Linux-Advocacy Digest #175, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: article on Windows 2002 ("Glitch")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (T. Max Devlin)
Re: article on Windows 2002 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (GreyCloud)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (GreyCloud)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (GreyCloud)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy (GreyCloud)
Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on OSS/GPL (
/. hates it so it's good)) ("Stephen Edwards")
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (George Peter Staplin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:49 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 17:41:49
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >Please explain how I'm wrong? I load word, I start typing. I then print
>> >it. I don't even need to name it.
>>
>> Why not just say "I just do it." Do I really need to explain to you why
>> your instructions are sort of worthless, and thus your argument is ad
>> absurdum?
>
>So, what's your explanation of how I'm wrong?
First, tell me why I should need to explain it? BTW, I said your
instructions were worthless, which makes you mistaken; I never said you
were wrong. Stupid, maybe, but I don't fault people for ignorance, and
try to ignore the kind of carefully-stuidied ignorance you're playing
at.
So first explain to me you could be so stupid that you don't understand
already where your mistake is, and then I'll explain where your mistake
is, if I like your answer, OK?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:51 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 17:49:08
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >Rasperberry.
>>
>> Can't seem to pull of an onomatopoeia, can you? Doh!
>
>I could spell it "raspberry" if you want. I think I like my spelling
>more though.
Perhaps you should look up onomatopoeia.
>> >Yet explorer is faster than konqueror.
>>
>> When it doesn't grind to a halt under load, maybe.
>
>Yet I can view a directory across the network with thousands of files
>with explorer; I can do the same with konqueror, but I have to wait a
>_lot_ longer.
It takes MUCH longer to view things in explorer than you like to
pretend, I'm afraid. And Windows routinely chokes on directories with
thousands of files, I've noticed, though the problem affects
applications more than Explorer, of course, since MS has mangled their
design so badly.
>> >I knew what it meant. Unfortunately, you have no understanding of
>> >something called "sarcasm".
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. You call that sarcasm?
>
>Yep. Better than your childish bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
That wasn't sarcasm; that was ridicule. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: article on Windows 2002
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:27:26 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Neil Cerutti"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch posted:
>>"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/567993.asp
>>>
>>> Is it just me or does Microsoft have trouble figuring out a consisten
>>> naming scheme for their operating systems?
>>>
>>> I think they have an identity crisis or something. I wish it would
>>> stop whatever it is.
>>
>>I don't see how it's a big deal. They're keeping the year naming scheme
>>for the enterprise products, such as the Server, SQL Server 2000,
>>Exchange 2000, etc...
>
Keeping SQL server 2000 until XP comes out and then it might end up being
SQLXP
Don't even have any vowels in that one, lol.
I'm right in assuming SQL server 2000 came from SQL server *2.0* right?
There is a nomenclature change right there.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:21:49 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 04 May 2001 01:37:40 GMT;
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <
>
>> Bill Hudson, senile never-been, displaying his ignorance as usual.
>
>This from an MI ARNG Specialist with 11 1/2 years of service that'll never
>see Sergeant stripes or any leadership responsibility. You're too funny,
>wannabe.
All right, guys. Enough. Enough. You're both sounding incredibly
pathetic already.
--
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,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:21:50 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 04 May 2001 01:35:11 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> I'm sorry, the U.S. *never* authorizes violence.
>
>Sure. Just like the two nukes we dropped on population centers.
Yes, I know; you're incapable of believing that "violence" doesn't mean
any physical destruction, because that's what it says in the dictionary.
Enough already.
--
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:21:51 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 03 May 2001
>Zippy wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK, that's the ONLY reading of the Sherman ANTI-TRUST Act. Is there some
>> other felonious type of restraint which can be placed upon free trade? You
>> seem to be implying that the government can place restraints upon "free
>> trade" which are also in violation of the Sherman ANTI-TRUST Act, which
>> just isn't true. The Sherman ANTI-TRUST Act wasn't geared toward
>> preventing the government from attempting to control trade.
>
>Your interpretation is correct.
You are incorrect. The Sherman anti-trust act doesn't have anything to
do with "controlling" trade; restraining trade is not illegal because it
is "controlling" trade. There's nothing wrong with "controlling" trade,
as long as it is your own trade. Given the abstraction of the federal
government as the entire nation, it therefore has the ability to control
any trade, in accordance with law.
>Other wise punitive tarrifs and subsidies would be illegal (which, in
>fact, they SHOULD be).
