
> > liar? full of unix dreams and wishes never fulfilled. There are some
unix
> > boxes at CD production plants that produce MS CDs, sure, but a unix box
> > producing www.microsoft.com output? hahahahahahha keep dreaming liar.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:13:20 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Courageous would say:
>> 1. I'm a combat veteran.
>> 2. I'm still a soldier to this day
>> 3. I'm in the infantry
>> 4. Fuck with me and I will kill you.
>
>You've got to have a pretty small dick to stoop this low.
A soldier that would play this game has a _much_ bigger problem, as he is
evidently a serious predator, prepared to kill civilians for annoying him.
Courts martial appear to take a pretty dim view of this...
For the precise opposite reason, I have stood relatively unafraid amongst
people who probably _have_ killed, whilst naval brother felt more than a
mite uneasy. Being eminently _non_military, I presented _no_ challenge to
them, whilst my brother, having more than a modicum of military training,
was uneasy as he and they had some degree of interservice rivalry. If I
say the wrong thing, I'm just a "dumb civilian" who doesn't understand,
whilst if "navy boy" casts aspersions on the Army, "Them's Fightin'
Words."
My philosophy on this is that the purpose of having a military is for
the protection of the people. Military personnel that take so threatening
an approach may represent an equivalent to "mad dogs" that may need to
be put down for the protection of both military and of society at large.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
"Problem solving under linux has never been the circus that it is
under AIX." -- Pete Ehlke in comp.unix.aix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:13:29 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Steve Mading would say:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Woofbert wrote:
>:> The Germans didn't agree with the US analysis of the effectiveness of
>:> tanks, and developed a couple of different Panzers ... which are the
>:> basis of the current Israeli design. The Sherman, with its flat front
>:> end, was years behind German design.
>
>: But from what I have read, the Sherman was more rugged, which is
>: important when you're fighting on another continent.
>
>While the Sherman wasn't a great tank, it was an adequete one,
>and it was being produced fast, in high-volume. That was its
>big advantage. One of the reasons for the bad narrow, high design
>was that it was intended to be made on existing automobile
>assembly lines in Detroit. Sure, it sucked compared to the tanks
>other countries had. But there were an awful lot of them.
This is _exactly_ the sort of reason why the Allies won WWII.
It is pretty readily arguable that Germany had superior materials,
probably a better trained military cadre (contrary to what "Hogan's
Heroes" would imply), and such. Their problems were not primarily of
quality; what ultimate took them down was the fact that they were
surrounded by a _large_ set of enemies, who were being supplied
considerable amounts from the US, which was _not_ beset by enemies.
American and British aircraft, tanks, guns, ships, tactics, and
training might all have been inferior to the German equivalents (which
is certainly an arguable matter), but if you can deploy enough of those
"possibly inferior" forces, they _can_ win.
A hundred crummy tanks, available today, beat out 75 superior tanks
that won't be available until next month.
The notion that economics won the war is hardly as "sexy" as sound bites
of the situations where superior courage, cool equipment, and a little
bit of luck won out, which is why you don't see terribly many war films
centred around a farmer who stayed home and produced enough grain to
keep 500 soldiers fed, or a machinist who build aircraft engines that
weren't great, but which powered 20 bombers.
It's far more entertaining to have the histrionics of kids who would
rather die bravely next month, leaving teary-eyed girlfriends, than to
see someone who packs grease into bearings and sends out a whole bunch
of tanks.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
"Problem solving under linux has never been the circus that it is
under AIX." -- Pete Ehlke in comp.unix.aix
------------------------------
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: 3 Aug 2000 23:32:33 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8marcq$2g98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jun Nolasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Compaq doesnt even know what hot-swappable logic boards and gigabit
backplanes
> >> are yet.
> >
> > So, what does the absence of hot-swappable logic boards and gigabit
> > backplanes have to do with the published TPC-C results?
> >
>
> Hot swappable logic boards: next to nothing except ridiculously high
uptimes.
> Gigabit backplanes: everything.
so,... tell us - where did those gigabit backplanes go when sun was running
TPC-C benchmarks?
Tell us - how did those gigabit backplanes assist Sun in producing 1/3rd the
results of Compaq PC hardware?
Wow, impressive EXPENSIVE hardware you got there... but, does it actually DO
anything worthy?
------------------------------
From: "Neil Marko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:33:04 GMT
There are several answers to this question, since there are several common
ways to use a computer.
For the desktop, I think I would go for W2K. Not that there is anything
wrong with Linux and X and all that, and not that there isn't a boatload of
software out there with almost all the functionality that you get in W2K, it
is just that W2K on the desktop is what MS does best. It is common in many
offices and it is pretty slick.
For a file and print server, go with Linux. This is far more stable, far
easier to configure and manage, uses hardware much more efficiently, and
way, way cheaper.
