Linux-Advocacy Digest #712, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:40:59 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
[...]
>That is also a consideration, but I don't see that Windows
>had a very large cost advantage then.
I don't see why it should need to be very large at all. The trick is
simply that it is maintained long enough to ensure that all competitors
have been taken out with other anti-competitive attacks. After that, of
course, you can maintain monopoly prices, and steadily ensure that
consumers pay more and more and more for the product over time, as MS
has done for the past twenty years or so.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:00 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I had been arguing that Windows is the best development
>> >platform for making desktop applications of the
>> >conventional sort, not that it was ever the best
>> >platform for everything.
>>
>> As have we.
>
>I'm quite astonished to hear that you think
>Windows is the best platform for developing
>desktop applications.
You don't think having 95% of the market tied to a monopoly makes a
difference? Just how stupid ARE you, Daniel?
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:01 GMT
Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 02:13:56 GMT;
[...]
>I wondered if any of the resident wintrolls would actually try to claim that
>the sky is not blue. I figure somebody probably would, but I assumed it
>would be as a joke. I didn't think somebody would actually be serious about
>it and try to give some pseudo-scientific explanation for it.
It seems apparent it's what he was taught in grade school, and he never
learned any better. "The sky is blue because light reflects off the
ocean." We'll wait until they're in high school, and manage to ask the
question "so why is the ocean blue", and then get into frequencies and
wavelength.
>For the record, though, you're wrong. The sky is blue for the same reason
>my shirt is red (and doesn't merely "appear to have a [red] color").
For the record, though, you are mistaken. The sky is blue for a very
different reason than why an object has a particular color. The reason
this is a difference in the object, not your eyes (we 'see it as blue'
versus 'it is blue') is because "sky" is not a concrete thing, like your
shirt is. But, yet, it is indeed "blue"; just not because it reflects
blue light, as your shirt is red because it reflects red light.
Did you not happen to notice that you are really using the same
"reflection" explanation as Erik? Both the sky and the shirt do "merely
appear to have" a color; you can go either way for either of them, but
you have to go the same way for both.
>Incidentally, oxygen isn't clear, either, if light passes through enough of
>it to be affected. Look around the web and see if you can find out what
>color pure liquid oxygen is.
That's entirely unimportant; oxygen in its gaseous state is completely
invisible. So long as it is pure gaseous oxygen, light can pass through
a billion miles of it and be unaffected. Gases don't simply 'appear
transparent' because they're very translucent, Weevil. They *are*
transparent because of the mathematical relationship between the
molecule size and spacing and the wavelength of light.
It is the scattering of light, and the fact that blue light has a
different wavelength than non-blue light, which makes the sky appear
blue. This light is not scattered by gases, but by water molecules in
the air. On a winter day when the atmosphere is very cold and dry, the
sky becomes less blue and more black, for this reason.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:02 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Nobody else is dumb enough to believe some preposterous rationalizations
>> of unethical business practices, Daniel. The world is less naive than
>> it was when MS could get away with such lies. People are skeptical
>> enough to know MS is criminal, not crafty.
>
>It's my opinion ...
>
> ... and this may be purest optimism, unadulterated
>by gritty reality ...
I don't see why you bother claiming to have opinions, and then so
rapidly backing off of them by stating they are pure speculation.
Either you believe it is optimism, or you believe it isn't. It is not
coincidental that you preferred the more rhetorically pointless
alternative, that it is your *opinion* that it *may* be optimism. It is
not simply a quibble that I point it out. It is not a trivial matter
that you repetitively and routinely use such flawed rhetoric.
My opinion is you're full of shit, from head to toe, Daniel. It is my
opinion that it does not merely seem that way; you are dishonest and
annoying and relatively incapable of sustaining rational thought, at
least in written discourse.
>... nut it's my opinion that actually very few peopl
> are so wrapped up in their hatred of MS as to believe
>that no debate or disagreement is even *possible*.
Federal courts aren't 'a few people wrapped up in hatred' of some stupid
software production company.