Only if you're stupid enough to think that all government is oppressive,
and dumb enough on top of that to think that all oppression is
government.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: article on Windows 2002
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 23:18:44 -0500
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Neil Cerutti"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Erik Funkenbusch posted:
> >>"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/567993.asp
> >>>
> >>> Is it just me or does Microsoft have trouble figuring out a consisten
> >>> naming scheme for their operating systems?
> >>>
> >>> I think they have an identity crisis or something. I wish it would
> >>> stop whatever it is.
> >>
> >>I don't see how it's a big deal. They're keeping the year naming scheme
> >>for the enterprise products, such as the Server, SQL Server 2000,
> >>Exchange 2000, etc...
> >
>
> Keeping SQL server 2000 until XP comes out and then it might end up being
> SQLXP
>
> Don't even have any vowels in that one, lol.
>
> I'm right in assuming SQL server 2000 came from SQL server *2.0* right?
> There is a nomenclature change right there.
No, SQL Server 2000 is SQL Server 8.0
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:27:33 -0700
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > :> What an absurd statement, you're the one being completely illogical. If
> > :> a hetrosexual can be "converted" then clearly they already have
> > :> homosexual leanings.
> > :
> > :Proof?
> >
> > Know anybody who 'came out of the closet' who said ``I honestly had
> > absolutely no desire for guys before and got turned on by women only, and
> > I wasn't just acting.'' ?
> >
> > Why is it called 'coming out of the closet' as in their personality
> > was hidden, rather than, ``changing my mind about what gender I wanted
> > to boink.''
>
> Also take this logic as well. Would some one wakeup one day and say, "I'll
> join one of the most despised groups, lose most of my friends and then to
> top it all off, get rejected by my family". Doesn't sound logical, does it?
>
> Homosexuality is not a new thing, it has been around for millions of years
> (since man has existed), and in some cultures, it is seen as perfectly
> normal, aka, thats how nature made you. Unfortunately, the US is riddled
> with religious extremists that try to demonise people who are homosexual.
> In the New Zealand parliament, we have a transexual MP, and several openly
> gay MP's, a rastafarian MP (the same religion as Bob Marley). I wonder if
> there is that sort of deversity in the house of representatives? when there
> was the Hero Parade in Auckland, the Prime Minister went along to support
> Gay Rights, yet, in the land of the free, I don't see that happening.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
We've got Barney Frank! :-))
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:44:04 -0700
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>
> On Thu 03 May 2001 05:23, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >> yet l. ron hubbard has thousands of followers to this day.
> >> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >>
> >> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> >> more even than death
> >> - bertrand russell
> >
> > Who's Ron Hubbard?
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
> >
> >
>
> L. Ron Hubbard used to be a (rather mediocre) science fiction author. He
> founded a religion called the Church of Scientology, which on the surface
> appears to be a new-agey self help group ("Dianetics" is perhaps the most
> well-known piece of Scientology) but basically sucks large amounts of money
> from its members to "prepare" them for revealing the "truth": that we're
> all a bunch of alien spirits called "thetans" that were massacred when the
> evil galactic warlord Xenu imprisoned them in volcanoes and detonated
> H-bombs on them. Many people speculate that Hubbard created Scientology as
> a way to get filthy rich, but surrounded himself with his followers and
> began to believe his own crap as he descended into madness.
>
> Basically, Scientology gets its power from the fact that it targets
> celebrities and the rich for new recruits, then threatens anyone who would
> leave using tactics that Big Brother would be jealous of. Quite a few
> Hollywood actors are Scientologists, perhaps most visibly John Travolta.
> The U.S. mostly turns a blind eye to the CoS, but quite a few countries in
> Europe treat them as the cult that they are.
>
> You can read more about Scientology (always great for laughs!) at Operation
> Clambake, <http://www.xenu.net/>. The name comes from the fact that
> Hubbard claimed that humans were descended from clams.
>
> --
> Chronos Tachyon
> Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
> Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
> [Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
Yes, CULT! That's L. Ron Hubbard. Anytime a group wants money for its
support as a religion is a cult!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:47:16 -0700
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:zySH6.6169$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Just from the commercial side of things, I don't see XP taking off for
> quite
> > a while. So many of these shops have just now upgraded to W2K. I think MS
> > would have been better served to have given W2K a miss and just waited
> until
> > XP was done. The whole thing is more than a little strange when you
> consider
> > their past marketing efforts. It just doesn't make sense.
>
> Imagine this:
> XP is the achievement of a single code base. One set of drivers, you do not
> need to maintaine different drivers for W9x and ME and W2K. There is only
> one set of updates. Only one GUI to learn. One way to do things. It's the
> termination of a KNOWN ugly line of code. It's the end of ANYTHING remotely
> to do with DOS (other than emulation for backwards compatibility).
