Linux-Advocacy Digest #858, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 16:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Re: They say it can be done...Can it? ("Gooba")
Re: Giving up on Tholen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on Tholen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?) ("ax")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:47:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8bpglc$til$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > >
> > > > AFAIK, the journaling filesystems for Linux
> > > > are still under development.
> > > > Are reiserfs, Xfs, or Jfs in widespread use yet?
> >
> > Actually, journaling filesystems are not as much of a priority
> > for Linux as they were for NT. It's likely that Windows 2000
> > will eventually drop them.
>
> where the fuck do you come up with this shit?
> eventually drop them... yea,
> and I heard Windows 2001 dropped support for video cards too...
I'm just saying that most deployments of Windows 2000 won't run
with Journalling enabled. There are some cases where Journalling
is a very good idea, like when you are posting payments from customers.
But -- see below.
> <snip boring FS crap>
>
> > Windows Fat 16 and Fat 32 stores files in large clusters ranging
> > from 4k to 32k per cluster. Windows NTFS supports 512 byte blocks
> > but still orients storage toward clusters. As a result, it's
> > undesirable to have lots of tiny little files. This means that
> > the ability to recover a file corrupted by a race condition related
> > crash is much more important. Linux and UNIX allocate blocks in
> > units of either 512 bytes or 1024 bytes (depending on the original
> > formatting).
>
> No different than the 512 byte blocks NTFS uses -
> where do you come up with this "orients" towards clusters shit?
Often, for benchmarks and servers, NTFS configurations will use
larger clusters. When the 512 byte setting is used however,
you get very good efficiency on smaller files.
> Furthermore, ext2 directories are designed so that
> > hundreds of files can be stored in a
> > single directory and each file
> > can be quickly located. This makes it
> > more practical to put hundreds
> > of small articles (news postings,
> > e-mails, receipts, orders,...) into
> > individual files under a single directory.
>
> Wow - just like NTFS
Actually, NTFS can support this, but will loose it's performance
edge when used in this manner. NTFS runs faster than Linux when
files stored in multiples of 4096 are used, and ext2 will run
faster when files are stored in random sizes ranging from 200 bytes
to 2048 bytes (nntp scenario).
The Mindcraft benchmark was tuned to give NTFS this advantage.
> > Additionally, tools like grep, awk, sed, and perl make it easy to
> > create summaries of these tiny little documents in very short time.
> > The use of pipelines for update systems makes storage of logs via
> > the "tee" command very easy. In fact, in modern versions, both the
> > storage and the pipelines are usually optimized to minimize
> > latency.
>
> yawn - been there, done that, fortunately tools under NT are better,
> thanks...
The problem under NT is that most applications are monolithic.
Very few of them are self-journalling. This makes file journalling
much more important in the NT market.
> > When you really need a large database, the databases have their own
> > journalling system.
>
> gee, like SQL Server...
Yup. Or Oracle, or Sybase, or DB2, or Progres. If you have one
primary update source, MySQL works nicely. Each of these competes
in particular niches and has particular advantages and weaknesses,
like SQL Server.
> > > > Is there another one besides these that works well?
> >
> > Journalling is a bit like compression. At one time companies
> > like Stack and later Microsoft thought it would be a really neat
> > thing to compress everything on the hard drive. They started
> > compressing each track, and eventually the entire drive. The
> > problem was that much of the content was already compressed (GIF,
> > JPEG, and ZIP files for example). Ironically, the zip file is
> > actually the decendent of two UNIX commands called ar and compress.
> > Eventually, PKWare and the authors of ARC reached a settlement,
> > and PKWare improved the compression as well as the indexing.
>
> And that has what to do with the topic?
One can ask the question "have you stop beating your wife yet?", and
there is no way that you can give a yes or no answer. You must
rephrase the question to "have you ever beaten your wife?", to get
an answer which does not allow for incorrect interpretation.
The concept of Journalling isn't new, and UNIX has had it since
the late 1970s, but not necessarily in the form of a hook built into
the operating system.
