Linux-Advocacy Digest #209, Volume #33 Sat, 31 Mar 01 01:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Stress Co-operation, not Hateful Competition (Brent R)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (redc1c4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:05:47 -0500
Bob G wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:50:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Said Bob G in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:10:12 GMT;
> > [...]
> >>I love my country ! It's the politicians I don't
> >>like or trust.
> >
> >So does that make you patriotic, or idealistic?
>
> It makes me one who wishes he'd paid attention to where these things
> get cross-posted.
>
> In direct answer to your question, I am patriotic and idealistic.
>
> Also ... realistic. You can be both idealistic and a realist, you
> know.
>
> In the case of my country. I love my country. Plain and simple. As
> concerns the government, yes ... I am idealistic enough to hold them
> up and exam them in comparison to some idealistic standards of
> behavior. And am enough of a realist to understand they, the
> politicans, will never exactly match my idealistic criteria.
>
> But ... they WILL come closer to staying on track and honest if I, and
> you, and others .... do not automatically rely simply on trust ... and
> examine what they do closely an hold them accountable and responsible.
>
> Remember the old saying about 'Keeping an honest man honest ...'.
>
> There is truth to the idea.
>
> There are folks, some, who will self police their own actions and hold
> to strict principle ... all on their own.
>
> But realistically, there are few such.
>
> For the larger majority of humans, who for the most part are decent
> enough people, the realistic person understands they can stray from
> the ideal straight line.
>
> i.e. Take your basically honest, decent citizen. Ideally, said
> citizen is utterly honest, completely law abiding, etc. Reality is
> different. Person strays a bit from the ideal. i.e. One fellow who
> works for me. A basically good man. A technician. Now, Bob pays
> attention to things. Not that I always LOOK like I'm paying
> attention. I do not believe in micromanaging or nitpicking people.
>
> So I am aware of the fact he takes the occassional company paid for
> pen home, and likely a pad of paper. Walking by his private car once,
> I noted fact that on seat of car he'd tossed a coil of wire. Company
> owned wire. Probably had something at home to fix. Was no big
> amount. I ignored it. Likewise I have no doubt that he grabs the odd
> screw, bolt, nut etc that he might need at home. Know that one day I
> dropped by. He just off work, and he was refastening a part on his
> car that'd come lose with a couple screws belonging to the company.
> The box of screws, a brand not available in your neighborhood hardware
> store on the ground next to him. I 'didn't notice'. Also quite aware
> that one weekend he 'borrowed' a gasoline powered, 5000 psi pressure
> washer. I happened to have reason to go by the tool crib that
> Saturday, it gone. Reappeared by Monday morning. Dribbling water.
> Obviously having been used. In this case I just casually mentioned to
> him I hoped it wasn't habit or often, and mentioned that if it broke
> while he had it for personal use ... I expected HIM to fix it and pay
> for the repair.
>
> Just keeping him honest ... enough ... don'tcha know.
>
> Just like one day he was talking about big wiring project at home.
> General friendly chat. I just mentioned it was a lot of wire, and as
> we at his tool and parts crib .... I looked significantly at spools of
> wire on racks then at him. Bright fellow caught my meaning. 'Oh no,
> boss ... I won't yank your leg. I've grabbed a bit here and there.
> Scrap lenghts. I wouldn't take that much. I bought wire. Honest,
> wanna see the receipt?' I didn't ask for it. I pay attention. His
> requisitions for material in line with company work done. I'm not
> gonna nitpick him. When he gets wire by the 2000 ft spool, and
> perhaps he grabs the odd lenght. I'm not gonna be pissed. Now if he
> started grabbing the 2000 ft spools ... he and I will talk. I just
> keep an eye on things ... to keep him reasonably straight.
>
> I USED to have a tech who went over the bounds. Doesn't work for me
> any more, needless to say. In fact I filed criminal charges against
> him. When SOB starts filling private vehicle with company gas, and
> doing private, afterhours work for pay using company parts and tools
> ... I get pissed.
>
> I do not expect that even basically good, decent people ... are
> perfect. But there are limits.
