Linux-Advocacy Digest #591, Volume #32 Fri, 2 Mar 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Ed Allen)
Re: I will now perform a neat trick (Ray Chason)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: So, here's something to chew on... ("Bryant Charleston, MCSE")
Re: Napster alternative: hack people's [Windows] hard drives (Ray Chason)
Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure! ("Chad Myers")
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Napster alternative: hack people's [Windows] hard drives (Brent Pathakis)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("JS PL")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (.)
Re: [OT] .sig (Michael Powe)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:01:02 GMT
In article <8Omn6.915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I'm not using an argument from ignorance. MS has stated quite clearly
>that
>> >no conversion was attempted, much less a failed one. It's an anonymous
>> >source in a less than credible news site versus the actual people that
>would
>> >know. You choose to believe the anonymous sources because you want to.
>> >
>> It is not as if we don't know they lie when it suits them.
>>
>> Bill Gates said in an interview "Our software has no significant
>> number of bugs that people want fixed."
>
>No, now you are lying. What he really said was "There are no significant
>bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want
>fixed."
>
>http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
>
>The meaning is entirely different from what you tried to claim. He's not
>saying there aren't significant bugs or that nobody wants them fixed if
>there are. He's saying there aren't any significant bugs which affect a
>significant number of users to the point that they demand they be fixed. In
>other words, he's saying there are significant bugs, but they effect a small
>fraction of the users, and are thus statistically not worth fixing
>specifically for those users.
>
>What you claim is that gates is saying there are no significant bugs or if
>there are, nobody wants them fixed, which is a preposterous statement.
>
The Sock Pupet briefings must have dealt with that one specifically
for you to have rehearsed that so well.
Since the interviewer took away the meaning that Bill was insulting
his customers I believe that his handlers had not coached him about
avoiding "preposterous statement"s yet.
>> >> And unrefuted.
>> >
>> >What exactly do you call the MS official statement that the rumors are
>> >false, if not a refutation?
>> >
>> Spin ? PR ? Covering up ?
>>
>> You pick, they all fit.
>
>So you are also trying to say that the claims in the article are unrefuted?
>
I am saying that all corporate marketing departments that I have
dealt with from inside or out lie incessently, its what they think
their job is.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will now perform a neat trick
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:02:21 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>Heh. Well good luck; judging from his .sig, it takes truly inspired
>idiocy to be enshrined therein. :-) Mere run of the mill moronity
>doesn't make the cut.
And not just any "truly inspired idiocy," else there'd be something
like this:
R. Aaron Kulkis is a spammer and all-around thick-headed jerk who
doesn't understand the first thing about Usenet etiquette.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 2 Mar 2001 04:00:09 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby) writes:
>In article <97k6f1$jsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Dan Pop" writes:
>
>>Not so. The type compatibility in this context ignores any qualifiers.
>>N869 (6.7.5.3 #11):
>>
>> (In the determination of
>> type compatibility and of a composite type, each parameter
>> declared with function or array type is taken as having the
>> adjusted type and each parameter declared with qualified
>> type is taken as having the unqualified version of its
>> declared type.)
>
>const char * is not a const qualified type, it is a pointer to a const
>qualified type.
Right. I see how having foo defined as taking a char * as argument, but
declared as taking a const char * as argument can lead to compiler
confusion, but not the other way round: the compiler is forced to be
more conservative if the function is declared as having a char * argument,
so having the function defined with a const char * cannot hurt.
Having the "wrong" printf declaration in scope would generate diagnostics
for printf calls supplying a const char * as format argument, but should
be OK if the format argument is char *. I.e.
printf((const char *)"hello, world\n");
would require a diagnostic, although it's compatible with the
definition of printf, but
printf("hello, world\n");
is still OK.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: "Bryant Charleston, MCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:12:28 GMT
Cold boot time, buddy! :-(
"Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97mlhm$1gu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So, under Windows 2000 Pro, i was merrily surfing along with 256M RAM, and
> ICQ, AIM and Outlook Expres, and Livejournal's client running in the
> background..
