Linux-Advocacy Digest #606, Volume #33 Sat, 14 Apr 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: A mentality problem of linux programmer. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Article: Windows XP won't support USB 2.0 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure (Dave Martel)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS and ISP's ("JS PL")
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Why Bill Gates Is Ramming His Thick Meaty Cock Up Torvald's Weak Mincing Ass
("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: Windoze is dying.... ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Brent R)
Re: Windoze is dying.... ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: A mentality problem of linux programmer.
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:03:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JLI
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 02:58:09 GMT
<51PB6.9522$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>When someone complained in this group that something is too
>difficult to do in Unix, the answer is mostly like "you are too dump",
>or "this guy is paid by Microsoft". This indicates a foundament
>mentality problem of linux programmer. Here is another example
>I encountered recently in our company.
'dump', 'foundament' => 'dumb', 'fundamental'
'of linux' -- missing article, suggest 'the typical', 'a', or 'at least one'
>
>We have just finished a commercial product (a C/C++ SDK) and the
>setup procedure went through quite smoothly. The only thing we don't
>like is that you have to set two or three environment variables
>manually after the setup procedure. So we asked our unix programmer
>whether we can set the environment variables automatically during the
>setup procedure. The answer we got is "if someone doesn't know how
>to set an environment variable on unix, he should not program on
>unix, do they?". I didn't respond directly, but my response would
>be "if we don't know or want to do such simple work for our client,
>we should not sell software, do we?".
Suggestions to your sysadmin/programmer:
1. Edit /etc/profile or ~/.profile. That's probably the easiest
and most general method of getting those environment variables
in there.
2. Encapsulate the invocation of the tool in a script such as the
following.
---8<----->8----
#!/bin/sh
ENV_VAR1=blah
ENV_VAR2=blah
...
export ENV_VAR1 ENV_VAR2 ...
exec /wherever/the/tool/lives -any-option-you-want ... $@
---8<----->8----
Most likely you'll want this in /usr/local/bin, although it depends
on various factors.
3. Some systems support /etc/profile.d; one can put scripts in there
to set up environment variables, clean out scratch space, or
do other necessary work during login.
>
>Many Linux programmers are hoppyiest not professionals. They program
'hoppyiest' => 'hobbyist'.
I'm not sure about that. I use Unix and NT at work, and Linux at home.
All three work reasonably well -- although, if there are three
ways something can be done, NT tends to pick the fourth one and
implement it incorrectly so as to introduce bugs. :-)
Of course, I get paid at work :-).
>for themself and for fun. There is nothing wrong with that. But if you
>want to do business with software, that won't work.
'themself' => 'themselves'
As for doing business -- Linux is already doing business. Have you
seen IBM's rather enigmatic heart, inverted broken cross in a circle,
penguin billboards? I have a beta of DB/2 lying around somewhere (I
never got around to installing it); Oracle also supports Linux.
Not that I'm all that thrilled about IBM's ad campaign, but it does
seem to arouse curiosity, which may be the right thing in this case.
I can't say, really. (Microsoft's "99999" campaign translates to
about 5 minutes every year: 365.2425 * 86400 / 100000 = 5m 15s,
give or take a few fractions. Win2k might do it, but I wonder.)
[.sigsnip]
Side note: Your English needs work; if you're going to accuse Linux
programmers of being mere ignorant hobbyist types, you'll need to
be very careful lest they accuse you of being a mere ignorant
Microsoft Plant(tm). :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random English here
EAC code #191 8d:06h:38m actually running Linux.
The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Article: Windows XP won't support USB 2.0
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:04:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:13:21 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Tim Kelley wrote:
>>
>> Dave Martel wrote:
>>
>> This is actually good news. USB2 is inferior to firewire as is SCSI.
>>
>> They will support usb 1, and there are no usb 2 devices yet anyway.
>>
>> USB 2.0 is intels ploy to kill firewire, which is clearly superior.
>> It doesn't have anything to do with USB 1.0
>>
>> Hopefully firewire will kill both scsi, usb 1, and usb 2, IDE, floppy and
>> parallel ports in one stroke. Firewire is something we really need.
>
>Firewire does NOT replace SCSI.
>
>400 Mbits/second is only 50 MBytes/second.
>
>SCSI is at 160 MBytes/second and climbing.
Damn.
I need a new system. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random wish here
EAC code #191 8d:07h:56m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:56:32 -0600
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 20:38:42 +1200, "Adam Warner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>`By contrast, Microsoft does extensive testing on every product, and on
>every patch, said Lipner. "People ask us why our security patches take so
>long. One of the reasons they take so long is because we test them."'
Yeah, but he didn't specify how _well_ they test their security
patches or whether they pass:
<http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,42798,00.html>
"A hacker who discovered a potentially devastating security hole in
Microsoft's Internet Explorer says he has found himself in the
undesired position of providing technical support to people who cannot
install the patch that Microsoft released to fix the flaw."
