Linux-Advocacy Digest #417, Volume #28 Tue, 15 Aug 00 09:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Andres Soolo)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Another satisfied Linux user ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform (Christopher Browne)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: 15 Aug 2000 11:59:01 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - written "o", when stressed, often becomes "a";
> Actually, it's the other way around. Unstressed "o" often gets
> pronounced
> as "a".
I stand corrected.
> And in some regions, it's the reverse (unstressed "a"
> pronounced as "o"
That's right too. The first one stands for the `official' pronounciation.
> ee(umlaut) ("her") is pronounced "ye-yo"
Right.
>> There are some nonintuitive mappings in KOI. I've used so far:
>> - v is the letter that looks like >|< (doesn't have exact pronounciation
>> in English fonetics but is vaguely like `zh');
> are you talking about transliterations?
No, as I don't know the heck about how to write prononciation in English
way. I kept the Russian official encoding table KOI in mind.
The old versions of KOI (KOI-7) just replaced latin letters with russian
ones, and usually had only capital letters. The current KOI-8 uses the
same mapping but accepts both uppercase and lowercase letters and sets the
high bit for the Russian letters (so they're in the region 0xC0-0xFF).
This mapping is usually handy when transferring Russian via Latin
media as most of the letters are mapped like they'd be transliterated.
> >|< is Zh. Don't know how you bet "v" out of it.
Since there are more Russian letters than Latin ones, not all of them
are actually transliterated, so >|< is at the position of V.
> "V" is written with the character that looks identical to "B"
It's positioned at W in KOI. Other non-intuitive letters are
@` |-O like in `yubka', I guess it's `skirt' in English
Jj `i kratkoj'
Qq `ya'
Xx b `magkij znak' (btw, another nonphoneticality: it's pronounciated
as it'd be `mahkij')
Yy bI like in `tbI' that means `you' in singular
[{ |_|_| like in `|_|_|ar', balloon
|\ -) like in `-)kstremist'
]} |_|_|, like in `|_|_|,enok', puppy
^~ \| like in `\|e"rnbIj', black
The tve"rdyj znak and e" aren't usually mapped.
>> - q is the letter that looks like reversed R (pronounced "ya").
> Weird mapping.
Well, so far there aren't any better. Many encodings are based on
the Russian alphabet and aren't so phonetic-like at all.
> Actually, the spelling is quite straightforwards....the difficult
> part is the damn GRAMMAR.
Perfectly right.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Being disintegrated makes me ve-ry an-gry!" <huff, huff>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 14:18:49 -0500
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Loren Petrich forfeited all rights to civility when he decided
> to side with totalitarians.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we can see how unalienable rights defend
the freedom of an individual against those who don't like him.
"He happened to forfeit his rights."
Oh, that's what happened...
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:21:08 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Because it is more trouble than its worth at this moment, since my
> machine has to have Windows for professional reasons. I have a Linux
> box at work (an old Gateway laptop which I wanted to use as a server)
> but that hasn't panned out due to non-technical issues. Mostly I just
> use Solaris and some HP-UX on workstations.
>
It is easy to install Linux as a second OS and dual boot. Or use Win4Lin or
Vmare.
>
> But you seem to have missed my point; I had no need to learn about
> sticky bits in permissions. Which is why I didn't have them memorized.
>
No, you missed my point. If you had Linux available, you would not have to
look tons through of manuals or have things memorized. In the case of the
sticky bit just typing man chmod would have told you all you wanted to know
about what the sticky bit and suid bit do Typing ls would have shown you
what they "look" like. You see, I have never used the sticky bit myself and
couldn't remember much about it. Bu it was fast and simple to find out
since I have Linux running.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another satisfied Linux user
Date: 15 Aug 2000 12:24:15 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:12:05 -0400, Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
:>
:>"...a lot securer than Windows NT or Windows 2000"
: How so?
No backdoors, and you can verify that by reading the source; also, if
there is a problem, anyone can fix it, not just Microsoft. This is
one of the benefits of free (open-source) software in general,
including, but certainly not limited to, Linux.
Lots of folks, myself included, believe that closed-source software
can be, at best, only as trustworthy as the company that makes it.
