Linux-Advocacy Digest #683, Volume #25 Sat, 18 Mar 00 10:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Salary? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
gnome website sabotaged? (patrick hutton)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (bob@nospam)
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Salary? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Salary? ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:39:56 -0600
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YeHA4.2633$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > When you pay an admin $100,000 a year, $319 is not very much.
>
> $319 doesn't sound appealing to a home user though.
> Emachines computers can be bought for that now I believe.
Win2k isn't targeted at home users. It's a business oriented OS.
> > normal users are restricted from making changes to network protocols or
> file
> > shares. Why would you want your normal users screwing around with that?
> > The idea of a normal user is that they aren't allowed to change any
> > administration settings.
>
> I feel Linux allows one to stay in user more that W2K since it is easier
to
> pop into
> root to do a root type activity since Linux has the su command.
And Win2k has the "run as" command.
> > Very few viruses effect NT/2000. More than Linux, sure. But a tiny
> > fraction of those that effect 95/98.
>
> You're right.
> Unfortunately there are a whole new class of viruses that do affect
NT/2000
> I believe.
> I'm referring to the cross-platform Word 97 macro viruses.
> I would think the Outlook address book viruses could still operate too.
Such a program could operate under Unix as well. Your mail aliases are just
as accessible to a binary program (and more and more binary releases are
coming out these days).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 10:35:35 GMT
Just got the news from our support people that Windows 2000 is not backwardly
compatible with NT. Case in point is Core Technologies BRIDGE software which
is capable of poll-select via a com port under NT, doesn't work under Win 2000.
Reason is the Microsoft team didn't thoroughly test their product!
TRUE, Windows 2000 is almost 2 years behind their original lofty schedules.
TRUE, they have had 2 years extra to develop and test their product!
TRUE, it costs over $300 a copy to get it.
TRUE, all we can do is tell our customers we DON'T KNOW WHEN MICROSOFT WILL FIX IT!
God I'm sick of Microsoft. I'm so tired of the moronic stupidity...
The cost. The cost. The cost... The cost....
Why is it ! Why can't Microsoft make a backwardly compatible product????
Not even in VB can they make a backwardly compatible product!!!!
Why is it that a group of part time programmers can make Linux which is backwardly
compatible for 9-10 years now and yet a bunch of BIG-BOYS working for MICROSOFT can
not.....
The "BIG-BOYS" are having problems!
And because the "BIG-BOYS" are having problems, I'M HAVING PROBLEMS!!!!
I am pissed!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:53:57 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XZIA4.7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just got the news from our support people that Windows 2000 is not
backwardly
> compatible with NT. Case in point is Core Technologies BRIDGE software
which
> is capable of poll-select via a com port under NT, doesn't work under Win
2000.
Win2k is very backwards compatible with NT. There are some exceptions
though. Specifically in areas relating to drivers and low-level hardware
access. This is most likely where you're running into problems. Windows
2000 has an entirely different device driver model than NT did. The old
device driver model is still present to some degree, but is not fully
backwards compatible. This was a choice between stability and
compatibility. MS chose stability.
> Reason is the Microsoft team didn't thoroughly test their product!
Not in the slightest. Win2k is the most thoroughly tested product of this
magnitude ever developed.
> TRUE, Windows 2000 is almost 2 years behind their original lofty
schedules.
Primarily because MS chose stability as the primary goal of Windows 2000
over ship dates.
> TRUE, they have had 2 years extra to develop and test their product!
Which they did.
> TRUE, it costs over $300 a copy to get it.
Who cares? The cost of the product is miniscule in it's Total Cost of
Ownership, which includes training, support, maintenance, administration,
etc..
> TRUE, all we can do is tell our customers we DON'T KNOW WHEN MICROSOFT
WILL FIX IT!
Why not tell your customers that YOU will fix it, instead of pointing
fingers?
> God I'm sick of Microsoft. I'm so tired of the moronic stupidity...
