Linux-Advocacy Digest #172, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Christopher Smith")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Bob Germer)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Bob Germer)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Bob Germer)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Ingemar
Lundin")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 06:29:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ian Davey wrote:
>> In article <8pq8u2$fje$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren
>Petrich) wrote:
>> >Aaron R. Kulkis mindlessly blathered:
>> >>Because Unix doesn't work on a "file typing" paradigm.
>Incorrect. Unix types files into arbitrary "executable" and "non-executable"
>categories. This is much worse than Windows associating only a single process
>with each type; Unix only ever associates one process for *any* file.
Why is it bad? Do you know even what it is for?
>Which is a complete non sequitur. One should be able to associate an
>arbitrary subset of all processes (they don't have to be programs, let
>alone applications) with a type so that whenever a user commands the
>shell to process an object, it returns a list of associated processes
>instead of forcing the user to hunt down the one process they want from
>an endless list of completely irrelevant objects.
Do you even know what you're talking about? Do you
know what it takes to implement all these at the OS
level? In any case, forcing the low-level *system*
to follow a limited model of associating data with
processes is not necessarily a good idea.
>And that's another thing, the Unix model of starting a program to deal
>with a file and then closing that program (thus erasing any kind of run-
>time configuration the user made) is complete nonsense. Processes should
>have Orthogonal Persistence, which means that they start running the
>first time a user calls upon it and they stop "running" either when the
>system is shut down or when someone with authority explicitly removes it.
Because you say so? The problem is that what you're
describing is easier to model in Unix than Unix is
to model in your system. In other words, your suggestion
only sacrifices the generality of the system.
>Take a text editor for example. Conceptually, it's a type of windowed
>server that takes filenames as input and generates file changes as output.
No it isn't. A text editor allows you to edit textfiles.
Because you have a limited idea of what constitutes a
text editor is not a reason why the design of existing
programs is flawed.
>There is *no* reason why a different "text editor" server process needs
>to be started for every single user, let alone for every single file.
Why are there different processes? There really is one
server and different processes are simply different
run-time configurations of one server. At least that's
one way of looking at it, if one was to follow your
idea. It's one thing to come up with a new way of
looking at the reality. It's another to completely
unable to fit the reality into your view and consider
the reality, instead of your own view, flawed.
>The
>whole Unix paradigm is fucked up from top to bottom.
I think it's just you.
>And of course, this does not work in the shell; there's absolutely no reason
>why it shouldn't but that's that. I would especially like to note that being
>able to associate processes
>with a type should not be Arcane Knowledge reserved only for the Cognescenti.
Then why not fucking do it yourself? It's fairly trivial
to write a program called, say run, that takes a filename
and dispatches another program based on the file-type.
>But this would be Design, and we all know that programmers shun design (good,
>bad, any kind of) like the plague because Real Programmers are Hackers and
>hackers don't design anything, they just enter into a mystical union with the
>hardware.
Real programmers consider design as the primary part of
any programming. Code-monkeys are of course a different
species.
>Even worse, this would be *user*-centered design and we all know
>programmers loathe users, so that's why you can't expect a programmer to ever
>implement, or even think of, such a solution.
It's not a user-centered design. It's an idiotic design
with little flexibility. The so-called unix paradigm, which
I don't believe you comprehend very well, allows you to do
all that and more.
Why not design an OS yourself before you spew any more
nonsense about existing systems?
Dan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 06:08:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> At the level of the kernel, that's all that's really required.
>And we all know that "the level of the kernel" is all that matters,
>because that's how all users and applications interact with the system,
>right? Get a clue man, who gives a shit about the kernel?
Exactly. Then why do you care about how the kernel or
the base system does it? Writing a shell that can treat
files in the way you describe is a straightforward
process.
>Emacs is proof that when given the choice, people won't lower themselves
>to coding in a nightmarish low-level language, nor interface with the
>nightmarish system that C is associated with.