Note: because the Linux kernel evolves so rapidly, it is hard to audit
for security problems. It survives remarkably well in spite of this,
but, for situations where ironclad security is a must, I tend to
choose another free OS, OpenBSD. OpenBSD is audited, "secure by
default" (heavily locked down - most Linux distros by default enable
services that a particular installation may or not need), contains
integrated cryptography, and is almost completely immune to buffer
overrun attacks. While any OS can be compromised by a buggy
application (e.g. Netscape), nothing contained in the base OpenBSD
distribution has been vulnerable to a known remote root exploit for
*years*. Like Linux, it is open-source and free in the sense of
freedom (you can download it, or get it on a CD which costs around
US$30).
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 15 Aug 2000 12:30:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 00:44:10 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The question was what the FSF's position is, not whether it would stand
>up in court. To be honest, I take that as a given, since they have no
>purpose in presenting an opinion which is contradicted by law. They
>don't make money on GNU software, after all.
Horse exhaust.
The FSF has a definite purpose in taking whatever positions they take: to
advance the Holy Cause of GPVishly Free Software. Taking positions that
would not necessarily be supported by a court can nevertheless advance their
jihad, and, like any religious fanatics, they care what a court thinks only
when they must, or when they can threaten people into doing things their
way.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:35:30 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Mr Jama would say:
>Greetings. This is not a troll. I am looking for serious help here.
Excuse me; comp.os.linux.advocacy is probably not the right place to go
to find "serious help."
This is an advocacy group. Historically, the primary purpose of
*.advocacy has been to provide an anodyne to suck off the insanely flakey
disussions from [theoretically] more useful places.
If you're concerned about Solaris being too expensive and insufficiently
scalable, you probably should direct this to comp.unix.solaris or some
such place. Otherwise, all you'll get is "troll" answers, which means
that regardless of whether you intended to troll, you may still be
doing so.
I'm forwarding followup to comp.unix.solaris, as that is where
you are likely to get somewhat more competent answers to the direct
questions.
>I am responsible for the technical architecture for the Internet site of a
>relatively major company (billions in income). It is my opinion that NT
>provides the most cost-effective solution for our requirements. First off, I
>think NT is as scalable as Unix. And even if it weren't, out user base is
>relatively small. We're not launching Amazon.com here. We have a small number
>of clients (thousands) that spend lots (millions).
It's more likely that NT provides the solution that you're _most
comfortable with_. If the advantages and disadvantages involve small
enough relative costs, then your comfort level may well prevail.
>Anyways, I'm being told by our IT outsourcer that I don't know what I'm talking
>about, that Unix is far more secure than NT as an Internet platform, and that
>Unix is far more scalable. He's very adamant about this.
Well, the way that you lock down NT for Internet use it to hide it
behind a firewall. And the best you can "lock it down" is to the
C2 grade, which happens to be the poorest level of security that the
NSA is currently certifying for.
Some of the Unixes certify as high as B1, and you can get database
software running on Unix that is certifiable.
>Hey, I'm happy to be wrong. But I want some facts to prove it. He claims that
>Unix has about 2 security problems identified per month, whereas NT averages
>about 12. He also claims that NT takes 2+ weeks to post patches whereas Unix
>vendors typically take 2 days after a problem is identified.
You might want to look at Bugtraq to see if this is a truthful account.
>What do you guys think? Is NT really less secure than Unix for the
>Internet?
If you've got a good firewall in front of it, it may not be too bad.
>What about browsers? Is this guy just a Unix weenie, or does he have a point?
What _about_ browsers? I don't think any of _them_ have been certified
as C2 secure, on _any_ platform, if that's what you're talking about.
>P.S> Unix platform in particular that we use is Solaris.
Solaris scales whopping high; you can get 64-way SMP Solaris systems,
when about the best that NT _realistically_ offers is around 8-way
unless you start getting into pretty experimental extensions, and
I'd not want one of _those_ boxes exposed to the Internet.
Frankly, if you have competently designed applications that separate tasks
to different servers, there's no need to worry about the _whole thing_
being secure; you need primarily to worry about the machines in the DMZ,
which pass requests through carefully secured channels to machines in
the back office that are not connected to the Internet.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #21. "I will hire a talented fashion
designer to create original uniforms for my Legions of Terror, as
opposed to some cheap knock-offs that make them look like Nazi
stormtroopers, Roman footsoldiers, or savage Mongol hordes. All were
eventually defeated and I want my troops to have a more positive
mind-set." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 15 Aug 2000 12:46:07 GMT
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 00:44:14 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Well, let's put it this way: I can't find 'fi' in a standard dictionary.
