Linux-Advocacy Digest #221, Volume #31 Wed, 3 Jan 01 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (JM)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (JM)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Peter Hayes)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Shane Phelps)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Form@C)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux, it is great. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux, it is great. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Joseph T.
Adams")
Re: Linux vs Microsoft ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Could only... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:07:23 +0200
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:44:18 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> Microsoft is responsible for canned drives where
>> you end up paying for Windows even if you don't
>> want it.
>>
>> They are responsible for making proprietary formats
>> for Internet and data storage purposes which end
>> up locking in customers to Microsoft only markets.
>>
>> They are responsible for cheapening computer hardware
>> in the form of Win products which are inferior to
>> regular products as they rely on YOUR CPU power to
>> power the peripheral!
>They do the same thing, right?
>They cost *much* less.
>The customer can easily find out why the price differ so much.
>So I can buy a cheap, fully functional hardware, or another on much higher
>cost.
>Why would I've to pay for the costly hardware?
Because it won't MUNCH up your resources, and it won't rely on system
specific drivers.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:07:26 +0200
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:37:20 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> >As usual, you Linux advocates don't know what you're talking about when
>it
>> >comes to what you criticize.
>> Wow! It has TAB COMPLETION!!! Fuck me! That's amazing! Next you'll be
>> telling me that you can choose not to use the GUI!
>Actually, you can. But it's not quite so simple. You need a tool like
>VenturCom's Target Designer and Component Designer which allow you to select
>which components you want in a target OS, including to run headless.
Ahah: you have to get EXTRA components just to do it. And then I
suppose you'll be left with Microsoft's VAST selection of QUALITY
command-line shells.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:59:53 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:56:59 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Form@C" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >>
> > > >> now there's a big PKB! ....tell me, do you also laugh at "00100101"?
> > > >
> > > >Only an idiot would ask such a question.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And you really think that acronyms such as "GNU" and "YAST" were devised
> > > without a sense of humour? There *is* humour in unix/Linux but it can be
> > > strangely warped...
> >
> > Hell, the name UNIX itself is a pun.
>
> Of what?
Multics
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 09:12:40 +1100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Form@C" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >>
> > > >> now there's a big PKB! ....tell me, do you also laugh at "00100101"?
> > > >
> > > >Only an idiot would ask such a question.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And you really think that acronyms such as "GNU" and "YAST" were devised
> > > without a sense of humour? There *is* humour in unix/Linux but it can be
> > > strangely warped...
> >
> > Hell, the name UNIX itself is a pun.
>
> Of what?
MULTICS
------------------------------
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:07:06 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
>
>Did it ever occur to you that REGARDLESS of whether the majority of
>users "care about" operating systems or not...anybody who uses a
>computer has a de-facto responsibility to learn whatever is necessary to
>do what they need to do.
>
The point that I was trying to make is that the OS is an essential part of
the system but one which *should* remain invisible to the end user. That
particular individual has the obligation to learn how to use the
application in question - after all, that is usually what they are being
paid for when they use a computer at work. They have *no obligation
whatever* to learn detailed operating system commands. It is a skill which
they should not need! In the days of MSDOS many users never learned what to
do at a C:> prompt - everything was set up for them via text displays and
batch files like 1.bat, 2.bat and 3.bat to select items from a menu
(horrible idea now!). Why should they want to start now?
When you use Linux, as you are aware, you are actually interacting with the
Linux kernel via your chosen shell. You don't actually see Linux itself.
Likewise a Windows 3.1 user interacted (indirectly, of course) with
MSDOS.SYS. In both cases the user has a choice of interface with their
chosen kernel program. A mobile phone is an application running on a
specialised microprocessor - which is probably running a kernel or micro-
kernel of some type as this would make writing the interface easier across
a range of similar hardware. The end result of all this is that the actual
kernel, which I would regard as the principal part of the OS, disappears.
In theory, at least, it should be possible to "plug & play" OS kernels as
they have many of the simpler commands in common. You could, with
appreciable work of course, run the Win98 GUI on top of a Linux kernel! If
this was done correctly then you wouldn't see Linux (the kernel) at all,
but you would have inherited its attributes. X also "talks" to the kernel
and acts as a middle-man for the chosen desktop. Once again, much of the
kernel is hidden from the computer user. Why, then, is it so bad to produce
a simple, graphic, interface to the kernel for users who are happy to
accept the reduced functionality that this may bring? Why should they have
to learn a lot of additional skills - "just in case something goes wrong"?