>
> XP is a godsend for tech support. No longer having to ask: what version of
> windows are you running? and then having to fork your knowledgebase and
> script based on that.
>
> I don't see XP as a wait for it or think about it upgrade, I see XP as a
> must have upgrade. Give me a shop running W2K servers and W2K/XP desktops
> and I'll show you one that has cut tech support by half just from
> eliminating support for old crap.
Gee,... only one brand of car to buy,... only one brand of bread to buy,
... only one brand of soup to buy,... only one way to do things... UH
HUH!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:48:12 -0700
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:MdSH6.6166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The thing I have against MS's plans, is that once I buy a product I have
> no
> > further use for the vendor outside of any technical support issues that
> may
> > arise. I also don't like their having knowledge about the hardware I use.
> I
> > smell SPAM and direct mailings galore from those tidbits of information.
>
> The ONLY information sent during activation is: YOUR indication of the
> country you are in.
> Pick "USA" or pick "Ireland" or whatever - there is no other information
> passed. Packet sniffers will prove this truth.
Maybe bicycle seat sniffers maybe??
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:52:17 -0700
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > > Hmm, a default Windows install is pretty functional for me.
> > >
> > > What specifically are you talking about?
> >
> > Lack of a decent command-line interface and a standard API like unix
> > has.
>
> Could you please expand on this? Exactly what is it that NT
> cannot do from the VDM that it can do from the GUI? If the
> VDM doesn't suit you, then what about CygWin32?
>
> Also, as far as standard APIs go, what is Win32 exactly, if
> it is not a standard API? From what I can tell, Microsoft
> software is THE standard out there these days. Sometimes I
> think that old-school UNIX users tend to live in the past,
> thinking that POSIX has more presence than it really does.
>
> Microsoft's standards are proprietary, but they are standards
> nonetheless. I simply don't understand why some people have
> a "POSIX-compliance or die" attitude. I can't even count on
> two hands anymore the amount of software that has been ported
> back and forth between POSIX and Win32, so why does it even
> matter much, if at all if an OS is POSIX.1-.3 compliant?
> --
>From the last time I heard this, the DOD wants POSIX compliance...
that's why all the UNIX vendors have complied.
Do you suppose that MS can ignore this without consequences?
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~rakmount/
>
> .------. "The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean.
> |[_] :| From it we have learned most of what we know. Recently, we
> | = -| have waded a little out to sea, enough to dampen our toes,
> | | or at most, wet our ankles. The water seems inviting. The
> | | ocean calls. Some part of our being knows this is from
> |_...._| where we came. We long to return." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 22:03:46 -0700
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3af1f28f$0$12226$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp
>
> An interesting read.
>
> ===
>
> Slashdot is trying desperately to make this sound bad cause it cuts deep:
>
> From Slashdot:
> "For example, Mundie says forking code is bad. Here's the same thought
> translated into manager-speak: 'Having multiple vendors competing to offer
> us the best product at the lowest price is worse than having one vendor
who
> can sell the product to us at monopoly prices.'"
>
> Now - I don't know about you but up until this moment I've heard that
> forking code is bad. In fact, I have heard linux believers defend STRONGLY
> against claims that the linux kernel is forking. And now, just because MS
> says forking is bad - suddenly forking is good?? It's this sort of
childish
> desperate behaviour that is why enterprises don't even consider linux.
What I found particularly interesting was this bit:
---
The Internet, for example, was full of sites producing content for free,
in the hope that somehow they�d generate revenue from sources that never
materialized, whether it was advertising, subscriptions, or a wing and a
prayer. As we�ve learned � or really re-learned � one can�t build a business
or our economic future on that type of flimsy foundation.
---
I'm certain Microsoft knew this for quite some time.
A lot of companies/corporations, such as Caldera, S.u.S.E., IBM, SGI,
RedHat,
and a host of others are seemingly clinging onto GNU/Linux like a life-
preserver. SGI's IRIX has lost ground... so has IBM's AIX. Why they
decided
to abandon the very commercial nature of their businesses is beyond me. Why
didn't they simply focus on making products for what WAS and still IS
selling?... Windows.
The sad fact is, that free software was never meant to be commercialized...
it
was meant to be shared. Companies basing their existence on a free product,
in the hopes that they will draw revenue from support contracts simply
doesn't
work in the long run. That is what I and others said a while ago. That is
what
we are seeing now. I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more
dusty has-been cubicles being repossessed/liquidated in the next year or
two.