I didn't say that bourne shell script was terribly intuitive either.
( BTW, "fi" is "if" back to front )
Python does not have "fi".
>An interesting nit to pick, I'd guess. Still, the point is that BASIC
>is much closer to human languages than most other programming languages
>are, by design.
Can you give examples ? I don't see how it's much closer to say python.
>I didn't say it was a good thing, I said it was a familiar thing, and it
>is. As for control structures, you're still looking at things as if we
>want to program full-scale applications. The idea is simple automation
>of simple processing,
For this, control structures are rarely used. For example, when you
record a macro, no control structures are used to "write down" your
actions.
> and the capabilities, complexity, and concise
>syntax of 'real' programming languages is overkill, and makes them
>inaccessible to those with limited needs and typical requirements.
This is a blanket statement and a false one for that matter. "Having
concise syntax" is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to
be a "real" programming language. Not all "real" programming languages
have the same syntax as C or bourne shell script.
>either. I don't want elegant, I don't want pretty, I don't even want
>'good design' or 'semi-optimal'. I just want "works", with minimum
>effort.
"With minimum effort" makes "good design" and "pretty" a requirement.
> And providing end-user languages, possibly entirely separate
>from 'real' programming languages, seems to me part of the whole premise
>of personal computing.
I agree, but you still haven't made a convincing case that BASIC is a
terribly good "end user" language.
>While shell scripting and Perl and such are good middle ground, the
Perl and bourne shell script both suffer from ugly syntax but are
otherwise OK.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: 15 Aug 2000 12:48:05 GMT
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:19:54 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>What is FVWM missing that explorer.exe provides for a working environment?
A file manager. FVWM vs explorer isn't really a fair comparison. A better
comparison would be FVWM + TKdesk vs explorer or KWM + KFM vs explorer
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:03:24 -0300
"Colin R. Day" escribi�:
>
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > > > > I've never eaten anyone, I've never killed anyone over religion, and
> > > > > I've never tortured anyone for his or her beliefs. So how am I ethically
> > > > > equivalent?
> > > >
> > > > Ok. I see I failed to communicate. Let's define what actions are
> > > > ethical.
> > > > Actions are ethical when they agree with the actor's ethics. When they
> > > > agree with the actor's scale of values.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> >
> > Ok. Why?
> >
>
> Because we are also responsible for what we value, as well as
> for pursuing what we value.
I don't think so. To be responsible for what we value, we would
have to be able to discern the correctness of our values. For
instance, if I knew that doing A is wrong, yet I valued A, I
would have an internally inconsistent value system.
On a internally inconsistent value system, anything goes, so
my position regarding ethics will still call it unethical, since
both doing A and not doing it would be against my values.
> > > > If you define what actions are ethical in a different way, then we are
> > > > talking about different things, and of course we will disagree.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But what you mean by ethics would make it trivial.
> >
> > Ok. How do YOU define ethics? If your definition is better, I will
> > be happy to adopt it.
>
> Ethics is the study of how we should choose values and pursue them.
> To restrict ethics to the pursuit of values, but not the choice of values
> trivializes ethics, because one can justify any action as long as
> the actor is pursuing what he values.
What do we use to choose values, if not preexisting values? The choice
of values is then trivially reduced to the pursuit of values.
> > > > However, if you are, would you be so kind as to explain what definition
> > > > you are using?
> > > >
> > > > And, to follow your example: you say you have never eaten anyone, and
> > > > say you are morally superior to a cannibal for it. Why is it immoral to
> > > > eat a dead person?
> > >
> > > You said that I was ethically equivalent to a cannibal, I said that I
> > > had never eaten anyone. Whether cannibalism is correct or not,
> > > how do you get the equivalence?
> >
> > So, you accept you are ethically equivalent to a cannibal, or not?
>
> No, I don't accept it. And what justification would you have for
> saying that I am so equivalent to a cannibal?
I say you both are equivalent because you both act (in principle)
according to your ethics. Now, you say you are ethically superior
to a cannibal. Why?
