Linux-Advocacy Digest #263, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Feb 01 07:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing (Peter Hayes)
Re: Which Linux? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: It's just too easy (Terry Porter)
Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft (mlw)
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: New kernel 2.4.1 rocks with IPMASQ ("Adam Warner")
Re: It's just too easy (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: The Windows guy. (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Interesting article (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft (mlw)
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) (Tim Hanson)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (mlw)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Johan Kullstam)
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:45:29 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 02:43:38 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can count on one hand the number of good programmers I know
> > who are also good managers. IMHO they are incompatible professions
> > except for the truly gifted. Most (excuse the use of generalities)
> > don't touch code again as it is now "below them", confining themselves
> > to design documents, long drwn-out meetings, uml diagrams and powerpoint
> > presentations to more senior management.
> > Cynical, me?
>
> This is so true in europe. If you want to advance your career the only
> options are to accept promotion to a management position or to become
> a consultant. In over 20 years as a software engineer most of my
> managers have been ex-software engineers and as managers they were mostly
> useless.
Yeup. Few CEOs are astute enough to seek out and appoint the few who can
contribute at a managerial level and retain an interest in the core
product. Usually it's "those that can, do. Those that can't, manage".
The alternative is a whole lot worse. You appoint to the board smart
talking money men and manipulators, but exclude anyone with any idea of the
product. Look at Railtrack in the UK. Virtually no rail system simply
because Railtrack was run by money men with, it would appear, no regard for
the product, or even the safety of their staff and the travelling public.
Not even an engineer on the board. Several deaths later (Clapham,
Paddington, Hatfield) public pressure produced a u-turn.
> I thought it was different in the US. Isn't it possible for an
> engineer to earn more than his manager?
Power is measured by the size of the pay packet.
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux?
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:54:18 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got a older 486 laptop with 5 meg of ram and a floppy drive, No
> CD-ROM. I want to install a version of Linux on it to get some
> experience for a job position I am applying for in Web Support. Which
> version should I install?
RH 5.2 can go down to 190M including Netscape, X, Apache, ftp, sendmail
and a few other bits and bobs.
RH4.2 is fits nicely on a 386.
Monkey Linux is another very small distro, but it used UMSDOS, not ext2
as the root FS.
If you want to run X as well, you'll ahve to be careful otherwise you
might get a lot of swapping.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 17 Feb 2001 10:55:53 GMT
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:48:49 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Here's my account of adding a NIC (Ne2000isa) to Win98 box yesterday.
>
>Was it an ISA PnP?
>
>>1/ open case
>>2/ plug in NIC
>>3/ powerup pc
>>4/ No hardware detected automatically so go to CONTROL-PANEL, DEVICE-MGR
>>ADD-NEW-HARDWARE, Select from list (auto detect hangs pc), Novel/Anthem
>
>If it wasn't PnP, then I'm not suprised it didn't auto detect it.
Why?
Auto detection is for *non-pnp*. After all, to handle a pnp card you just read
its on board eeprom config or whatever?
EISA was the same, a complete no brainer (why did they ever stop using it, EISA
was too easy!)
Now with ISA cards you definetly have to 'detect' them, as the pc has no
idea what brand the card is, or what memory or i/o it uses.
>
>>5/ alter settings, suggested by Win98 as the interrupt and i/o are wrong
>
>Another feature of non-PnP#?
>
>>Easy hey ;-)
>>
>>Ill take a linux box over a Windows box anyday!
>
>And what happens on the same box with Linux?
Don't know, that box is a Compaq Presario 14sv, which has 32 megs ram and a
Pentium 90Mhz CPU.
I think Linux would have no more trouble with that box than mine did, when I
installed Redhat4.2 and Mandrake7.2 as it also has the same Video and sound
cards as the Compaq, and the *same* Ne2000isa clone card.
My pc found the Ne2000isa without any manual intervention from myself, in both
the above cases.
>
>--
>Pete Goodwin
>---
>On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Hahaha, "Sucker Edition ?"
;-)
>
>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 06:09:05 -0500
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
> > >
> > > > ``Free software is evil'' sez Microsoft.
> > > >
> > > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=mn_hd
> > >
> > > Excuse me, is there anyone out there who thinks this is *funny*?
> > >
> > > Microsoft trying to get the government to view open source software as a
> > > threat the the American way?
> > >
> > > Gee, I just can't stop laughing.
