Linux-Advocacy Digest #532, Volume #25 Mon, 6 Mar 00 22:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux (Arthur)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: BSD & Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: BSD & Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: New Linux Exclusive Website! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Which Linux version is best ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A little advocacy.. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux ("ax")
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Mark Hamstra)
I've been Cleansed ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What's GNU/Linux? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Which Linux version is best ? (Ciaran)
Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (George Marengo)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (George Marengo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:33:25 -0800
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Steve. Got another new throwaway account, hey?
Unfortunately you don't seem to come up with new
ideas as quickly as you come with new accounts -
we've read all this trash before; even the
"aimee" name is recycled.
> As a small business owner I am always interested in ways to save
> money.
But Steve, you don't own a business - you're
just a troll^H^H^H^H^H hobbyist.
> We
> switched from Apple to
Have you ever used an Apple, Steve?
> IBM when Apple's pricing became too much to handle. I recently tried
> Redhat
> Linux in the hopes
> that I could save some money.
> Well I spent 11 days messing around with this so called operating
> system
Aw Steve, you claim to have installed Linux about
30 different times with half a dozen different
distributions. Problem is, you never get past
intalling it, and you don't seem to have any
purpose for it beyond installing it. Have you
ever actually USED Linux? I don't mean installed,
I mean USED.
> and
> for the life of me
When did you get a life, Steve? Were they
on sale? Buy the full price version next time.
> can't figure out why in the world anyone in business would want
Nope, I don't suppose you can.
> to
> waste
> time on this obviously hacked together, half finished program.
> Maybe some day when it is completed I will try it again but for now,
> it has
> been thrown in the garbage can where it belongs. I have a business to
> run
> and can't waste time searching the internet looking for ways to
> accomplish
> simple tasks.
A number of people (including me) have posted their
reasons for using Linux in a business setting. But
since you made this valiant effort, let's hear what
problems you ran into (my guess is there won't be
any responses from "aimee" to anybody). What kind
of business are you running? What kind of software
do you need?
Lemme guess - you couldn't get the SBLive driver
working, right? That's certainly an important
business necessity. Of course the problem seems
to be more your incompetence than any problem
with the OS.
> Mr. Gates provides me easy ways of running my programs and as a result
> running my
> business.
I don't normally engage in spelling flames, but the
proper spelling is "ruining".
>Linux had better wake up, fast.
Having problems with power management? Hit
a key on the keyboard and the system will
come back up.
> What a complete piece of garbage Linux is!
> Aimee
You get a kick out of this trans-gender posting stuff?
Do you dress up like Aimee too?
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:31:00 GMT
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:20:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>YOU are the stupid one :(
Ignore 5X3. He's only slightly more credible than you, namemaster.
>Linux will sink to the bottom like the torpedoed Lusitania....
>
>It's already on it's way down as we speak...
>
>I can't wait till the day it hits rock bottom, and it will be soon.
Yeah yeah yeah. We've been hearing about how Linux is "gonna die" for years,
but all we see is more ports of commercial software, better applications,
more mainstream acceptance, growing sales and revenues.
Look, can't you find something better to fantasize about than Linux's
"collapse" ? Go watch some porn or something.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:33:07 GMT
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 10:53:54 +1100, Mark McDougall wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Cricket is... boring. Baseball players wear much less protective
>> equipment when facing 100 MPH pitches than cricket batsmen do. So are
>> football players and cricket players wimpy? :-)
>
>And how many balls, on average, does a baseball player face during a
>game? Four?, Eight?, a dozen? Hah! A batsman playing cricket dug in for
>a good innings in a test match could face 2-3 *hundred* deliveries. And
>a cricket ball hurts just a little bit more than a baseball...
I'll add than in cricket, the bowler can and often does aim at the
head or body, while in baseball, they are stuck with aiming at the plate.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:35:27 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 23:37:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ bullshit snipped ]
Get a life, Steve.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:44:05 GMT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:05:03 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Just imagine for a second ...
>> ... W2K is the safest Windows out there, as it stands. Now
>> where does that leave NT? Not to speak of Win XX ?
>
>For each Linux kernel with a security patch released, that version is
>(theoretically) more secure than the last and thus more secure than any
>other version of Linux (as long as no new security holes were introduced).
The security difference is only minor -- one has one less hole than the
other. The underlying architecture is unchanged, and the only thing that
makes the one hole significant is the fact that it's documented. Without
public knowledge of the bug in question, there is not a significant
difference.
