Linux-Advocacy Digest #719, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 23:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Producing Quality Code ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Bsd and Linux (John Hasler)
Re: Producing Quality Code ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Producing Quality Code ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How can use linux? debates ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Producing Quality Code ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet
again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Producing Quality Code ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How can use linux? debates ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
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: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:49:42 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:44:36 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:26:54 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
><snip>
>>> Given MS's history, even to that point, there were NO indications
>>> that they would ever concede anything... they want it all. If IBM
>>> thought that MS wouldn't miss "a good sized niche", they failed.
>>
>>You have your "facts" all wrong.
>
>No, I don't have my facts wrong. I was using OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 when
>this was occurring and I know the history of the two companies. The
>point is that IBM PSP on one hand was pushing OS/2 while another
>part of the same division was selling Windows.
Absolutely true and this was due to John Akers (IBM CEO at the time)
splitting up the divisions and making each and every one accountable
for their own bottom line.
The PC company was selling Windows pre-loads. The OS/2 group in Boca
was trying to get OS/2 pre-loaded but Windows generated more $$$ so
the PC company was not interested. All it did was make IBM look like
fools.
>>MS asked IBM to kill OS/2 - Period.
>
>And IBM didn't concede -- what's your point? My point is that IBM
>didn't go in willing to fight Microsoft tooth and nail for operating
>system share.
This is exactly what happened. The biggest problem ended up being that
MS had rights to HPFS and IBM could not provide a FAT to HPFS
converter program without MS's blessing and MS was not about to do
that. There was an IBM internal program that performed this trick but
it never made it to the general public although it was pirated all
over the place.
>
>>> >from preventing PC vendors from selling a PC with anything
>>> >but MS OS and had they done the very simple thing of providing
>>> >ports of their Office Suite for OS/2 as they did for the Mac.
>>>
>>> True, but was any of that a secret that was kept from IBM? Of
>>> course not, they knew MS's terms.
>>
>>"Hey I told him I'd shoot him if he breathed." Those are the terms.
>>
>>When does this argument become ridiculous? A man who wants to ridicule
>>IBM for not supporting OS/2 has now flipped his argument.
>
>What in the world are you talking about? My argument has been that
>regardless of the illegal activity that MS did, OS/2 ultimately failed
>because of IBM.
True. IBM couldn't market a parachute to a bloke who just fell out of
a plane at 30k feet.
>MS isn't the one who decided that the default OS install on IBM PC's
>would be Windows, MS isn't the one who decided that it would chase
>the moving target called the Win32 API.
Yep.
>Whatever MS _wanted_ them to do, what IBM did with OS/2 was their
>choosing, not MS's.
True.
>>IBM should have know better.....so should have MS which is why they
>>are the ones who butts are in court facing a break-up. It is not as if
>>anti-trust laws were kept secret. MS knew the law. IBM survived the
>>encounter, MS will probably not survive. Who won?
>
>MS's legal issues didn't kill OS/2, despite what they wanted.
OS/2 is still very much alive. It controls the SE and HMC in IBM's top
of the line CMOS processors (9672 for you number freaks)
>Do you really think that MS won't survive a break-up? Ever hear
>of Standard Oil? Guess what happened to them after they were
>broken up. Break up MS and you'll end up will smaller versions
>of the current MS.
MS is going to be crippled...
Steve
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:56:13 -0600
mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Marketeering is what drives modern buying decisions, which
> in turn forms other business strategies; in this, it is a
> self-perpetuating medium. The media/marketers whip up
> demand for a (usually vaporous) product; users clamor for
> the product; business then rush to produce the product.
>
> Engineers are usually aware of this dichotomy, but elect to
> put up with it rather than protesting strongly and acting
> as agents for change.
Engineers that protest become unemployed. Companies are already are moving
to hiring off-shore labor (H1-B visas are 4x the amount they were just a few
years ago) and cheap entry-level workforces. The only way to affect change
is to keep yourself employed. You can't change things if you get fired for
trying.
> It means doing more than simply paying lip-service to writing
> good code. It means not only writing good code yourself, but
> not putting up with less from anyone else, either. It means
> making sacrifices to enforce good code -- eschewing the new
> release of WhizBangProd 1.0 just because it has niftier graphics
> or a multimedia layer, for example, until the vendor fixes bugs.
