Linux-Advocacy Digest #583, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Steve Mading)
Linux Out perfoms Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Real Linux Advocacy (2:1)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Blatant anti-MS trolling... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: welcome to the world of objects (Steve Mading)
Re: Hotmail been down most of the day (David M. Butler)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (2:1)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: The Power of the Future! (David M. Butler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:23:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:22:58 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:06:15 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:44:06 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande�
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >
>>> ><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>>> >
>>> >> >Well, there are things as installed user base to support, capabilities
>>of
>>> >> >the hardware current at the time to take into considerations. Of
>>course
>>> >you
>>> >>
>>> >> The 386 dates back to 1985.
>>> >
>>> >Were they the majorities at the time ?
>>>
>>> Do you plan your own life with this level of foresight?
>>
>>Always in motion is the future. What has it got to do with the matter at
>>hand anyway ?
>
> Atari had a flat memory GUI system. Commode Door had a flat
> memory GUI system. Apple had a flat memory GUI system. All
You mean Amiga. Commode Door is just that stupid company
that decided to buy it and then went bankrupt because they
couldn't market their way out of a paper bag. :-) (Since when is
a C64 more worthy of a TV commercial than an Amiga? Did they have,
uh, an inventory problem at the time? :-) )
(insert obligatory anguished scream for loss of a good computer here :-) )
> of the more serious operating systems of that day were
> operating in considerably more abstract terms.
>
> Infact, Intel was a bit backwards in this regards. If they
> were going 32bit by 1985, it was pretty obvious that the
> market is headed that way. Motorola had already one so
> 8 years earlier.
>
> This wasn't just the future, it was the present back then.
> Plus, the players in question had enough prior experience
> with the industry in practice to know where things were
> heading.
>
> It only seems/seemed like the future to users obsessed with DOS.
Admittedly, I'm not sure if any users even cared regarding a flat memory
system -- unless they ran conventional memory's limitations. An old
CD-ROM game called "Delta-V" comes to mind -- not a bad game, but it
took 600K of conventional memory to run. I can no longer run it. Sigh.
I suspect users didn't particularly care as long as their spreadsheets,
games, presentations (Harvard 2.1, I think), and such worked.
And even back then, Microsoft had to worry about backward compatibility.
(And so we are stuck with schlock. At least now Linux gives us an
alternative, and Windows is 32-bit. Whether that's enough remains
to be seen. Fortunately, Alpha and SPARC are still out there, and 64-bit.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:34:10 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Dan Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi Drestin,
> >
> > If she's refereing to the fact that a hacker can easilly use any share
> > on windows if you have netbui installed, check this link:
> >
> > www.grc.com
> >
>
> thanks Dan... I know steve's site well. It's actually not if you have netbui
> but if you have windows shares and your sharing is bound to TCP/IP - the
> nearly effortless 100% solution to this problem is to unbind Microsoft File
> & Printer sharing from TCP/IP - bingo, problem solved better than a
> firewall.
Hmmm... isnt it still enabled though for
MS logon? (which is installed by default)
Dolly
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 10 Oct 2000 22:28:07 GMT
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:> The problem is that I don't see using algebra and programming
:> as being different mindsets. This is where it is largely a
:> matter of opinion, and not the language designer's job
:> to tell me what does and doesn't belong in a module. The
:> decision of what to put in which module should not be
:> driven by limitations of the language. Quite the opposite:
:> FIRST you decide what makes sense in each module, THEN you
:> decide what langauge to implement each module in. But you
:> can't do that if one module ends up with some features that
:> only work well in language A and some that only work well
:> in language B. Deciding where it makes sense to split up
:> modules is purely a subjective thing. You can slice up
:> the tasks using a variety of different criteria. If you
: Not if you want the code to remain understandable. Mixing
: OO and functional code is a BAD idea for one thing. It may
: or may not be inevitable but it's certainly undesirable.
Since there is no hard and fast definition of what is and isn't
OO, splitting things up as OO vs functional isn't going to
work. The dividing line is too fuzzy.
:> take into account the limitations of each language, you
:> can choose to break up your modules along lines that
:> coincide with the strengths of each language, but then you
:> are letting the language force your design, which violates
:> what you keep talking about here - design it first without
:> getting into the pendantic language details until implementing
:> it.
