Linux-Advocacy Digest #666, Volume #25 Fri, 17 Mar 00 11:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (George Marengo)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Joe Ragosta)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ("mr_organic")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: C2 question (abraxas)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: ?? (Tim Kelley)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Joe Ragosta)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Jens! ("HENRIK SJÖDIN")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:02:54 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But it still can't do any more damage than that user's rights allow.
>
> But most users need to run as power users, or local admin, so as much
> damage as it wishes.
They don't "need" to, that's just how lazy sys admins set them up.
It's possible to run a tight ship and still run all the apps the person
needs to.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:03:28 GMT
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:03:14 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>George Marengo wrote:
<snip>
>> Most people run as (at least) a power user when running NT?
>> Hmm... I normally log in as a regular user. Where did you get
>> the stats that most NT users log in as power user or better?
>>
>The stats are personal observation backed up by MS knowledge based
>articles like:
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/devprods/vs6/vbasic/vb98/vbmsgwcadminprivileges.htm
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q243/3/47.ASP
Great, you show two selected scenario's where the user has to
_temporarily_ run as PowerUser or Administrator. I can also give you
another example: if you want to add static routes you need to be
Administrator. Big deal... that's no different that having to use root
to do _specific_ tasks in *nix.
If you're going to try and support the argument that you need to run
as PowerUser or Admin, next time try to show that the normal running
of an application (i.e., not installing or setting up) requires it.
>> >In UNIX, it is unusual for a user to run as a root without a specific
>> >task.
>>
>> It _should_ be unusual. I think you'll find that as Linux becomes
>> more and more mainstream, more users will log in as root.
>
>I doubt that very much. I have some friends for whom I've installed
>Linux, and they are more than happy with the notion that they can't
>really break their machine by accident and still be able to use it.
You have some friends for whom _you_ installed Linux, so I'm quite
sure you took the time to explain to them that they should only use
root when necessary, right?
I was talking about it becoming mainstream, as in, they don't need
someone to install it for them. They go to CompUSA, buy the latest
version of Redhat or Caldera, or someone gives it to them, and they
install it.
In the two Unix systems administration classes I've taken there were
many students who installed Linux on their own. A rough estimate is
that 75% of them were running as root. Why? Because they didn't know
any better. Of course they changed after they learned that they should
only use root when absolutely necessary.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:15:09 GMT
In article <8as7e1$fev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the subject of Michael Paquette's commentary,
> Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : And just when I was beginning to think that I was the only person in
> : the
> : world who couldn't understand what the self-proclaimed "Free-Software
> : Advocates" (not to be confused with the *real* free-sofware
> : advocates--you
> : know, the ones who actually contribute to the movement) were bitching
> : about
> : when someone refused to personally hand over a copy of their source to
> : every script-kiddie and 3L3373 d00d just so they could burn it on to a
> : CD-R
> : for their "archives".
>
> : *sigh*
>
> : Pardon my rant.
>
> Of course you are pardoned, when you rant politely. (I've said "pardon
> me
> while I go off", and some people still had the poor taste to complain ;-)
>
> I think I read the Paquette post on two levels. On the surface it is an
> obvious statement, that begging or demanding anything is silly-at-best
> and
> demeaning-at-worst, and that the most straightforward thing to do is
> write
> some code.
>
> I couldn't help think though, that there was another level below the
> surface of that essay. The strong feeling Paquette feels towards some
> who
> might share QuickTime code might be overdone. Especially in light of the
> open source software being consumed in the creation of MacOS X.
>
> If you'll pardon my rant, it is as if "We've got our BSD, we've got our
> Mach, we've got our GNU tools ... but don't come around with your hat in
> your hand asking what we can do for you. We're Apple and we don't go for
> all that commie stuff."
That's nonsense.
Apple has open sourced the core of its OS. What other commercial OS
vendor has done that?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 17 Mar 2000 14:35:01 GMT
Are these extended desktop, i.e. completely variable or are they
simply dual monitors
showing the same thing?