Surely, in a stable OS, there shouldn't be much going wrong at all!
>Microsoft makes a lot of money on a BIG BIG BIG LIE that the amount of
>"necessary" knowledge approaches zero.
>
>Nothing could be farther from the truth. The amount of inane, trivial,
>"special case" information you need to know about a Microsoft system is
>HUGE compared to a Unix or Linux system.
>
Hang on, you have mentioned both "necessary" and "special case" here. Isn't
"necessary" knowledge that which is required to actually *use* the system
and "special case" knowledge that which may be required to *maintain or
modify* the system? I agree with the M$ goal here that the amount of
knowledge required to *use* the system should be minimal. The amount of
knowledge required to *maintain and modify* a system should also be minimal
if at all possible - I make no claims that either M$ or Linux is better in
this respect as I am not experienced enough in the systems maintenance
field. I have, however, installed,used and maintained my own computer under
both OSs and my observations are as "a fairly knowledgable user".
<completely irrelevent "winuser-bashing" comment snipped>
>>
>> For the end user anything which gets in the way of the application
>> which he/she is using is *wrong*. In other words, if you need to
>> control the OS directly to start, use or end an application then that
>> OS is a bad one.
>>
>> Even installing and removing software is only acceptable as a function
>> of the OS if it is carried out by someone trained for the task - not
>> the application user.
>
>And yet, Microsoft ENCOURAGES exactly this. Why is that?
>
Eh? They put tools into the Windows GUI system so that the user can install
and remove software *without* going "underneath" Windows to a "real",
"command line" OS. (They actually claim that the W9x family *is* the OS and
it doesn't run on top of DOS - is this what you mean?).
>
>> If desktop shortcuts to scripts on a GUI interface do
>> this then fine, the user can do it. But those routines have to be as
>> bomb- proof as possible!
>
>And your point is?
>
That if you are going to let the user install & remove software from the
system then the mechanism for doing so should be as foolproof as possible.
The user should *never* be presented with system-related error messages,
although these may be logged for later investigation if required.
>
>>
>> Are you seriously saying that a business should train every one of its
>> computer users to use a CLI?
>
>Strawman argument, and you know it, shit-head.
>
Nope. It's perfectly valid.
<quote>
> Many of these people don't know what a CLI is remember, never
> mind how to use one!
That's their own fault.
</quote>
>From this I deduce that you consider that the employer has a duty to train
their employees to recognise & use a CLI.
>I'm saying that hobbling the CLI like Microsoft does CONSIDERABLY
>LIMITS the maximum productivity of the average user.
>
It definitely limits the productivity of system maintenance personel, but I
doubt if it affects the average user very much. I agree that all CLIs
provided as part of M$ packages to date have been a shambles!
>the Microsoft UI is aimed at the novice user. For exactly how many
>years (decades now) is a user supposed to be treated as a newbie????
>
>Denying the user a CLI basically means keeping the User in a state
>of novice-dom forever...
>
And this, of course, is a "bad thing" when you are employing someone to
type in huge amounts of data... It doesn't matter to the employer what the
typist's computer experience is - as a matter of fact, "just above basic
newbie" is probably about right in most cases!
The M$ UI is aimed at the computer *user*, not the *administrator*. It is
designed to make running applications as simple as possible. That is why a
GUI is used - people tend to think in images, not in words. Anyone who
wants a decent CLI for KERNEL32 is quite welcome to write it - AFAIK there
is plenty of information available!
I'm not defending NT or W2K here as I don't believe that they are
particularly good products! They may be, but that is for others to argue
since I don't regularly use either. The *usability* of the Windows GUI,
though, is *very* good by anyone's standards.
>
>Are you seriously saying that a business should deploy an OS that allows
>ANY untrained user to fuck around with the system, as if he/she were an
>admin?
>
It obviously depends on the business and the particular situation. I know
of many cases where the users do not have *any access at all* to any
software on their machine other than their designated application. These
machines usually don't have any removable storage either. I also know of
cases where the user is *encouraged* to carry out limited experimentation
on the system (e.g. trying new software etc - nothing ridiculous!). I'm not
completely defending either view, but they both have some merit.
Where a business is using a network, with or without servers, then it is
obviously better to have system security as there is the potential for much
more damage than with a single machine. Security is something which all
versions of Windows up to 9x are particularly poor at!