> > In Windows, you created problems when you tried to doublespace
> > the entire drive. You couldn't upgrade, and if you messed up
> > the system too badly, you had to start all over again. A corrupted
> > byte in a single sector could corrupt the entire filesystem.
>
> where DO you come up with this CRAP?!
See Stack vs Microsoft.
Study the Limpel-Ziv compression technique. Doublespace compressed
the entire drive as a single file. A corrupted byte alters the
look-up tables used in the decompression process. Later versions
compressed tracks, but this could still corrupt files distributed
across multiple tracks.
> > Most people today preferr to compress the files they want to
archive,
> > and keep the current files uncompressed. We also use compressed
> > formats such as GIF (compressed BMP), JPEG (compressed
photographs),
> > PDF (compressed simplified postscript), and of course the zip file.
>
> yawn... point?
Point - That journalling and compression are features that, while
useful aren't always desirable, let alone necessary.
> > In UNIX I could compress any file, send it across the internet,
> > and uncompress it on the receiving end. It's a paridigm shift.
>
> wow - no shit? you mean, just like
> I do when I use ZIP? (or ARC back when)
The difference was that you could use the compression utility to
compress the file and then store it in an archive
(compress *; arc cf archive *), or you could archive the entire
file hierarchy and compress the archive
(tar cvf - * | compress > archive).
With early versions of ZIP, you could only archive to a file, and
there was no way to split across multiple files. With the UNIX
utilities, you could use split, or you could just specify the size
of each backup unit.
The same flexibility occurs in journalling. Do you want to journal
to a file, across a network, or perhaps to a tape drive.
Do you want to journal every web page and gif that you catch with
explorer, or just the checks?
> > In the Windows paradigm, compression
> > must be written into a monolithic
> > applications which is compiled into the production version. Once
> > the function is added, it cannot be altered, replaced, or removed.
>
> HA!
Are we talking a feature of VBScript? To alter the dll, you have
to recompile the DLL. To alter the call to the dll, you have to
recompile the application. Either way, you need source (which isn't
easy to get), and you need compiler tools (not generally included
with Windows).
> > In the UNIX paradigm, compression is a simple command that takes
> > whatever comes in the standard input, compresses it, and
> > pours it into
> > the standard output. This isn't terribly efficient for things like
> > sorting, but it's very good for things like encryption,
> > compression,
> > journalling, back-up, recovery, filtering, and summarizations.
>
> You think that is very good?
> HA! You didn't mention the built-in file system
> compression NTFS has ... of course.
But again, it's all-or-nothing. I can buy third party applications
that let me select which items go into compressed files. I can also
use cabinets, which let me take a file, after it has been created
and put it into a compressed cabinet.
With Linux, I can take the generated output, compress it on it's way
through a network, and decompress it when it arrives. Those who have
used MNP modem compression are aware that when you try to load a
compressed file such as a large JPEG or MPEG file, your performance
drops by the second, eventually dropping below the uncompressed rate.
I could take my compressed audio and rout it through my IRC server,
and have multimedia chat, with no additional software. It's a two
line script.
Your DVD player is a one-line pipeline.
If you want to put a GUI in front of it, you can. But when you
just need "quick and dirty", or you can use as Web interface, why
bring a bazooka to kill a fly.
> > Journalling is a similar function of the paradigm shift. Since the
> > monolithic Windows applications generally don't support
journalling,
> > archiving, and revision control, you must make these features a
> > function of the operating system. Ideally, you'd make journalling
> > an option at the directory level, so that you could store stable
> > information into unjournaled locations and store volitile
information
> > (checks, receipts, registrations,...) into the journalling
directory.
> >
> > > > NOTE: I am not baiting... I'm really asking out of curiosity.
> >
> > It's nice to see some civilized discussions in this group.
>
> how would you know?
Things were going nice until you put your "donation" in the punch
bowl.
> > > Suse now ships with reiserfs.
> >
> > Typically, in a Linux system, you might put one of your partitions
> > under reiserfs because that's were you wanted to put checks. But
> > you wouldn't just casually journal everything you did.