: I don't consider paradigms to be pedantic language details.
: Do you?
No, but unlike you I don't see language paradigms as being
the only kind that exist. You could split according to
functionality, or according to areas of expertise. Say for
example that you wanted to make a world simulator, for
simple physics demonstrations (bouncing a ball in a cube,
that sort of thing). It might make sense to seperate the
system into a graphical display part and a physics engine
part. (Stuff for calculating motion according to the laws
of physics kept seperate from stuff for displaying the
3d rendition of the picture. If you had some sort of
multiple host ability, for different machines to insert
objects into this world, then you might want a module
for this networking communication, and so on. Splitting
into modules by purpose makes more sense than splitting
by language capabilities, from a design standpoint.)
: Now let's switch back to the decision to include or exclude
: possible features in a language.
: Let's just say that you're doing algebra. Fine, that's you.
: So because *you* are doing something, everyone else has to
: learn about the additional precedence levels *in case* they
: need them? Where does this stop? Hom many other features do
: you add to the mix?
That's an interesting planet you're from, where programmers
are expected to be ignorant of high-school algebra. But
meanwhile here on Earth, where the rest of us live, nobody
gets confused by the concept of order of operations because
they've already had it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: 10 Oct 2000 22:27:29 GMT
HI,
If you are a c++ programmer, then try this program both on windows and on
linux and observe the time taken to display 1,00,000 numbers
#include <iostream.h>
main()
{
for(int i=0; i<=100000; i++)
cout << i <<endl;
return 0;
}
What I get is 5 seconds on Linux 2.2 and it takes 2.30 minutes to show all
the
100000 numbers.
Yours Truly,
Rizwaan
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:32:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:17:17 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> What about Windows 2000? Afraid to compare it because you know Linux
>> doesn't hold a candle to it?
>
>Guess what, Drestin, it *COSTS* to upgrade to Win2K. Sinck you used to
>sat that NT4 was so great, then why bother?
Pedant point: Does Chad Myers == Drestin Black? :-)
>
>> Let's try to compare apples to apples, please. NT 4.0 is better than Linux
>> 2.0 or 1.2, but that's not saying much.
>
>Actually, no it's not. I used 2.0.32 until very recently, and it was
>more stable than NT has been for me.
>I needed to upgrde to get drivers for a new device.
NT for me has been fairly stable, but it does seem to like
to do strange stuff from time to time -- "and what icons would
you want to view today?" is my personal favorite, but the most
typical one is "Tooltips? We don't need no steenkin tooltips!"
on the bottom icon bar. There are also the desktop refreshes
which are done occasionally for no obvious reason (harmless,
but annoying).
And if NT runs out of VM, watch out; things start to get peculiar.
To be fair, Linux has some problems of its own; it can overcommit
memory and then kills processes if it can't find a free virtual page.
Not a pleasant scenario, but I suspect the resource tracking's a bit
better in Linux, even with the equivalent of 'kill -9'. Most other
Unices will catch the problem earlier, although there might be
a tradeoff here since a program could allocate a lot of pages,
then scribble on only a small number of them; such a program will
run on Linux, but not on Unices where memory pages are tracked when
allocated, not written.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:13:33 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > W2K is running 100% of the web servers at Hotmail but the application
> itself
> > > has not yet been ported. Look for that to change before the year is out.
> >
> > www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2610894,00.html
>
> Yes, that link just verifies what I already said. Thank you.
>
> >
> >
> > Here's a far older message that MS keeps changing the
> > date on and revamping...
> > www.microsoft.com/ntserver/web/news/msnw/Hotmail.asp
>
> Hmm... the date is STILL May 1, 1998 - just like it was when they first
> posted it on... May 1, 1998. The text is the same as it was then too. In
> fact, it needs to be updated to reflect the change to W2K.
>
No - see you missed the whole point. In
May 1998, they were pretending the
migration was near done. It was later
announced that such had not worked and
that HotMail was running Solaris and BSD
with forays into re-attempting usage of
NT (specifically the new W2K). And
that was from announcements 2 years later.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:26:50 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Not at all.