For a Web Server, go with Linux also. Besides the small fortune that a
W2K/IIS 5.0 system costs, and the above reasons (from the file and print
server response), Linux uses open standards and not the proprietary junk
that MS uses. Indeed, there are many other options that some may consider
superior (Netscape on Solaris) but W2K/IIS is on the bottom of the pile.
For all the other business applications, a serious consideration of W2K vs
Linux vs Solaris vs AIX vs HPUX vs whatever, based on costs and capablitiies
is needed. Just remember, most of the MS stuff is very proprietary.
Just one more thought about Linux. A while ago I noticed that IBM was
giving away AIX for nothing. Of course, you need a propietary RS6000 box,
but the software is free. Here is my prediction: evenutally, IBM will
scrap AIX and their Unix systems will all be Linux. Why? IBM already sells
and supports Linux boxes. Why should they continue development of AIX when
they are not charging for it? A port of Linux to the RS6000 would allow
them to sell hardware and software support but not have to spend money on
kernel or tools development. Bye bye AIX. Same for Solaris.
NM
------------------------------
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: 3 Aug 2000 23:34:47 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mahjv$2g98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >
> > oh give me a break - this is from the gay poster child of
self-mutilation?
> >
>
> Another confirmable lie from dresden black; I am not gay.
>
prove it.
------------------------------
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$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 23:38:01 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > You dare to claim "unix boxes are essential to running
> > microsoft.com?"
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. And based on the existance of Unix boxes at microsoft.com,
> > > > > Microsoft believes this, too.
> > > >
> > > > Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet
> > > >
> > >
> > > Look who's making accusations of spreading lies...
> >
> > Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet.
>
> Aren't you the guy who claimed to be a good programmer, and then
> posted an Endian-switch algorithm using string functions?
>
> yeah, I thought so.
>
> You wouldn't know the truth if you had the blueprints in your hands.
You continue to dodge the question. Prove it. Prove your claim. Prove it or
continue to be known as the poorest liar on usenet. We're all waiting...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 23:39:34 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mc7bn$15co$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >>
> >> "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.
> >
> > Aren't you the guy who claimed to be a good programmer, and then
> > posted an Endian-switch algorithm using string functions?
> >
>
> Months ago he also claimed to know all about UNIX and then was found to
> not even know what 'su' does.
from the very very first post, I gave the right answer - you just never
heard of su = superuser before - you're experience is too limited. I knew
then what su could do (and should have, it's in Windows NT as well). My
mistake was to assume that since others didn't know su=superuser until a
week later when others started to post that I was wrong and had forgotten
something... but... in the end, i was right.
------------------------------
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$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 23:41:54 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Is it just me, or is Aaron, a confirmed MS hater posting from Windows
98?
>
> I munge the headers using SED.
>
> Keeps the hackers confused.
jhahahahahaah - yea right, you've been posting from Win98 all along, your
own ICQ number reveals this to us... give me a break. And why would anyone
worry about "hackers" - isn't it the "crackers" you worry about?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 23:42:46 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Is it just me, or is Aaron, a confirmed MS hater posting from
Windows
> > 98?
> > >
> > > I munge the headers using SED.
> > >
> > > Keeps the hackers confused.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > ICQ # 3056642
> >
> > Yet your ICQ number shows your "digital age". The Java version wasn't
> > around when you signed up. You used Windows to sign up and you probably
>
> Yes, I signed up...a LONG LONG time ago....at work.
>
but... you are a "Unix Systems Engineer" -- your data center must contain
some Windows boxes...
------------------------------
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$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 23:43:35 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8mbt5v$k3v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Is it just me, or is Aaron, a confirmed MS hater posting from Windows
98?
> >
> > You need to reference the message so we can all look at the headers to
> > confirm it. If he is using 98 then he certainly looks foolish :-)
>
> I run my headers through sed.
>
> This conceals
>
> a) the actual OS of the system which I am posting from
> b) the software I am using to post to USENET
How about posting your SED script then? let's see how clever you are...
And, what software DO you claim to be using when posting?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 23:44:34 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Ichi5.11662$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8mbt5v$k3v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Is it just me, or is Aaron, a confirmed MS hater posting from
Windows
> > 98?
> > >
> > > You need to reference the message so we can all look at the headers to
> > > confirm it. If he is using 98 then he certainly looks foolish :-)
> > >
> > Just look at any of his headers
>
> Windows droids don't understand how easy it is to munge headers.
>
why on earth would a unix fanatic mung to Windows 98?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 23:48:38 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > "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
> > :-)
>
> 1. I'm a combat veteran.
> 2. I'm still a soldier to this day
> 3. I'm in the infantry
> 4. Fuck with me and I will kill you.
> 5. That's a promise.
OK, consider me fucking with you.
You can't prove anything else you've claimed in any thread (still waiting on
that unix runs ms.com crap) - lets see you deliver on this promise... You
can even light one up to steady ya like back in the day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