>I would suggest that the majority of Microsoft's
>enemies would at least admit to the existance of
>actually supporters of MS who actually, you know,
>mean it.
I know for a fact that the only people left who support Microsoft are
relatively unintelligent, or sock puppets. This is not prejudice, but
the results of observation. I will happily leave it to others to
determine which category any one MS supporter might belong in, or even
if there is any difference between the two. The typical
uber-capitalists who most routinely ignore the technical deficiencies
and presume "all commerce is legal commerce" might count as either, and
I have no litmus test in mind.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:03 GMT
Said Michael Vester in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
[...]
>Obviously. We will eventually all become just Earthlings, Earthers,
>Humans, or whatever label happens to stick. Arbitrary political
>geographical difference will become irrelevant. Different languages will
>disappear too. I am betting that English or something like English will be
>the only language spoken in another generation.
We're presuming that the one fifth of the world's population that only
speak Chinese aren't earthlings, then?
Nationalities are the most important social construct we have. If they
EVER become irrelevant, the putative global government would be a
fascist one.
Obviously, this doesn't make them fair game for ad hominem attacks, but
this is simply because it is a logical fallacy, not because differences
in human societies are somehow a bad thing.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:04 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>"Michael Vester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> > Ok. I won't attack your nationality. After a while we all won't have a
>> > nationality anyway.
>> > But then again, your tastes in arguing with others could use a lot of
>> > improvements.
>>
>> Obviously. We will eventually all become just Earthlings, Earthers,
>> Humans, or whatever label happens to stick. Arbitrary political
>> geographical difference will become irrelevant. Different languages will
>> disappear too. I am betting that English or something like English will be
>> the only language spoken in another generation.
>
>Don't bet on it, the only way in which this can hapen is if there is some
>major and consistent threat from outside, for quite a prolonged period of
>time.
Unfortunately, human history has shown that an imaginary threat from
inside can serve in a pinch.
>Say a couple of centuries of fighting LGMs or something like that.
A bit overly idealistic, I'm afraid. The danger of One World Government
is very real, unlike the dangers of science fiction novels.
>And even then, don't expect English (or something like it) to be a
>mother-tongue, a common second tongue (maybe a little more so than now, but
>not much) is the best you can get to.
What would probably happen is that English would broaden to include not
just some vocabulary, but some grammar, from foreign tongues. English
already has more words in it that any other language, did you know that?
Not only from borrowing, of course; all languages (even French!) borrow
from their neighbors. People who don't use English as a first or second
tongue will nevertheless gradually incorporate English grammar, as well.
Unlike one world government, one world language seems like a necessary
and beneficial, and inevitable, side effect of global communications.
Chances are we have several thousands of years of convergence before all
the languages and dialects are comprehensible to each other, though.
Or, depending on your teleology, till all but the "one human tongue" is
the only language "left". Presuming, of course, that we don't master
long-distance space flight; this would probably cause language to
fracture (again?)
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:04 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
[...]
>There shouldn't *be* an unexpected value, period.
[...]
I'm not even a software programmer. But I can tell a novice software
programmer when I see one.
Basing your software engineering on wishful thinking is not a sign of
great competency, Ayende.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:05 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 23:25:02
[...]
>> >It really must be cold in Sweden or Norway for Jon/Jan.
>> >If you really want to light his fires just tell him that it takes 10
>> >good swedes to hold down a good norwegian. (Or vice-versa)
>>
>> Please; I'd have hoped that having lived for some few decades, you'd be
>> smart enough to avoid such lame-brained ideas. How childish.
>
>Cool it youngster. I was poking some fun at him. Around here, little
>Norway, (Poulsbo) we always have fun between the Norwegians and the
>Swedish. Its all in good fun and we all get along about it.
Pardon me. I think you should have provided a bit more context;
particularly considering who you were 'ribbing'. I might have even been
able to tell you were joking as is if it hadn't been a wintroll. :-)
Regardless, it is bigoted humor, and us 'mericans are right sensitive to
that sort of thing. I also don't know where 'Poulsbo' is, either.
