Linux-Advocacy Digest #621, Volume #34 Sat, 19 May 01 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Promoting Distribution of Open Source Applications ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Dell Meets Estimates ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which linux dist? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Beos vs Linux (Karel Jansens)
Re: Who to install a .gz.tar file? (David Harvill)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux takes Hollywood by storm! (.)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Robert W Lawrence)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Robert W Lawrence)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Robert W Lawrence)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Robert W Lawrence)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Robert W Lawrence)
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("Doug Ransom")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:10:57 +1200
> Not on W2K - what OS do you use that has that fear?
Win2k, running Netscape 6. Then second time, Win2k running Windows
Mediaplayer, copying some stuff from my USB Zip 100 Drive to my hard disk,
and surfing the net.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:13:13 +1200
> > Yes, they do, or they are not code reviews.
>
> Wow, suddenly, reviewing code isn't a code review simply because it
doesn't
> review every line in a program. Do you have any idea how long it would
take
> to review 35 million lines of code?
Had they got it right the first time, they wouldn't need to review 35
Million lines of code. Also, they would have programmed more efficiently,
and it wouldn't have bloated to 35 Million lines of code vs. the 6 or so
million Solaris 8 04/01 has.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:15:51 +1200
> > Perhaps you are willing to consider lack of code review to be a code
> > review, or a bad code review to be a code review, but to me, and the
> > rest of the world, a code review is a code review. MS obviously doesn't
> > do them.
> >
> > We're supposed to somehow believe that they WROTE 35 million lines of
> > code, but they are somehow incapable of READING 35 million lines of
> > code.
>
> Perhaps Eric meant to say 'a partial code review' ;-)
That is possible. First, goto the sections that are most critical, such as
the very low level code, then move back from there, until you eventually get
to the low priorirty code such as the GUI.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Promoting Distribution of Open Source Applications
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:18:49 +1200
Redhat includes support. This is just straight out, "money please", "here
is your software" approach.
matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:21:57 +1200
> After some considerable reading at HP and other web sites... it appears
> that the PA-RISC can execute IA-64 instructions unmodified. HP has had
> a large hand in its development with Intel. That's about all I could
> find out about it. There will always be development chips available
> from Intel in small quantities, but from past experience the properties
> may change or come more closely to what Intel wanted all along...
> currently the IA-64 has some speed problems with certain programs having
> to do with the predictive jump feature... can't remember all of what
> I've found on other web sites, but it appears to be its biggest hurdle.
>From what I have read, they will be priced at around the same Xeon was.
Once released, people will be waiting for Windows XP 64bit to be released,
even though they could run "built like a brick shit house" UNIX straight
away.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:25:31 +1200
"Xrayjuan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KbjN6.554$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Wow! what a technical explanation " Linux rocks " : - 0
HP last year made 180Million by selling Linux based servers, and they
weren't even pushing hard! now, I would be interested if they threw their
full weight behind it how much more they could make.
Mattthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:28:22 +1200
Well, well, well, earth link customers are coming into line with the same
arrogance as AOL customers.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:31:55 +1200
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 20:55:39 -0700,
> Paolo Ciambotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Terry Porter"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I see "flatfish" has replied to "wendy" in a futile attempt to lend
> > legitimacy to the original post.
> It sure seems so.
>
> > Where have we seen this before?
> Let me see if I can remember ..... oh yeah ........ COLA and
> "Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
> S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
> Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish and possibly 'Wendy'"
remember to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the list as well.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:34:32 +1200
>
>
> Have you been reading How-To's for the last 6 months or so?
> If not, then don't even think about trying Linux because you will be
> sorely disappointed. You see, Linux is not an operating system it is a
> religion that will take over and consume your entire life and your
> entire existence. If you are not ready to make that kind of commitment
> to Linux then it is no surprise that you failed.
>
> flatfish
How is a volunteer OS going to fail on the desktop when there is no cost for
maintaince of the code, hence, no motive for profit? I couldn't care less if
it got onto the desktop. Even Linus doesn't care. So whats with this
assumption that the whole Linux community wan't lusers like wendy trying to
get their crappy CompUSA, the equivilant to Dick Smiths, computer to run
Linux.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:47:38 +1200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > What version of xfree are you running? I didn't have to set up
anything. I
> > installed SuSE Linux 7.1 Pro, reboot, and voila, instant anti-aliasing.
>
> It's either 4.0.3 or 4.0.1 - I don't have the machine handy to find out.
> I seem to remember it needs to be accelerated and xdpyinfo indicates
> it's not.