On Sun, 15 Mar 3900 17:24:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:09:25 -0600, Robert MacGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > "Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > : How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be
> >> > useless,
> >> > > : I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
> >> > > : on two screens really provide?
> >> > >
> >> > > Oh wait, why would you need Multi-Monitor Support on any system except for
> >> > > a multimedia system. Just another proof of Windows bells and whistles
> >> > > vs. Linux functionality.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > ahhh... feature envy denial... <grin>
> >>
> >> Linux has been doing multiple monitors LONG before Microsoft
> >> "invented" it.
> >
> >And, for the record, Mac's have been doing multiple monitors since the
> >first Mac II's came off the line back in the mid 80's.
> >
>
> Microsoft, the largest consumer software company in the world
> took 11 years to catch up with Apple in this regard. A band of
> volunteers took 2 years to catch up with M$. Plus, as the other
> guy said, the limitation was in Xfree86, not Linux or Unix.
>
> --
> |||
> Resistance is not futile. / | \
>
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: 17 Mar 2000 14:40:39 GMT
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In article <8as7e1$fev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > If you'll pardon my rant, it is as if "We've got our BSD, we've got our
: > Mach, we've got our GNU tools ... but don't come around with your hat in
: > your hand asking what we can do for you. We're Apple and we don't go for
: > all that commie stuff."
: That's nonsense.
: Apple has open sourced the core of its OS. What other commercial OS
: vendor has done that?
We've been around this tree before Joe. You should be able to supply
honest answers yourself. (Hint: the things I listed above, BSD, Mach
and GNU tools were open soruce before Apple re-released them.)
John
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:52:50 -0600
"Terry Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:31:37 -0600, mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >I never refuse help to larval-stage hackers; without guidance, they'll
> >never tread upon the True Path. What bugs me (mightily!) is that many
> >WinCoders, fresh from a week-long course in $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL,
> >are arrogantly sure they are masters of the craft and _do not need_
> >help. Only when $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL barfs out obscure errors do
> >they realize their mistake.
>
> Just a heads up - using environmental variables in news posts is Unix
dweeb
> rule number three, surpassed in pure annoyance only by using "fsck" as
> a swear word, and calling "X Windows" anything besides "X Windows".
>
Feel free to eat my $BODILY_WASTE_PRODUCT while performing $ILLEGAL_SEX_ACT
on a $FARM_ANIMAL_OF_YOUR_CHOICE. Have a nice fscking day. :-)
>
> >Don't get me wrong -- arrogance is a phase all larval-stage hackers
> >go through. But many WinCoders mix this arrogance with an astounding
> >ignorance of their programming tool, which I cannot abide. They will
> >only learn what they must and no more. This is laziness, and when
> >they come crying for "help", what they really mean is that they want
> >their problems solved for them. A simple RTFM usually suffices; failing
> >that, STFW will work.
>
> I have met EXTREMELY ignorant Unix programmers also. I have even met
> one or two Unix programmers who do not even know assembly language on
> the machine which they work on (I swear to god I am not kidding).
>
In former times, "swearing to god" would get you burned at the stake,
drawn, quartered, and then buried in unhallowed ground. Just a heads
up.
>
> >Too many WinCoders have given up on careful software engineering --
> >they have been seduced by the "easy to use!" drool spouted by the
> >marketroids at M$ and (I'm sorry to say) Borland. They don't have any
> >idea how to actually _design_ software -- if their pretty ActiveX control
> >or .ocx component breaks, they are adrift and completely stuck.
>
> If this is true, why is so much Windows software demonstrably superior
> to its Unix counterparts?
>
You need to put down that giant crack pipe you've been smoking and take
a look at the market. Linux has grown so enormously in the last couple
of years because Windows apps *are not* superior, especially on the
server side. Windows is a buggy, obscure, badly-designed mess.