> >
>
> fortunately with Windows we just
> decide on a file by file or folder by
> folder or drive by drive basis if we
> want compression or not and with a
> simple click of the mouse we can
> compress or uncompress anything we'd like
Sounds like fun - especially when you are trying to
manage a REMOTE machine. Very manual, very labor intensive.
Windows is easy to learn. That's it's strength. It's real
easy to learn to push the same set of buttons - every hour
of every day in some cases.
> and the File system takes care of everything including automatic
> decompression when the file is accessed.
> If we need compression on a file
> for transmission we turn to the ZIP or RAR or ACE formats
> and their appropriate applications.
> All of which support full integration into the GUI
> so that making and breaking a compressed file is
> as easy as a quick click.
Over and Over again. But can you do scripts?
And do you have the same flexibility with Journalling?
> (and unlike unix we handle ALL formats of
> compression from a single app,
> ACE, ZIP, LHA, MS-CAB, RAR, ARC, ARJ, GZIP, TAR, ZOO whatever...
One very LARGE application, which doesn't actually come with NT,
WinZip is an extra application which much be purchased for a modest
fee - about twice the price of a Linux distribution. Unless of course,
you are advocating piracy. And MS-CAB is very proprietary.
Meanwhile, each of the UNIX utilities is a 1 line command.
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:09:28 -0600
"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8br1bp$4nq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : Becase it's the only end-to-end solution that
> : a.) doesn't require a Phd to set it up (just some common sense)
>
> How I wish I had a PhD. But setting up Linux is downright simple...
It was an exaggeration, but compared to NT, it's still overly complicated
to go from nothing installed to all the functionality that NT has out of
the box, with Linux. That's a different debate, and it's not necessarily
a bad thing (for Linux), but the question was asked "Why do we need NT, or
what does it have to offer?"
> : b.) doesn't require a group of people to maintain
>
> ...and I maintain my box without any help.
How many users on your network? For a large network, Linux usually requires
constant care if you plan on doing anything on it other than DNS or WWW.
> : -oh, and it supports more then 2GB of files, unlike Linux (unless you want
to
> : run unstable kernels on your production boxes)
>
> I have more than 2 gigs of files on my system now.
> Oh, but if you mean *individual* files larger than 2 gigs, Linux
> supports that now also - just get some real hardware like a nice
> 64bit Alpha box. If you want to use substandard hardware, you
> have to expect some limitations.
2GB in one file. And no, I don't want to drop thousands more for my server
when I can do it just fine in a nice Compaq x86 server with NT. Why go
up to 64-bit and pay all that to have functionality I can already get for
a fraction of the price?
> : -oh yeah, and it scales well. It actually lives up to the term SMP, unlike
> : Linux.
>
> Solaris actually lives up to the term SMP. Think 128 processors.
It can recognize 128 processors, but it doesn't use them. It's scalability
beyond 16 or so processors drops off rapidly. Whereas with a Win2K cluster
for a fraction of the price, I can get factors larger performance.
And! NT/2K actually can use more than one NIC with more than one processor
and not have it bottleneck like Linux!
> Linux does well enough considering the hardware, but I don't think
> x86 can hold a candle to Sparc in the SMP department.
View the TPC-C benchmarks. Note the #1 and #2 slots.
> Does Windows run well on modern hardware (like 64-bit+)?
Win2K was running on Alpha (still could, just not supported),
and it is running on Merced.
Just because Linux runs on Alpha, doesn't mean it's 64-bit, nor does it mean
it runs well on Alpha. Likewise with Sparc. It'll run, but there are much better
OSen for those platforms.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:15:03 -0700
George Richard Russell wrote:
> > Please define 'horrible' in less meaningless terms.
>
> In your words, bloated. Badly designed, poorly documented, unoptimised,
> and a poor and inacurate clone of a better interface.
All matters of opinion. I'd say: "Try it. If you don't like it, try
something else."
Other people may love it. Personally, I kind of like FrameMaker. It's
still Beta on Linux, but if they ever make a stable, commercial release,
I'd consider buying it.