You're not going to see people quit their jobs over quality. It's just not
going to happen.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:12:08 GMT
Tom Gravgaard Christensen writes:
> ...they could in theory just as well have used the FreeBSD kernel (can
> you say Redhat/FreeBSD :))
Not so theoretical. There is a Debian/FreeBSD project.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:59:28 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:S0BB4.4248$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The intrusiveness of our government and corporations increases year by
year,
> and I find it comforting to keep my public profile fairly low.
Here you are espousing personal responsibility and making sacrifice for the
common good, yet you hide behind a ficticious name because you find it
"comforting".
I would call you a hypocrite. Start with yourself before condemning others
on the moral ground.
> I find as I get older that paranoia seems more and more reasonable. In
this day and age
> when every utterance can be taken out of context and used against you, it
seems only
> common sense to keep things anonymous.
Yet you want people to rise up out of their cubicles and demand change at
the expense of their own "comfort".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:02:47 GMT
On 21 Mar 2000 09:59:40 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 05:44:15 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ilya Grishashvili wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>> There was a discossion here that moved me to post this message.
>>>
>>> This is my opinion you don't have to agree.
>:)
>>>
>>> I'm a real Penguinist, but I have to admit:
>>
>>> LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
>True
10 points for honesty.
>>> AND NOT FOR EVERY NEED.
>True again
Another 10 points.
>But so is every other OS in the world!
You get 50 points for that one.
>>>
>>> If you're a secretary who only needs email and office tools,
>>> linux is not for you!
>Before MS started pushing their crap, Secretaries used BANYAN to run
>MsWord, and that networking system is STABLE!
Ooops - 20 points.. You should have said secretaries were using
DisplayWrite via PC's on 3270 SNA connections.
>They used Banyan email utilising "Streetalk" naming methods, and they loved it
>. Word was just another app.
-10 points. It's all about app's. OS means nothing to a secretary.
>>
>>How many times must we dispell this crap? This is EXACTLY the sort of person
>>linux is perfect for. This is EXACTLY the sort of job windows (and Mac for that
>>matter) is HORRIBLE for.
>I agree 100%.
Unless you want groupware ala Lotus CLIENT and file formats including
charts and tables that the rest of the office world is using.
*.txt files are long dead. Today's Email for better or worse (I vote
worse) includes video, graphics and so forth. You need to ACCURATELY
be able to reproduce the formats or you are out of the game.
>People who say this have no real world experience, its just the MS propaganda
>line.
No they are just used to seeing MSOffice in just about every client's
account they have.
>>
>>I'll agree that linux is not suited to the typical home user/gamer.
>>Fine. Almost no one here would say that it is.
>Everyone but me that is :))
>My kids loved networked Koules (Windows uses have NEVER have seen it, never
>will), networked Quake, Networked FreeCiv, Adom etc.
Buy a Sony Playstation. Trust me, you and your kids will love it.
>>
>>> Unix (Linux) is an operating system developed by programmers
>>> and for programmers or researchers !!!
>Crap.
-10 points here. No contest. Linux/Unix is for geeks.
>>
>>Yeah, and windows was developed by monkeys, for monkeys? What are you talking
>>about?
>>
>>--
>>Tim Kelley
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Steve
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:05:16 GMT
In article <vtBB4.2222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Marketeering is what drives modern buying decisions, which
>> in turn forms other business strategies; in this, it is a
>> self-perpetuating medium. The media/marketers whip up
>> demand for a (usually vaporous) product; users clamor for
>> the product; business then rush to produce the product.
>>
>> Engineers are usually aware of this dichotomy, but elect to
>> put up with it rather than protesting strongly and acting
>> as agents for change.
>
> Engineers that protest become unemployed. Companies are already are moving
> to hiring off-shore labor (H1-B visas are 4x the amount they were just a few
> years ago) and cheap entry-level workforces. The only way to affect change
> is to keep yourself employed. You can't change things if you get fired for
> trying.