>
> I thought there might have been two different "2"'s that's all.
Nope, I'm one person. Check the email address in the sig. Same ole' 2.
-ed
> enjoy,
>
> claire
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:34:20 +0100, 2:1
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> You mean you have been posting Linux advocacy here for months and you
> >> just got Linux online?
> >>
> >> Or is that a different "2" ?
> >>
> >> I leave headers to Bilk....
> >>
> >> claire
> >
> >I have been running Linux for nearly 2 years. I have just moved in to a
> >college room with an ethernet connection, so yes, I have been running
> >linux for 2 years, posting about how good it is for months and have been
> >online less than 24 hours.
> >
> >Do you have a problem with that?
> >
> >
> >-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:28:21 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Chad wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:06:29 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Chad,
> > >>
> > >> We;ve installed tons of Win9X and NT boxes all with
> > >> that stupid checkbox disabled... the earlier
> > >> versions a simple portscan would reveal NetBIOS
> > >> bound to port 139 anyway. The newer versions still
> > >> bind it but hide it better.
> > >>
> > >> Try my little test yourself if you dont believe
> > >> me.
> > >
> > >As I've demonstrated before...
> > >
> > >If you disable the workstation service, WINS, and
> > >uncheck NetBIOS over TCP/IP in Windows NT 4.0,
> > >port 139 (TCP and UDP) will no longer be open.
> > >Period. You lie. Please give it up.
> >
> > No, you just proved his point. You amply demonstrated
> > that NT is "broken as delivered" and that you have to
> > know what is broken and how to fix it.
>
> Considering no one has been able to demonstrate this
> supposed NetBIOS exploit, then how is it broken?
>
> Most Linux distros ship with a exploitable copy
> of Sendmail, or wuftp, or any number of open
> holes. So then we can, by your logic, assume that
> Linux is "broken as delivered" and has no security
> like was insinuated by Dolly?
>
> -Chad
You know... forget it. I provided you a dozen
links... which amount to in your words "no one"
Dolly
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:32:51 -0700
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:g3ME5.61377$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're referring to the kernel, of course, and you're right. Win32,
> properly speaking, is only the kernel. But the kernel by itself, without
> the accompanying DLL's produced by the OTHER 27 million lines of code, is
> pretty useless. Still, you're right --I should have said "Windows", not
> "Win32".
No, Win32 is NOT the kernel. The kernel is the kernel. Win32 is a system
that sits on TOP of the kernel.
> At Microsoft, that's *every* department's job. Ever heard that story
about
> Microsoft inserting some code into Windows that displayed false error
> messages if it detected that it was running on any DOS other than their
own?
> You do know that it's true, don't you?
Only for the Beta, oh Mr. Magic Munchkin.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Blatant anti-MS trolling...
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:30:22 GMT
You know what pisses me off?
The hotmail server that has my email account is down. (Guess they're
switching back to BSD or whatever.) Anyway, it hasn't been able to let
me in for almost two hours now.
I've gotten three different error messages because of it.
I click on the "Problems signing in?" link.
I get three possibilities, all of which are client-side symptoms which
politely ask, "Are you sure you're not a moron who's never used the
internet before?"
Not once is there mentioned the fact that Hotmail just goes batshit
every now and then. Even Netscape WebMail is better than this.
Rant mode = off. Thank you for your patience.
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: welcome to the world of objects
Date: 10 Oct 2000 22:38:30 GMT
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:> Chicken and egg problem: Where did the class object that does
:> the instantiation come from? Face it, at some point in the
:> chain you have to instantiate objects "out of thin air", to
:> avoid an infinitely recursive situation.
: Of course you don't. Classes, and many other objects (eg, all
: globals), exist in a Smalltalk system without ever having been
: instantiated. They can be found in the ST image when you turn
: on the system. Maybe they were instantiated from some class
: (a class called "class" maybe?) during a previous activation
: of the image. But then again, *maybe not*! Maybe the image was
: constructed from outside of itself, and talking about how an
: image is constructed is akin to talking about what happened
: before the Big Bang!