>
> For example, the Microsoft C Compiler, which is a Windows application,
> and by your claim is programmed using careless software engineering
> by programmers who do not know what they are doing using primitive
> development tools, produces code which is demonstrably approximately
> 20% faster than GCC, which is a Unix programmed and developed using
> Unix principles. How do you explain this? If the Unix programmers have
> superior tools, why are Windows programmers able to produce significantly
> higher performance software?
>
Visual C++ runs on Windows and *only* on Windows. GCC has been ported to
nearly every computer I can think of (and probably more that I've never
heard of). Furthermore, Visual C++ is inseperable from its atrocious
IDE and MFC underpinnings, both of which are disasters. Molest me not
with your idiotic Visual C++ maunderings. Windows programmers with a
clue use Borland C++ Builder (or Cygwin and GCC!).
>
> Additionally, most Unix equivalents of desktop programs are considered
> to be far inferior to their Windows conterparts. For example, Netscape
> under Linux is considered considerably more buggy than the Windows
> version. Why is this? Star Office is considered much more fragile and
> crash-prone than Microsoft Office. If Unix programmers have superior
> tools, why is this?
If you think Office and Internet Exploiter are great products, feel free
to suffer with them for the rest of your miserable, drone-like life. We
want something better. If we don't like StarOffice (I don't), we use Abi
Word or WordPerfect for word-processing, Gnumeric or Wingz for spreadsheets,
and so on. And *our* software is Free; we didn't have to rip a CD from a
Warez board because we couldn't afford the usurious fees M$ charges for
Office.
>
> >To be sure, there is much ugly code in Unix, but it is often ugly for a
> >reason. Further, the _average_ quality of code is much higher in a
> >typical Unix installation than on a Windows box.
>
> I have examined the source code of several Unix programs, including GCC,
> GIMP, and the GNU file utilities, and I found the code to be of amateur
> quality. None of these packages handled dynamic memory allocation errors
> properly. Some didn't even check the return code of malloc, and those
> which did simply exited if the condition occurred. Even the X Windows
> server does not properly handle failed allocations, and simply exits
> (bringing down the entire desktop along with it) when the condition
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but doesn't crash the whole OS, as happens with Windows
> occurs.
For someone whose programming knowledge is as limited as your own, I'd
be a little careful accepting anything you have to say at face value.
I'd be willing to bet that your reading of the code was as losing as
your other programming efforts.
>
> I have additionally even met some Unix programmers who do not even
> KNOW how to handle the out of memory condition properly, and do not
> even understand the types of conditions which cause it. Again, as
> difficult as it is to believe, I am serious. One of them worked for
> Sun, also (which makes the problem all the more scary).
You know, according to you, Unix *ought* to be more crashy than Windows.
And yet, if you look at any of the uptime monitors, Unix beats Windows
into a cocked hat. Unix has proven itself over the years to be an
extremely stable and well-engineered software platform. That's why
large businesses, governments, and universities use it.
Maybe you can ask $DEITY to give you some cluefulness before Windows
rots your brain entirely.
HAND.
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:58:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Geoff Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:59:05 +0000 <9m6ta8.7kp.ln@twirl>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bill Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Use a standard library where time_t is a 64 bit signed integer (the new
>> C standard requires such an integer type) and keep using C. No need to
>> change languages.
>
>There are many reasons to keep C out of inexpert hands ( and there's only
>about 5 experts - three of whom devised the language!)
Would you rather we rewrite the kernel in Fortran or COBOL? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: 17 Mar 2000 15:03:23 GMT
Rex Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: The <rant> in MP's post had an aire of frustration at the obvious. MP
: reframed the solution everyone was making for a QuickTime problem - that
: wasn't.
: I didn't read any elitist whiner "we got ours - now here's how you get
: yours" posturing. It's disengenious packaging BSD+Gnu with MP's
: observation making Apple out the moral hypocrite.
: Any *attitude* ... was the temerity of condemning Apple closed source
: when it suits Linux philosophy and ignoring Apple open source when it
: doesn't.