>
> Went to start Musicmatch Jukebox, and things started to act odd..so, i
> closed MM. Things were still acting odd. CTRL-ALT-DELETE, brought up the
> "taskmanager" and found t he PID for Windows Explorer was using 95-100%
CPU
> time.
>
> Time to kill it.
>
> Clicked "Kill Process."
>
> "Action denied."
>
> What the fuck?..
>
> Clicked it again.
>
> "Action denied."
>
> Grr..
>
> Logged out of my non-admin user account, and tried as Administrator.
>
> "Action denied."
>
> Grr!!!..
>
> Logged back into the non-admin account. Still had the same processes in
the
> background. Still frozen at 95-100% CPU time.
>
> Now, I assume that Windows will refuse to let one disable things and turn
> off things, to maintain system stability. But when you have a runaway
> process like that, you've got to try to kill it, and restart it again,
> right? I mean, under the UNIX world, I can always hit a keystroke, log
into
> another console, and ps all i like to find the runaway process, and kill
it
> by process id, log back out, and carry on my merry day, right?
>
> I mean, rebooting is a sign of surrender, isn't it? When you've exhausted
> everything you can think of, you reboot.
>
> So, in so many words, I have an operating system that tells me "No,
asshole,
> you cannot do that because *I* know that if you disable that I will lock
up,
> crash, or grow unstable." Even though I realize the implications, and also
> realized that it had already grown unstable, and found out what was
burning
> up CPU time.
>
> Even though it was already unstable? I could not go in and try to remove
> what was causing the problem, because my OS said it would not allow me to
do
> it?
>
> At least with UNIX, there never is a question to whether or not your
> computer will flat out refuse to do something that you tell it, as root.
It
> can question, but it will not refuse, to the best of my knowledge. It does
> not assume to know more about what you need to do than you know. If you
tell
> it to do something boneheaded, by gosh, it will do exactly that.
>
> I have never had to wrestle with a UNIX system because of simple problems.
I
> have never had to wonder if my computer will deny me access to something
> because it felt it should not do such a thing. My only worry was because I
> do not know UNIX enough, that I will type the wrong command and toast
root.
> Or /usr/sbin. or /usr anything. But that is because the fault would lie
> squarely on my shoulders if something stupid were to happen.
>
> So, I rebooted.
>
> Uptime for Win2k Pro -- three hours.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Adrian Feliciano
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
> Do What thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
> Love is the law, love under will
> -Aleister Crowley
>
> Harm None
> -Wiccan Law
>
> As above, so below
> -Hermetic Philosophy
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Napster alternative: hack people's [Windows] hard drives
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:15:12 -0000
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"ShareSniffer's newly-launched software, itself called ShareSniffer,
>allows people to hunt for exposed Windows file systems with the ease
>of a Napster-user searching for a favorite track..."
>
>MS has been ignoring unsophisticated users' problems with open shares
>for years and years. I bet THIS lights a fire under them. Heh heh!
It wouldn't take much to do ShareSniffer in.
If you put files on my hard disk, you give me the power to h4X0r them.
So one could have fun with ShareSniffer kiddies thus:
* Create an unprotected share called WAREZ or some such.
* Post a fake ShareSniffer report indicating that WAREZ is open.
* Run a daemon to watch for new or modified files in this share.
* When a file comes in, trojan it. Exactly what to do with it,
I leave to the reader's evil imagination.
You would of course want to tear this down and maybe wipe the hard
disk as soon as the kiddies notice, lest the law take exception to
your fun.
For Win32, the daemon might use a syscall (can't remember what it is)
that requests notification when files are created or altered in a
designated directory. For Linux etc., IIRC there's a way to set up
Samba to run a script when someone connects or disconnects.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure!
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:03:32 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97mgba$mkc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Besides, MS doesn't have a huge incentive to migrate these sites since
> > > they're working right now. They don't have time or money to spend just
> > > to make morons like you shut up.
> >
> > Irrespective of whether the guy really is a moron or not (I doubt it), MS
> > most certainly do have the money to spend to make us shut up, but until
> > they care more about making their products acceptable than they do about
> > increasing their megaprofits, I don't think anyone's going to be shutting
> > up.