>So what does that say about the previous version?
That it has one more bug.
It's hardly worth touting something as the "safest" version of the OS
on the grounds that one bug has been fixed. When you make a claim as bold
as this, it seems implicit that the security changes are groundbreaking
as opposed to incremental. I'd say in the case of NT4->Win2k, the change
is more thn incremental. Win2k has some non trivial extras ( such
as kerberos )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:45:09 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 15:50:41 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> >You've gotta love these people, who most likely haven't played any
> >sports, judging a bunch of sports as "girls" sports. Sure, Australian
> >rules football is tougher than American football. But, that doesn't
>
> About the same IMO. Australian football forgoes the padding, but it's
> otherwise not as violent ( the idea of tackling is to prevent your
> opponent from disposing of the ball, not decking him )
Yeah, that's true. Football players lay some vicious hits on each
other, just because they've got a helmet an shoulder pads on. Rugby
is pretty tough, but you're not as likely to ram head-to-head like you
do in football, just because you've got a helmet on. I say they're
just as intense, and you've got those types of factors that even out.
They're intense in different ways. Now soccer, I would think that
would be less violent than both! :) But, I haven't really seen enough
soccer matches to tell. Of course, every time you hit the ball with
your head in soccer, 1/10th of a brain cell dies. So, if you butt the
ball 10 times, 1 brain cell dies! I guess soccer is pretty intense as
well...
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Linux Exclusive Website!
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:45:52 GMT
Gay sex is a highly deviant form of behavior. It is sick and
disgusting. The fags try and hide behind a "we love all" sugar coated
attitude. Take a long careful look into the world of a typical homo
and see what you dig up.....
Sites like cruisingforsex are the tip of the iceberg.
how about the fag production assistant on the Sally Jessi Rapheal show
that was filiming scat videos after hours. Another faggot gone
amok....
Sorry, but gay sex is sick, not normal and all the sugar coating in
the world won't change that.
Despite the faggot inflated numbers, the number of adults supporting
gay rights is infinitesimal.
And rightfully so. It is a sickness that God is dealing with via AIDS.
pickle
On 7 Mar 2000 01:12:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:41:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>http://www.cruisingforsex.com
>>
>>Great stuff for all Linux users....
>
>Steve, this is hardly the right place to be posting links to gay porn. What
>is your point ?
>
>Maybe it will help to hear this -- it is OK to view gay porn and
>enjoy it, if that's what you want to do. You can feel free to just go right
>ahead and take a peep, you don't have to ask the COLA regulars for permission.
>
>I'll let you in on a secret. I watch porn sometimes, and I don't ask mommy
>and daddy for permission, and I don't even ask the COLA guys for permission.
>Because they don't care what I watch ( or who I sleep with ), as long as
>I don't bug them about it.
>
>In other words, we don't mind if you go and take a look at some of the studs
>on that site. However, I should add that this is not the appropriate
>forum to discuss your sexuality. There's probably a handful of newsgroups.
>I'd imagine some of the people in Greenwich village would also be fairly
>receptive.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:48:58 GMT
Being independently wealthy, can you say "Trust Fund Baby" has it's
advantages. I don't have to deal with earning a living like the rest
of you Prols.
pickle
On 7 Mar 2000 01:24:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:23:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>Do yourself a favor and forget Linux and spend some time with your
>>kids and your wife. Linux sucks and is a HUGE waste of time.
>
>I use Linux for my work. Don't have a wife or kids yet, I live with my
>girlfriend. Oh, we had a great time last night btw.
>
>However, I'd have to agree that Linux, by inducing you to post this
>trash to usenet, certainly is wasting your time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:49:50 GMT
I would except all my DVD stuff is unsupported by Linux :(
pickle
On 7 Mar 2000 01:31:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:20:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>YOU are the stupid one :(
>
>Ignore 5X3. He's only slightly more credible than you, namemaster.
>
>>Linux will sink to the bottom like the torpedoed Lusitania....
>>
>>It's already on it's way down as we speak...
>>
>>I can't wait till the day it hits rock bottom, and it will be soon.
>
>Yeah yeah yeah. We've been hearing about how Linux is "gonna die" for years,
>but all we see is more ports of commercial software, better applications,
>more mainstream acceptance, growing sales and revenues.
>
>Look, can't you find something better to fantasize about than Linux's
>"collapse" ? Go watch some porn or something.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:51:46 GMT
????
Linux sucks. It needs to be told...We tell it like it is..