> >
> > If I thought for a moment that our elected officials would let something as
> > important as common sense keep them from accepting "educational" contributions
> > from Microsoft, I would allow myself to laugh.
> >
> > Unfortunately, GW (idiot son of a bad president) proves that our entire system
> > is for sale. Fix a few elections, buy a few people, appoint Ashcroft, it is a
> > sad period in my counties history. I think we have hit rock bottom,
> > unfortunately, they are looking for shovels.
>
> At least he didn't take multi-million dollar contributions in exchange
> for a presidential pardon.
I doubt very much Clinton did, but perhaps there should be some historical
perspective applied by examining the last minute pardons of other presidents.
>
> By the way, what are your SAT scores? We can compare them to GW's and
> see how much of an idiot you are.
I don't wish to share mine, however, I am curious as to what his were. I am
betting below 1200.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:08:59 +0000
>>>>> 64 bits operating systems are extreme overkill
>>>
>>>> 32 bits are underkill. 64 bits is the next logical step.
>>>> 2x as wide bus, 2x as much data per clock cycle.
>>>
>>> This is entirely incorrect. We've had 64bit data busses in PCs at
>>> least since the introduction of the Pentium.
>>
>>
>>The Pentium can only operate on 32 bits at a time. It has a 32 bit ALU.
>>
>>>> IA64 runs IA32 code like a P100, so they really, really need a 64 bit
>>>> OS in order to run at a decent speed.
>>>
>>> This is also hogwash - a 64bit OS is probably slower. What you
>>> probably
>>
>>No, I mean a 64 bit OS at N Mhz will be faster than a 32 bit OS at N
>>mhz.
>>
>
> Depends on what you want to do. If your making pictures or moving masses
> of text it's a good deal faster. If your working with BIG numbers, the
> performance difference is noticable.
>
> If your doing simple accounting math, then the difference is hardly
> noticable or moving small chunks of text then the difference is hardly
> noticable. You might not see any performance gain at all.
True, if you're not running at full utilization, you won't see a gain.
The other guy thought it'd be worse, though.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New kernel 2.4.1 rocks with IPMASQ
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:16:06 +1300
Well I've got everything working again.
>> For the life of me I can't get realplayer to work with 2.2.17 IP
>> masquerading (I understand a bug was introduced in 2.2.17). So my aim
>> is to set up 2.4.x NAT and see if that will work.
>
> native iptables, or ipchains emulation?
This is my simple NAT and packet filtering:
http://netfilter.kernelnotes.org/unreliable-guides/packet-filtering-HOWTO/packet-filtering-HOWTO.linuxdoc-9.html
# Masquerade out ppp0
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -j MASQUERADE
# Disallow NEW and INVALID incoming or forwarded packets from ppp0.
iptables -A INPUT -i ppp0 -m state --state NEW,INVALID -j DROP
iptables -A FORWARD -i ppp0 0 -m state --state NEW,INVALID -j DROP
# Turn on IP forwarding
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
Simple, eh?
I would expect that Realplayer should work. I have installed:
rp8.linux20.libc6.i386.cs1.rpm
But I can't view the:
"Red Hat's retort: Open source enables innovation"
Available from http://news.cnet.com.
Can you view this stream with iptables NAT?
Thanks,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:47:35 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Even though network cards are extremely well supported in Linux you did
> >some research to find an unsupported one?
>
> Both the Netgear card and the D-Link card are listed as supported. Yet
> Mandrake failed to see I had added another supported network card.
>
> >What was the brand and model of the network card Pete that Mandrake
> >didn't recognise?
>
> The D-Link card.
>
What D-Link card?
I have a D-Link in one of my linux-machines, and it was detected
automatically and runs without any problems.
Peter
--
begin I-LOVE-WINDOWS.txt.vbs
http://www.klickibunti.org/buntibunti.html
Society against GUI Domination
end
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:06:15 +0100
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>
> Steve Mading wrote:
> >
> > Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : DOS (and windows console) can pipe the output of one command into the
> > : next (e.g. 'DIR |more' which pipes the output of DIR into the 'more'
> > : command)
> >
> > No. It might look like that's what's happening on the surface, but in
> > reality DOS ran the programs one at a time. First it stored the output
> > of the first program temporarily in a hidden file. Second it ran
> > the second program and fed it that file as input. True pipes require
> > multiple simultaneous processes to be running, something DOS didn't
> > have.
>
> MS-DOS..no.
>
> Digital Research's DR-DOS..yes.
