Linux-Advocacy Digest #417, Volume #29 Tue, 3 Oct 00 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Double standard? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Win2K ("Todd")
Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke? ("Shay Files")
Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products ("Todd")
Re: Double standard? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products (Kolbj�rn S.
Br�nnick)
Re: The real issue ("Todd")
Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products ("Todd")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Todd")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Todd")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ("David T. Johnson")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Win2K (Jacques Guy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:49:00 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double standard?
MH wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > OS stability by far. I'm just glad that Linux offers better in both
> > departments.
> > I have asked windows users time and time again what makes windows
> > greater
> > than KDE and GNOME and I never get an answer.
>
> This movie has been rolling for sometime now, but it has gotten really old.
> I think KDE & Gnome have done some great work in a short amount of time to
> make linux more accessible to new & experienced users alike. Having said
> that, however, these GUI's are nowhere even in the same league as either the
> mac or windows interfaces. Either in user friendliness, or programmability.
Oh, I don't know about that! GNOME is beginning to really take shape,
but just about everything that you can do in Windows you can do in KDE!
> If you truly disagree, then you don't really have the knowledge of how to
> use & exploit the advantages these interfaces provide, and are making a
> comparison that is tantamount to being on face value. But then most linux
> vs. windows pissing contests are devoid of any facts...
This really all depends. I see a lot like this that aren't based on
facts (in fact they aren't based on anything apart from posting abuse at
each other) but I *have* seen some debates that have been grounded in
fact.
> Linux seems to be caught in a state of real confusion. Hard core users don't
> like or want these interfaces and distro's such as Corel, so they remain
> loyal to what they like, which of course is fine. The new linux user seems
> to want the 'status' of NOT using windows but wants the ease of use that
> windows offers -- as well as the wealth of applications. This user is
> driving the home user market, not the guys that rebuild their kernels and
> have their own web servers setup. Trouble with that market is that there is
> really no definable market there. I've gotten the 3 linux packages I've
> installed from cheapbytes or linuxmall for < $15 including shipping.
>
> So, this 'home' user,.. or 'luser' as you people here like to call them.
> What do they really want?
> Family 'luser'? Simple suite of tools? Financial, contacts, printshop type
> of program, web browsing and email, games, reference, and educational
> software for the kids.
> Windows 8, Linux 2
>
> OK, someone just starting to program..
> I love hunting and pecking with GNU's GCC, GDB and multiple xterms. Trouble
> is I can do it all in ONE screen with Borland turbo C++ for DOS!! but, Linux
> is a great environment for a programming student. Visual
> environments...Phoenix? please... student discounts on the Borland & the
> Visual tool of the year is around $99.
>
> Windows 5, Linux 5 --Toss up, depends on which way you want to go. Perl,
> python, linux comes with so many tools..and is so stable. I like both. I
> think I'll use both.
>
> Top things for the new Linux -'luser' to consider.
>
> You don't purchase software.
Oh yeah? Take a look at Easy Software Products at http://www.easysw.com
- their Unix Print solution is pretty damn cool. Take a look at Loki
games as well.
> You don't have much software either.
When was the last time that you looked at freshmeat? There is a *ton* of
software there!
> It's NOT windows = not a 'luser'.
> Cool desktop themes to make you stand out.
Woohoo! I kinda like this, but after a while it gets a bit hohum.
> Boast big 'uptimes'.
> Fall asleep ASAP reading 'learning the Bash Shell'
And you say that this is a *bad* thing? How do you think Linux hackers
sleep at night?
> Keep telling yourself you're hip while running a third-rate web browser in
> NN for *nix.
OK, you've got me here. Although Mozilla is pretty darn cool - ironic
that it isn't yet stable.
> And number one....
> How are you gonna get that tux sticker off of your bumper once you realize
> how silly it looks?
Hey! be nice...
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:10:08 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> James Stutts wrote:
>
> > How is the lack of driver support with some hardware (all my stuff is
> > supported with release drivers) Microsoft's fault?