>
> Problem is, in the case of politicans, even the best intentioned, if
> yah don't keep and eye on them, if you trust TOO MUCH ... all too easy
> for them to stray too far. Due to position and power, the
> possiblities for abuse, wrongful action, corruption, etc are far
> greater, and of greater consequence ... than as with ordinary people.
>
> To give another example. I happen to know about a certain telecom
> tech, who doesn't work for me. In his area, there is a lady who owns
> and runs her own business. Not a huge business. But she makes a
> living from it, and has 6 employees. Her business heavily dependent
> on voice and digital comm lines. Now, she gets nothing for free, nor
> expects it. But let's just say, she is always exceptionally pleasant
> to this telecom guy. Lots of praise, thanks, etc. Let's say she
> makes a point of making personal conversation, inquiring about health,
> yakking about his life and hobbies, etc. After a quick response and
> repair she insists on buying him lunch. He refuses to let her pay,
> but accepts her company for lunch. She's very flattering, profusely
> grateful, etc. There are other lunches and coffee breaks together.
> One day, she's put in an order for new T1 line and some other gear.
> All of which she pays for, the going rate. But the telecom guy goes
> thru great effort to make SURE line goes in on time, in fact it's done
> ahead of schedule, all installations flawless, tweaked to perfection,
> etc. Guy sweats and goes thru more work than he'd normally put into
> such installation elsewhere. Everything perfect. This on a Friday.
> Oops, Saturday morning a flaw shows up. Business lady now knows guy's
> home phone number calls 'Please, can yah do something?' ZIP ... guy
> goes to her business, his own vehicle, his own time, and quickly
> corrects problem. Lady VERY appreciative. Oh, he's so nice, and
> smart too. Is the equipment very complicated? Must be. 'I've never
> seen a switching office.' Guy offers to show her. They get to small
> utility building, she's suitably impressed and awed ... and still ever
> so grateful about his above and beyond help. And, next thing yah
> know, she's on desk and he's getting an extra reward.
>
> Chuckle, true story. I know. Had to be out that day myself. Walked
> in on them. Fortunately, timing right. They were done, just
> snuggling and cuddling. Tho she was a bit ... ummm ... embarassed as
> only wearing her blouse when I walked in.
>
> I found out the whole story later, as he was fumbling, stuttering and
> trying to explain. <Shrug> I knew his service record. We track jobs
> completed, etc. Top tech. Good numbers. His performance record for
> clearing trouble calls well above average. I told him to forget it.
> Except next time ... not in the switch room.
>
> Now ... is that lady taking unfair advantage of the 'system'. And the
> tech aiding her? Of course. Chuckle no doubt in my mind when she
> phones in a complaint she'll get a repair faster than the average
> customer. Tech knows the system, knows how to make things happen
> faster, when need be.
>
> But this sort of thing pretty harmless. He is watched and tracked,
> via a reporting system. For each job done we maintain computer
> records. Did customer get assistance within specified lapsed time
> limits, did they get adequate work (did he do it right the first
> time), etc. So he can't help her by making another customer suffer.
> Will show up in our reports.
>
> However, consider the politician who lets self be ... ummm
> ...persuaded by a pretty thing. And this happens, or is at least
> attempted, on a routine basis. Perhaps she convinces him (or her)
> that her group deserves preferential treatment. Now what happens?
> Perhaps the interests she represents now get that multimillion dollar
> bundle of tax money. Only so much money. So her group gets, another
> group left sucking hind tit. Or perhaps she 'convinces' him that
> group she is with deserves a special tax break. Politician knows this
> won't fly, unless at same time he proposes that tax break, he balances
> it with a proposal to make it up by taxing another group even more
> than currently.
>
> Etc.
>
> Yep, DAMN straight I'm not about to TRUST politicans. I want records,
> I want things above board, and I want to be able to take a look time
> to time and let them know I'm looking ... to make sure they don't
> stray too far from an idealistic 'straight line'.
>
> Being in the position of power they are in ... even little 'strays'
> off the straight and narrow have far reaching effects.