>
Wrong
--
Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:37:34 +0100
Todd wrote:
>
> Actually, W2k has rcmd... a more secured version of telnet. NT/W2k has
> had rcmd and rcmdsvr for quite some time... one reason that NT lacked a
> telnet
> server. It just wasn't needed in a Windows only environment.
>
> -Todd
>
Well, that is really fine. As you already said, "windows only environment".
This fine piece of rcmd does not any good in anything else than a "w o e"
Why on earth did MS even do that? Where they THAT sure that windows
would replace unix? Then they are even more out of their minds than
most here think they are.
Peter
--
"The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then
hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog and
smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:22:01 GMT
Edward Rosten writes:
>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tholen, David
>>>>>>>>>>> 1505 Alexander St,
>>>>>>>>>>> Honolulu, HI 96822-4978
>>>>>>>>>>> (808)941-3552
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tholen, David Alexander St Apt 406, Honolulu, HI
>>>>>>>>>>> 96822
>>>>>>>>>> Of what relevance is that, Kulkis?
>>>>>>>>> Is this correct (even if it is not relavent)?
>>>>>>>> What difference would it make?
>>>>>>> To what?
>>>>>> More like "to whom", given that you're the one asking the question.
>>>>>> Or do you consider yourself a "what"?
>>>>> It would go some way towards demonstrating Kulkis' credibility if it
>>>>> were true.
>>>> The issue is not Kulkis' credibility at the moment, but rather the
>>>> relevance of his posting.
>>> Where did you get that idea?
>> From what I wrote immediately after he posted that material.
> My question is not about the relevance of Kulkis' post.
Obviously, which makes it non sequitur, given that the issue I raised
was about the relevance.
>>> My question was not about the relevance of Kulkis' post, but about its
>>> accuracy.
>> Thus non sequitur.
> Not every post has to follow exactly from the previous one.
Obviously, given that yours was non sequitur, as I already told you.
>>> Whether relavent or not, is Kulkis' post accurate?
>> What difference would it make?
> To whom or to what?
More like "to whom", given that you're the one asking the question. Or
do you consider yourself a "what"?
>>> (This has now become a question of his cerdibility).
>> On what basis do you make that claim, and what is "cerdibility"?
> A typographic error caused by me trying to touch type with limited
> success.
You didn't explain the basis for your claim.
>>>>>>>> My question is about the relevance, not
>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>> Precisely. What difference would it make?
>>>>> To what or to whom?
>>>> More like "to whom", given that you're the one asking the question. Or
>>>> do you consider yourself a "what"?
>>> I am both an object and a person, so either will do. So, to what or
>>> whom would this post make a difference to?
>> You apparently, given that you're the one asking the question, as if it
>> would make a difference.
> Irrelavent.
How can my direct answer to your question be irrelevant?
>>>>>>>> the correctness. I could also ask about the redundancy.
>>>>>>> Is it correct (relavence aside)?
>>>>>> What difference would it make?
>>>>> To what or to whom?
>>>> More like "to whom", given that you're the one asking the question. Or
>>>> do you consider yourself a "what"?
>>> This part should be ended here for the sake of berivity.
>> What is "berivity"?
> Another typographic error.
As opposed to a typographical error?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 06:34:33 -0500
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
> > >
> > > > ``Free software is evil'' sez Microsoft.
> > > >
> > > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=mn_hd
> > >
> > > Excuse me, is there anyone out there who thinks this is *funny*?
> > >
> > > Microsoft trying to get the government to view open source software as a
> > > threat the the American way?
> > >
> > > Gee, I just can't stop laughing.
> >
> > If I thought for a moment that our elected officials would let something as
> > important as common sense keep them from accepting "educational"
> > contributions from Microsoft, I would allow myself to laugh.
> >
> > Unfortunately, GW (idiot son of a bad president) proves that our entire
> > system is for sale. Fix a few elections, buy a few people, appoint
> > Ashcroft, it is a sad period in my counties history. I think we have
> > hit rock bottom, unfortunately, they are looking for shovels.
>
> Socialist propaganda is clouding your thinking.
What?
>
> The election tampering was committed by Demoncrooks, not Republicans.
How so?
> The only "buying" seems to have been by the Chinese and others who
> wanted favors, nuclear weapons secrets, and pardons from
> the Glingon/Goron duo...
Oh please. I don't buy it. Lots of people have stayed in the lincoln bedroom
before clinton was president. Lots of people have been pardoned.
Why wasn't Reagan impeached for funding funding the rebels in central america?