Sorry if you are outnumbered 10 to 1.....
pickle
On 7 Mar 2000 01:35:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 23:37:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>[ bullshit snipped ]
>
>Get a life, Steve.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:03:47 -0600
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Please tell me what computers were available for home use in the late
> > > '60's?
> >
> > Never heard of the Altair?
>
> Not in the 60's. They didn't exist. The microprocessor didn't
> exist. The integrated circuit was only a few years old and the first
> mainframe to use ICs had not yet been released. Many computers still
used
> magnetic core memory. 8-track tapes were all the rage and cassettes had
yet
> to be invented. The first mass storage devices for the early home
computers
> was an audio cassette recorder using the Kansas City standard tape
interface.
> Hard to do that without cassettes. You are off by a decade.
Yes, the Altair was actually very early 70's, but there were other kit
systems available. The Altair was the first complete one though. I believe
that came out 71-72, which is hardly a decade different from 69. The Apple
II was available off the shelf in 77.
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 02:04:18 GMT
It's interesting to hear the voice from a business owner.
I believe all those Linux companies will work hard in finding
solutions for business owners since without winning the hearts
of business owners, Linux cannot go too far. But right now,
they are too busy on their stock valuation. Red Hat employees
are busy dumping; VA Linux employees will be busy dumping
soon, ....
It needs more time for Linux companies to move out of a pure
stock game and enter into real business game.
It needs more time for Linux companies to figure out how to
make money outside of the stock hype.
It needs more time for Linux companies to search and define
sound business models in order to move to the next levels.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As a small business owner I am always interested in ways to save
> money. We
> switched from Apple to
> IBM when Apple's pricing became too much to handle. I recently tried
> Redhat
> Linux in the hopes
> that I could save some money.
>
> Well I spent 11 days messing around with this so called operating
> system and
> for the life
> of me can't figure out why in the world anyone in business would want
> to
> waste
> time on this obviously hacked together, half finished program.
>
> Maybe some day when it is completed I will try it again but for now,
> it has
> been thrown in the garbage can where it belongs. I have a business to
> run
> and can't waste time searching the internet looking for ways to
> accomplish
> simple tasks.
> Mr. Gates provides me easy ways of running my programs and as a result
> running my
> business. Linux had better wake up, fast.
>
> What a complete piece of garbage Linux is!
>
> Aimee
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: 06 Mar 2000 20:37:13 -0500
matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, IRIX, AIX, HP-UX... I've done development
> > work on all of them (as well as NT). Your point?
> >
>
> Cool. What do you do?
Right now... http://www.bentley.com/products/triforma/about.htm
--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I've been Cleansed
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 02:12:24 GMT
After wasting some where near a month TRYING in vain to switch to
Linux I have finally found my home, and that is Windows 98 SE.
Linux seemed like a good idea on the surface, I mean who could argue
with free?
Unfortunately the carpet started to unravel after the first day. While
Windows installed fine and set up dial ups, printers, scanners, SCSI
devices, Networks, Video cards, Sound cards and so forth right out of
the box. Linux required that I surrender my first born in order to
make the simple happen.
Windows users thinking of switching to Linux?
Try Netscape for WIndows and see what you think. You better love it
cause that's what you are stuck with unless you are counting on some
long delayed software.
Windows users: I'll bet you love that Modem, scanner and printer you
have and I am certain it works GREAT under Windows.
Surprise, you have a non-functional modem, scanner and a text printer,
if that, under Linux.
Need to share files amongst your office coworkers? Hope they like text
cause that's what you'll be sending them.All those nice graphics and
custom sig lines, gone under Linux...
I could go on for pages but the point is that Linux doesn't cut the
mustard, it just plain sucks and you would be far better off using
WIndows or McIntosh or AIX or anything other than Linux.
Don't believe me?
Try it for yourself and see how much it sucks...
Http://www.corel.com
Will get you started.
When was the last time you got something for free that actually
worked?
pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What's GNU/Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 02:19:52 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Grant Edwards would say:
>In article <8a0i2c$sl9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>
>>But can I respectfully ask where you or I or any of us would be
>>without gcc?
>
>Respectuflly; we'd be using a different free C compiler. Were
>gcc not around filling that niche, the DECUS C compiler (which
>is what I used before gcc) or one of the other free ones would
>evolve to do so. I'm not trying to minimize gcc --
>Gcc/binutils is a tremendous piece of work which I've been
>gratefully using for 10+ years. But, writing C compilers,
>linkers, and assemblers isn't black magic. It takes a lot of
>hard work to do something like gcc, but it doesn't depend on
>the deivine inspiration of a single person.