>
> As far as the 'don't like' part of my sig line. I've met and
> personally known several politicians. Only ones I've liked have been
> few, very few. All of whom were straight forward, blunt ... and said
> what they thought whether I liked it or not, agreed or not. Such are
> mighty few and far in-between. Usually don't last long in politics.
>
> Bob
>
> I love my country ! It's the politicians I don't
> like or trust.
Not only that...but the old saying
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is false.
The CORRECT saying is this:
"Power attracts the corrupt, and absolute power ATTRACTS the absolutely corrupt".
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:07:15 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:35:13 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:29:22 -0800, Gunner � <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Id love to see your cites on the Mexican border/Berlin comparison.
> >> >Please provide them. I do not recall ever hearing about the AirForce
> >> >shooting down unarmed civilian aircraft intentionally knowing full well
> >> >that they were unarmed civilian aircraft.i
> >>
> >> I didn't say the airforce killed anyone on the border. It's usually up
> >> to border patrols, or the good citizens of the US.
> >
> >
> >You're saying private citizen and law-enforcement, armed with, at
> >best, semi-automatic weapons, are gonna take down a private aircraft
> >flying at over 100 MPH and a few thousand feet of altitude?
> >
> >just hitting a STILL person at that range is damn near impossible.
>
> An aircraft is a slightly larger target. :-) However, assuming
> the muzzle velocity of a bullet is 1,000 MPH (1,600 KPH) or 440m/s,
> equation
>
> mv^2/2 = mgh
>
> suggests that h = v^2/2g = 193600 m^2/s^2 / (2 * 9.78 m/s^2)
> = 10,000 m, so in theory it's possible. However, I don't know how
> to account for air resistance, and it's possible that the combination
> of the two will result in the bullet going "doink!" on the hull --
> if it gets there at all.
>
> The time the bullet will take to reach the peak of its flight is 2d/v
> = 10,000m / 440m/s = 22 seconds, by which time the aircraft has
> moved almost a kilometer. (The reason it's not d/v is because it's
> decelerating.) I'm not sure how long it would take for the bullet
> to reach an arbitrary altitude, as opposed to its peak,
> but 10,000 m (30,000 feet)isn't uncommon for transcontinental aircraft,
> if memory serves. Whoever's taking potshots at the civvy craft
> will have to compensate with a more sophisticated aiming device than
> a simple gunsight.
Even with tracer's it's damn difficult to hit an aircraft. One reason
is that there are very few reliable distance cues.
>
> I'd worry more about guys on the ground. :-) Now, if he had a
> Stinger, that's a different story.
Damn Straight.
Aaron Kulkis, US Army.
Stinger Missile Qualified sincd 1992.
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 53d:12h:32m actually running Linux.
> The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:07:44 -0500
Mathew wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Chad Everett wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:03:09 +1000, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Gunner � wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >> Cuba has dedicated itself to the principle that, within its means, it
> > >> >> will try not to kill any human beings due to lack of food, shelter,
> > >> >> medical care, poor sanitation, etc.
> > >>
> > >> But they got real good at shooting down Cessnas......
> > >
> > >I wonder what Cuba would be like if Batista and the Mafia still ruled.
> > >
> >
> > It would be a lot like Las Vegas, Nevada
>
> I heard the Mob is not so much in control of Vegas now.
>
Which one of the voices in your head told you that?
--
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 R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stress Co-operation, not Hateful Competition
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 05:29:47 GMT
"Adrian Pepper [MFCF]" wrote:
>
> Okay, so I just saw on my boss' screen the picture of a giant Tux
> squashing the Microsoft buildings like he was Godzilla.
>
> I thought it looked pretty funny,
>
> But realistically, there is no reason Linux can't and shouldn't be
> touted as a complementary aid to Microsoft Windows use, as opposed to a
> competive adversary.