> The cost. The cost. The cost... The cost....
The cost is miniscule.
> Why is it ! Why can't Microsoft make a backwardly compatible product????
That's what Windows 9x is. And that's why it's so unstable.
> Not even in VB can they make a backwardly compatible product!!!!
VB is quite backwards compatible.
> Why is it that a group of part time programmers can make Linux which is
backwardly
> compatible for 9-10 years now and yet a bunch of BIG-BOYS working for
MICROSOFT can
> not.....
Linux has the advantage of source code for everything. When you have to
maintain binary compatibility with your old systems, things get much harder.
I doubt that binaries from Linux .90 still run in today's Linux.
> The "BIG-BOYS" are having problems!
>
> And because the "BIG-BOYS" are having problems, I'M HAVING PROBLEMS!!!!
Grow up and fix the problem with your software.
> I am pissed!
It's called progress. Things change, you need to stay up on it. It doesn't
matter if it's OS's or languages.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:06:37 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:18:45 -0800...
...and John Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >
>
> > Around the corner lives a hacker with a terminal
> > And on his Web page is a PNG of RMS
> > He likes to keep his Sun workstation clean
> > It's a clean machine...
>
> Are there more lyrics to go with this snippet??
The more often I look at it, the more your question lures me into
finishing this idea and rewriting the entire song on a hackish theme.
mawa
--
THINGS THE WORLD NEEDS MORE OF #2:
Hot chocolate.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:04:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 17 Mar 2000 21:58:46 -0800 <8av5um$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>>
>>I know a _huge_ number of Unix programmers who debug with printf's.
>>I'm not kidding. I'm not convinced that many Unix programmers are
>>capable of sophisticated debug; GDB is such an inadequete debugger
>>(absolutely horrendous support for threads, and complete inability
>>to single step through instructions usefully) that it is hard to be.
>>
>
>Really good programmers hardly ever need a debugger.
>
>A good tracing tool and loggin subsystem is much more valuable. And
>the best debugging tool is code review and good design.
In theory, perhaps. In practice, I find a good debugger to be
valuable, myself -- when properly used.
Visual C++ has a good debugger, although I for one wonder what's
lurking in there (after all, it *is* from Microsoft). I did
catch the Visual C++ compiler in an optimization bug once
(some sort of memory corruption), but the debugger generally
works well. One glaring lack: no obvious method by which to
set breakpoints by function name -- and of course it's all
gooey-driven.
gdb/xxgdb has been problematical on HP-UX ("unable to find linker
stub" causes it to "totally miss the point" when single-stepping),
although that might have had something to do with my ex-employer's
modifications; on Linux, it occasionally likes to get totally confused
with respect to line numbers and point me to the middle of a .H file
instead of where it's supposed to be (which actually can be in
the middle of a .H file, on inline code); it also occasionally
has problems finding routines, requiring me to specify by line
number.
I expect these to be fixed in time, but I for one do wonder what
could be causing the confusion on occasion. Perhaps I'll muck
into G++ and/or GDB some day, when I have a lot more time than
I do now.... :-)
(One wonders if Rational Software has considered porting their
excellent programs Purify, Quantify, and Purecov to Linux x86 yet.
The Electric Fence library isn't too bad, but it's not complete.)
>
>One sign of less experienced programmers is the large amount of debugging
>they do. Notice how good programmers seem to do little debugging.
Very true; I find that a well-engineered program requires less
debugging. Documentation always helps, too...when it's accurate.
An old rule: 1/2 design, 1/6 code, 1/3 debugging. (Usually, it's
1/3 design, 1/6 code, 1/2 debugging -- but a friend of mine swears
by the former, and I do have to agree.)
>
>One good use for a debugger is to learn how a software works by stepping
>into it. This is one way a new programmer comming to a new project can
>learn how the program works from the inside. However, good design documents,
>and good logging system remains the best tool to debug with and to learn
>how a complex system is working.
