Linux-Advocacy Digest #151, Volume #33 Wed, 28 Mar 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: BIG MOUSE! (GreyCloud)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("David Brown")
Re: Communism (GreyCloud)
Re: Communism (GreyCloud)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (GreyCloud)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (GreyCloud)
Re: Why can't we just all be friends? ("Brandur K. Jacobsen")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser,
and lies about free software)
Date: 27 Mar 2001 23:13:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think this will be my final post in the thread because arguments are
getting circular, unless someone would follow up with a new vision of the
subject or would give well argumented counters on my statements.
Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Yes. If I have a copy of gcc, even a modified version of it, the person
>>who gave it to me has the *obligation* to give me the source to gcc and
>>his modifications, should I ask him to. So if there's a bug in MY COPY,
>>I am guaranteed that I can patch it.
>
>No, you're guaranteed that you have source; it may not be practical to fix
>the bug, and you may not be able to fix the bug in your copy, even though
>someone else has a copy in which the bug was fixed.
I think all that is covered by the English word "can" that I purposely
used. Maybe it's because English is not my native language? One
practical limitation for not being able to patch the bug is if you don't
know how to code. Duh. There are no technical limitation for doing it
though.
>>I don't care about the original code.
>
>You should, since the only claim made is that the *original code* is in some
>way "not free".
Please quote my words where I said or even implied this. For the record,
my stance is this:
IF and ONLY IF one states that the restrictions in the GPL on
*REDISTRIBUTING* the code make the software non-free (even though the
use is in no way restricted), THEN by the same measures the BSDLed code
should be called non-free (because it too has restrictions on
redistributing the code which are beyond the scope of any copyright law
I have seen to date), UNLESS one applies some SUBJECTIVE QUANTITATIVE
measure about the allowable restrictions where the code can still be
called free.
Now there are some people who will claim that reuse is a form of use too
(I wholeheartly agree here) and that the GPL encumbers reuse. Now the
latter part is false. You can reuse the code to your hearts content,
link it with whatever library you please, use the GPLed code in your own
non-open programs etc. You just cannot *DISTRIBUTE* it at will.
Distributing is *not* use. It is enabling someone else to use.
Now I take it that some people will disagree with the last paragraph. I
challenge that person to either show me the section in the GPL that
prohibits reuse (without distribution, that is) or show me an entry in
some English dictionary where distribution is regarded as a form of use.
Also the "GPLed-code-is-not-free crowd" like to say that the FSF
proponents are trying to redefine the word free. I re-iterate that
"free" is an ambigious term and can only be given the proper definition
within a well defined context. E.g., one cannot say that after the
termination of slavery in the 19th century colonies, the former slaves
were "not free men" because they could not be sold or given away at will
anymore. The very purpose of the GPL is to make sure that code that was
once free (GPL definition here) remains so in every instatiation of that
code. Free here means that the *use* (and not the distribution) is not
encumbered in any way. I see no reason why I should not call GPLed code
"free software" given this context, just as I call BSDLed code "free
software" in a different context.
>>I'm talking about the copy you're
>>using. So it is my understanding that the Windows 2000 TCP/IP stack is
>>based on the BSD TCP/IP code. If some grave bug surfaces in that part of
>>the code and I would use W2K, I'm still at the mercy of Microsoft even
>>if the original source code is out in the open.
>
>Yes, you are. If this bugs you, don't do it.
I don't.
>You'd be just as at their mercy
>if it were a reimplementation, and it would have more bugs.
The first part is correct but irrelevant, the second part is an
emotional statement without merit. The fact of the matter remains that
the bug is part of the code that was free software once, not part of the
"value added" code. So even though other versions of the code can be
patched, this one cannot, at least not by me, the user.
>>So the *use* of that copy of code that was originally BSD licensed is
>>encumbered.
>
>No. The use of certain *additional* code is encumbered. The BSD-licensed
>code is not encumbered. As it happens, you can't make "ftp.exe" do anything
>without the use of the "encumbered" code, but the BSD-licensed code is
>still just as free as it ever was.
I said "the USE of THAT COPY ...." We all know that the additional code
is encumbered in its use, but so is *that instantiation* of the code
that is free in other instantiations.
>>This is not possible with GPLed code.
>
>No, it isn't. First off, you can't reuse it unless the encumberances it
>*already has* are acceptable to you.
Untrue. See above.