>
> Good question. Never mind the fact that the identical claim is the most
often
> "criticism" voiced by people who want to spread anti-Linux FUD.
The problem with Linux and hardware is that the vast majority of drivers for
Linux are not written by the vendor, but by the Linux kernel developers (or
as contributions to them). So in the case of Linux, it usually *IS* Linux's
fault when drivers are bad. In the case of MS, most drivers are written by
the hardware vendors, and thus it's their fault when the drivers are bad.
> It's no fun holding the other end of the stick for a change, is it?
Doesn't look like you're holding a stick at all.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:56:33 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:33:54 +0100, Stuart Fox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"J.Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:OL1C5.7214$tL4.159941@zonnet-reader-1...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Strange, the Matrox web page lists non-beta 5.03.025 drivers for the
> >> > Millenium G400 and G400 MAX.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh, you mean those drivers that dont have any functionality in yet?
Like
> >no
> >> dualscreen, almost no hardware acceleration, and no OpenGL support, you
> >mean
> >> THOSE stable drivers? Might as well run the standard VGA driver then.
But
> >> the drivers that use all the 'good stuff' of the Matrox, are still in
> >beta.
> >
> >So take it up with Matrox. If they're not providing you with quality
> >drivers, vote with your wallet and chose an OEM who does.
>
> Still, despite that shifting of blame: the fact remains that the
> whole point bothering to put up with Microsoft is the ability to
> "run everything".
This is one of the few reasons I choose to use Windows 2000. Even if
Windows 2000 was twice the price and had only the hardware support of Linux,
I'd still use Windows 2000 because it offers me so much more.
> Don't get that as a part of your deal with the
> devil and you've ended up getting the shaft.
Deal with the devil? Are you a lunatic? MS is just a software company
vying for a share of the OS market. They've done well on the desktop and
are doing OK on the server end. Just because Linux doesn't hold the lion's
share of the desktop market doesn't mean MS is the 'devil'.
Another anti-MS lunatic bent on conspiracy theories and the like -- GROW UP
> If it doesn't "run everything", then why bother with it? One might
> as well defect to MacOS 10 (or some other suitably well supported
> Unix variant).
Why should I even bother with UNIX at all? Windows 2000 offers me more than
UNIX and is easier to use.
-Todd
> --
>
> Don't be humble ... you're not that great.
> -- Golda Meir
>
> My Aunt MAUREEN was a military advisor to IKE & TINA TURNER!!
------------------------------
From: "Shay Files" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:56:18 -0500
hehe
>>
>> The Whore...
>>
>>
>
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]$ grep troll /var/log/messages
> Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:high troll-o-meter reading
> detected Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:troll factor: 95.5 % Sep
> 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:whine factor: 97.5 % Sep 28 08:51:22
> localhost trolld[668]:clue factor: 0.0 % Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost
> trolld[668]:suspected troll post details follow: Sep 28 08:51:22
> localhost trolld[668]:From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sep 28 08:51:22
> localhost trolld[668]:Subject: Is Linux some kind of a joke? Sep 28
> 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 05:50:19 GMT Sep
> 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost
> trolld[668]:running /usr/local/bin/troll-be-gone Sep 28 08:51:22
> localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:redirected 1 message to /dev/null Sep 28
> 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:updating
> /home/sandrews/News/Score Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost
> troll-be-gone[1396]:[*] Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost
> troll-be-gone[1396]:Score -9999 Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost
> troll-be-gone[1396]:From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]$
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:03:20 +0800
Well, subject says it all.
With all the Linux users saying how Linux is sooooo much faster than Win2k
even on less powerful systems, Win2k soundly stomps Linux OpenGL performance
on the SAME hardware.
The tests were using Nvidia 3D graphic cards... the most popular today.
Check out the results on www.tomshardware.com
The funny thing is OpenGL is an open standard... seems like Linux should
have stomped Win2K in this arena.
Moreover, Direct3D is faster than OpenGL on Windows 2000... so it seems if
you want fast 3D, Windows 2000 is it.
hehe... I can just see the flames comin' in now :)
-Todd
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double standard?