>
>Also, the choice of the computer language used affects how much
>one spends debugging.
>
>Languages that are statically strongly typed eliminate many of the
>bugs that can result in run-time in less strongly typed languages
>such as in C or perl and to lesser extent in C++. (i.e. let the compiler
>catch as many of your bugs, is the smartest thing you can do).
I'll admit, this is debatable, but then, I'm not really sure
about it yet; Java seems to favor more permissive run-time
type casting -- but it also checks the casting quite rigorously,
at run-time admittedly. And yet, people claim one can develop
programs quite quickly in Java (of course, not having to worry
about corrupted pointers and memory leaks may have something to
do with that :-) ).
In C++, now that I've found dynamic_cast<T *>(), joy! Or at
least, something useful and/or workable for downcasting.
And I use refcounted pointers, which admittedly can be problematical.
But I do agree that, the more bugs caught early on, the better.
I'm not sure that the compiler can catch them all, though
(although modern compilers are far better than their earlier
counterparts, and the HP-UX 10.0 C++ compiler was amazing at
finding very subtle issues that escaped most people's notice).
>
>bill
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:52:32 GMT
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>In article <38d2542b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>> [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.
>
>>What a weenie you are. I'm going to smack your mom tonight for having you.
>Give it up you brain damaged twit. You proved my point and therefore lost.
As one can see from the lunatic Ed Letourneau's tirade above, he
proves my point about his bigotted outbursts against homosexuality.
Ed Letourneau is simply a lunatic/bigot who is trying to make OS/2
users appear to be extremely unpleasant in an effort to drive people
away from OS/2. He's an anti-advocate who has never done anything
positive for OS/2, and seeks only to damage it with his fanaticism.
Even Esther Schindler has pointed out how misguided are Ed's bigotted
attacks upon gay people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: 18 Mar 2000 04:07:53 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>On 17 Mar 2000 21:58:46 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Really good programmers hardly ever need a debugger.
>
>You don't program for a living, do you? You've never worked on
>a project with more than a quarter million lines, either, have
>you?
>
Yes, I program for living, for the last 20 years.
>>A good tracing tool and loggin subsystem is much more valuable. And
>>the best debugging tool is code review and good design.
>
>How do you step through assembler output to locate compiler bugs?
simply generate compiler listing if you want to examin compiler
output. (do you spend all your day debugging compiler bugs?)
>How do you examine/change variables during runtime?
Why do you need to do that?
>How do you
>trap acceses to specific memory locations?
Why do you need to do that?
>How do you call a random
>function at a random point with specific arguments?
why do you need to do that?
>How do you place
>breakpoints in a specific exception handler?
why do you need to do that?
>How do you trace
>the stack to see where you are in the program? How do you do
>thread specific debugging so you can debug different threads?
see above.
>No
>programmer worth his office space attacks these types of problems
>without a debugger.
>
You are missing the whole point. A good programmer tries to minimize
the need to do all of the above things you seem to waste your time
on by having a good design to start with, by code review, by analyses
of the source code itself, by using a language with good static type
checking, and by having good facility for logging, a facility that
can dump your data structures, entry points, etc.. such a logging
facility can be 100 times more valuable than a debugger.
If after all of the above is done, there is still a bug in the code,
that a symbolic debugger can help, then it can be used. I am not
saying a debugger is not needed at all, in rare cases it is usefull.
All what I am saying is that, a good programmer does not spend
too much time inside the debugger, they spend it outside making
sure they never need to use a debugger.
>>One sign of less experienced programmers is the large amount of debugging
>>they do. Notice how good programmers seem to do little debugging.
>
>In my experience, the competence of a programmer is directly
>proportional to his efficieny of using debugging tools.
'debugging tools' is a general term. For me it means the above
things that I mentioned (code review/analysis, tracing/debugging, good design,
and good language), for you it is the act of stepping line by line
in the code where you do not see the forest from the trees.