>
have you checked whether xrender supports your card?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 14:49:56 GMT
On Fri, 18 May 2001 14:53:08 -0700, Michael Vester
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I will rely on your expertise to keep us up todate with the latest
>incarnation of Flatfish. I capitalize Flatfish's name because it is a
>proper noun. If Flatfish was a fish, I would not capitalize. But I give
>the same respect to the name Flatfish as I would give to any other name.
>This posting was distinctly the work of Flatfish, even to my untrained
>eyes.
You wasted your time. Flatfish "IS" a fish. Study the Mariana Trench
sometime and you learn.. Actually it is called "The Flatfish".
flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 14:49:57 GMT
Nope.
Someone is copying "me style" to create some traffic.
My material is much better.
Besides, I haven't even tried Mandrake 8.0 yet, it's on my TODO list
and I can certainly install GRUB or LILO and especially Windows.
Grub Windows 2k boot loader and Bootmagic work well together anyhow
and it is almost impossible to screw them up. The only thing that
happens is depending upon which is installed last, that one will call
the others and so forth. It works fine though.
flatfish
On Sat, 19 May 2001 11:40:06 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>flatfish++++ is that you?
>
>
>-Ed
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: which linux dist?
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 14:49:57 GMT
On Sat, 19 May 2001 12:14:15 +0100, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I am currently using Slackware as I find it extremely fast and powerful.
>
>But now that I have a bit of money :) I don't know if to buy Red Hat
>Deluxe edition or Mandrake 8.0
>
>I tried Mandrake 8.0 and it is brilliant as everything works out immediately
>but I found it a bit too slow and painful to get rid of all the services i
>did not really need.
>
>Which distribution would you recommend?
SuSE 7.1, or whatever the latest version is.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:01:02 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e44d1$30f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:LqbN6.28552$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > > Yeah . That's why you and so many Microsoft .net lapdogs are so eager
> > > try and sucker the open source community in supporting C# and the rest
> > > of Microsoft's crap. To bad for the most part it isn't really working.
> >
> > I think its plainly obvious that .NET is intented to woo the
> > *Java* crowd. It's practically a Java clone.
>
> No, that is C#, not .NET.
Java isn't just a language. It's a whole environment,
virtual machine, libraries, the works.
.NET is like that. C# is only part of it.
.NET differs from Java in that it supports
multiple languages, but honestly it doesn't
seem to support them very well- they all
need to be modified to run on it, except
for C# which was designed to.
It's really a lot like Java.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:02:27 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e44d7$30f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:KqbN6.28551$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Game developers were like other developers-
> > they switched when switching would allow
> > them to produce a more competitive product,
> > and only then.
>
> And IIRC, it was around DX3.0 time, wasn't it?
Yeah. Early versions of Direct3D had some
real problems, and it was really the 3D
stuff that developers needed.
They did good enough with sound and input
and networking on DOS. Not great, but
good enough.
But the 3D thing was a bear. It was very hard
to be compatible with many different video
cards and still be fast.
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: Beos vs Linux
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:08:15 +0000
Dan Pidcock wrote:
>
> Next I tried changing window managers to see if the machine would be a
> bit quicker and this opens up a whole new can of worms.��I�don't�have
> gnome wm, but tried mwm, fvwm, fvwm2, afterstep and icewm.��Of�all
> these I find icewm nicest with the launcher/task bar.��This�however
> brings me to another bugbear with linux: each window manager seems to
> have it's own standard for application menus, themes and the like.
> It's just such a pain configuring each one to be nice & have all my
> useful apps on the menus.
I found two nice graphical configuration utilities for IceWM: iceme (a menu
and toolbar editor for IceWM) and icepref (a general configuration tool for
fonts, colours, pictures and whatnot...). They allow you to point and click
your IceWM to your liking (iceme even comes with a button that
automagically launches icepref, saving you the bother of opening yet
another Xterm).
Check the packages on your distro CD, there is a good chance they are
already on it.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Harvill)
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Who to install a .gz.tar file?
Date: 19 May 2001 08:13:30 -0700
for RH, I've always found that the mkisofs RPM is sufficient. As for what you have,
I would look in the directory that untargzipping created for a README or INSTALL file,
and follow the instructions there.
-dave
Lamar Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> I am running RH 7.1 on an Intel system. I am trying to get me CDRW
> working and the "CD-Writing-HOWTO" said that I needed to download and
> install "mkisofs". Well I downloaded it but I can't seem to find a way
> to install it. I ran the commands: "gunzip filename.gz" and "tar -xvf
> filename.tar" and extracted the files. Now what? Can anyone help?
> Thanks,
>
> Lamar
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:22:29 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > No, I mean the reason why anyone cares that
> > Windows is the dominant OS. Anyone but OS
> > connoseurs, anyway.
>
> Are you really that clueless.