"Hacker Juan Carlos Garcia Cuartango discovered a dangerous hole that
allows attackers to remotely access and control any computer running
any version of the Windows operating system and Internet Explorer. "
<snip>
"Cuartango has discovered over a dozen security holes in Microsoft
products."
"And this isn't the first time he's had problems with Microsoft's
patches."
"In 1998, Cuartango discovered the infamous "Cuartango Hole," a
security flaw that allowed wicked website owners to steal files off a
user's hard disk."
"That discovery was quickly followed by the "Son of the Cuartango
Hole," a new exploit that was created by Microsoft's patch for the
Cuartango hole."
"'Son' was followed by 'The Grandson of the Cuartango Hole,' which was
�- yes, you guessed it -- caused by a second fix that Microsoft issued
to plug the original Cuartango hole."
Reminds me of that old notice Radio Shack used to put on their
electronic-component packages. Consumers had so many problems with
those components that it got to be a standard joke that "the package
says the IC was tested, not that it passed".
So then Radio Shack substituted a different notice: "This device is
100% fully functional. This does not mean that it meets all
manufacturer's specification. However, it _is_ 100% fully functional".
Ah, that explains it. :o)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:11:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:28:26 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chad Everett wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:09:49 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Everett
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote
>> >on 12 Apr 2001 17:09:51 -0500
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >>On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:23:02 -0600, Jerry Coffin
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>>says...
>> >>>
>> >>>[ ... ]
>> >>>
>> >>>> Yes, and you can construct bad trees that require
>> >>>> exponential time to search -- in reality it rarely
>> >>>> happens [/me sticks his neck out on that assertation].
>> >>>
>> >>>You're not really sticking it out very far -- testing with
>> >>>generational scavengers seems to agree quite closely.
>> >>>
>> >>>> If you view a program as a tree of objects,
>> >>>> stemming from the root object, you would end up with a
>> >>>> tree and not a list, albeit with circular references.
>> >>>
>> >>>Which is to say that it's a graph, not a tree. A tree would be an
>> >>>acyclic graph, where this is a more general graph that may contain
>> >>>cycles.
>> >>
>> >>A tree is an acyclic, connected graph, not just acyclic.
>> >
>> >Pedant point: so is a DAG. :-)
>> >
>> >A tree needs to include the requirement that nodes aren't entered
>> >more than once (they can be exited as many times as required, however).
>> >
>>
>> This is not a requirement of a tree. It is a property of a tree when
>> it is explored. A tree is an acyclic, connected graph...period.
>>
>> Hey this is fun! :)
>
>Chad is correct.
This is getting very off topic (so what else is new? :-) ) but
I fail to see how
A ----------> B ----------> D
\ /
----------> C ------>---
can be a tree....? Granted, one can spit the node D into two
images: D1 and D2, but I'm obviously missing something very obvious
here (this sort of thing also comes up in inheritance diagrams in C++
and can get ugly fast).
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 8d:07h:59m actually running Linux.
I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS and ISP's
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:14:43 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Microsoft itself has not challenged Judge Jackson's "Findings of FACT"
>
> Therefore it is a LEGAL FACT that Microsoft is a monopoly.
>
> Hope that helps, MORON.
Looks to me like it's one of two major arguments being heard in the appeal,
moron.
<paste>
THE COURT: Because of the breadth and complexity and importance of the
issues on appeal, the arguments in this case will be heard over the course
of two days. Today the Court will hear arguments on monopoly maintenance
and the tying issues. Counsel will be allowed 75 minutes per side on the
monopoly maintenance issue and 45 minutes per side on the tying issue.
The Court may take a short break after the appellant's opening
argument,
and then we are likely to take a recess for lunch at the conclusion of the
arguments on monopoly maintenance. We will reconvene promptly at the
conclusion of any break.
Tomorrow, the Court will hear arguments on the attempted
monopolization,
relief and conduct of the trial and extrajudicial statements.
We are now ready to hear arguments.
</paste>
Here's a question for you, moron.
Since you HAVE NOT CHALLENGED (by providing proof to the contrary) the
assertion that your not an Admin of any kind, and only use Windows 98, and
are lying about it. Does that PROVE that you are therefore a lying?
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:14:25 GMT
[snips]
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> > Umm... the registry is not the reason apps require reboots.
>
> You're right... its often the reason for the Blue Screen of Doh!
Can't say I've ever seen that happen as a result of the registry, but I'll
take your word for it.
> > Generally
> > speaking, there are three reasons an install wants to reboot:
> >
> > 1) It has attempted to update a locked file, such as a system file.
>
> Then stop the services that are using the file first. If the services
> are network services, "telinit 1" would do the trick.