> > > > Fine wheather also had a great influence in the brilliance of
> > > > greek philosophy.
> > >
> > > How was the weather better in Greece?
> >
> > Depends on what you are comparing with. Better than Norway? In many
> > ways. Think about it. If Greece didn't have a warm climate, and
> > slavery, what are the chances of finding a numerous group of
> > adult healthy men wandering around olive groves discussing nature
> > for days and years?
>
> Sorry, most other ancient civilizations were also in warm climates, so
> again you fail to explain how the Greeks did what they did.
Again, necessary != sufficient.
> > > > > Nope, if they must blind themselves and others in order to maintain
> > > > > their faith, then they are evil.
> > > >
> > > > Who is "they"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The inquisitors.
> >
> > Ok. Now, you said "if they must blind themselves". You assume that the
> > inquisitors knew first that the acts of the inquisition would be wrong,
> > and then blinded themselves. That would indeed be evil. That is also
> > probably something that didn't happen.
> >
> > If that had happened, I would agree it was unethical, because they
> > would KNOW they were doing something bad. We kinda agree here, really.
>
> How could they have avoided knowing it?
Because of bad education, and the reigning morality of the age.
> > > As the alleged source of medieval/early Renaissance morality,
> > > the Church should have done a better job of restricting torture,
> > > not encouraging it.
> >
> > Torture was not considered bad. Why restrict something not bad?
>
> Why didn't they consider it bad?
Because at the time the perceived benefits of torture appeared
as bigger than its drawbacks.
> And their failure to consider
> it bad detracts from their alleged moral leadership.
Compared to who?
> > > > > Only by a flawed morality.
> > > >
> > > > Flawed compared to what? Our morality?
> > >
> > > Obviously, but also flawed to what the clergy could have
> > > achieved if they had viewed ideas as means of cognition
> > > rather than means of social control.
> >
> > Hindsight is 20/20, I guess.
>
> If they Church couldn't know that censorship was wrong, then it
> had no business trying to govern.
The Church didn't quite govern, did they?.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > > d) Inconvenient (because they would go to hell!)
> > > > >
> > > > > Then the Church deserves censure for brainwashing.
> > > >
> > > > Sure. Are you sure they were not right? Based on what?
> > >
> > > Based on astronomical data, such as observations of the
> > > moons of Jupiter. The clergy who visited Galileo refused
> > > to sully their minds with such "profane" awareness of
> > > mere reality.
> >
> > How does astronomical data prove you will not go to hell?
> > Or you meant brainwashing for something else?
>
> It provides sufficient evidence for rejecting Ptolemaic
> (as well as Biblical) astronomy. And what evidence
> did the Church provide of Hell in the first place?
The (at the time undisputed) historical account of the
acts of god's son? The (then considered) historical
account of god's words expressed through his prophets?
Pretty much the same proof we have now of the existence
of Sumeria, in a way (yes, less scientifically assured).
> > > > > One may as well say that about Auschwitz.
> > > >
> > > > Low blow. Do you want to start arguing the ethics of the
> > > > holocaust? It's a very complex subject.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What's the complexity? Millions of people were killed for very
> > > little reason.
> >
> > Oh, the shallowness.
>
> So what is the complexity?
Ok, consider the case of a 16 year old in 1944, sent to the
eastern front. By his actions, he was:
a) defending nazism
b) helping genocide
c) defending his homeland against communism
d) protecting his own life
e) protecting his family
f) giving time for the western front to advance, thus
saving a piece of western europe for democracy
and maybe a hundred other things. How can you say that was
not a complex situation?
> > > > > I'm not saying that the Church is more guilty than Islam, I'm only
> > > > > saying that in terms of human life, the Crusades were more
> > > > > destructive than the persecution of Galileo.
> > > >
> > > > Ok. I agree with that. And much less destructive than WWI. What point
> > > > are you trying to make?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You said that the Church prosecuted Galileo to defend the faith, and I
> > > pointed out that one of the reasons for the Crusades was to defend
> > > holy places, and that the latter was far more destructive than the former.
> >
> > Ok. So, what point are you trying to make?
>
> You attempted to justify the Church's actions as a defense of faith,
Yikes, no. I just said they honestly believed it was a defense of the
faith. It surely was no defense of my faith.