>It
>may be true that competent programmers spend less time debugging
>overall because they are efficient enough that they can quickly
>debug programs, whereas the less experienced programmers just step
>through the code, adding lots of printf's, and waiting for the problem
>to reproduce.
A good programmer build a good logging facility into the system, a good
error messaging system, they do not just add printf nilly willy every where.
So, instead you set a break point on every line in your code and wait for the
problem to show up?
>Good design documents are integral, but having nothing to do with
>debugging.
you seem so bent up on debugging. is this what you do all day? debug?
bob
------------------------------
From: patrick hutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gnome website sabotaged?
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:12:08 +0000
Reply-To: na
I went to gnome gnotices section and clicked on comments for various
news bits. On doing so I was sent to microsoft web page! What's going
on? I tried site at 13.00 hrs gmt 18/03/00.
------------------------------
From: bob@nospam
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 18 Mar 2000 04:20:36 -0800
Why does one have to install IIS on win2000 to simply use ftp?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:27:10 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:XZIA4.7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Just got the news from our support people that Windows 2000 is not
> backwardly
> > compatible with NT. Case in point is Core Technologies BRIDGE software
> which
> > is capable of poll-select via a com port under NT, doesn't work under Win
> 2000.
>
> Win2k is very backwards compatible with NT. There are some exceptions
> though. Specifically in areas relating to drivers and low-level hardware
> access. This is most likely where you're running into problems. Windows
> 2000 has an entirely different device driver model than NT did. The old
> device driver model is still present to some degree, but is not fully
> backwards compatible. This was a choice between stability and
> compatibility. MS chose stability.
>
> > Reason is the Microsoft team didn't thoroughly test their product!
>
> Not in the slightest. Win2k is the most thoroughly tested product of this
> magnitude ever developed.
>
> > TRUE, Windows 2000 is almost 2 years behind their original lofty
> schedules.
>
> Primarily because MS chose stability as the primary goal of Windows 2000
> over ship dates.
>
> > TRUE, they have had 2 years extra to develop and test their product!
>
> Which they did.
>
> > TRUE, it costs over $300 a copy to get it.
>
> Who cares? The cost of the product is miniscule in it's Total Cost of
> Ownership, which includes training, support, maintenance, administration,
> etc..
>
> > TRUE, all we can do is tell our customers we DON'T KNOW WHEN MICROSOFT
> WILL FIX IT!
>
> Why not tell your customers that YOU will fix it, instead of pointing
> fingers?
>
> > God I'm sick of Microsoft. I'm so tired of the moronic stupidity...
> > The cost. The cost. The cost... The cost....
>
> The cost is miniscule.
>
> > Why is it ! Why can't Microsoft make a backwardly compatible product????
>
> That's what Windows 9x is. And that's why it's so unstable.
>
> > Not even in VB can they make a backwardly compatible product!!!!
>
> VB is quite backwards compatible.
>
> > Why is it that a group of part time programmers can make Linux which is
> backwardly
> > compatible for 9-10 years now and yet a bunch of BIG-BOYS working for
> MICROSOFT can
> > not.....
>
> Linux has the advantage of source code for everything. When you have to
> maintain binary compatibility with your old systems, things get much harder.
> I doubt that binaries from Linux .90 still run in today's Linux.
>
> > The "BIG-BOYS" are having problems!
> >
> > And because the "BIG-BOYS" are having problems, I'M HAVING PROBLEMS!!!!
>
> Grow up and fix the problem with your software.
>
> > I am pissed!
>
> It's called progress. Things change, you need to stay up on it. It doesn't
> matter if it's OS's or languages.
If another person tries to proof M$ products run at a lower TCO as Linux, I'm
going to crack...
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:31:20 -0500
Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8agt9p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, "doc", obviously you don't know what you are talking about,
> because it is *precisely* the procedure (show me what's wrong with it -
> you can't, because it works, and each step is necessary).
That's ridiculous.