Then program in high-level languages. It remains that
programming higher-level abstractions is more sensible
in a low-level abstraction than a different high-level
abstraction.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 06:53:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> I guess you could write an "openfile" command that does this using the
>> existing functionality. The reason why no one's written such a thing is
>> more lack of interest than anyone else.
>Which is quite telling. But it's not a big surprise that programmers
>wouldn't be interested in helping users, even if they are (technically,
>not mentally) users themselves.
No it's because such a thing is not very useful. That
you just learned this "object-oriented programming"
which is but one programming paradigm among others,
doesn't mean you should apply it to other domains that
you apparently do not comprehend very well.
>And writing an "openfile" command would not be sufficient for
>consistency. The shell would still treat "executable" and "non-
>executable" files in completely different ways for no justifiable
>reason whatsoever.
You do seem to have trouble grasping basic concepts.
In the unix model, executables ARE different from
non-executables. Some objects are also both used as
executables and documents (scripts).
>There is no conceptual reason between executing a program
>and opening a file.
Of course there is.
>In both cases, the shell is ordered to process
>an object so it must 1) identify the object type, and 2) find the
>associated process.
No it's not. For an executable, it becomes the process.
For a document, you need to specify the process. In OOP
terms, objects can have multiple behaviors and you need
to specify the behavior before you execute. And that in
"behavior" is often an executable. That you have trouble
understanding this, and further trouble articulating what
your problems are, speaks volumes about your
qualification to speak about a system that your far
superiors have designed.
>In some OSes, the creation of a process
>from a program is done through a separate server process
>and the identity between opening and execution is obvious.
It's not so obvious. It's not even CLOSE to the same that
it's not even funny. Some OSes can have the idea of a
document-handler which handles a certain type of documents
submitted for execution. In that model however, executables
would often be document handlers and would not be
executable without documents. I shouldn't have to be
explaining all these to you.
>> Well if that's what you want, just don't close the program ( duh ! ). I
>> don't see the benefit of forcing the user to leave the program open.
>That's because you've never heard of Persistence before.
>And not closing a program is *not* the same thing as having
>useful persistent process. Unix processes are designed to be
>one-off entities and Unix counts on this fact.
Then design/use a persistent operating system. Persistent
systems are a lot easier to efficiently model in unix than
it is to model unix in persistent systems. There's useful
application for persistent systems but it's most definitely
not applicable to unix.
>There is in running everything in a single *task*. A single input queue for
>one. And instead of creating a new process for each user you can create
>a new thread instead. The important thing is that users don't have to know
>anything about starting processes; whether a new process is actually
>started is an implementation detail completely invisible to the user.
A process IS a user-level abstraction. How those processes
work is an implementation detail but for unix, processes
are basic units of computation to the user. You can EASILY
create higher abstraction layers to hide that from some
users. But that was what unix ALLOWS you to do, but it's
not what it was designed for.
>> Stay away from design, you are not very good at it.
>Considering the source ...
Trust me. Do stay away from design unless you are able to
comprehend the existing designs. There are some flaws in
the existing systems but you are unable to either point
them out or articulate your quibbles in a sensible
manner.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:53:11 +1000
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Windows 2000 is not NT5. And considering that the typo "save overall
> features" exists and could mean "lacking overall features" is somewhat
> misleading as well as the printing of a product name which doesn't exist
> (NT5) I assumed he meant NT4 since that IS an actual product.
>
> As far as anyone running Windows 2000 is concerned... the Help/About in My
> Computer (or by simply running "winver' at the command line) shows that
they
> are running "Windows 2000 Version 5.0" not NT 5. And the MS website
> describes it as "BUILT on NT Technology" not NT 5. NT 5 is not now or has
> ever been a Microsoft operating system. NT 4 was the last version of NT.