>
I find that depressing. I can say with conviction that this is not
true for me, because I already quit one job over it and got a job with an
organization that values the ideals that I stand for (there are some out
there!). I don't want to overdramatize things, but it reminds me of a quote
by a catholic priest recalling World War II: "I didn't speak up when they
came for the communists because I wasn't a communist. I didn't speak
up when they came for the trade unionists because I wasn't a trade
unionist. I didn't speak up when they came for the jews because I am
not a jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up."
Think about that for awhile. If doing good required no effort, it wouldn't
mean anything.
>
>> It means doing more than simply paying lip-service to writing
>> good code. It means not only writing good code yourself, but
>> not putting up with less from anyone else, either. It means
>> making sacrifices to enforce good code -- eschewing the new
>> release of WhizBangProd 1.0 just because it has niftier graphics
>> or a multimedia layer, for example, until the vendor fixes bugs.
>
> You're not going to see people quit their jobs over quality. It's just not
> going to happen.
>
It happens very rarely; but it happens. Such people are
often (unfortunately) seen as idealists, or worse, as crackpots. RMS
has gained the reputation of being a wild-eyed zealot, but in my
eyes he works for a noble cause and is willing to stand behind what
he believes, to the extent that he has forgone (probably) millions
of dollars in licensing fees for the software he has created.
The alternative -- which I find unacceptable -- is to accept that we
are simply pissing away our lives producing substandard code. I
don't know about you, but I want more from my life than that.
Regards,
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: How can use linux? debates
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:11:12 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:03:40 -0800, Osugi Sakae
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Some people claim that linux is only for programmers /
>researchers. These same people are generally upset with recent
>attemps to make linux accessable to less technical types.
That is because they are generally socially inferior folks and Linux
is their last claim to fame so to speak.
Read the book Hackers for a typical example of a Linux supporter.
GreenBlatt fits the bill quite nicely.
>Others claim that linux would make a great os for anyone and
>everyone - and that it is just as easy to use windows or mac and
>is much more stable and powerful. Good evidence is kde and
>gnome, Caldera and Corel. Maybe lokigames.
Try it for yourself and come back in an hour and let us know.
>Ok, the above positions are greatly simplified. But they are not
>fiction or the opinions of trolls (I think) - this programmer /
>general user debate seems to be for real. Which surprises me.
>One thing that almost every linux advocate agrees on is that
>open source, free-as-in-speech software is better, in part
>because anyone is free to make changes.
Free is a word that strikes up an interest in everyone, be it Linux
supporter or Windows supporter. Problem is that with Linux you really
do get what you DON'T pay for. Again try it for yourself and come back
and comment.
>So, if everyone is free to make changes, why should anyone be
>surprised or even care if some people want to make linux "easy"
>enough for windows users to use? It isn't like the programers /
>researchers are forced to install kde or gnome. A computer
>running linux with apache and no x-windows is still a linux box.
>So if some nice folks want to write the ACME Desktop
>Environment, how is their project any less worthy than the
>statistical analysis project from another group?
To Linux supporters easy=bloat. They have no conception of easy, nor
pleasing to the eye nor state of the art. They find exception with all
of the above because it boils down to sour grapes. Mac has it. Windows
has it. Sun and IBM have it and Linux is still trying.
>Even if linux (with kde, gnome, or some other GUI) should take
>over the world - say 90% of all desktops - it is still
>configurable enough that anyone can use or not use whatever they
>want or don't want. So how is making linux "more like windows"
>(in appearence only) hurting, hindering or otherwise damaging
>linux? It isn't, it is just making linux an option for more
>people.
While Linux desktops may look like Windows and some say are better, it
all boils down to applications that normal folks want and Linux dies
here.
>Perhaps some people worry that "easy to use" means "less
>powerful." This doesn't have to be true, but even if it was,
>linux still has the command line. Personally, I never knew how
>powerful the it could be until I tried linux. Now I use the
>command line even in windows (at work). I never would have found
>this power if Caldera hadn't made installing linux even easier
>than installing windows and if someone (kde, gnome, whoever)
>hadn't given the command line a friendly face to help ease the
>transition.
To a normal non geek user CLI is a non issue. Nobody in this group
could care less about a command line. Applications. Think applications
and you will look to Windows or Mac.