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:26:41 -0500
"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Oh, I don't know about that! GNOME is beginning to really take shape,
> but just about everything that you can do in Windows you can do in KDE!
Ok, how about create a virtual file system housed inside the shell browser
as a plug-in? How about Shell extension contexts? How about Embedding HTML
into the desktop (including Java applets)? How about shell namespace
extensions that allow you to create things like the printers or dialup
networking folders (Obviously, using the Linux equivelants of these)? How
about shortcuts that can be HTTP links?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 09:14:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd) wrote in <8rc78b$96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Well, subject says it all.
>
>With all the Linux users saying how Linux is sooooo much faster than
>Win2k even on less powerful systems, Win2k soundly stomps Linux OpenGL
>performance on the SAME hardware.
>
>The tests were using Nvidia 3D graphic cards... the most popular today.
>
>Check out the results on www.tomshardware.com
>
>The funny thing is OpenGL is an open standard... seems like Linux should
>have stomped Win2K in this arena.
>
>Moreover, Direct3D is faster than OpenGL on Windows 2000... so it seems
>if you want fast 3D, Windows 2000 is it.
"Direct3d is faster"? What pure bullshit. Is Unreal Tournament under D3D
faster than Quake3 under OpenGL? I'll answer for you: NO. Quake3 is a lot
faster, and has all the features of UT.
What is faster is determined by a complex interaction of driver quality,
API features and the coding of the game engine, as well as the physics,
game-logic and AI of the game.
I'm impressed by the fact that I can use a free OS with my GeForce and it
will be no perceivable difference in speed to W2K. You are just trolling in
a stupid way.
--
Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:19:57 +0800
"Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_k_B5.2134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi all!
>
> I just wanted to say that I am a bit fed up with some of the advocacy for
> Linux that I have seen here. People who say that Netscape haven't crashed
> at all, people who claim Linux is a good desktop OS, compared to W2K.
Yup.
> These are not the important issues.
They are to the other 99% of the population that just wants to get work done
and isn't on some crusade against proprietary stuff.
> It's obvious to me that Windows has the
> best desktop environment, the best applications and so-on.
It's pretty obvious to all except the Linux fanatics.
> The important issues are: do we want to use proprietary office suites with
> proprietary unpublished file-formats? Do we want to use proprietary
> development languages and tools? Or, do we want free exchange of
> information and freedom from the immoral mafia that is Microsoft?
Points:
1) You can have free exchange of information today such as via the
Internet. Unless you live in China -- but even that is changing.
2) There are always going to be proprietary file-formats, development
languages and tools.
That is NEVER going to EVER change because the real world works for MONEY
(as in mula, cash, the green, etc.). Almost nobody cares that file-formats
are proprietary... why is it such a bad thing?
If you can't live with this, I suggest you kill yourself now and get it over
with because there is NOTHING that you can do. Again, most people simply
don't care.
Microsoft is a major proponent of XML by the way, and OPEN standard. It is
using XML now in Windows 2000 to do many things. As you know Windows 2000
supports many 'standards' as well including OpenGL, TCPIP, FTP, HTTP, HTML,
XML, yadda yadda yadda and more blah blah blah.
You will never get any company that improves it's products to stick to open
standards... otherwise, what separates them from their competitors?
The good news is - is that you have a choice. You can *choose* to use Linux
as much as you want... nobody can stop you, not even MS.
And I can *CHOOSE* to use Windows 2000 - because that is what I want to use.
Big bad 'ol Billy doesn't force it down anybody's throat. I simply choose
to use it because I want to.
Get over it.
-Todd
> --
> Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:25:21 +0800
"Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vrhC5.2249$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd) wrote in <8rc78b$96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Well, subject says it all.
> >
> >With all the Linux users saying how Linux is sooooo much faster than
> >Win2k even on less powerful systems, Win2k soundly stomps Linux OpenGL
> >performance on the SAME hardware.
> >
> >The tests were using Nvidia 3D graphic cards... the most popular today.