Apparently. :D
> > You say users choose windows because "everyone
> > is using it"; but why do they care?
>
> So they can share apps, data, etc. ???
Apps? They share apps? Don't tell Bill,
he'll go banana's and start bribing OEMs to
find out whose not buying Office. :D
Seriously, they may well buy an app
because their co-workers use it and
they want to share data or otherwise
collaborate.
But they buy the OS so they can run that
app.
[snip]
> > I'd like to see those reviews. If this is the original 8 bit
> > CP/M on an 8080 or Z80 we are talking about, I
> > wonder what they found to like about it.
>
> Search for them, now that your interest is piqued. IIRC, it was more the
> hardware. Im not sure why.
Maybe it was just cheaper. PC's were pricey
at first. CP/M machines didn't have a lot of
fancy coprocessors.
Anyway, it's kind of hard for me to search for
them if you can't even give me the machine's
model number, or an author, or something.
And the chance that such an old article would
appear on the web is pretty small. I'd have
to, like, use a library or something. :D
[snip]
> > > Yeah. m$-DO$ was very close to CP/M. Thats why IBM paid Killdal
800,000
> > > dollar so he would sue over the CP/M code in it.
> >
> > Miffed at Microsoft, were they?
>
> No, moron. Scared Killdal would sue. Cant you read?
If they were scared, why did IBM pay him to
sue?
That's what you claimed. I quoted it above.
It's not completely nonsensical to say that; IBM and
MS were very much at odds at times.
[snip]
> > A good example of a 16-bit OS is MacOS
> > (er, pre X that is). No fancy MMU stuff
> > (they didn't have those), but lots of
> > application services.
>
> When was teh Mac OS -ever- a 16 bit OS?
On the 68000. The instruction set of this
computer was admirably forward looking, and
made it very much easier to move to 32 bits
in, oh, 1987- years before the PC did it.
But from a performance and memory standpoint,
the 68000 was a 16-bit computer. True, it
was a far less awful one than the 8086; it could
access 16MB of memory not just 1MB; but
at the time few could afford even 1MB, and
early Macs were well below that line.
It had a 16 bit ALU, no MMU, no caches
to speak of.
[snip]
> > You never tried to program one, I think.
>
> What does that matter? It worked well for me.
That's what I'm trying to explain: what
matters is what works well for developers.
You may love AppleWorks, but if Apple
hadn't writen it nobody else would have;
too much effort compared to doing the
same things on the PC.
> > Programs like AppleWorks were remarkable
> > coups of software engineering, in that
> > they were able to cope with such a horrid
> > execution environment.
>
> It wasnt horrid AT THE TIME.
Yes it was. "Real" computers had been
doing *vastly* better since the '60s.
It was awful. But it was cheap.
> > But such efforts are, in a sense, wasted;
> > all the clever coding that made AppleWords
> > possible could have been better applied
> > to more substatial features.
>
> What substantial features did Appleworks need in 1987, that Appleworks
> didnt have?
It didn't have anything like WYSIWYG;
the Macintosh was already well established
with this feature by then. AppleWorks couldn't
compete.
Its database was a poor joke. Flat file, and only
one file at a time. No programming to speak of.
No external access.
It didn't provide much of anything in terms of
integration. You couldn't put a spreadsheet in
a word processing document, not even statically.
It had no graphics module at all.
It would have to hit the disk switching
between modules as I recall, and those
disks were not real fast. Integrated
packages on better computers did not
have to do that.
Compare with the later Macintosh ClarisWorks
program. ClarisWorks simply makes AppleWorks
look like a joke. It shows how big a difference
chosing the right platform makes.
[snip]
> > > And I was accessing 1 meg while you PeeCee people were giddy over the
> > > possiblity of 640K.
> >
> > I meant, of course, *more than* 640k.
> >
> > The 8086 and 8088 could address 1 megabyte of
> > memory directly, but the IBM PC had lots of
> > hardware IO stuff mapped into the top of the
> > address space. Thus it could not be used for
> > RAM, just as with the Apple II.
>
> Except I WAS running Appleworks with 1 meg of RAM and almost all of it
> was accessible to Appleworks.
Not directly. AppleWorks was one of the few
programs that would do bank switching to get
to it.
Just as Lotus 1-2-3 could use more
than 1 meg of memory on an 8086.
[snip]
> > > The end user didnt see any of that.
> >
> > No, what the end user saw was that
> > PC applications were better. They
> > ran faster and they had more features.
>
> No, they didnt. No they werent. No they didnt. No they didnt.
You've got an extra denial in there; I only
made three claims.
> > Developers saw that they could
> > program with Turbo Pascal. *That*
> > was a big deal. :D
>
> Really? They saw they coould program with Turbo Pascal? They must have
> discovered this after finding out Pascal was used on the Apple II
> family.