I think I started this, actually. In replying to mbkennel's question of
what Apple could do to enguage the Linux movement, I wrote:
"Or 'Why, exactly?'
Why didn't Apple make a Quicktime player for Linux?
They certainly didn't owe it to anyone, but why did they decide
not to make friends?"
We were discussing how Apple could build bridges to the Linux community,
and I was suggesting that Apple simply didn't want such bridges. The
first answer I got to the QuickTime question was that it would take too
long and be too costly. Later we were informed my Mr. Paquette that it
was actually pretty easy.
(It is amusing that at least one other person in this group who earlier
said "too hard" has now shifted seamlessly to "too easy". Ah well, this
is *.advocacy and consistency is a little too much to expect.)
It seems to reinforce my feeling that the Apple culture is uncomfortable
with the Linux movement, when they will cast about for any reason not to
help them.
I'll say it again, lest there be confustion "They certainly didn't owe it
to anyone, but why did they decide not to make friends?"
If the answer is that Apple doesn't want those kind of friends, we can
take that information and move on.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question
Date: 17 Mar 2000 15:16:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://acl.bestbits.at/example.html
> Then why are people making ACLs for Linux, if it's so great?
I'm not sure why you keep missing the point, but for some reason
you do...
I didnt say that linux is "so great". I gave you some information
about the way things work. My opinion of linux has nothing to do
with this conversation...but since, somehow, I believe it will
cause you to believe me:
I dont particularly like linux, as unix goes. I much prefer
FreeBSD and Solaris for server applications.
If you dont already know *alot* about linux, you probably wouldnt
be interested in exactly why I dont particularly like it, so Ill
just leave it at that.
> I mean, these people must be stupid, because, as you have
> offered here,
You are creating an argument where there isnt one, sir. I gave
you facts, not opinion.
> those dumb security experts are wrong about
> Linux's 70's era MacOS-esq Permission Bits scheme
This shows me that you dont actually understand the way MacOS
permissions OR linux permissions work. I suggest that if you
would like a leg to stand on in any of your arguments, you
learn something about both before discussing them again.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: 17 Mar 2000 15:21:10 GMT
Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thusly:
: > If you'll pardon my rant, it is as if "We've got our BSD, we've got our
: > Mach, we've got our GNU tools ... but don't come around with your hat in
: > your hand asking what we can do for you. We're Apple and we don't go for
: > all that commie stuff."
: Your interpretation of the subtext may well be correct. It should be
: noted, however, that Apple has made an effort to "give back" to the open
: source community. They have made the source code for their implementation
: of BSD as a Mach service freely available, as well as that of the Mach
: port itself and the QuickTime Streaming Server. That seems like a fair
: trade to me, considering the average returned to the community by most of
: the people and companies out there who benefit from the software. :)
This is an interesting time, and one of transition. I'm not sure that
"considering the average returned to the community" is the best approach.
Companies face confusing options in the degree and manner in which they
might enguage open source code and/or culture.
Some companies bring a closed-source philosophy to Linux, without apology,
and are IMO pretty well accepted. People are happy enough to have Oracle
or RealPlayer. Perhaps it is because Oracle and Real* have a consistent
position that we can understand. This is closed-source software, but it
is availble to run in our open-source environment.
There are also companies that are very supportive of open-soruce projects.
Red Hat's Labs, and VA's SourceForge are astonishing ventures by
commercial organizations (to name just two). These companies have another
kind of consistency in being almost entirely open-source.
: To expect any company to give away the source, without restriction, to
: what they consider--rightly or wrongly--to be a strategic technology
: simply because someone would like to implement it himself is, IMHO,
: nonsensical.
I think this is really the first time that companies have tried to walk
the middle line, by being both big consumers of open-source software and
big producers of closed-source software. Apple is trying to find their
way in this middle ground, as they build a half-free OS.