>
> I have a dual-boot ME/RedHat7.0 system, and find that Linux makes a
> great Microsoft Windows systems administration tool. Lots of things I
> should theoretically try and get working under Linux (e.g. USB CD-R/RW)
> I haven't bothered to do yet, because it's relatively easy to transfer
> files back-and-forth, or simply work with them in my third "shared"
> partition. Most of the time, for peace-of-mind, I don't have my main
> Microsoft Windows partition mounted when I'm running Linux, but do so
> only occasionally. E.g. to use "find" to ferret out potentially
> embarassing stuff from the browser caches which Microsoft Windows
> insists on hiding from you.
>
> Personal records and stuff I prefer to maintain in KISS text files,
> using shell scripts and perl and stuff to manipulate them (under
> Linux). Right now browsing, and remote access is all under Microsoft
> Windows (or using floppies). Backups I do by putting tar files into
> the shared partition and copying them to a CD-R when I'm running
> Microsoft Windows. My web pages I develop under Linux, previewing with
> Netscape under RedHat as file: URLs (though I'm tempted to run a Web
> server to allow more things to be tested, e.g. .htaccess, Indexes, even
> CGIs). While investigating ECMAScript I might send some pages over to
> the Microsoft Windows partitions for viewing there.
>
> But in any case, I don't see why Linux and Microsoft Windows need to be
> viewed as alternatives. As a consumer, I want both. I don't want
> either side eliminating my versatility by eliminating the other
> option.
>
> My dream machine would be a laptop containing at least three distinct
> machines all with access to the display and as many other devices as is
> practical. One machine would be Linux, the other Microsoft Windows,
> and the third would be a dedicated file server useable by both of
> them. But hey, you might be able to persuade me to have a MacOS system
> running on a fourth internal machine, too.
>
> As a consumer, I want to be able to drink Coca-Cola sometimes, and
> Seven-Up, Mountain Dew, Canada Dry, and even plain old water at other
> times.
>
> I want to be able to own a Subaru but still occasionally rent a Chevy
> truck, or ride my bicycle.
>
> Viewing things as a consumer, no product is "the best". It is
> essential to me as a consumer that the diversity remains in all
> things.
>
> And this applies to operating systems and other software as well.
>
> Adrian Pepper
Excellent post and I agree wholeheartedly. "Different tools for
different jobs". Windows is a lightweight OS, *nix is the heavyweight.
Windows has too many excellent software apps to choose from to do
without completely, but it's not really intended to be used as anything
other than an "OS-lite" with which you could do some browsing, play some
games, maybe write a paper, or do spreadsheets... but it's not really
suitable for anything more, despite what MS tells you. Servers (of any
kind), industrial work, processing work, etc. etc. ... I would choose
something else.
I just had a friend tell me the problem he was having running CAD
software on Windows 2000, and that same program used to run on UNIX
workstations with no problem. Unless MS cleans up it's act, it'll
probably stay this way for quite some time.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 05:32:58 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >"losedos can not format a disk and do something else at the same time. "
>>
>> There is argument on the issues, and then there is quibbling about
>> phrasing.
>
>Sorry. The phrasing above clearly implies an absolute since there is no
>qualifier whatosever.
Well, I understood that *you* misconstrued it that way (because of
course, if you don't, you've nothing to quibble about.) But no
reasonable person is so utterly ignorant of the rhetorical meaning
implicit. If Windows *ever* fails to format a disk and do something
else, the statement is true, but for quibbling.
>> >A sentence like that make me thinks that "losedos"* [yay ! creative naming !
>> >how mature !] is unable to multitask while formatting, with no qualifier
>> >whatsoever. That's what put the "people who apologise for the monopoly" in
>> >motion.
>>
>> So? Is it my fault they are incapable of understanding a rhetorical
>
>No. We are AFAICT in an advocacy forum. People are not to expect to make
>blanket statements without being challenged.
Bah; just admit your argument is weak. Whether its an advocacy forum
makes no difference.
>> point, and so defensive that they freak out should anyone slight their
>
>If a windows advocate had posted "Lienux [yay ! creative naming ! how mature
>!] cannot format a floppy do something else at the same time", the Linux
>advocate would have understood the rhetorical point and wouldn't have
>freaked out and come crying for blood. Riiiiight. *You* believe that, I sure
>won't..