Why wasn't Ollie North prosecuted? As far as I can see, that administration
committed more crimes than clinton's ever did.
> Ashcroft ... is opposed by the left PRECISELY because he has stated
> that he intends to uphold the law (anethema to leftists, because they
> consider themselves to be above the law).
That depends. Up holding the lay is important, using the prosecutorial powers
of the office to force a social agenda is wrong.
>
> We hit rock bottom at the end of the Klinton/Gore administration.
> The Sore/Loserman debacle being the application of a jackhammer
> to get even deeper.
Do you honestly believe that the Florida election was not tampered with?
Thousands of ballots were destroyed.
>
> So far, I see Bush pushing for refunding the taxpayer for over-charges,
> and putting a priority on the FIRST order of business for the Chief
> Executive of any nation....namely, seeing that the military is
> a) properly funded and equipped, and
> b) not squandering (A) on foolish deployments.
I don't understand this non-sense. We had 8 years of relative peace and a good
economy.
In the previous administration, how many wars did we have? How many innocent
civilians did our military kill?
Big deal Clinton had his flaws, but ALL elected officials are scumbags. Can you
think of a single one that does not stink of scandal and hypocrisy? To single
out Clinton and vilify him publicly for what they all do themselves is the
worst sort of political assassination.
lastly Clinton's "flaws" were of a personal nature. There is no evidence that
they had any affect on his ability to be president. The republican witch hunt
to destroy him continues to do more harm to this country than Clinton ever
could.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:32:02 GMT
Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Flacco"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> I think that'll go for many, many people. Just hastens the day
> >> the world becomes Microsoft free.
> >
> > Unfortunately the Linux community thinks this will happen
> > without catering to current MS addicts' needs.
> >
> > A targeted "Windows Migration" distro is really needed in order
> > to capitalize on MS's heavy-handedness here.
> >
> Well,
>
> Someone is working on it:
> http://www.redmondlinux.org
>
> This is actually a serious effort, I do think however that they
> are too small-scale to really make a dent, however the beauty of
> Open-Source: If they get an official release out, other vendors
> can profit from their experiences.
> I for one wouldn't touch this (I hate it that they took that 'My
> Computer' metaphor from MS. I *know* it's my computer, I don't
> need my bloody OS to tell me).
It's a good effort. I know Joe Cheek and he's a good guy as well as
being knowledgeable.
--
Broad-mindedness, n.:
The result of flattening high-mindedness out.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 06:45:10 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Tim Hanson wrote:
> >>
> >> No doubt Allchin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) knows full well what he's
> >> doing. He's extracting a little mileage out of Napster concerns to
> >> equate open source software to stealing songs over the 'net. I'm sure
> >> he and his cronies are having a laugh over the gullibility of that
> >> interviewer (and at how angry they made Linux advocates) now.
> >>
> >> These are evil people. Really down there.
> >
> > That is something that concerns me. Microsoft is "evil" but not because
> > it intends to do wrong, but it intends to do without regard, and
> > sometimes to the spite, of others.
> >
> > Looking back, M$ was once the little guy, and we cheered it on because
> > we thought it would change things. It has become Fidel Castro, using
> > past revolutionary glory to hide its crimes and be the "establishment."
> > Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Perhaps we should have chosen
> > CP/M, maybe Kildal would have conducted business with just a few more
> > scruples.
>
> And the pigs started walking on two legs...
Do you not think so?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:47:19 GMT
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : In article <96i0us$d7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :>: Demonizing another organization doesn't really help, I'm afraid. IBM
> :>: doesn't monopolize consumer OSes.
> :>
> :>Well, not recently anyway. Their past monopolizations are
> :>singlehandedly responsible for EBCDIC and COBOL lasting much
> :>longer than they had any right to as viable choices.
> :>
>
> : EBCDIC maybe, not COBOL. Computer languages have tremendous
> : longevity if they meet the needs of even a small fraction of the
> : populace.
>
> : LISP and BASIC are still with us after years of being derided by
> : Computer Scientists.
>
> BASIC might fit that description, but LISP was not derided by Computer
> Scientists. They loved it. People who wanted to get practical work
> done hated it because it is a lot of work to think of every algorithm
> as a case of recursion, although it is in theory possible.
Lisp, i.e., common lisp, does not require recursion. there is the
LOOP macro. you are perhaps thinking of the teaching toy, scheme.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:04:04 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tholen, David
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1505 Alexander St,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Honolulu, HI 96822-4978
>>>>>>>>>>>> (808)941-3552
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tholen, David Alexander St Apt 406, Honolulu, HI
>>>>>>>>>>>> 96822
>>>>>>>>>>> Of what relevance is that, Kulkis?