>
> No, they don't have any reason to change it.
> It is working? Stick with it.
> You don't waste money where you don't need to.
> And replacing a working system just for the sake of replacing it is stupidly
> wasting money.
Ask Sun. Their developer forums are IIS/ASP driven.
If it works, don't break it.
-c
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:24:42 -0500
Joel Barnett wrote:
>
> "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:97mlhm$1gu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So, under Windows 2000 Pro, i was merrily surfing along with 256M RAM, and
> > ICQ, AIM and Outlook Expres, and Livejournal's client running in the
> > background..
> >
> > Went to start Musicmatch Jukebox, and things started to act odd..so, i
> > closed MM. Things were still acting odd. CTRL-ALT-DELETE, brought up the
> > "taskmanager" and found t he PID for Windows Explorer was using 95-100%
> CPU
> > time.
> >
> > Time to kill it.
> >
> > Clicked "Kill Process."
> >
> > "Action denied."
> >
> > What the fuck?..
> >
> > Clicked it again.
> >
> > "Action denied."
> >
> > Grr..
> >
> > Logged out of my non-admin user account, and tried as Administrator.
> >
> > "Action denied."
> >
> > Grr!!!..
> >
> > Logged back into the non-admin account. Still had the same processes in
> the
> > background. Still frozen at 95-100% CPU time.
> >
> > Now, I assume that Windows will refuse to let one disable things and turn
> > off things, to maintain system stability. But when you have a runaway
> > process like that, you've got to try to kill it, and restart it again,
> > right? I mean, under the UNIX world, I can always hit a keystroke, log
> into
> > another console, and ps all i like to find the runaway process, and kill
> it
> > by process id, log back out, and carry on my merry day, right?
> >
> > I mean, rebooting is a sign of surrender, isn't it? When you've exhausted
> > everything you can think of, you reboot.
> >
> > So, in so many words, I have an operating system that tells me "No,
> asshole,
> > you cannot do that because *I* know that if you disable that I will lock
> up,
> > crash, or grow unstable." Even though I realize the implications, and also
> > realized that it had already grown unstable, and found out what was
> burning
> > up CPU time.
> >
> > Even though it was already unstable? I could not go in and try to remove
> > what was causing the problem, because my OS said it would not allow me to
> do
> > it?
> >
> > At least with UNIX, there never is a question to whether or not your
> > computer will flat out refuse to do something that you tell it, as root.
> It
> > can question, but it will not refuse, to the best of my knowledge. It does
> > not assume to know more about what you need to do than you know. If you
> tell
> > it to do something boneheaded, by gosh, it will do exactly that.
> >
> > I have never had to wrestle with a UNIX system because of simple problems.
> I
> > have never had to wonder if my computer will deny me access to something
> > because it felt it should not do such a thing. My only worry was because I
> > do not know UNIX enough, that I will type the wrong command and toast
> root.
> > Or /usr/sbin. or /usr anything. But that is because the fault would lie
> > squarely on my shoulders if something stupid were to happen.
> >
> > So, I rebooted.
> >
> > Uptime for Win2k Pro -- three hours.
>
> If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
> something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k sucks", I
> guess you came to the right place.
Translation:
Windows is just as difficult to administrate as Unix,
without the benefit of system stability.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Brent Pathakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Napster alternative: hack people's [Windows] hard drives
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:26:32 GMT
Ray Chason wrote:
> Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"ShareSniffer's newly-launched software, itself called ShareSniffer,
> >allows people to hunt for exposed Windows file systems with the ease
> >of a Napster-user searching for a favorite track..."
> >
> >MS has been ignoring unsophisticated users' problems with open shares
> >for years and years. I bet THIS lights a fire under them. Heh heh!
>
> It wouldn't take much to do ShareSniffer in.
>
> If you put files on my hard disk, you give me the power to h4X0r them.
> So one could have fun with ShareSniffer kiddies thus:
>
> * Create an unprotected share called WAREZ or some such.
> * Post a fake ShareSniffer report indicating that WAREZ is open.
> * Run a daemon to watch for new or modified files in this share.
> * When a file comes in, trojan it. Exactly what to do with it,
> I leave to the reader's evil imagination.