Gawd, this is just plain stupid. NT5 most certainly _was_ a Microsoft
product, up until beta 2. NT5 was renamed to Windows 2000 somewhere between
Beta 2 and Beta 3. Win2k *is* NT5, just like Win95 was Windows 4 and Win98
was 4.1.
Just what's the problem in saying Win2k is NT5 ?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 06:59:53 GMT
On 09/18/2000 at 05:32 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> Oh if it were all that simple. You know I talked about a set of
> observations and some known facts.
LIke those ice sheets covering half of Canada. Please tell us where to
find them.
> You have your belief system and you don't actually have an experiment to
> point to that would support your belief, just a belief but spout it like
> truth.
And you have your theories and demand that we act upon them. Better come
down from Colorado. The lack of oxygen is affecting your brain.
> That fact is that CO2 levels are higher than they have been in
> 600k years and climbing.
Perhaps they were extremely low 600 years ago and are just now reaching
the long-term (10,000,000) year average. You don't know and can't know.
But until you do, you have no right to expect anyone to follow your
recommendations.
> The fact is that we know about
> Milankovich cycles and can see atmospheric conditions from past natural
> happenings. We are modifying things though and to say, "oh fuck it,
> it's all good as long as I am fine right now" is sheer ignorance.
Milankovich cycles may be all the rage among leftist scientists today.
They may well be debunked 10, 50, 100 years from now. They are nothing
more than a theory. Theories come and theories go. Atmospheric science
today is about as advanced and mature as Alchemy was 1,000 years ago. They
thought they knew all about the world. So did Plato. So did Socrates.
Grow up and smell the roses. The University of Colorado may be a fine
school. However, it is not the repository of all knowledge about the
atmosphere, CO2 levels, global warming, global cooling (there are lots of
good scientists who theorize that the earth is actually cooling you know),
CFC's, etc. When you have lived 40 years or so as an adult, you MAY come
to realize just how little we know.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:02:08 GMT
On 09/18/2000 at 12:48 AM,
Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Oh man this is rich. So unitl it is verifiable you will call it a lie
> and not support looking into it? You would've been right their lynching
> Copernicus. What an asshole.
Typical Freshman arrogance. Until a theory is PROVEN, I refuse to take
action based upon predictions, etc. arising from said theory. Investigate
all you want. Do not, however, ask me to take or sanction any action
arising from said theory until it is proven.
And Copernicus was right. The earth and planets do indeed revolve around
the sun.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:07:45 GMT
On 09/18/2000 at 06:38 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> Except I didn't do that. I pointed to some facts and didn't make claims
> as fact. CFC's are man made and the CO2 level is verifiably higher than
> it has been in 600k years.
You claim the CO2 level is higher now that it was 600 years ago based on
experiments on artic ice. You claim that CO2 levels are higher in North
America when the facts prove they are in deficit!
You claim half of Canada is covered with an ice sheet. Another fiction.
Just what were the CO2 levels in Rwanda in 1922? What were they in Bagdadh
in 1938? What were they in Panama in 1856? What were they in Cairo in
1910? What were they in Albania in 1944?
You are very like the 3 blind men describing an elephant based on feeling
the trunk, tail, and leg respectively.
I'll bet you believe in Piltdown man.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:00:26 -0600
Bob Germer wrote:
> On 09/18/2000 at 05:44 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
> > Did you read what I wrote? I don't think you did. We have more
> > vegitation because we plant it. We also fight fires. High CO2 doesn't
> > cause more plant life. Did you read the part about starting an ice age?
> > Ice sheets have come halfway down Canada in a decade because the deep
> > water formation stopped.
>
> Talk about junk science.
>
> First of all, it was pointed out that we do not have high CO2 levels in
> North America, we have a deficit. Deficit - a lack, a shortage, below
> normal levels.
>
Of course the whole Earth as whole, which acts as a system has a higher CO2 level. We
use more
than we produce but the Earth as a whole has a higher level. Welcome to math 101 and
the
additive property.