>Secondly, every copy of any GPL'd
>program comes with encumberances which are strange and unusual. With
That's your personal opinion. Nobody can deny you that opinion.
>any other license in the world, if I can get permission to distribute code
>under that license, I am allowed to distribute it with whatever else I
>want.
Either you are talking about other licenses for "free software" which
would have to be correctly defined, or I can name quite a few counter
examples, or you have various meanings for "distribute it with".
>With GPL'd code, I must not distribute it with other code that
>is not *also* openly available. It is encumbered; I can't just reuse it.
See above. You *can* reuse it. You just cannot unconditionally
*distribute* your reuse.
>>Have I spelled it out enough?
>
>You have, but the end result is that the BSD-licensed code is always and
>forever free, and you can use it however you want, and the GPL-licensed code
>is always encumbered, and you can't reuse it freely.
Tell me, am I *legally* allowed to distribute BSDLed code without
retaining the non-liability clause in the last paragraph of the BSD
license as stated in points 1 and 2 of that same license? If not, is
that a restriction wrt the distribution of the software?
If you did not answer "No, Yes" respectively, I see no reason to
continue the debate because, lets say, our mindset is too far apart.
If you say that such restriction is within the scope of copyright law, I
hereby challenge you to show me the section of US Code Title 17 where
such is written. If you say that such restriction is reasonable and has
nothing to do with the code, I'd agree wholeheartly with you, but I
would conclude that since you allow legal distribution restrictions on
free code, that you quantify the allowable restrictions for the code to
be called free and such quantification is subjective. My subjective
measures might differ from yours.
>I don't object to this, any more than I object to Microsoft distributing
>code under horrible terms that I generally don't feel like accepting.
>However, I object to the portrayal of the GPL'd code as "more free". It's
I don't recall ever to quantify the "freeness" of the software. I don't
think you can objectively compare the GPL and BSDL in their being either
more or less free. They are two different kinds of free.
IMHO, the "most free" license would be one that had the good parts of
both. A license that would have the "GPV" when it comes to modifying the
code itself or staticly link it, but would be LGPL like when you
dynamicly links against it or when it dynamicly links against a
proprietary library. That way the "free" code can be unencumbered in
everyone of its instantiations, while allowing otherwise licensed code
to be reusing the code and still be legally distributable. I don't know
if such license exists.
>less free; you have fewer options in using it.
No it's not less free nor more free (see above) and you have every
conceivable option within the limits of the law to use it, including
reuse. You do however, have less options in distributing it.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Comparing the security of Linux with that of Microsoft Windows is
not very instructive. Microsoft has done such a terrible job with
security that it is not really a fair comparison.
-- Bruce Schneier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BIG MOUSE!
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:02:28 -0800
Sockwoo Lee wrote:
>
> I have subscribed this newsgroup for a month. I thought you people are
> discussing Linux. Since i am also crazy about Linux, I had great
> expectation on this group. But you all f_cking people have only big
> mouse. Many people follow the someone's notes (totally not related to
> Linux), and those f_cking messages gave me f_cking headache. I know you
> all have freedom to speak or write, but you people are doing too much.
> Since old man says "NOBody scares shit to avoid, but they avoid because
> its f_cking dirty. I will stop subscribing this fucking newsgroup. If
> you have any other words, fuck you.
>
> Thank you Sokwoo Lee,
Just a kid playing jokes. Or he's demented. The address is a hoax as
well.
Writes like a teenager, acts like one,... must be one.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:47:04 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 23 Mar 2001 12:38:58
>
>>Hi all. I now remember an older report in the "Free VMS" movement,
>>which is having a hard time moving, in regards to "Ring levels" in the
>>Intel processors. Then I saw an older report that microsoft removed the
>>ring levels in NT 3 to make NT 4 claiming to boost the performance of
>>the O/S. It is my understanding that the ring levels were to separate
>>the kernel from the apps in hardware. If this is really true then this
>>is the central core of Microsoft system crashes and instability. When I
>>went to VAX school they gave a rudimentary overview of the internals and
>>mentioned this feature in the VAX architecture. Knowing that Cutler
>>wrote NT 3 I wouldn't be surprised that ring levels were a part of his
>>consideration. He was then let go and microsoft then moved to remove
>>the ring level feature from the O/S as I've read in the local papers
>>here in Seattle.