> > The 3D effects on SO5's graph are actually quite spiffy
> > and manage to be eye candy superior to it's MS counterpart.
>
> Its file filters are inferior,
To what?
> its slower, has redraw / refresh problems,
Where? I haven't notice any refresh problems . . .
Slower than what?
> poor documentation,
Yah. I don't like that, myself.
> inferior macro langauge
To what?
> / capabilities, and fewer
> "spiffy" graphing effects,
Hmm. . . I don't do much graphing using Star Office, so I couldn't
comment on this.
> and handles fonts poorly (across platforms, too)
Another subjective statement, unless you have some specific complaint?
> The tools for Unix i.e. its Word processors are less capable.
Than what? Personally, I prefer LaTeX for such things, as LaTeX/TeX is
superior to every other system I've ever tried, but Star Office is
pretty good if you are willing to put up with just a word processor.
> Its not as good, put simply. Good enough for some perhaps.
Not as good as what?
> Familiarity. Integration. Decent documentation. Modern interface. Tool tips.
> Sensible defaults. GUI configuration. Intended for Desktop Usage.
Hmmm . . . I'd say Elm has all of the above except the "Modern
Interface" and GUI, and to be perfectly blunt, I don't want a "Modern
Interface" or a "GUI" on my MUA, I want something practical.
To each their own . . . why do you want a GUI'fied email client?
> The UNIX pinheads said things like piping through sed - bfd, I want to read
> news not play with it.
I'd prefer to automate automatable processes, not waste my time wading
through junk by hand.
> You can call it a feature to run the message through
> ispell via a pipe -
It is a feature. That feature is called: Object Oriented.
> I'd rather have Word like underlining, or a spellcheck
> toolbutton to press.
A trivial difference. I can get spellcheck through a button press if I
want, using ispell and a macro connected to a button.
But tell me, how do you get the exact same spell checking in your email
client as you do in Word?
Of course, if you want to work that way, go right ahead. I prefer to
use a system that lets me leverage the learning I did for one tool, into
other tools. It's a *LOT* more productive.
> Emacs can be used for the above, but not
> by a casual user.
Nothing can be used by the "casual user", all systems must be learned.
With Emacs and the Unix way, you get more bang for your learning buck,
and therefore, higher productivity. It's about time we exploded the
myth that "faster learning up front" is preferable to "higher
productivity levels".
However, if you want to reduce your productivity, there are programs
that work the way you want 'em to on Unix . . . this whole discussion
sounds to me like a variant of: "I don't want a Spread Sheet, I want my
Excel!"
In which case, the only reasonable response is: "Enjoy using your NT or
MacOS box."
Since Excel doesn't run on Linux/Solaris/HPUX/FreeBSD/etc.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:20:13 -0700
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> >Its file filters are inferior, its slower, has redraw / refresh problems,
>
> Actually, it's file filters aren't bad. They're not 'perfect'
> but then again nothing short of 'office itself' is going to
> provide that.
Which suggests that the only reasonable thing to do is to establish a
corporate/organizational standard of: "Send data only in standard, open
formats, such as LaTeX, TeX, DVI, PDF, PS SGML, or XML. Nobody in this
organziation may send data to another employee or customer in a
proprietary, closed format."
Free Standards and Protocols: the next frontier for the "Open" movement.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:25:16 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:09:28 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8br1bp$4nq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> : Becase it's the only end-to-end solution that
>> : a.) doesn't require a Phd to set it up (just some common sense)
>>
>> How I wish I had a PhD. But setting up Linux is downright simple...
>
>It was an exaggeration, but compared to NT, it's still overly complicated
>to go from nothing installed to all the functionality that NT has out of
>the box, with Linux. That's a different debate, and it's not necessarily
>a bad thing (for Linux), but the question was asked "Why do we need NT, or
>what does it have to offer?"
Insert redhat CD. Turn on computer.
Verify all automatic selections.
<wait 15 minutes>
done.