IMHO a sensible business would balance several issues:
a) how easy is it for the employees to carry out their tasks?
will we need to provide specialised training?
b) how easy is the system to maintain?
will we need to employ specialised personnel?
c) how secure (from the operators) is the system required to be?
how secure (from other sources) is the system required to be?
These are not in any particular order. I have probably over-simplified, but
you get the point.
>From a home user's point of view, the only security which is really
necessary is a good firewall for internet access and an up-to-date virus
scanner. Anything else just gets in the way.
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:09:45 +0000
Nick Condon wrote:
> Because you're working in a cross-platform environment? Or does your sig
> contain terminological inexactitudes?
I see, so I have to work in the LCD do I?
You have heard of the Kylix product, have you?
> If you genuinely knew anything about programming, then you would realise
> that an API that is "always changing" is a *bad* thing.
WIN32 isn't always changing. It's being extended.
As for an API that's always changing being a "bad" thing, where have you
been living for the last decade?
>> --
>> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
>Or is he?
Well, this is being posted with KNode. I would have thought that was
obvious if you examine the message headers. I could of course, be faking
it, but why would I do that?
Are you really so paranoid as to believe that I, someone who actually likes
Windows, that I might lie about what I'm running?
If that is the case, then I can only pity you.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:19:03 +0000
Todd wrote:
> > Out of curiousity, how often do your 2000 boxes crash, blue screen or
> > whatever (if at all)?
>
> Thankfully, MS seems to have cured that with 2000. Our uptimes are very
> impressive given that we need to reboot to install the SP1 and some
> patches for 2000.
Ah, you didn't answer my question, how long? How impressive are you
uptimes? 1 day, 1 hour, 1 week, 1 month...
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:18:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Hayes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:09:33 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:05:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:31:55 -0500
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > I'd like to see someone steal Microsoft source then give it
>> >> > > back to them -- Fully debugged. ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > Why not make some cosmetic changes, and SELL the debugged product.
>> >> >
>> >> > What kind of case would Microsoft have
>> >> >
>> >> > "Oh loook, they stole our code and fixed all the damn bugs!
>> >> > They must be stopped!"
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Is this why you have said "DOS vedanya" to Microsoft OSes? :-)
>> >>
>> >
>> >Actually, of all the OS's I've used, Microsoft is the "newbie"...
>> >
>> >So...my frustration with their low quality comes from over a DECADE
>> >of using reliable systems before having been introduced to Microcrap.
>>
>> One could quibble here, admittedly.
>>
>> Unix: 1969 - 1970.
>> v6 < 1980
>> v7 1982?
>> MIcrosoft: incorporated 1975?
>
>Yes, making BASIC for the Altair. Microsoft didn't make any OSs until IBM
>came along in 1981 looking for the OS for "Project Chess". Even then all
>they did was modify Tim Paterson's QDOS.
Sounds about right.
>
>> first DOS 1981?
>> Windows 3.1 1985?
>
>Win3.1 was 1992. Win1.03, the first official release, is dated 1986
Oh, OK. Evidently my timeline is off. (This wouldn't surprise me;
this part I'm doing from memory.)
>
>> Windows 95 1995
>> Linux: 0.01 1991
>
>I thought Linus Torvald's first posting was in October 1991.
I remember 1991 from other discussions -- but it's either 91 or 92,
obviously. :-)
>
>> 1.0.9 1994
>> 1.2.13 1995
>> 2.0.0 1996
>> 2.0.38 1997
>> 2.2.0 1999
>> 2.3.99-pre9 2000 (development)
>
>Peter
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 94 days, 10:34, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:20:52 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Todd wrote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> More intimidation from Microshaft employees.
Either that or you're paranoid.
What have you got to hide? Why should you be intimidated by someone
watching what you do? Are you (...gasp...) doing something you shouldn't be
doing?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: 3 Jan 2001 22:19:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> They are responsible for cheapening computer hardware
:> in the form of Win products which are inferior to
:> regular products as they rely on YOUR CPU power to
:> power the peripheral!
: They do the same thing, right?
No. Not even close.
They're slower, of much lower quality overall, and relegate almost all
the actual work to the machine's CPU, costing you time and therefore
money.
: They cost *much* less.
Generally, no, they don't.