>>>>>>>>>> Is this correct (even if it is not relavent)?
>>>>>>>>> What difference would it make?
>>>>>>>> To what?
>>>>>>> More like "to whom", given that you're the one asking the
>>>>>>> question. Or do you consider yourself a "what"?
>>>>>> It would go some way towards demonstrating Kulkis' credibility if
>>>>>> it were true.
>>>>> The issue is not Kulkis' credibility at the moment, but rather the
>>>>> relevance of his posting.
>>>> Where did you get that idea?
>>> From what I wrote immediately after he posted that material.
>> My question is not about the relevance of Kulkis' post.
> Obviously, which makes it non sequitur, given that the issue I raised
> was about the relevance.
A conclusion can be a non sequitur. A question can't be. I am raising an
entrely new question, but you do not seem to want to answer it.
>>>> My question was not about the relevance of Kulkis' post, but about
>>>> its accuracy.
>>> Thus non sequitur.
>> Not every post has to follow exactly from the previous one.
> Obviously, given that yours was non sequitur, as I already told you.
>>>> Whether relavent or not, is Kulkis' post accurate?
>>> What difference would it make?
>> To whom or to what?
> More like "to whom", given that you're the one asking the question. Or
> do you consider yourself a "what"?
Either.
>>>> (This has now become a question of his cerdibility).
>
>>> On what basis do you make that claim, and what is "cerdibility"?
>
>> A typographic error caused by me trying to touch type with limited
>> success.
>
> You didn't explain the basis for your claim.
If he is telling the truth, then he is credible. If he is lying, he is
less credible. TYhat is te basis for my claim.
>>>>>>>>> My question is about the relevance, not
>
>>>>>>>> So?
>
>>>>>>> Precisely. What difference would it make?
>
>>>>>> To what or to whom?
>
>>>>> More like "to whom", given that you're the one asking the question.
>>>>> Or do you consider yourself a "what"?
>
>>>> I am both an object and a person, so either will do. So, to what or
>>>> whom would this post make a difference to?
>
>>> You apparently, given that you're the one asking the question, as if
>>> it would make a difference.
>
>> Irrelavent.
>
> How can my direct answer to your question be irrelevant?
Based on your awnder to my question about your question ("Precisely.
What difference would it make?") my conclusion is that that your question
is irrelavent. That is what I am refering to.
>>>>>>>>> the correctness. I could also ask about the redundancy.
>
>>>>>>>> Is it correct (relavence aside)?
>
>>>>>>> What difference would it make?
>
>>>>>> To what or to whom?
>
>>>>> More like "to whom", given that you're the one asking the question.
>>>>> Or do you consider yourself a "what"?
>
>>>> This part should be ended here for the sake of berivity.
>
>>> What is "berivity"?
>
>> Another typographic error.
>
> As opposed to a typographical error?
Typographic and typographical have the same meaning. They are under the
same entry in my dictionary.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 17 Feb 2001 12:02:40 GMT
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:01:51 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>It's the classic Penguinista "Twist and Shout" method to take the
>>>focus off of a particular shortcoming of Linux and throw accusations
>>>at you instead of Linsux.
>>>
>>Its the two-trolls, Goodwin and "Amy/Steve/Flathead, etc" doing a
>>Wintroll duet.
>>They're doing the clasic "Generate Linux FUD, then when its shot down,
>>get troll #2 to support it".
>>
>>Yawn...
>
>Yawn indeed.
>
>In this article I admitted I made a mistake and apologised.
I did see that, the mistake related to your header title, which was
not only inacurate, it was inflammatory.
> In another
>article, I said there were others who have found Linux Mandrake to be
>inferior.
Fair enough.
> I was accused of being a liar, and then I posted the URL's, which
>the accuser failed to acknowledge. Flatfish is referring to this, I
>believe, when he calls it the "Twist and Shout" method.
While you pay any credance to "Heather/Clare/Flatfish" you will always be
disbelieved on COLA. He/her/it is a known Wintroll.
>
>There's no wintroll duet going on. You want there to be one, don't you,
Honestly Pete, I couldnt care less, I call em as I see em:)
>because you desperately want to believe what you say.
I *do* believe what I say, otherwise I wouldnt say it.
>
>--
>Pete Goodwin
>---
>On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