> >
> >Check out the results on www.tomshardware.com
> >
> >The funny thing is OpenGL is an open standard... seems like Linux should
> >have stomped Win2K in this arena.
> >
> >Moreover, Direct3D is faster than OpenGL on Windows 2000... so it seems
> >if you want fast 3D, Windows 2000 is it.
>
> "Direct3d is faster"? What pure bullshit.
Yes, it is faster. If you've done any programming with Direct3D and OpenGL
on Windows 2000 (as I have) you would know too.
> Is Unreal Tournament under D3D
> faster than Quake3 under OpenGL? I'll answer for you: NO. Quake3 is a lot
> faster, and has all the features of UT.
You can't compare two different games or even the same game using both
APIs...
You need to look at the raw throughput of batched commands to corresponding
APIs.
Direct3D wins hands down.
Direct3D let's you get right down to the driver interface, something which
OpenGL does not let you do. If the programmers are experienced with
Direct3D, it will be faster.
> What is faster is determined by a complex interaction of driver quality,
> API features and the coding of the game engine, as well as the physics,
> game-logic and AI of the game.
I'm talking about raw throughput, not how well a game is coded for either
API. Yes, driver quality certainly matters of course, but all things being
equal, Direct3D is far faster than OpenGL.
> I'm impressed by the fact that I can use a free OS with my GeForce and it
> will be no perceivable difference in speed to W2K.
Not according to recent benchmarks. Windows 2000 is faster in OpenGL than
Linux.
It wasn't me who came up with the benchmarks, I'm only the messenger.
> You are just trolling in
> a stupid way.
Whatever -- obviously you don't like to see benchmarks that favors Windows
2000 over Linux.
But it is a fast -- OpenGL on Windows 2000 is faster than under Linux.
Direct3D is faster than OpenGL.
You do the math.
-Todd
>
> --
> Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:35:34 +0800
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:58:05 +1000, Chris Sherlock wrote:
> >Like what? Java? Sure, I'll give it a whirl (maybe one day) but I *know*
> >that I am not much of a coder...
>
> Java isn't really that much different from C++ ( in fact it feels a lot
> like C++ without the "C" -- you don't have any of the C-isms and you
> don't need to micro-manage your memory. )
One of the most frustrating things that I found with Java is that it is not
implemented the same on differing platforms, or even on the same platform
with different distributions.
Also, Java is just plain godawful SLOW.
Regarding C++, the thing I don't like about it is that I would like to put
all class functions inside the main class 'block' instead of writing the
class functions outside with the :: designation.
C# is the language of choice for me now -- it combines the best of both
worlds.
I know since MS created it, everybody here will already hate it without even
looking at it. However, it is a great language, *and* it is 100% an open
standard.
I'm sure some Linux guru will port it to Linux someday :)
-Todd
> That's not to say that there's anything wrong with java, it's just that
> it's not a radical paradigm shift from C++ ( and I don't think
> it's supposed to be ).
>
> See FM's post for some interesting suggestions.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 05:36:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>You're a bleeding idiot. I can tell you never took a philosophy course
>because with that kind of reasoning, they'd have failed you on principle.
>
>(And all actions of a company are NOT actions of some employee.)
Of course they are, you moron.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:42:17 +0800
"J.Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EwXB5.7159$tL4.158813@zonnet-reader-1...
>
> > But as a desktop, Win2k is really years ahead and has
> > numerous high quality apps. It is also very stable.
>
> Win2K Stable? You have to be joking, man.
Nope, it is very stable.
> My CDRW software doesnt work,
Do you really use Windows 2000?
You need a new aspi layer that is available free for download off of
Adaptec's site. Not sure why MS didn't include this with the Win2k dist.
> my
> viruscanner crashed,
Virus scanners need to be certified for Windows 2000 - many of them written
for NT do NOT work under Windows 2000 due to the new Win2k driver models.
> and almost all the drivers for my hardware are still in
> beta which sucks,
Which ones are you referring to? All of my hardware is supported:
1) NVidia GeForce 256
2) Soundblaster Live!