Some may recall Sozobon C on the Atari ST; it wasn't great, but could
have been hacked into something better than it was.
There are two other notable C compilers that have relatively
languished:
a) lcc, a C compiler that was written using literate programming
techniques. It's not nearly as sophisticated as GCC at optimization,
but with attention, could improve.
b) TENDRA. It largely postdates GCC, and so is not an entirely fair
comparison. On The Other Hand, I find it extremely regrettable that
it has languished virtually ignored, as it has several *very*
interesting ideas:
1. Like GCC, it supports multiple front ends. Unlike GCC, those
have included some remarkably different options including Common
LISP.
2. Extending from the "multiple FE" property, it was designed to
provide the ability to integrate code together that was written in
multiple languages. In effect, it provides its own ABI, which
"beats out" C++'s lack of ABI.
3. Extending from GCC's "multiple back ends" implementation of
RTI, TENDRA would generate platform-independent object code that
would be tuned for a particular architecture at *run* time.
>>But without gcc and RMS and the FSF, would something like Linux
>>or 95% of the rest of the free software out there be possible
>>(using the term "free" in the sense of freedom)?
>
>Yes, it would.
The appearance "of the world" would probably be fairly different, but
certainly there would be many similarities.
>>Or am I missing something obvious?
>
>I think so. There isn't a serious alternative to gcc not
>becase such a thing is impossible, but because there isn't a
>need. We only really _need_ one good open source C compiler.
>Gcc was in the right place at the right time with the right
>people working on it. If it wasn't, then the same environment
>would have resulted in the evolution and proliferation of one
>of the other species of free C compilers to fill the niche that
>gcc now occupies.
>
>My point: Gcc is a result of the open-source software
>movement, not the cause of it.
I'd tend to give GCC a *bit* more credit than that, but can't justify
disagreeing *violently.*
--
VERITAS AETERNA -- DON'T SETQ T.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 18:25:51 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Being independently wealthy, can you say "Trust Fund Baby" has
it's
>advantages. I don't have to deal with earning a living like the
rest
>of you Prols.
Your independently wealth and all you can find to do with your
time is troll advocacy groups ? And worse computer OS advocacy
groups ... Gawd, thats sad, youve just made me feel a whole lot
better about myself. Thanks.
Cheers,
Ciaran, The happy Prol
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:34:45 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry if you are outnumbered 10 to 1.....
Yeah, and sorry if we were outnumbered 1000 to 1 a year and a half ago.
Watcha gonna say next year? Sorry we haven't achieved world conquest
yet?
BTW, since this thread isn't worth two posts I'll add my other comments
here. (a) Eleven days wasted on Linux? Here's wishing I had a dime for
every day I wasted on Windows. (b) Someone needs to keep better track
of his sock puppets, since he's now got "Itchy" and "Aimee" reporting
the same personal experience. Or is he trying his hand at scripting, to
automate his astroturfFUDding?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 02:38:12 GMT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:56:05 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
>> 4.0 is network C2 certified? The only link I could find about 4.0 and
>> C2 was that it was still being tested.
>
>Your information is out of date.
Apparently so... I went to Microsoft's site and entered "C2" for
search word and clicked on the "C2 Security Evaluations" rather
than the "Characteristics of a Secure System" link.
Thanks for the link.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 7 Mar 2000 02:50:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So in all machines that ship with Windows, Windows is free ?
No, its built into the price of the machine. That isnt the
case with macos.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 02:59:47 GMT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 14:22:24 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<snip>
>> If you really ask yourself who would "ever have a system running
>> a whole year without an upgrade" maybe you can explain why under
>> the guise of Alex Boge you claimed to have a Windows9.x system
>> running voicemail for 331 days when I asked for uptime.
>
>he later explained it was actually a Windows NT workstation 4 box.
http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=518851113&CONTEXT=951639847.186056751&hitnum=1
No, you did not ever explain that it was an NT box. You claimed that
it was a Window9.x machine. Ever hear of Deja.com? There's no
clarification that it was an NT machine. In fact, when I later asked
you how you figured that the Windows9.x machine was up that long
you said you used Norton System Doctor.
http://x30.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=518851112&CONTEXT=952397734.908984358&hitnum=0
>And, last time I checked, a year had 365 days in it.
Yes, 331 days is just shy of a year. At least you got that part right.
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