>
> You would of course want to tear this down and maybe wipe the hard
> disk as soon as the kiddies notice, lest the law take exception to
> your fun.
>
> For Win32, the daemon might use a syscall (can't remember what it is)
> that requests notification when files are created or altered in a
> designated directory. For Linux etc., IIRC there's a way to set up
> Samba to run a script when someone connects or disconnects.
>
>
----snip----
>MS has been ignoring unsophisticated users' problems with open shares
>for years and years. I bet THIS lights a fire under them. Heh heh!
---
Just a note here...If you buy a retail Win os or a new system with it
pre-installed, MS does not consider you a customer. In the case of the
pre-installed system, in MS' eyes, the OEM is the customer.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <js@plcom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:25:43 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97mhp3$81u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Say it aint so. You mean people can change their OS even if Windows
> >> > is pre-installed?? Doesn't that fly in the face of the (failed)
> >> > "monopoly" courtroom competition strategy that Microsoft's
> >> > competition was banking on?
> >>
> >> Absoloutely not! Whether they use windows or not they STILL have to pay
> >> for it. How could anything *but* a monopoly manage to enforce that?
> >
> > And whether they use the other 1gb of apps that also get put into the
> > master disk of their OEM system they still pay for them. I don't see
> > anyone whining about being forced to pay for any other software the
> > system comes with the system.
>
>
> I quit buying computers from big retailers to avoid the Microsoft Tax
> (forced Windows purchace). To be quite frany, most of the other apps that
> they often force on the user aren't worth the disk space.
>
> Anyway, this was in relation to thinkpads. What software do they come
> with that you are forced to buy, with the exception of windows?
>
>
> > That's the biggest complaint I ever hear
> > from people is, how do I get rid of all this junk that came with my
> > computer?? Half of it doesn't even show up in appwiz.cpl to get
> removed.
>
>
> > If and OEM disk of Win98 costs
> > $40.00 per unit but a basic set of apps ups the price of same disk to
> > $80.00, who's whining about the additional 40 bucks for encyclopedia
> > ect...
>
> Me. I stopped paying for all that crap.
>
> > Last time I heard Best Buy charged the same whether or not you took the
> > million apps home with the system.
>
> I'll take your word for this.
>
> > Go on down to best buy, pick out a computer and ask what discount you
> > get if you use your own copy of Quicken Lite.
>
> Microsoft isn't the only company out ther ripping off the comsumer. Seems
> like Best Buy are too.
Well it seems all of you whining about the microsoft tax are missing the
whole point so I'll spell it out to you.
It is not anyones right to demand that a certain product be supplied to
them. And that's the whole gaping flaw in the argument. A while back some
morons came up with some kind of idea that it was their right to get a
refund on windows portion of a system if they didn't load the software. They
soon found out they had only the right to either buy, or not buy a package
that someone decided they would like to sell.
You have two choices, buy what someone decides to sell you, or don't. That's
the rules of the game. Get over it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 22:45:12 -0600
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In 1992 MS-DOS plus Win3.0 costs �135. Allowing for inflation, WinME costs
> about the same as Dos+Win3.0, and adds some additional functuality.
"some" additional functionality? Windows 3.0 came on less than 6 floppies
(compressed). WIndows ME is about 150MB's (also compressed).
> Hardware costs are half, add considerable additional components, and are
> several orders of magnitude more powerful.
>
> There is no doubt that Microsoft software prices have not tracked reduced
> hardware costs.
Nor should they? What is the price of Adobe Photoshop in 1992 versus today?
What is the price of PageMaker? Illustrator? Quark Express? FreeHand?
Novell Netware? OS/2?
I think you'll find all these are roughly the same prices they were in 1992,
if not more expensive today.
> The reason should be self-evident. The PC hardware market is extremely
> competitive, but there is no competition in the PC OS market, due in the
> main to Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive and monopolistic practices.
Then how does that explain OS/2 hasn't dropped in price? How does it
explain that Netware hasn't dropped in price?