Such things might be very common in a few years, but they are new stuff
right now. Is it surprising that observers ask about the meaning of this
new mix?
John
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ??
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:19:47 -0600
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> cause Linux is broken more than NT perhaps...
really funny. Any software install can break NT.
rpm -e, etc. fixes any problem in linux
You are full of shit as usual.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:21:37 GMT
In article <8atg57$l0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : In article <8as7e1$fev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : > If you'll pardon my rant, it is as if "We've got our BSD, we've got
> : > our
> : > Mach, we've got our GNU tools ... but don't come around with your hat
> : > in
> : > your hand asking what we can do for you. We're Apple and we don't go
> : > for
> : > all that commie stuff."
>
> : That's nonsense.
>
> : Apple has open sourced the core of its OS. What other commercial OS
> : vendor has done that?
>
> We've been around this tree before Joe. You should be able to supply
> honest answers yourself. (Hint: the things I listed above, BSD, Mach
> and GNU tools were open soruce before Apple re-released them.)
Sure they were.
But Apple made improvements and open sourced those.
Apple Open Sourced QT Streaming Server.
What has Microsoft open sourced lately?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: 17 Mar 2000 15:42:50 GMT
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In article <8atg57$l0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > We've been around this tree before Joe. You should be able to supply
: > honest answers yourself. (Hint: the things I listed above, BSD, Mach
: > and GNU tools were open soruce before Apple re-released them.)
: Sure they were.
: But Apple made improvements and open sourced those.
: Apple Open Sourced QT Streaming Server.
: What has Microsoft open sourced lately?
Great fallback position, Microsoft! ;-)
John
------------------------------
From: "HENRIK SJÖDIN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Jens!
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:42:54 +0100
Jens Söderberg
Sweden
Linux Rules!!!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:56:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt) said:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>>In article <38d091fc$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>@David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>@
>>>@>In article <38cf141b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>@>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>>@>> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>@>>
>>>@>>
>>>@>>
>>>@>> HEY EVERYONE --- Standby for McCoy to tell us how the sex was with @>>
>>>someones
>>>@>> mother. Its his standard MO.
>>>@
>>>@>Weenie.
>>>@
>>>@
>>>@McCoy you asshole, crawl back into the hole you came out of and this time
>>>@stay
>>>@there.
>>>@
>>
>>> Maybe you should change your name to Hackfield?
>>> Followups set.
>>
>>And your point is? -- McCoy is loony who jumps in and out of different news
>>groups with nothing of value to state, and who, when he begins to lose the
>>argument starts into a tirade about having sex the other fellows mother.
>Ed Letourneau is a loony who jumps in with nothing of value to state, and
>who, when he begins to lose the argument, starts into a bigotted tirade about
>homosexuality
Ah yes, glatt the aberrant mental buddy of McCoy. One talks of how he f**ks
everyone's mother when he gets caught in another moron statement. The other
(glatt), wants us to think his desire to stick his peepee in the butt of other
men is normal and anyone who objects is a bigot -- and who for the life of
him can't figure out that its his obnoxious personality that no one can stand.
glatt, we haven't missed you in the past few days. In fact I was wondering if
you had gone off working on the Darwin Award, but alas you're still here.
Maybe you and McCoy can work together on it, eh.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:57:14 GMT
On 17 Mar 2000 03:45:39 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: Mind you, noone is asking Apple to do anything that they haven't
>: done for others and done so free of charge. Podlipec is more than
>: willing to implement a codec under NDA, could he do so instead of
>: just getting the runaround from Apple and Sorenson who perpetually
>: pass the buck in this matter. [...]
>
>I'm not sure the merit of your request has any bearing. It may be that
>input from these other platforms is simply not being entertained.
You can ask Podlipec himself if you'd like. Being the maintainer
of THE ubiquitous video player on Linux, his remarks on the matter
are pretty definitive.
--
So long as Apple users Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based videoa 'Windows only' Club for x86, / | \
Apple is no less monpolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