>So I guess what I am saying is that there is IMO no reason for
>the debate programmers vs casual users. With linux's stability
>and reliability, there is no reason why it couldn't be (one day)
>on everyone's desktop. With its configurability and power, I
>think linux could be all things to both groups.
Assuming applications are written that at least come close to what is
available for Windows and Mac now.
>Disclaimer: I like choice. Choice is good. Thus, I am not saying
>that everyone should use linux. Everyone should use the os and
>computer that they want to use. What I am saying is that I see
>no reason that linux should be limited to "power users" and that
>putting a pretty face on top of linux is not the same as dumbing
>it down.
>
>Or am I missing something?
Nobody is against choice including me. Linux is just such a poor
choice for average Joe's like me.
Steve
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:15:27 -0600
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:31:44 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >They have full access, yes. What administrator has that root does not is
> >the ability to remove permissions. Yes, the administrator can reclaim
those
>
> Wrong.
How so?
> >Who said anything about circumventing an administrator? Of course an
> >administrator can do whatever they want to do. The difference is that
you
>
> I don't see how that's a "difference".
Neither do I, since you cut too much of the quote.
> >No, a user running as root need only type rm /* -rf to wipe out a system,
no
> >matter what the file system priveleges are set to. You can't do
something
>
> Again, wrong. man chattr. man mount. Or even 'man chmod'
Yes, chattr can set the files to immutable, but then nobody can modify the
file. This is not the same thing as taking away permissions from the
administrator, since people with remaining permissions can still modify or
delete the file.
Yes, the administrator can still change the permissions to modify the file,
but they cannot do so accidentally.
I have no idea what you're claiming with mount, unless you mean to mount it
as read-only. Again, not the same thing.
And chmod is useless against root. If you have root, you can do whatever to
a file whether you intend to or not. You cannot protect a file from
accidental modification or delete from root without removing everyones
ability to do so.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:15:25 GMT
IBM is supporting Linux only on their bottom of the line RS 6K
products and not on any of their real power systems like SP/2.
How would they even run the switch on a platform like that.
For those ignorant of the switch that is the piece of hardware that
couples all of the SP/2 nodes together and provides a high speed data
path between them.
IBM has advertised support for Linux, but i doubt you will see Linux
replacing MVS/ESA on any CMOS in the near future. As a guest under VM
sure, but as the main traffic cop I doubt it and IBM has not made ANY
announcement of such intent.
Aix and MVS blow Linux out of the water on all accounts except cost.
Steve
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:10:41 GMT, "horst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>check out slashdot today, or the new york times business front page...
>Gerstner himself is behind a unified linux strategy, although I doubt they
>will abandon Aix, they are certainly emphasizing linux much more and predict
>that it will become the predominant os in about 5 years.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; net wrote in message ...
>>And your proof of IBM moving Aix to Linux?
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:16:01 GMT
In article <ywBB4.2223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:S0BB4.4248$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The intrusiveness of our government and corporations increases year by
> year,
>> and I find it comforting to keep my public profile fairly low.
>
> Here you are espousing personal responsibility and making sacrifice for the
> common good, yet you hide behind a ficticious name because you find it
> "comforting".
>
> I would call you a hypocrite. Start with yourself before condemning others
> on the moral ground.
>
In what way am I being a hypocrite by calling for better-quality code? My
choice to remain anonymous on Usenet is a practical one as much as
anything; were I to use my real e-mail, I would have to wade through
mountians of spam and flames to get to the "real" mail. Furthermore,
as I said before, I have good and sufficient reason to keep my affairs low-
profile. What I said elsewhere in this thread is true: if you want to know
my real identity and I think you would benefit by knowing, I'll tell you.
I show my dedication to my ideals by following my own advice: I produce
the very best code I can, and insist on the same from others.
>
>> I find as I get older that paranoia seems more and more reasonable. In
> this day and age
>> when every utterance can be taken out of context and used against you, it
> seems only
>> common sense to keep things anonymous.
>
> Yet you want people to rise up out of their cubicles and demand change at
> the expense of their own "comfort".
>
Absolutely. But I would also argue that standing up for your principles is
not all that dangerous -- in today's climate, a good programmer (even an
idealistic one) can get a good job almost anywhere. We can pick and choose
whom to work for, and how to work; I'm only asking that we make good choices.