Because software such as GNU/Linux, NetBSD, Samba, Apache, etc. are free,
they
will always be around. They won't ever go away, because they are so
accessible.
"Free software never dies... it simply changes maintainers."
However, they also close the gap for what kind of software is needed.
They close a lot of possible avenues for commercial opportunity. This
isn't a bad thing, as businesses which are interested in marketing other
kinds of software/services benefit greatly. However, companies that are
trying to market GNU/Linux, which can be obtained without any cost, defy
logic on all levels. And eventually, commercial all GNU/Linux distributors
will fail... miserably. And GNU/Linux will simply remain as a free product.
Has anyone wondered at all why nobody has tried to market, say, NetBSD?
It's because anyone who knows enough about it to do so already knows
that doing so is, to say the least, stupid. It is, to say the most,
corporate suicide.
--
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rakmount/
.------. "The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean.
|[_] :| From it we have learned most of what we know. Recently, we
| = -| have waded a little out to sea, enough to dampen our toes,
| | or at most, wet our ankles. The water seems inviting. The
| | ocean calls. Some part of our being knows this is from
|_...._| where we came. We long to return." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
------------------------------
From: George Peter Staplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 22:57:45 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> > > >> If open source is so bad, according to Microsoft,
> > > >> why are they suddenly changing their tune now?
> > >
> > > > Open Source isn't bad, according to MS. The GPL is. They support Open
> > > > Source licenses such as the BSDL.
> > >
> > > Alright, fair enough, but why exactly is microsoft spending so much time
> > > and energy slamming the GPL? Is it some sort of threat?
> >
> > They (rightfully, IMHO) don't want government projects to use GPL
> > software because it doesn't benefit *everyone*, only other GPL
> > software projects. If the government does open source, they want it
> > under a free license instead (like the BSDL) so that everyone can
> > benefit.
>
> EVERYBODY can benefit from GPL.
Not everybody benefits from the GPL. Some large corporations have
strict rules that guard against the use of any GPL'd software. Static
executables are a wonderful way to make software installation easier on
the user, but linking with a GPL'd or LGPL'd library causes your the
executable to have GPL or LGPL restrictions. So, the end result is that
the GPL will retard progress for some people, because installation will
become more of a hell with shared libraries.
I appreciate government workers not using the GPL, because I have the
right to reuse some of their code.
I personally believe that if you are going to make free software you
might as well make it public domain software, so that licensing is not
an issue. I believe in software ownership, rather than licensing.
Though, I'm not totally against GPL'd software. I use the GNU C
compiler every day.
> All that's needed is a willingness to comply with the terms.
>
> MAfia$oft's problem is that they don't want to be bothered with
> the trivial expense of clean-room reproduction....they'd MUCH
> prefer to steal others' code outright, without even so much
> as an attribution to the original authors.
Microsoft has used BSD code for many of their Network tools, and I think
it's great that they have. Everybody should have that oppurtunity.
-George
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 01:05:44 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Beats me. You seem to be suggesting that
> > > there is some law that prohibits Microsoft
> > > from killing off DOS.
> >
> > No. I said that there *IS* a law which prohibits mandatory bundling.
> >
> > The fate of DOS is independant.
>
> Oh, that's different then.
>
> But it seems you have no complaints about
> what Microsoft did with DOS and
> Windows.
I have problems with ALL of Microsofts restraint-of-trade contracts...
including the ones going back to the DOS-only years.
>
> > > Perhaps it's only illegal for Microsoft?
> >
> > It's illegal for ANY company. Hope that helps.
>
> Well, it's nice to see you aren't using a double
> standard, at least.
Next you'll be telling me that it's nice to know what I'm talking about...
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 07:05:04 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terry Porter wrote:
> From a Motorcycle news group today
> "glitch1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> Linux and Unix geeks, stay away !! :)
>> Been mucking around for months with w98se and w2k to get the 2 machines
>> networked, also trying to rig both onto one internet connection. Tried
>> all those "you beaut" apps like Winproxy, Wingate etc., trying to follow
>> the EASY instal & forget stuff, resulting in more frustration than coffee
>> at hand....
>> W98 dropping the network constantly resulting in endless logon/logoffs,
>> 98 and 2k not talking on the same level, bugger it.
>
> Tell us again Wintrolls, how "easy" Windos is to set up ?
>
Well, Windows is not too hard to set up in most cases. Work starts when you
try to keep Windows running. I had more than enough trouble with
NT-printservers.
--
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 4.3 and SuSE 7.1
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