It wasn't used much. USCD Pascal worked, but it worked
by emiting what we now call bytecodes to be interpreted
at runtime; the interpreter could overcome the memory
limits to some extent by paging to disk!
Floppy disk that is.
It was slow, but sometimes it was good enough.
[snip]
> > You know: "allow them to produce a more
> > competitive product"; can the "them" really
> > be construed to refer to Microsoft somehow?
> >
> > I think it can only refer to "game developers"
> > or "other developers".
>
> Too bad.
Rick, you are a piece of work, you are.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux takes Hollywood by storm!
Date: 19 May 2001 15:24:33 GMT
Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9e4788$dr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>> --
>>>> "George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
>>
>>> maybe, but then again, George wasn't the one crying b/c he lost every
>>> single recount. Even now after 2 additional recounts Bush still pulls
>>> ahead......are u saying he is still paying liberal newspapers to put
>>> the results in his favor? even after he already won? Bush won what
>>> counts, the electoral votes. It has happened before that the
>>> President-elect lost the popular vote but no one ever said *that* was
>>> illegitimate.
>>
>> My signature is for thinking, intelligent humans. It is not for you.
>>
>> Please ignore it in the future.
>>
> First, I may do as I please. Between the 2 of us I believe I'm the
> intelligent one since I know what really happened with our last election
> and i'm not in denial about who won and who lost.
Its just a sig file, glitch. Its not a manifesto.
> Second, you must either be 1) a floridian who can't read his ballot or
> 2) someone who swears Gore won the Presidency despite Bush's
> 271 electoral votes. Then again I guess there is a 3rd possibility that
> u fall into both those categories.
Wrong on all counts. I despise both candidates equally, but for different
reasons.
It cannot be denied by anyone, even people who voted for him, that George
Dubya Bush is a fucking moron. Further, it cannot be denied by anyone,
even those who voted for him, that Al Gore is a spineless pansy bastard
whos ulterior motives were disturbing and useless.
I didnt like Nader much either.
Personally, I would have very much liked to have seen William F. Buckley
in office. Since that can never happen, maybe just some other super-intelligent,
thinking, republican tightwad whos tired of the wars on everything in this
country, and would rather spend the money thats funnelled into the DEA every
year on military and education *equally*.
So there.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:25:01 -0500
Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<>> No..it keeps the urethra tightly closed until forced open by exiting semen.
<>
<>Did you know in 1966 95% of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam had contracted
<>VD?
So?
Robert W Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1Peter 5:7
------------------------------
From: Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:26:19 -0500
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<>gotta love the linux advocacy in this thread
I was thinking the same thing. I would love to know how this thread went linux
vs windows to a discussion of homosexuality.
Robert W Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1Peter 5:7
------------------------------
From: Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:29:16 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<>> For some animals, sex is determined environmentally. If you are a
<>> crocodile, being male is neither genetic nor a choice - do you therefore
<>> believe that it is a defect?
<>
<>Thanks. I prefer this one. I didn't much like my example but it was the
<>only one I could think of.
So sexual behavior is environmental? I could buy that-it would explain why
otherwise heterosexual men become homosexual while in prison. it also
strengthens the recent study that indicate homosexual behavior was indeed a
choice.
Robert W Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1Peter 5:7
------------------------------
From: Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:31:56 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dr S.J. Cornell) wrote:
<>If you had been paying attention, you'd know why this is irrelevant:
<>homosexuals can, and do, have children.
Only if they engage in heterosexual behavior-it would seem that for a person to
father or bear children they would at the very least be bi-sexual.
Robert W Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1Peter 5:7
------------------------------
From: Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:32:41 -0500
"jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<>And what about using birth control?
I was not aware that those who engage in homosexual behavior needed it. Can you
enlighten me?
Robert W Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1Peter 5:7
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Doug Ransom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Doug Ransom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 07:34:19 -0700
> "Doug Ransom (usenet)" wrote:
> >
> > But is is soooo useful than linux is basicaly obsolete.
> >
> > Linux is obsolete without a competetive run time object model to the
common
> > language runtime.
>
> Buzzwords, Buzzwords, and not a coherent thought to be found.
>
> Object-oriented programming is more hype than useful.
> by fools.
Fortunately, the common language runtime includes oo, functional
programming, etc. If fact, it is a far better runtime than Java for
functional programs -- compiler writers can write compilers which don't blow
the stack. In Java, the runtime is designed around a single language and
apparently functional programs frequenltly end up blowing the stack if you
run them long enough to be useful. Check the docs for the Haskell
implementation that compiles to the Java VM & Microsoft CLR.
D
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