> and I pointed out that that "defense" claimed many lives during the
> Crusades.
Ok, obvious, but ok.
> > > > > Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis for their
> > > > > beliefs and give them weapons and political power.
> > > >
> > > > Well, we do that all the time. Take the second ammendment, for
> > > > instance. The US gives weapons (and political power) to just
> > > > about everyone, regardless of their beliefs.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I should have said a monopoly on bearing arms.
> >
> > The church had hardly a monopoly on bearing arms!
>
> Actually, the Church did not bear much in the way of arms,
> but most governments were willing to follow the Church's
> orders.
Well, in some occasions, yes.
> I don't recall the Albigensians and Hussites
> bearing arms.
>
> >
> > > So the would-be victims get to fire back. This is a problem?
> >
> > Weapons were extremely unregulated in the renaissance.
> > Anyone could own a cannon, if they could pay for it, AFAIK.
>
> More data, please.
Well, I have no data, really. I just have a hard time imagining
anyone in renaissance caring if you had a cannon or not.
Of course all nobility could have their own militia.
> > > > For instance: militias who believe the UN is out to get them,
> > > > and a variant of islam who believe the white race was created
> > > > by an evil mad scientist.
> > > >
> > > > Are you against the second ammendment? (I am ;-)
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Ok, then. So your "Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis
> > for their beliefs and give them weapons and political power." was
> > kinda strange.
>
> But they only have the weapons, not the power. As many people
> have such weapons, the power does not devolve to any small
> group of them.
But it devolves to any large group of them. So, it becomes
"Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis
for their POPULAR beliefs and give them weapons and political
power".
> > > > Well, that's where we part.
> > >
> > > Then people may do whatever they want, as long as they
> > > value the results of such action?
> >
> > Quoting you "judge and prepare to be judged"?
> >
>
> Hey, you were the one saying that
No, Ayn Rand was ;-)
[snip]
> > > > > We may be, and if we are, we deserve such censure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unlikely to destroy all of humanity, but yes much more than the
> > > > > Church did.
> > > >
> > > > Then who are we to censure them, when they were comparatively
> > > > less evil?
> > >
> > > But we haven't destroyed the world yet. Our deserving of censure
> > > is conditional on that.
> >
> > We have destroyed considerable chunks of it.
> >
>
> Native Americans, true. Most of the rest were shooting at us.
Depends on the definition of "us".
> > > > However, I don't hate them for it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And when Galileo tried to convince people that his astronomical
> > > theories were better?
> >
> > Well, he failed in the short term, I'd say. However, notice that
> > I was writing about convincing on the superiority of a morality,
> > not of a astronomical theory.
>
> So it's moral to be wrong? Hmm.
It doesn't seem to be necessarily immoral to me.
> > > > If I had lived at the time, and I had my current set of beliefs,
> > > > I hope I could have convinced someone that their beliefs were
> > > > inferior, thus improving (in my view) their moral status.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But given the Church's alleged moral authority, should it not
> > > have done a better job promoting toleration?
> >
> > That would be promoting something evil in their eyes. You can
> > not tolerate the proponents of something ungodly :-P (in
> > inquisitional terms, mind you).
>
> Then their eyes are wrong.
Oh, well. I see we are never going to get anywhere in this
discussion. You don't share my position, that's ok, but
could you please at least acknowledge that when I say something
as I expect, say, renaissance people to believe it, I don't
ned you to tell me "they were wrong" every time? I know that
for you and I they were.
> > > > > > That's, let's say, a tad messianic.
> > > > >
> > > > > As opposed to being militantly ignorant?
> > > >
> > > > I have not been called ignorant very often. What am I supposed to
> > > > ignore?
> > >
> > > You're not supposed to ignore centuries of censorship and torture.
> >
> > I am not ignoring that. Why do you say I am?
> >
>
> True, you aren't ignoring it, you're defending it.
You have real trouble accepting someone can consider a position
wrong and yet accept it as obvious considering the situation.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:06:14 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
[snip]
> I had said
> >Well, let's apply the standard you expect of others, for a change.
> >Explain me! Tell me! What? You don't explain the way I like?
> >Fool!
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
Well, that is the general attitude you have. Remember chmod?
You ask people to explain, and when you fail to understand,
you insult. Well, moron, explain again! better!
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