Perhaps some better context would have made it more clear that you
weren't 'picking on' the Johansons nationality as an ad hominem attack.
"All in good fun" doesn't seem an argument that any liberal worth his
flame is going to be capable of comprehending.
Sorry, pops. My mistake. ;-)
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:06 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 18 May 2001 20:41:04
[...]
>> No we won't, coz PC hardware is poor. S/390's can manage with hot
>> upgrades. 8 years, no downtime, no origioal components (except the
>> case). Until Win2K can have real stability like that, don't claim it is
>> rock solid, because it won't fly with anyone.
>
>As I've said before - apples and oranges and those two don't mix. Who cares
>what a mainframe can do versus a PC.
In case you weren't aware of it, Jan, they're both 'computers'. Anyone
who wants a computer would care what a mainframe can do versus a PC, so
as to have some idea if they're buying the right kind of computer for
their tasks.
Now, if only none of us had ever been subjected to those pitiful
"Enterprise Software from Microsoft" ads on prime-time TV (do they not
have those in Europe?), we might believe that covering the full range of
implementations isn't just as important to Microsoft as any other
computer-related business. Apples and oranges, indeed.
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:07 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 20:55:55
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >I based my claim on the SETI/Intel Website. So they were wrong - no doubt
>> >being optimistic in their claim.
>>
>> No, you were wrong, because you did not critically examine their claims
>> before accepting them as fact. Get it? *YOU*, Pete, not they, were
>> wrong. They were most probably mistaken, at least, but it wouldn't
>> require an engineer to recognize that they are simply using the term
>> 'super-computer' rather loosely. YOU should not have gotten confused by
>> it.
>
>I see a supercomputer, I call it as such. I see nothing wrong there.
Oh, puh-leeze. Just how is it you've "seen" this metaphorical
"supercomputer" that is really just the SETI software doing loosely
coupled distributed processing on millions of *separate* computers? In
your minds eye, you insist it is a supercomputer, because only then can
your stupid and pathetic claim that Windows can compete with Linux make
any sense at all.
You see the word "supercomputer", and you believe it as such. There is,
indeed, something wrong in being so gullible or mistaken. The term was
used metaphorically, and everyone knows it, but only you wouldn't be
able to admit it.
You see what kind of knots you have to tie your reason into in order to
maintain a conversation once you start being dishonest?
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:08 GMT
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 05:01:03
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>So, as an educational exercise for the reader, I submit the question.
>>Of the three categories:
>>
>>A) Analytical; relating to the correspondence of fact to numbers
>>B) Rhetorical; relating to the correspondence of words to facts
>>C) Metaphorical; relating to the correspondence of meaning and purpose
>>to words
>>
>>Which category, in contrast to the putative assignments I've already
>>made, should Chad Myers be placed in?
>>
> Bravo. Pinned like deer in a headlight.
>
> Pete even pretended not to understand to confirm his place.
I noticed that, yes. :-D
> I think Chad's refusal to quit repeating after having it repeatedly
> explained to him during the "OpenSSH has a vulnerability" thread
> places him squarely in in the flatfish category.
Thanks. Any other opinions?
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:09 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 20:56:47
>In article <9eaihp$hfu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> One of Pete's favourite pastimes is snipping people to distort their
>> meaning to prove his point.
>
>Got any examples of that?
Oh, that's precious. LOL!
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:10 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 21:04:32
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >I worked on UNIX, OpenVMS before I came to Windows. I understand
>> >Operating Systems. I've studied them on and off. Guess what I do
>> >nowadays. I write device drivers. Let me see, what do you need to
>> >understand in order to write those? Why, the OS of course!
>>
>> Well, parts of it, anyway. Not very technologically advanced part, I
>> would expect, either.
>
>Device drivers on Linux are written in C?
>
>Device drivers on Windows are written in C++ and make use of COM. Which
>one is more technologically advanced?
I think it's pretty clear how far you are willing to go to miss the
point. What gave you the impression that the language used, and
reliance on a proprietary single-source API, has anything to do with how
advanced the actual technology of an OS is?