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 17:46:33 +1300
> > In 1992 MS-DOS plus Win3.0 costs �135. Allowing for inflation, WinME costs
> > about the same as Dos+Win3.0, and adds some additional functuality.
>
> "some" additional functionality? Windows 3.0 came on less than 6 floppies
> (compressed). WIndows ME is about 150MB's (also compressed).
Hmmm. You're quite correct, now that I think of it. So, after you've
installed your fresh new install of 3.0, and on another machine you've
installed your fresh WinME, exactly what can you do on the new one that
you couldn't do before?
I mean, ignoring the obvious and inane, like "run 32 bit apps" or "click
the start button", assuming you haven't installed any apps at all, what
bonuses does ME give you over 3.0?
I can really only think of Internet Explorer (or perhaps I should say
Internet related software, so as to include DUN).
------------------------------
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 01 Mar 2001 19:55:52 -0800
>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aaron> Michael Powe wrote:
>> >>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aaron> Joona I Palaste wrote:
>> >> Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled the >>
>> following on comp.lang.c:
>> >> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>> >> >> Peter Pichler wrote:
>> >> >> > >> and as such has a God-given Right to do whatever the
>> >> >> > >> hell he likes (e.g. appending 1708 bytes of yahoo
>> rant to >> all >> > >> his Usenet postings), however annoying
>> and >> inconvenient it may >> > >> be for the rest of us.
>> >> >> > >And not only that, but I serve in the military to
>> defend >> >> > >that right.
>> >> >> > You must be /realy/ proud.
>> >> >> Are you trying to imply that defending your country is >>
>> somehow >> an ignoble thing to do?
>> >> > No, he's trying to imply that being a complete bozo is an
>> >> ignoble thing > to do. Learn to read for comprehension.
>> >> And by the way, Aaron - "defending your country" does not >>
>> qualify as a reason.
Aaron> What part of United States Army do you not understand?
Aaron> The US Army defends the US Constitution, which secures my
Aaron> right, by virtue of being in the US, to say anything I damn
Aaron> well please on USENET or any other place.
>> While it's deeply shaming to have such as Mr. Kulkis
>> performing his routine as the "ugly American" before an
>> international audience, I would like to point out a couple
>> things. First, we have no true knowledge that Mr. Kulkis ever
>> served in the Armed Forces of the
Aaron> Check the records.
>> United States. Considering his demonstrated lack of honor, I
>> for one see no reason to take him at his word about anything --
>> whether that anything be his claim to be a member of the US
>> Army or his claim to be a "Unix Systems Engineer." Even had he
>> served, wouldn't it seem more than likely that he got "section
>> 8" (discharged as mentally unfit for duty)? Please do not take
>> him as indicative of the membership of the
Aaron> I'm currently STILL part of the US Army.
Umm, yeah. Okay. And Linda Chavez wasn't really paying that illegal
immigrant woman to be her cheap maid, either. There are some people
who just come across as -- how shall we say? -- less than trustworthy.
You're one of them.
mp
--
"If a fool persist in his folly, he shall become wise." -- Blake
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 17:53:44 +1300
> Well it seems all of you whining about the microsoft tax are missing the
> whole point so I'll spell it out to you.
So glad you're here to clear up these misconceptions.
> It is not anyones right to demand that a certain product be supplied to
> them. And that's the whole gaping flaw in the argument.
That's true, noone has the right to be sold any product. It is entirely
up to the seller whether they will sell it or not. However, it is up to
the CONSUMER what they BUY. If a customer says "I don't want Windows",
the supplier either GETS RID OF IT, or says "then I wont sell you the
computer".
> A while back some
> morons came up with some kind of idea that it was their right to get a
> refund on windows portion of a system if they didn't load the software. They
> soon found out they had only the right to either buy, or not buy a package
> that someone decided they would like to sell.
These 'morons' were merely reading the license agreement, which states
quite clearly if you don't agree to the license agreement you are
entitled to return the product for a full refund.
> You have two choices, buy what someone decides to sell you, or don't. That's
> the rules of the game. Get over it.
You do actually have the right to enquire and deal with the seller. If
he tries to sell you a system with windows, you're not doing anything
immoral, illegal, or moronic by asking for a system without it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