: Btw, you *do* have circular definitions in Smalltalk. Details
: vary in different dialects, the following holds for Squeak:
: The class Object (*)
: is the unique instance of class 'Object class' (**) which,
: is an instance of 'Metaclass' (#) which,
: is a subclass of 'ClassDescription' which,
: is a subclass of 'Behaviour' which,
: is a subclass of Object!
So, you claim that languages that use concepts humans don't
understand intuatively are a bad thing, but then propose as
a better language one that has circular definitions in it??!
That makes no sense to any human who knows basic logic.
Infinite recursion in a definition is definately NOT an
example of something being intuative for humans to figure
out. (Unless you are cynically referring to the fact that
many humans eschew logic and accept illogical things (
like a self-creating God.) )
[snip]
:> : So I should probably have said that humans have no experience
:> : dealing with both classes as classes and classes as objects
:> : simultaneously.
:>
:> That's not true either. For example:
:> Reptiles are cold-blodded. (reptile as an objectless class).
:> "Reptile" comes before "Snake" in the dictionary" ("Reptile"
:> is a word, an object.)
: That's not even the same word !!
: You're the one who pointed out that "a reptile", "the reptile",
: "this reptile" and "that reptile" were completely different from
: "reptile" by the simple prepending of an article to the word.
No, quite the opposite. I was using that as an example of
how the same thing is both a class and an object, to counter
what you had said before that. It was not my intention to
say that they were different words. If that's how you read it,
then you got the wrong impression. It was my intention to point
out how one thing does double-duty and therefore humans most
certainly *are* familiar with that concept. It is reflected as
such in our languages (or at least it is in English).
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hotmail been down most of the day
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:47:57 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just posted it because I knew they would fall over themselves trying
> to add it to their pile of twisted "facts".
>
> And they operated true to form!
Please tell me by "they" and "their" you only mean the loud, obnoxious
folk that swear that Linux is God and MS is going to die in 2 days... the
rest of us tend to be sensible, and usually don't bother getting into these
little arguments. Which is why, I suppose, that it appears that "we" have
a pile of twisted "facts", eh? :P
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:38:56 +0100
> Can Linux run pre 386 apps ?
Yes.
I have just played a game of `Alley Cat' (remember that?) from dosemu
under linux. It's not perfect, but it's certainly an 8086 game IIRC.
Also, since most Linux stuff is OSS, pre 386 apps could be recompiled.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:50:30 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8rfm9h$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8rd6gr$26rc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > I'm sorry dude, but sometimes you hear something so silly you
> can't
> > > stop
> > > > >> > from laughing...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I'm sure he'll post the tux results ... it's all they've got...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dont you have something better to do?
> > > >
> > > > > Yup - it's what I do the rest of the time... right now I'm laughing
> at
> > > the
> > > > > sun rep who tried to sell some 10000s to one of my clients...
> > > >
> > > > Oh I remember you, youre the one that thinks (incorrectly) that
> microsoft
> > > > can compete in the heavy-server market. We've all been laughing at
> you
> > > > for some time.
> > >
> > > One name: "w2k data center"
> >
> >
> > Yeah, now show us one that actually works.
> >
>
> start here butthead
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
Big fucking deal.
Microsoft's definition of "working" is "doesn't catch fire and roast the
adjacent equipment when you plug it in"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:51:35 -0400
Static66 wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:07:26 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, STATIC66
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Keep ducking and weaving Loren!! You don't like hearing than
> >> "visionary" Algore is a rich,poluting,beltway boy do you???
> >
> > Something you right-wingers normally pride yourself on being.
>
> HaHaHaHa yes we are all rich, poluting bastards..Still not coming to
> terms with reality are you...
Loren himself is a large pollution source.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:57:13 -0400
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> Mind you, it's stable and reliable even though I run the CVS version
> of most of the components. For people who simply run Helix GNOME or
> such, I imagine the stability is yet better.
Ditto. I've been using the KDE 2.0 CVS exclusively for a few months now
with no problems aside from an occasional bug in a supporting app. And the
only problem I've ever had with the actual desktop is that it was refusing
to logout a couple versions ago, which involved me hitting
CTRL-ALT-Backspace to exit back to the login manager. My home computer
generally stays in KDE 24 hours/day doing various tasks (ie downloading
something large over a 56k modem.. *sigh*)
D. Butler
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