I don't have your document in front of me at the moment, but lots of it
wasn't necessary, and there were all kinds of judgmental statements in it
that definitely wouldn't be in a Gateway publication.
The general procedure (details differ slightly depending on the Windows
version . . . for instance, Win2K requires 4 boot floppies) on an empty
machine, or one in which you are reinstalling Windows over a previous
installation is:
1. Stick in a boot floppy (if you can't boot from CD-ROM; if you can, it's
even easier)
2. Choose "start with CD-ROM support"
3. At the prompt, enter you CD drive letter
4. Type the word "setup"
5. Stick in another floppy when Windows tells you to.
6. Hit Enter/Click okay a bunch of times when Windows tells you to.
7. Make a cup of coffee. Keep hitting enter/clicking okay
8. Reboot.
That's it.
Now, that may not install every driver you need, although it usually does
unless you have some weird hardware or you're installing something like
Win95a in a system with all USB devices, but it does install Windows. To
install drivers, you either just stick in the CD that came with your
hardware and it does it for you after you click okay a couple times, or you
go either go to "My Computer /Properties/Device Manager" click on the device
that Windows recognizes that you have but doesn't have a driver for, in
which case you just tell Windows where the file is (stick in the disk and
point to the file) or you add the hardware with the wizard, accessed through
the Control Panel. You may still have to go to Device Manager. And that's
it.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 18 Mar 2000 14:50:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: It was the 8 Mar 2000 18:41:53 GMT...
: ...and Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> I think that where "racism" ( for want of a better word ) kicks in is
:> in the "networking". It's simply easier to "network" with your own race.
:> ( Women have the same problem in male dominated industries btw ) This
:> problem is extremely subtle and also somewhat self-perpetuating. It's
:> precisely the kind of thing that affirmative action was designed to
:> ( but often fails to ) address.
: *completely OT!*
: Someone recently explained it to me, but I forgot it in the meantime:
: what is affirmative action again?
In theory: taking positive steps to make sure qualified minority
candidates are recruited, so as to promote fairness and equality in
the workplace.
In practice: a quota system that forces the hire and promotion of any
available minority candidates, whether qualified or not, reinforcing
two of the false beliefs that the ruling elites use to justify racism
in the first place: (a) that people with different color skin should
not be treated equally, and, even worse, (b) that minorities *cannot*
succeed without special help from "Massa."
I agree with affirmative action in the former sense, but most
assuredly not the latter. Institutionalized racism, of which today's
so-called "affirmative action" is a small but important part, is by
design both self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing. It is getting
worse, and will keep getting worse until root causes are examined and
addressed.
Joe
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:53:15 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:52:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff
Glatt) wrote:
<snip>
>Ed Letourneau is simply a lunatic/bigot who is trying to make OS/2
>users appear to be extremely unpleasant in an effort to drive people
>away from OS/2.
That alone shows he's a nut. He doesn't need to drive anyone away from
OS/2 -- IBM did that without his help.
>From a former OS/2 1.3, 2.0, and 2.1 user -- never used Warp.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 18 Mar 2000 14:56:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 17 Mar 2000 21:58:11 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>On 17 Mar 2000 18:55:45 GMT, Ian Mac Lure wrote:
:>>In comp.os.linux.misc Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>>: On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 02:27:35 GMT, Christopher Browne wrote:
:>> I have no idea what property goes for in rural Ireland though.
:>
:>I'm from Australia. WHen I lived there a 3 yrs ago, I could get a place
:>about 1k from the middle of the city (Melbourne)for $54 per week ( ie $108
:>total for a two bedroom apartment ) Keep in mind that this is Australian
:>dollars ( so it's about $75/week US )
: 1K from city center may or may not be a good thing...
In the U.S. it's usually bad because that is where the high-crime
ghetto tends to begin (the exact distance varies based on the size and
geography of the city).
The same is not necessarily true of cities outside the U.S.
Joe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