>>Could anyone else comment on the use of hardware ring levels?
>
> All I can say is that your description perfectly matches what I had
> heard contemporaneously.
>
Yep, that is true.
MS moved the video-driver to Ring0, that is highest ring. So video runs
in kernel-space and can thereby corrupt the OS, which it does quite often
apparently, as many of the NT-crashes seem related to video.
But they got what they wanted: Faster video-IO at the expense of stability
Peter
--
Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:05:43 +0200
Paul 'Z' Ewande� wrote in message <99r9tf$jh9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:99pde7$gpn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><SNIP> A lot of stuff </SNIP>
>
>
>All this under Win98SE. Not too shabby for a DOS based piece of crap. BTW,
>i'm not the only one who thinks that Win9x multitasking abilities aren't
>that far behind WinNT.
>
I think the point here is that WinNT's multitasking is not much better than
Win9x - it means the same thing literally, but the implications of the
arstechnica comment are wildly different from yours.
>From http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/2q99/g3-350/g3-350-5.html
>
>"I'm willing to wager that MacOS 8.6 will improve this score, though I'm
not
>certain it will raise it to the level of NT (which, by the way, is not that
>much more efficient than Windows 9x in terms of multitasking, although it's
>certainly more stable.)".
>
>Or countless benchmark tests which show NT something like 10 to 30% faster.
>
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:04:27 -0800
cHip wrote:
>
> Being a guy who has researched this a lot I'd like to comment on a few
> things.
>
> First of all, anyone who mentions Russian Communism, Chinese Communism,
> North Korean Communism, etc. as communism---sorry but you're wrong.
> Those are NOT communism, they are totalitarian governments. Basically
> they're dictaror governments (layman term, really authoritarian). Anyone
> who critisizes communism for anything there just doesn't get it.
>
> Yeah Stalin rounded up farmer who resisted him and killed them. If you
> think that was communism, go look up the definition. Thats a cruel
> authoritarian goverment. Same with China, but you could only call that a
> dispersed authoritarian (uncertain, but I'm quite sure its a 'council'
> of rulers), still you resist the Chinese government and your in jail for
> life--or dead.
>
> For those of you who are now wondering what communism is:
>
> Communism is based on the ideal of a commune. What this means is that
> there is no money, (note: were talking 'pure' communism now, not one of
> its offspring like socialism), no wars, no different social status, etc.
> How? Lets try to put it this way (a little old fashioned but it gets the
> point accross) the baker makes his food but he doesn't sell it: he
> distributes it evenly throughout the community. How does he live? Well
> everyone else does the same exact thing, so everyone gets an equal
> amount of everything. Its very ideal where everyone is equal and well
> off, doing something they like to do, and helping out the community with
> jobs no one likes (trash collection, sewage treatment to name a few).
> Yes everything works on honor system (one minute..) but if it worked we
> would never have problems like poverty, overly-wealthy, etc.
>
> Now on to why it doesn't work. I should note that I have very strict
> hobbesian beliefs (dont know what that is? look up Thomas Hobbes) The
> reason it doesn't work is that human nature prohibits it. Some people
> could not stand being at the same level as the rest, some would try to
> revolt and take leadership (there is none in communism). Many would try
> to do this and guess what would happen? Feudal Wars all over again.
>
> Now I'm tired of writing, but I think I corrected a few people.
Never mind. I'd rather promote Linux.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:07:01 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> cHip wrote:
> >
> > Being a guy who has researched this a lot I'd like to comment on a few
> > things.
> >
> > First of all, anyone who mentions Russian Communism, Chinese Communism,
> > North Korean Communism, etc. as communism---sorry but you're wrong.
> > Those are NOT communism, they are totalitarian governments. Basically
> > they're dictaror governments (layman term, really authoritarian). Anyone
> > who critisizes communism for anything there just doesn't get it.
> >
>
> Ah yes, the usual "that isn't *real* communism" lie.
>
> So...tell us, Mr Wise guy...why are there not *ANY* "real communist"
> countries in existance....and why is every country which calls itself
> Communist also a police state?
>
> Accuracy counts, so be precise.
>
> > Yeah Stalin rounded up farmer who resisted him and killed them. If you
> > think that was communism, go look up the definition. Thats a cruel
> > authoritarian goverment. Same with China, but you could only call that a
> > dispersed authoritarian (uncertain, but I'm quite sure its a 'council'
> > of rulers), still you resist the Chinese government and your in jail for
> > life--or dead.