Sure. Real complicated.
------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: They say it can be done...Can it?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:27:19 GMT
<buncha stuff cut>
> I've since upgraded, but it made a great portable test box for
> troubleshooting serial and ethernet problems. And the snap-on
> trackball was much better than the stinking eraserhead thing on
> my current laptop.
Best description of that little doodad was in Bag Of Bones by Stephen
King in which
it was referred to as the "clitoral cursor". Probably not how the computer
manufacturer would
like you to think of it, but I like it.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:31:08 GMT
Jim "little boy" Stuyck writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still can't get your attribution straight, eh Stuyck (little boy)?
>> Here are the facts:
>>
>> David Sutherland sent a complaint to the University of Hawaii. Indeed,
>> he sent it to at least ten different people, which provides an indication
>> of his true motivation. His complaint was forwarded to me. I demonstrated
>> that the text about which Sutherland was complaining had in fact been
>> written by someone else, not me. I also demonstrated that the posting of
>> mine in which I quoted that text did not involve any University facilities
>> (that is, I was using cable modem service *before* Sutherland complained).
> Hmmmm....This is from DejaNews:
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Tholen)
> Subject: Re: Jason S. digest, volume 2450863
> Date: 19 Feb 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Note the date, Stuyck (little boy): early 1998. I continued posting from
my University account throughout 1998, and also throughout 1999. The claim
is that I'm using hawaii.rr.com as a result of action taken by University,
which clearly refers to Sutherland's early 2000 complaint to the University,
because that's when people started noticing that I was using hawaii.rr.com.
In other words, you've got the wrong message. No surprise there.
> Message-ID: <6ch4ba$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: University of Hawaii
> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
>
> ...
>
> Did you try to "get a rise" out of her too, Jason? The reference to "former"
> speaks volumes, Jason. Maybe you tried, and she determined that you're a
> kook and a queer.
>
> NOT from a "cable modem service": From "hale.ifa.hawaii.edu."
Note the date, Stuyck (little boy): early 1998. I continued posting from
my University account throughout 1998, and also throughout 1999. The claim
is that I'm using hawaii.rr.com as a result of action taken by University,
which clearly refers to Sutherland's early 2000 complaint to the University,
because that's when people started noticing that I was using hawaii.rr.com.
In other words, you've got the wrong message. No surprise there.
> NOT "posted by someone else": Original "Tholen."
Irrelevant, given that we're talking about Sutherland's early 2000
complaint, Stuyck (little boy), not his early 1998 complaint, which
clearly did not result in me using hawaii.rr.com.
> NOT "quoted the text": Original "Tholen."
Irrelevant, given that we're talking about Sutherland's early 2000
complaint, Stuyck (little boy), not his early 1998 complaint, which
clearly did not result in me using hawaii.rr.com.
> Someone's "demonstration" to his employer was full of lies.
Once again, Stuyck (little boy) demonstrates that he doesn't know what
he's talking about. Sutherland even requested that I reproduce his
complaint in this newsgroup, which I did, using my University account
no less, thus the evidence that what I told the University is the
truth has been available in this newsgroup for weeks, Stuyck (little
boy).
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:35:52 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
>> Here are the facts:
> Tholen's facts = lies and unsubstantiated claims
Incorrect, Glatt. I substantiated my claims by reproducing the
complaint that Sutherland sent the University, at his request.
>> David Sutherland sent a complaint to the University of Hawaii. Indeed,
>> he sent it to at least ten different people, which provides an indication
>> of his true motivation. His complaint was forwarded to me. I demonstrated
>> that the text about which Sutherland was complaining had in fact been
>> written by someone else, not me.
> A lie.
Balderdash, Glatt. Just try to prove that I wrote the text about which
Sutherland complained.
> I also provided material from my digest, which includes full
> dejanews headers to verify that the material was indeed written by
> you.
Sutherland's complaint didn't include any material from your digest,
Glatt.
>> I also demonstrated that the posting of
>> mine in which I quoted that text did not involve any University facilities
>> (that is, I was using cable modem service *before* Sutherland complained).