>
> Secondly, please do tell us how water is formed deep within the earth.
> Please, the scientific world is waiting for this answer. Just what
> chemicals are forming H2O?
>
I never said this and you are obviously lost. I talked about the deep water
formation. Deep
water is highly saline water formed at the poles. This is water that has a high
saline content
from ice forming at the surface pushing the salt out causing the water to become
denser and
descend. It isn't in the Earth, it is in the ocean. You are really fucking stupid
and seem to
have an inability to read or comprehend what you read. You really do show your
ignorance and any
reading you do of scientfic journals would seem to be wasted as you don't understand
the basic
principles.
>
> Ice sheets have come halfway down Canada in a decade? Which decade of
> which century. I have traveled the Alcan highway from Vancover to Alaska
> within the past year and a half. I saw no ice sheets. I have flown from
> Montreal to Hudson's Bay in the past 4 months. I saw no ice sheets. I'm
> sure that my airplane's floats would be surprised to find out they didn't
> throw up rooster tails of water but glacial ice during landings and
> takeoffs.
>
Yes, the ice core shows dramatic temperature drops taking place. When the ocean
current fails to
flow north the high latitudes which have a dearth of solar radiation become quite
cold. I didn't
say this decade idiot, I said they have done it in a decade, you know ten years a
period of
time. Do pay attention Bob.
>
> And I saw vegetation all over Alaska which is NORTH of Canada. I didn't
> know plants and animals thrived on ice sheets.
>
You are quite stupid, how did you make it so long? Oh I know, plenty of jobs out
there for
people that know how to unwrap software and type c:\setup.exe
>
> --
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:07:20 -0600
Bob Germer wrote:
> On 09/18/2000 at 05:32 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
> > Oh if it were all that simple. You know I talked about a set of
> > observations and some known facts.
>
> LIke those ice sheets covering half of Canada. Please tell us where to
> find them.
I didn't say this decade and you can't read. I said in a decade, you know 10 years.
>
> > You have your belief system and you don't actually have an experiment to
> > point to that would support your belief, just a belief but spout it like
> > truth.
>
> And you have your theories and demand that we act upon them. Better come
> down from Colorado. The lack of oxygen is affecting your brain.
>
And you are ignorant without even a small knowledge of the principles you speak of.
>
> > That fact is that CO2 levels are higher than they have been in
> > 600k years and climbing.
>
> Perhaps they were extremely low 600 years ago and are just now reaching
> the long-term (10,000,000) year average. You don't know and can't know.
> But until you do, you have no right to expect anyone to follow your
> recommendations.
>
Good and maybe we'll find out that we continually kill 95% of our race off heh?
>
> > The fact is that we know about
> > Milankovich cycles and can see atmospheric conditions from past natural
> > happenings. We are modifying things though and to say, "oh fuck it,
> > it's all good as long as I am fine right now" is sheer ignorance.
>
> Milankovich cycles may be all the rage among leftist scientists today.
> They may well be debunked 10, 50, 100 years from now. They are nothing
> more than a theory. Theories come and theories go. Atmospheric science
> today is about as advanced and mature as Alchemy was 1,000 years ago. They
> thought they knew all about the world. So did Plato. So did Socrates.
You are fucking stupid. It basic physics. The Earth doesn't rotate in a perfect
circle and
orbit in a perfect circle. It's tilt varies and the orbit varies, this is known. It
isn't a
theory its fact Bob. You really aren't following all that well. It isn't atmospheric
sciene,
it's physics.
>
>
> Grow up and smell the roses. The University of Colorado may be a fine
> school. However, it is not the repository of all knowledge about the
> atmosphere, CO2 levels, global warming, global cooling (there are lots of
> good scientists who theorize that the earth is actually cooling you know),
> CFC's, etc. When you have lived 40 years or so as an adult, you MAY come
> to realize just how little we know.