> >
> > For those of you who are now wondering what communism is:
> >
> > Communism is based on the ideal of a commune. What this means is that
> > there is no money, (note: were talking 'pure' communism now, not one of
> > its offspring like socialism), no wars, no different social status, etc.
> > How? Lets try to put it this way (a little old fashioned but it gets the
> > point accross) the baker makes his food but he doesn't sell it: he
> > distributes it evenly throughout the community. How does he live? Well
> > everyone else does the same exact thing, so everyone gets an equal
> > amount of everything. Its very ideal where everyone is equal and well
> > off, doing something they like to do, and helping out the community with
> > jobs no one likes (trash collection, sewage treatment to name a few).
> > Yes everything works on honor system (one minute..) but if it worked we
> > would never have problems like poverty, overly-wealthy, etc.
>
> All of which, due to human nature, is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT
> without a totalitarian police-state.
>
> >
> > Now on to why it doesn't work. I should note that I have very strict
> > hobbesian beliefs (dont know what that is? look up Thomas Hobbes) The
> > reason it doesn't work is that human nature prohibits it. Some people
> > could not stand being at the same level as the rest, some would try to
> > revolt and take leadership (there is none in communism). Many would try
> > to do this and guess what would happen? Feudal Wars all over again.
> >
> > Now I'm tired of writing, but I think I corrected a few people.
>
> You're full of shit, and you know it, asshole.
>
> --
I'm getting too old for the commie arguments. I'll let you handle these
as you have better skills at this.
> 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.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:28:39 -0800
Brian Rourke wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:30:39 -0800, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> >Brian, I happened to come across while browsing in Staples, a newer
> >version of Caldera Linux. It had a separate box called CBT... a linux
> >tutorial that runs in windows. That particular distro has one fine
> >aspect in that it easily gets one on the internet. If one uses one of
> >the larger internet provider (minus AOL) it contains an on-line database
> >to automatically hook you up based upon your city and state. I found
> >this to be a new idea. WebMin comes with it and gives you a GUI
> >approach to administering the system. Down side is it costs about
> >$100. Thought you would like the info.
>
> Thanks for the tip. This is useful information worth looking into.
> Now if I only I had a Staples or equivalent nearby... I didn't know
> how easy I had it when I lived in California. Good computer stores on
> every block, it seemed.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Brian
>
> The late spring sunshine flooded,
> like a bursted tepid star,
> the pink Boulevard. The people
> beneath crawled like wounded insects
> of cloth.
>
> Wyndham Lewis
http://www.calderasystems.com/partners/tour/tourpacket/
Its easier to look it over first. This is one linux company that bought
out SCO UNIX.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:36:04 -0800
Brian Rourke wrote:
>
> On 28 Mar 2001 02:11:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:53:18 -0700, Brian Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On 27 Mar 2001 03:20:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>*snip*
> >>>
> >>>May I suggest a good book such as O'Riely's "Running Linux" as a means for you
> >>>to obtain some understanding of the basics of installing and running Linux ?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I've thought about buying this several times.
> >>
> >>>In 1997 thats what I used, and a $6.50 Cheapbytes CD, containing RedHat4.2.
> >>>I read that book 3 times, and used a seperate hard drive for Linux, in other
> >>>words I'd actually swap hard drives when I wanted to run Linux or Win95.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'm coming to the conclusion that the separate hard drive may be the
> >>way to go, based on your advice and that of several other people.
> >Actually, ... now that I've a little more experience, if I could do it again
> >I'd buy another pc, and network the new Linux box and the Windows box, and move
> >the one set of keyboard and monitorbetween them as I wished.
>
> A very good, if expensive (for me) idea. Someday...maybe...
>
> >
> >This way I could set up a Samba file share on the Linux box and copy all my
> >Windows files to the Linux box, making the transition as painless as possible.
> >I also make it a point to 'ruin' a new disto afew times and see how hard it is
> >to recover, or what I can get away with, before I start depending on the
> >install.
> >
>
> Another good idea I wouldn't have thought of.
>
> >With a seperate Linux box, if you stuff it up, you still have your working
> >(tongue in cheek) Windows box to fall back on.
> >
>
> Working Windows....if only. You know what happens when you fall back
> on a Window...