Sounds good. Unless, of course, one wants those services running... and why
would they be running if they weren't wanted? Better to wait until reboot,
since the user isn't going to expect them to run while the machine is being
rebooted.
> > 2) It has installed something expected to run during the startup phase
of
> > operations
>
> Then stop all the old dependencies, and start the new ones again.
In several cases, "the old dependencies" involve the OS itself. Oh, wait,
we _are_ discussing stopping and then restarting the old dependencies - by
rebooting. :)
> > 3) It is installing a service (not in the NT sense, but in the sense of
a
> > background application or library) which needs to be launched in order
to
> > work
>
> Then launch it first.
Not always possible, depending on context.
> The thing about NT is that everything was so tangled that the easiest
> way out is a reboot. Win 2000 has improved greatly on this, but probably
> not yet to the level of UNIX modularity.
Probably not; Win2K has removed all but a handful of cases where you need to
reboot; it is a lot nicer to work with if you do a lot of installations or
modifications.
> > Funny; I tried that today. Tried to install xemacs. Not once, not
twice,
> > but three times - and every time, guess what it did? It froze the
machine.
> > No, not just X - the whole damn machine. No restarting X. No logging
into
> > another terminal as root and doing a graceful shutdown. No nothing. No
> > response at all from keyboard, mouse, network, or anything else.
>
> Check the logs! Check your memory. There's some bad karma present
<grin>.
Yup. Happens I know (now) what caused it. Had absolutely nothing to do
with the product being installed, the RPM package manager, locked files, or
anything even remotely related; it was a completely *un*related animal
(power management, of all things) causing it to tank.
> By the way, recreating the same problem three times merely makes the
> presentation more dramatic.
Well, I *did* want the product installed, and I could buy, at least in the
first case, some bizarre interaction with something, somewhere, so I figured
"Try it again.". When it repeated, it became a case of "Dammit, I want to
know _why_ this is happening; I want to know the exact point at which it's
failing, and what is, or at least could be, interacting with it".
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:16:25 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:54:07 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On REAL operating systems, you can have 500 programs (or thousands,
even),
> > > and install a new app....WITH NO FEAR of anything bad happening.
> >
> > Funny; I tried that today. Tried to install xemacs. Not once, not
twice,
> > but three times - and every time, guess what it did? It froze the
machine.
>
> You should report that to somebody then. I've never heard of an XEmacs
> install freezing a Unix machine.
It wasn't XEmacs at fault; it just happened to be the thing I was
installing. A little examination of the underlying causes indicated what
was actually at fault, and I've been subsequently informed that the offender
(apm) is well known to be a total piece of steaming offensiveness.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.hackers.malicious
Subject: Re: Why Bill Gates Is Ramming His Thick Meaty Cock Up Torvald's Weak Mincing
Ass
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:23:08 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > message
> > >
> > > I can't say Bill Gates is personally responsible for all this, any
> > > more than Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin was responsible for all
> > > atrocities conducted within their respective regimes. However, they
> > > might bear general responsibility.
> >
> > Isn't this where Godwin's Law steps in? :)
>
> No, it is not, MORON
>
>
> Oh..and FUCK GODWIN.
Lemme guess; you're the first man in history to experience PMS.
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
[snip stupid sig-bomb]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:25:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Joseph T. Adams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 14 Apr 2001 16:40:06 GMT
<9b9uh6$m48$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Of course, then one has to worry about heavy fragmentation and
>: degrading performance as the MFT fills up. (This is an improvement?
>: When will someone write a slip-in DLL/module/whatever for NT that
>: allows it to use a proper file system, like reiserfs, xfs, or
>: even ext2fs? :-) )
>
>
>Even if it were possible, you wouldn't want ext2fs on NT.
Why wouldn't it be possible, given access to the source code? :-)
(Of course, that's where it all falls down. But presumably, somewhere
deep in the system, there's a DLL implementing NTFS; that DLL may also
implement FAT (NT supports both) and presumably one can add code
to support other file systems. I know someone hacked in ext2 support
on Win95 (fsdext2), so it's possible, at some level. If we're
really lucky, we could add our own DLL and specify it somewhere in that
beehive of a registry, and NT would recognize ext2 volumes -- or
other filetype volumes -- and treat them as though they were its own
filesystem, more or less.)
I will admit that there may be some issues with DACLs and SACLs, though.
But NT can also run on FAT, so they're not 100% essential, obviously.
>It makes
>certain assumptions about the sanity of the OS (for instance, that it
>won't crash) which obviously are not true of NT. These assumptions
>aren't necessarily true for poorly administered Linux boxes either,
Or any Linux box. Of course, one reason why ext2 is so reliable on
the vast majority is simply because of bdflush, which ensures that
dirty pages get written in a timely manner. If a node crashes,
the pages on disk are usually up-to-date unless of course it
was very busy reading and writing.