No, they'd have said "that's not true" because it is *never* true. See
the point? And by "never" of course, I mean, in the absolute, not the
rhetorical sense. Linux, you see, is not capable of "sometimes" not
working, like proprietary monopoly crapware.
[partially unsnipped:]
>>So? Is it my fault they are incapable of understanding a rhetorical
>>point, and so defensive that they freak out should anyone slight their
>>glorious Windows?
>
>BTW, the sentence above coming from someone with an avowed penchant for
>ranting makes the irony meter peg, once again.
I don't see why. Perhaps you misunderstood the term "ranting", in
context.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 05:40:42 GMT
Said Michael Vester in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>"Paul 'Z' Ewande�" wrote:
>>
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>>
>> > >But the issue wasn't *sometime* does, the issue was that it couldn't,
>> > >without any qualifier. Since you and I agree that it sometime does,
>> there's
>> > >nothing much to add.
>> >
>> > The issue was that it does. The issue of whether it always does is only
>> > brought up as an argument from ignorance, by the people who apologize
>> > for the monopoly.
>>
>> I think that you are using a threaded news reader. So you won't have any
>> difficulty at all to find the Michael Versters' [self described credible
>> Linux advocate] post containing:
>>
>> "losedos can not format a disk and do something else at the same time. "
>
>Please spell my name correctly. I am credible since I use my real name
>and a real email address. Proud to be a Linux advocate. Committed to a
>world that is not %100 controlled by Bill Gates.
>
>> A sentence like that make me thinks that "losedos"* [yay ! creative naming !
>> how mature !] is unable to multitask while formatting, with no qualifier
>> whatsoever. That's what put the "people who apologise for the monopoly" in
>> motion.
>>
>I have standardized on a single name for Microsoft's family of buggy
>operating systems, losedos. Qualifier or not, losedos cannot format a disk
>and do anything else. I though it was common knowledge.
Its childish.
>> Thus you are wrong on this account. It's "freedom fighter" that implied that
>> Windows can never format an chew gum at the same time.
>>
>It is an observation. Format a good floppy and do "something else"; the
>"something else" at best, is very slow. Format a bad floppy disk and do
>"something else", losedos will often freeze. The "something else" never
>gets a chance to run. Imagine formatting a bad floppy on a busy losedos
>server.
That's his point, Michael, and he actually does have one. Apparently,
WinDOS only has such problems on certain hardware. It isn't that bad
for everyone, though you are correct that if the system is highly
loaded, its much more noticeable. Microsoft and the sock puppets, of
course, insist that nobody would ever use WinDOS for a server, though NT
does have similar behavior.
>> *Of course, I am assuming that when he wrote "losedos" he was struggling to
>> write Windows. :)
>
>Windows are panes of glass enclosed in frames. That was easy.
>
>Losedos is a cute play of words. Lose is opposite to win. dos is dos. I
>don't take credit for the name. "Losedos" is a recognizable label. The
>name "losedos" attacks the OS, not the poster. Losedos has my vote to
>represent Microsoft's family of buggy operating systems.
Its silly. WinDOS, by the way, is meant to be strictly informative,
identifying the DOS based Windows, as opposed to the NT flavor. The
fact that Microsoft fans find it annoying, pointing out that Win98ME is
just as much DOS as DOS 2 was, is just a side-benefit.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: redc1c4 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "delete the \".ies\""
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 05:48:43 GMT
WesTralia wrote:
(snipage occurs)
> Roger, were you expecting anything differnet? Aaron is a 38 year old
> male who sits in his mom's basement while wearing a 5-star General
> plastic army helmet and posting to USENET from a Wintendo98 box, all
> the while his mom is upstairs in the kitchen fixing him Spaghetti-Os.
inquiring minds want to know how his mom manages all the handles
n'stuff?
redc1c4,
prehensile tongue is my guess......... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and
sly, and bear considerable watching."
Army Officers Guide
PMD
EOM
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