>> The person who forwarded the complaint to me recommended that Sutherland
>> be ignored. I pointed to a particular statement in Sutherland's complaint
>> in which he was lamenting the lack of action by the University, and noted
>> that if the University ignored him, he would likely persist with his
>> complaints until he got some sort of response, thus I recommended that a
>> a response be sent to him, such as a statement that it wasn't a University
>> matter, given that no University facilities were involved.
> All specious claims with no substantiation whatsoever.
Incorrect, Glatt. I substantiated my claims by reproducing the
complaint that Sutherland sent the University, at his request.
>> Note that Sutherland was lamenting the *lack* of action by the University,
>> while Glatt is claiming that action was taken.
> Note that David subsequently indicates that his "lament" resulted in
> the University contacting him to inform him that the material of yours
> he supplied was a violation of the U of H acceptable use policy, and
> that the University would take action on this violation.
Prove it, if you think you can, Glatt. It is impossible that the
material of mine he supplied was a violation of the U of H acceptable
use policy, given that the material of mine that he supplied had been
posted from hawaii.rr.com. The University has no jurisdiction over
hawaii.rr.com and does not establish its acceptable use policy.
>> Interesting, no?
> No, your lies are old and boring.
What alleged lies, Glatt? Your pontification doesn't get you anywhere.
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:37:14 GMT
"Robert Heininger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:28:38 GMT,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `ax' wrote:
>
>
> >: "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >: > It was the Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:44:59 GMT...
> >: > ...and Robert Heininger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:00:33 +0200,
> >: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Matthias Warkus' wrote:
> >: > >
> >: > >
> >: > > >: It was the Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:17:46 GMT...
> >: > > >: ...and ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: > > >: >
> >: > > >: > "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >: > > >: > news:8b62hc$g8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >: > > >: > > BTW, little known facts about penquins.
> >: > > >: > >
> >: > > >: > > Penquins are quite clumsy on land.
> >: > > >: > >
> >: > > >: > > But in the sea, penquins fly like birds when they swim.
> >: > > >: > >
> >: > > >: >
> >: > > >: > But in Linux, all penguins are lazy sitting with round belly.
> >: > > >: > They cannot walk or fly. They cannot even stand up
> >: > > >: > with fat belly. Linux penguins must have been eating
> >: > > >: > too much "free" stuff.
> >: > > >:
> >: > > >: Ever played "Tux the Penguin: A Quest For Herring"? The Linux
penguin
> >: > > >: can indeed run, jump and swim. Maybe even fly.
> >: > >
> >: > >
> >: > > Is that a Linux game? Playstion's and Dreamcast's are for playing
games,
> >: not
> >: > > computers. Why even bother, if it is?
> >: >
> >: > Your lack of clue is cute[0], but your cute signature lacks clue.
> >: >
> >: > A five-line Figlet signature! Jesus Christ!
> >:
> >: A really smart signature!
> >:
> >: - a big "L" shape at the bottom.
> >: - a word "Linux" on top of the "L" shape.
> >: - a "<" shape at the end of the "Linux".
> >:
> >: It means, "Linux" is being pushed ("<") to the corner ("L"),
> >: which is the choice of the GNU Generation.
> >:
> >: What about the middle file://_// ?
>
>
>
> YIKES! I get the point. Thanks all!
>
>
> IMO : Playstation's and Dreamcast's are for games, and IMO computers are
not.
>
> Fact: My opinion means nothing!
>
Your signature means a lot. Here is another one:
- a big "L" shape representing a chair
- a big word "LINUX" sitting on a chair
- a big "<" shape representing a lock
It means: lock "Linux" to a chair, which is the "Choice
of the GNU Generation".
Now, everything in Linux are "sitting" including all
heavy belly Linux penguins and "Linux" itself.
Keep sitting!
>
> About the `file://_//' : Seems that only happens when my posts are replied
> to with Outlook Express. Perhaps someone could explain why?
>
>
> Robert Heininger
>
> (now .sig less)
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