>
> >
> >The Linux box need not be anything special, unless you want speedy Xwindows
> >response, and even then, something like my Cyrix 686/300 with 128megs ram is
> >plenty.
> >
> >Second hand NE2000 network cards will usually be found on boot up by Linux,
> >the main trouble will be Windows, where you may have to tell it the interrupt
> >settings of the card if its a isa bus unit.
> >
> >>
> >>>At first, as I came from a DOS/Windows world, Linux was totally strange to me,
> >>>and it took a while for me to come to grips with it, but after about 6 months
> >>>I changed over to Linux permently following a motherboard upgrade that while
> >>>having no effect on Linux, rendered Windows unusable.
> >>>
> >>>I also read COLA for 12 months before posting,n as people like the famous
> >>>Alexander Viro had no time for fools and would rip yer head off, if you didn't
> >>>think about your post carefully, before posting it :)
> >>
> >>Yep, off to the newbie groups for me!
> >A book will do a *lot* for your understanding, and if no one on the help groups
> >has solved your particular problem before, you probably wont get any replies to
> >requests for help. I've found that people only reply to problems that they have
> >had and solved themselves.
> >
>
> Yes, that's been my experience. When I was doing google searches, I
> noted that people who had experiences similar to mine didn't get
> responses in the help groups.
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Good luck with Linux, a bad start can only get better, and you dont have to
> >>>spend lots of money to get a working Linux install. As stated before, my initial
> >>>foray cost me about $60 for the book (huge book) and $6.50 for the CD.
> >>>
> >>>I have never bought a commercial boxed Linux disto.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I definitely will think hard before doing it again.
> >Hahah, giving Linux away so soon ?
> >You can't escape you know, once the Linux bug bites its only a matter of time
> >before you *have* to try again ;-)
> >
>
> Uh oh... That may be true, though. I'm already curious to try new
> things, but I'll have to wait until I have a good block of time.
>
> >Actually I realise I was incorrect when I said I have never bought a commercial
> >disto before (sorry forgot). I bought my first Linux disto in 1993, the
> >Yggdrassil shrink wrapped CD and small 'Windows like' booklet.
> >
>
> Aha! Well I won't tell anyone.
>
> >I put the CD and the boot floppy in my homemade pc (Cyrix 486SLC with 8 megs
> >ram) and it booted, made a ram based install, found my network card, sound card
> >and video card.
> >
> >I was presented with a working Linux install, (including Xwindows that was mega
> >slow)!!
> >
> >Unfortunately I didn't have a clue, playing X othello was fun, but I couldn't
> >even mount a floppy, as I was totally clueless!
> >
> >So I shelved it for 4 years, under interesting but too strange.
> >
> >If you think Linux is too strange also, be aware that Linux is not new, its
> >a clone of UNIX which was first released in 1972, and has sound reasons for
> >its design, even if one isnt aware of them :)
> >
>
> I had some small UNIX experience a long time ago. I basically liked
> it.
>
> >Allow a couple of years, 1-3 books, lots of reading and experimentation before
> >you start to feel at home with Linux, having come from a Windows environment.
>
> It's good to have a sense of what to expect, thanks.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Thanks for all the advice and the interesting comments.
> >You're wecome, it's fun talking to a pissed off Linux user instead of a
> >Wintroll :)
>
> Likewise, thanks. I wonder if the Wintrolls live in a little office
> in Redmond, or whatever that town's name is.
>
Yep. Its Redmond allright. It used to be a nice quiet area until it got
industrialized.
MS has hired so many people that the freeways are almost in gridlock
most of the time now. It rains so much here that most of the MS crew
have moss growing on their backs and webbing between their toes.
> Best regards,
>
> Brian
>
> The late spring sunshine flooded,
> like a bursted tepid star,
> the pink Boulevard. The people
> beneath crawled like wounded insects
> of cloth.
>
> Wyndham Lewis
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Brandur K. Jacobsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why can't we just all be friends?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:38:48 +0100
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for
it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
_brandur_
>pip wrote:
> > You hath read the scared scrolls incorrectly. "Under the sun"
refereth
> ^^^^^^
>
> I must correct my error. My noble intention was to say "sacred". You
see
> my friend - if you post under the win32 that you are bound by whips
and
> chains to toil with thy API's for the eveil of money, then your
posting
> contains blasphemies towards the penguin. I am to go and smash
through a
> window now as retribution...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