>especially those that have questionable hardware or an unreliable
>power source, which is why it was so important to get a journalling
>filesystem like reiserfs integrated into Linux.
That does help, although I've yet to get a distribution cobbled
together on this box that takes advantage thereof. (Debian is a
bit behind the times and I'm not sure I want to go through the
hassle of Redhat again. :-) )
>
>You can of course export almost all UNIX filesystems to NT networks
>via samba.
Not if Microsoft changes SMB again.... :-/ And Samba is slightly broken
(or maybe NT is); it can't handle directories with a huge number of
entries too well.
>
>
>Joe
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 8d:07h:09m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:27:30 GMT
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> > [snips]
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > the average woman can do the same.
> > > > she just needs her boyfriend to set it up for her first.
> > > > but he'll do it in exchange for unskilled labor.
> > >
> > > I demand *skilled* labor.
> > >
> > > No fucking microwave-meals.
> >
> > Oh, come on. KD just isn't _right_ if it ain't nuked. :)
>
> Fuck that.
>
> No properly cooked food = no favors.
If she has to purchase favours with cooking, then they're not favours, but
business transactions. How much do you charge her for her birthday
presents?
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
[snip of stupid sig-bomb]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:30:17 GMT
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 02:33:42 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kurt Lochner wrote:
>>
>> silverback wrote:
>> >
>> > Kurt Lochner was having a laugh at the absurdist revelations proselytized by:
>> > >
>> > >Fraud Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again twisted the meaning of:
>> > >>
>> > >> silverback wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > silverback wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> <etc,... snip>
>> > >>
>> > >> > >> wrong again liar. Fascism is corporate rule. The Nazis allowed the
>> > >> > >> corporations to write the laws.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >So, then, you agree that it's bad to let the Sierra Club and similar
>> > >> > >groups write environmental law, and that it's a bad idea to let
>> > >> > >those with a vested interest in the welfare bureacracy to write
>> > >> > >welfare laws.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > nope, the Sierra club is hardly a corporation buttfuck.
>> > >>
>> > >> From http://outingleaders.sierraclub.org:8082/Common/ins_manual/index.asp;
>> > >>
>> > >> [...]
>> > >>
>> > >> The Sierra Club, which includes the chapters, groups, and sections,
>> > >> is considered one corporation under California corporation law.
>> > >
>> > > <sigh> I let the disengneuous fraud out of my kill-file, and he's
>> > > still trying to misrepresent even the simplest of concepts as some
>> > > kind of defense for his intentional ignorance..
>> >
>> > I wonder if the stupid lying fraud knows that California's 1849
>> > constitution made a clear distinction between a for profit corporation
>> > and a non profit corporation?
>>
>> He tried to appear cognizant of that, by way of innuendo..
>>
>> --Notice how quiet he got about the California electric utilities? <chuckle>
>
>Oh, you mean like PG&E, which went bankrupt because they were forced to
>operate under a Marxist economic model......
oh you mean they couldn't cut it in a free market asshole. Remember
asshole it was fools like you that deregulated the market.
>
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> 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.
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Windoze is dying....
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:29:02 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ray Chason wrote:
> >
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/04/13/1236215&mode=thread
> >
> > Well, well, well. It seems the almighty Redmond Empire can't get
> > its Xbox out on time.
> >
> > Guess Windoze must be dying.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
[snip of stupid sig-bomb]
39 lines of sig, to say absolutely *nothing* in the message itself? Pretty
weenie.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:29:42 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Brent R wrote:
> >
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > >
> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I see you failed to do as I challenged. You are a liar.
> > >
> > > JJ, I hardly think that Aaron should feel compelled to go
> > > through an edit-make-post-edit-make cycle just to prove
> > > to a prick-headed little troll such as yourself that he
> > > can obtain and modify source code on Linux.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > Because he has never posted with anything other than a Win 98 header,
> > NOT EVEN ONCE! He could make one post on a non-modified *nix newsreader,
> > just one, and this whole thing would stop... now.
> >
> > But that's not going to happen.
>
> I described in enough detail how to modify the headers so that THREE
> seperate people could replicate my results.
>
> That is sufficient.
It's obviously not sufficient if so many people here don't believe it.
There must be some newsreader on your box that has an un-modified header
and all you'd have to do is post with it just once and this whole thing
would be over.
That doesn't seem too hard now does it?
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze is dying....
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:30:17 GMT
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ray Chason wrote:
> >
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/04/13/1236215&mode=thread
> >
> > Well, well, well. It seems the almighty Redmond Empire can't get
> > its Xbox out on time.
> >
> > Guess Windoze must be dying.
>
> Has any software company shipped *anything* on time ever in the life of
> computing history?
On time. On budget. Works. Pick two - or one in an emergency. :)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