>> Linux *is* a technology, and it is more advanced than Windows. Windows
>> isn't a technology, for all its acronyms; its little more than a
>> marketing scam and some monopoly crapware.
>
>Yes, how about an example, instead of a statement?
Linux is peer reviewed, and thus demonstrates the engineering
community's consensus for adequately and correctly incorporating the
most sound and advanced software technologies.
Windows is just monopoly crapware.
>> You don't seriously expect monopoly crapware to be able to compete on an
>> open market, do you? How silly!
>
>Enough of the dogma! Examples puh-lease!
We've been through them before, Pete. All the things that suck about
Windows (DirectX, the registry, DLL hell) are crappy technology, all the
advantages of Linux (the entirety of GNU, leading-edge development
tools, advanced kernel design, all resulting in better stability,
performance, and reliability than Windows for infinitely less cost) are
competitive advantages, clearly illustrating that Linux is far more
technically superior and advanced.
>> >3D sound support is of interest to me since it is my job. So it's not
>> >that silly.
>>
>> It is not silly to you. That doesn't stop it from being pretty silly,
>> in its own right.
>
>OK, I'll tell Microsoft, Loki, Creative, ESS, Crystal, ADI, Voyetra et al
>that T Max Devlin thinks 3D sound is silly. After they've roared with
>laughter _at you_ they'll all carry on producing what everyone appears to
>want.
Try some that aren't just brand names, and I might be impressed. Yes,
much of what commercial hacks crank out is entirely silly; real
advancement comes from the academic and scientific worlds.
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:11 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 21:06:53
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >That's your dogma.
>>
>> No; that is my conjecture. I have no dogma, Pete.
>
>Oh yes you do! You regularly inject "monopoly crapware" into your posts,
>frequently out of context to the topic.
Are you at all familiar with the definition of the term 'dogma'.
Perhaps you should look it up in the dictionary. It doesn't mean
"repetition".
>> >You gotta get Linux desktop up to scratch before it can even compete with
>> >Windows (98).
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Still grasping at straws, Pete; you are still
>> grasping at straws.
>
>http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
>
>Some straw.
Straw is all it is, yes.
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:12 GMT
Said Karel Jansens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>> Those were called "tachyons", and as a part of serious physics theory,
>> they disappeared at least a dozen years ago.
>
>Oh, I don't know. There is still nothing in general relativity which
>precludes the existence of tachyons. The problem is that they are on the
>other side of the c-barrier, meaning that is will be very hard to learn
>anything about them other than the theoretical possibility that they exist.
I'm afraid you don't seem to understand the difference between a label
used for a mathematical construct in physics, and the mathematical
construct itself. Not being precluded is not sufficient; yes, we know
for a fact that tachyons don't exist. There is no theoretical
possibility that "c is a barrier", or that anything is "on the other
side", or that tachyons 'exist'. None. Get it?
>If anybody else is confused by this, I would like to take this opportunity
>to endorse Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace. A Scientific Odyssey Through
>Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and The Tenth Dimension". Since I've read
>it, the tenth dimension no longer holds any secrets to me, and I play
>hyperguitar for fun <G>.
More seriously (and much more currently and scientifically accurately),
anyone interested should read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.
Once you've read it, you won't use silly nonsense words like
"hyperspace". ;-)
>The April issue of Popular Science has an interesting article on Weird
>Space Drives. Apparently NASA has committed itself (sort of, as usual) to
>undertaking an interstellar mission within a 25 to 50 year timeframe. These
>guys give a completely new meaning to the term "optimism".
You have a completely incorrect understanding of what "undertaking"
means. They've been planning interstellar missions "within a 25 to 50
year time frame" for longer than they have been NASA! ;-)
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:41:13 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 09:52:40
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
[...]
>Actually, travelling faster than the speed of light is perfectly possible -
>it is just a question of mediums. [...]
Only if you misunderstand the meaning of the 'speed of light'. Or
pretend that the medium under question is not the medium through which
one must travel, regardless of what medium that might be. Get it?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