If you're not willing to be part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Regards,
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge
yet again)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:16:57 GMT
Hitachi just announced last week that they are getting out of the
mainframe market.
Steve
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:40:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> The government *tried* to stop them. But to this day, IBM retains a
>>> hammerlock
>>> on the big iron market and at this point they have pretty well come to own
>>> the minicomputer market as well.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, for a while, IBM was losing a lot of business to Hitachi. It was
>> only with the introduction of the S/390 G5 in 1998 that IBM regained the
>> mainframe market and now owns about 95% of it.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>
>For awhile in the '80's, it was a free-for-all: Fujitsu, Siemens, Hitachi,
>and Amdahl all undercut IBM's mainframe business. By the late '80's,
>IBM was hurting pretty bad. However, they got back on track around
>1993 or so and Big Blue's big iron came roaring back -- it turns out
>those big beasties made great "enterprise servers"!
>
>Fujitsu and Hitachi are still major players in the market, though,
>especially in Europe and Japan. IBM may have 95% of the market in
>the U.S., but I don't think that's true everywhere else.
>
>mr_organic
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:20:37 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > They have full access, yes. What administrator has that root does not
is
> > the ability to remove permissions. Yes, the administrator can reclaim
those
> > permissions but you have to deliberately do so.
>
> you can set things up on a unix machine so that root has to undo things
> before they can modify something. So what's your point?
Yes, but nobody else can modify that something either.
> root on Unix = all-powerful
> administrator on NT = all-powerful
>
> what's your point eric?
What's your Pawl?
Root has no restrictions, even when you want there to be restrictions from
accidental modification without restricting everyone. That's the unix
philosophy, all or nothing.
> > I've been writing Win32 software for over 5 years.
> >
> > Were you not aware that you can remove the SE_RESTORE_NAME right from
the
> > administrator group?
>
> of course he knows that! (god damm it he probably knows more about NT
> file permissions/domains/smb than MS). And he even said as much - ie you
> can restrict administrator on NT, but administrator can undo those
> restrictions at will.
He seemed to be indicating otherwise.
> > No, a user running as root need only type rm /* -rf to wipe out a
system, no
> > matter what the file system priveleges are set to.
>
> So? they are root, by definition they have full access to every bit and
> byte on the system. That is root.
>
> And administrator can do the exact same thing.
can, not must.
> Only difference is that the Unix tools don't molly coddle you as much as
> the tools on NT. But if you wanted rm to assume you're a fool then use
> rm -i.
Typical attitude. Blame the user. Nevermind that the tools don't give you
the ability prevent problems. rm -i is a pain in the ass. I would much
rather remove access to files I don't want to accidentally touch. I don't
know about you, but I make mistakes when I type. I'm glad you're perfect.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:05:53 GMT
In article <S0BB4.4248$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I find as I get older that paranoia seems more and more reasonable. In
this day and age
> when every utterance can be taken out of context and used against you,
it seems only
> common sense to keep things anonymous.
Applause, applause. But we need to keep this in mind for those who
present differing points of view here on C.O.L.A. as well. I've seen
Drestin taken to task way too many times for his insistence on
anonyminity, while the rest of us regard it as one of our basic rights.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How can use linux? debates
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:10:12 GMT
In article <NdBB4.4254$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really don't care what the Linux developers do to "MSify" Linux. As
long as they retain the option for me to make it look the way _I_ want
it to look. And that may or may not include looking like MS products.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:25:12 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> True the original thread was about GnuCash, but you responded to MY
> post about Gnome.
>
> BTW I have, at least from an install and general setup perspective
> tried every major distribution, current versions of course, except for
> Mandrake.
>
> See dejanews searching on linux distribution comparison.
>
> I don't have the time to screw around trying some Quicken wannabe. If
> it works for you under RedHat that's fine. Make sure you let your
> accountant know though cause chances are your data will be useless to
> him/her. Unless of course he/she is using GnuCash which is highly
> unlikely.
>
And that is your problem. If you don't have the time to screw around with some
"Quicken
wannabe" then you have no business making comments about the install process for it.
I
don't use gnucash myself, but I got fed up with your stupid comments about something
you
know nothing about. So, unlike you, I tried it. No go back under your bridge.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