They might cost a *little* less if your time is worth nothing, but if
you work for a living, then they actually cost FAR more in the end.
More money for less quality . . . not what I'd call a deal.
: The customer can easily find out why the price differ so much.
The average nontechnical customer doesn't know what a modem is, and is
therefore rather easily defrauded by anyone who claims that a
particular device is a "modem" when it's not.
: So I can buy a cheap, fully functional hardware, or another on much higher
: cost.
It isn't fully functional. It robs your CPU, steals your time, makes
an already unstable OS even less stable, and is tied to one or two
versions of one operating system, with no guarantee that it will work
with even future versions of the same OS.
: Why would I've to pay for the costly hardware?
Because it's real, it works, it doesn't rob you, and will last much
longer.
And, if your time is worth anything, it's cheaper in the long run too.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 17:23:17 -0500
sfcybear wrote:
>
> In article <bBg46.7729$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So here it is the new year and no new Linux kernel yet. Goes to
> show
> > > > that Linux's due dates are no better than anyone elses.
> > >
> > > Who cares? When it is released, it will work, unlike MS who delays
> and
> > > delays, and eventually releases a buggy project because Marketing
> says
> > > it has too.
> >
> > Oh, that must be why there were something like 6 or so kernel patches
> > released within weeks of 2.2's release.
>
> Getting fixes withen weeks of a release is a hell of a lot better than
> waiting 6 months for a service pack from MS!
During which time, Microshaft denies that the problems even exist...
>
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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 (C) 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]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 17:26:06 -0500
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> I don't understand all this shit that happens in the US. Here in New
> Zealand there is a gradual move towared business being more socially
> responsible. Some case examples would be the Warehouse, Hubbards Foods,
> Mainfreight, all highly sucessfull business focused on profit AND people.
Practically every socialist policy mandated by the US government was
FIRST offered (as an attractive incentive) by the large corporations here.
The difference is volountarily offering carrots, to attract better
employees, versus being beaten over the stick by government busy-bodies
who have never had to meet a payroll month after month, year after year.
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> > kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> >> Overly simplistic and xenaphobic to say the least. Posters/Readers, goto:
> >>
> >> http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_324000/324871.asp
> >>
> >> and read some of the comments. Society in American thinks different
> >> when compared to the societies in other countries. Although these types
> >> of things are common in the US, where I live (New Zealand), we as a
> >> country would be horrified, and this issue would have been put on the
> >> top of the list for parliamentry discussion and law reform. I also find
> >> it rather ammusing that so many countries see America as the symbol of
> >> democracy, yet, the government is controlled, not by the people, but by
> >> minority special interest groups using their money and influence to sway
> >> decisions regarding laws to suite their agenda, and large corperations
> >> funding parties (such as the Republicans) to influence the outcome of a
> >
> >
> > That's a myth. The Democrats are in bed with corporate America FAR
> > more than the Republicans.
> >
> > Republicans do a lot to preserve the rights of SMALL businesses
> > AGAINST the plutocratic ways of "big business".
> >
> >
> > Here's a general rule of thumb....WHATEVER the Democrats accuse
> > the Republicans of doing...you can guarantee that the Democrats
> > are 10x to 100x as guilty of the same offense....much like the
> > preacher who constantly harps on and on about adultery while
> > secretly running around on his wife.
> >
> >
> >> trial, aka Microsoft vs. the DOJ. Before anything regarding gun law
> >> reform happens, the whole legal and political system needs and absolute
> >> overhall, esp. in the area of electing people to parliament/office.
> >> Until these minority interest groups and corperations stay out of
> >> politics and get back to what they should be doing, and that getting on
> >> with life and running their business ethnically and legally, reforms in
> >> necessary areas to protect innocent citizens will never be passed.
> >>
> >> kiwiunixman
> >>
> >> worldviewer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Could only happen in America:
> >>>
> >>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4277328.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.zfree.co.nz
> >>
> >> --
> >> "Like a midget at a urinal, you gotta keep on your toes"
> >> Naked Gun 33 1/3
> >>
> >> "Like a blind man at an orgy, you gotta feel your way out"
> >> Naked Gun 33 1/3
> >> ____
> >>
> >> Unix Programmer:
> >>
> >> "If it an't broken, don't fix it"
> >>
> >> Microsoft Programmer:
> >>
> >> "If it an't broken and working perfectly, then there must be a problem"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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 (C) 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.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