>
Telling me to grow up when you won't think other ways? Get real. You make claims,
like saying
that I said CFC's cause a rise in CO2, never said that, and then don't have the balls
to admit
that you were wrong. Don't try to lecture me.
>
> --
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:09:53 -0600
Bob Germer wrote:
> On 09/18/2000 at 12:48 AM,
> Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Oh man this is rich. So unitl it is verifiable you will call it a lie
> > and not support looking into it? You would've been right their lynching
> > Copernicus. What an asshole.
>
> Typical Freshman arrogance. Until a theory is PROVEN, I refuse to take
> action based upon predictions, etc. arising from said theory. Investigate
> all you want. Do not, however, ask me to take or sanction any action
> arising from said theory until it is proven.
Typical freshman arrogance? You'd make a poor scientist if you waited for a theory to
be proven
wrong. Many things are done on theory. You are right there going rah rah on the
theories that
you support, using them as reason not to take action. You support a theory.
>
> And Copernicus was right. The earth and planets do indeed revolve around
> the sun.
>
And you would've called him crazy.
>
> --
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:15:41 -0600
Bob Germer wrote:
> On 09/18/2000 at 06:38 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
> > Except I didn't do that. I pointed to some facts and didn't make claims
> > as fact. CFC's are man made and the CO2 level is verifiably higher than
> > it has been in 600k years.
>
> You claim the CO2 level is higher now that it was 600 years ago based on
> experiments on artic ice. You claim that CO2 levels are higher in North
> America when the facts prove they are in deficit!
You don't understand what is being discussed. North America as a continent produces
less CO2
than the plant life on it consumes. The rest of the world produces way more than is
consumed.
It is called the addtive property of numbers and perhaps and elementary algebra class
will help
you understand.
here you go Bobby 1st grader
place output-co2 used-co2
North america 5 6
Elsewhere 100 50
total 105 56
See how math works North America outputs 5 but uses 6
The rest of the world outpus 100 but use 50.
These aren't real numbers just done for illustration
>
>
> You claim half of Canada is covered with an ice sheet. Another fiction.
>
Didn't say that, said in the past in one decade the ice sheet advanced over it.
>
> Just what were the CO2 levels in Rwanda in 1922? What were they in Bagdadh
> in 1938? What were they in Panama in 1856? What were they in Cairo in
> 1910? What were they in Albania in 1944?
>
Go to the us base on Antarctica and have a look at the core samples.
>
> You are very like the 3 blind men describing an elephant based on feeling
> the trunk, tail, and leg respectively.
>
> I'll bet you believe in Piltdown man.
You obvioulsy couldn't pass a freshman engineering course load.
>
>
> --
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:17:17 -0600
Bob Germer wrote:
> On 09/18/2000 at 05:47 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
> > I'm saying here are some ideas to think about and you'd rather just
> > think you own way. Your the asshole. Who is wanting to control?
> > You're fucking scared of thinking that maybe something might be
> > different.
>
> Anyone who thinks half of Canada is covered by ice sheets is the asshole!
Of course I didnt' say they were, so you're the liar. Doesn't your religion say
something about
lying? Of course I'm sure your God will understand that you misunderstood.
>
> --
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:30:42 GMT
"David M. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> >
> > "OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Microshaft Sucks! I hope to NEVER buy another product that Gates had
a
> > > hand in selling!
> >
> >
> > Strange thing tough...it only seems to be linux users that having
problem
> > with windows setup...how come?
>
> Porbably the same reason that Windows users have the most trouble with
> setting up a Linux system... few will admit when their own preference in
OS
> actually does something that makes it difficult, or doesn't seem to make
> sense. Both sides are guilty of this one.
>
> -D. Butler
well to be fare ...i've never had any problems installing linux either
...execpt for the first time, when i installed SuSE Linux 5.2 about two
years ago, it took some reading in the handbook to understand that i had to
called YaST again to enable graphical loggin, nowadays i can do that
manuallly ...:-)
/IL
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