3) HP CDRW
4) HP DeskJet 970cxi
5) HP ScanJet
6) 3Com Ethernet
> and all these gave me quite a few CRITICICAL STOP ERRORs
> already...
Well, of course, poor drivers crash any OS.
> The only thing that works is Microsoft's own stuff, Office and explorer.
Hmmm... Windows 2000 has been extremely reliable at both the workplace and
at home.
> > I would really like to know why anyone would prefer Linux as a
> > desktop?
>
> Because it actually *works*
> :)
Linux failed to install for me initially until I put it on older hardware --
the drivers simply didn't exist at the time. And it was so damned
frustrating hard to configure X to work with video -- and then to actually
get 2D acceleration working -- ARGH!!!
-Todd
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 05:41:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >> >> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >So, since Windows sucks (at least from what you have posted, that's what
>> >> >> >you believe), then why is it successful?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Anti-competitive pre-load contracts, anti-competitive developments,
>> >> >> anti-competitive marketing, and pretty much a slew of anti-competitive,
>> >> >> and illegal, business activity. Next question?
>> >> >
>> >> >So if they do this, how did AOL survive the onslaught?
>> >>
>> >> Probably through anti-competitive activities, would be my guess. I
>> >> though AOL was anti-competitive since before Win95. But I wouldn't tag
>> >> any specific action of AOL to 'survive the onslaught' outside of the
>> >> common knowledge, without evidence. The fundamental issue was probably
>> >> one of using growth by acquisition to fuel false marketing of
>> >> 'popularity'. "Look at how successful we are (using capital to buy out
>> >> all the competition). Boy, we must be *really great*."
>> >
>> >So in your mind, any business success is via cheating.
>>
>> You obviously misread something. Try again.
>
>I took that from your first sentence in the paragraph above
Try adding the rest of the sentences in the paragraph, then.
[...]
>> No, a competitive product in a competitive market is all that's needed.
>> When you say 'Java', do you mean the product, the platform, or the
>> technology?
>
>Any. marketing and money beat technology <every> day.
That's a sucker's mindset, true or not. I don't know about you, but I
buy the best product available for my needs at the lowest price I can
conveniently find. It seems to me that everyone else in the market is
either an idiot or trying to do the same. With all due respect to P.T.
Barnum, I don't find a philosophy based on condescending dismissal of
the importance of free markets to be a worthwhile approach.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:41:29 -0400
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > People who post on this thread are posting about subjects that have
> > nothing to do with the newsgroups to which they are posting. They are
> > polluting these newsgroups with posts based on topics that belong in
> > other newsgroups. The posters are apparently unable to identify the
> > appropriate newsgroups and I therefore bestow upon them the title of
> >
> > OFF-TOPIC IDIOTS!
> >
> > Congratulations to all of you.
>
> He's not only the club President, he's also a member!
Your typical garbled, illogical, nonsensical comment. Maybe you do some
work on that "Grad School in Texas" thread.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 05:45:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Jesus, Max. Stop chianging your mind so much. I'm starting to suspect that
>you're actually disociative.
Stop trying to hand-wave the fact that you can't manage to understand
what I wrote; other people don't seem to have as much trouble. I
haven't changed my mind, my remarks, or my opinions (save to lower my
opinion of you) since this conversation began; merely the comments I've
made to express them. You fail to grasp the meaning of my words, and
then think its appropriate to ridicule me for your failure?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 09:46:33 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K
Todd wrote:
> This is one of the few reasons I choose to use Windows 2000. Even if
> Windows 2000 was twice the price and had only the hardware support of Linux,
> I'd still use Windows 2000 because it offers me so much more.
There is one born every minute, and you are the one. All those
born that same minute are deeply thankful to you. But is just
one born every minute enough to keep Microsoft afloat? I fear
it might not. So I humbly suggest you put your money where
you mouth is, sell all you have, and buy Microsoft shares (they're
pretty cheap now, you are getting the deal of a lifetime). As
for myself, I have already put my foot where your mouth is --
see the headers of this post.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
