Linux-Advocacy Digest #859, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 17:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (abraxas)
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Multithreading ("Erna Odelfsan")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (George Marengo)
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Weak points ("Gooba")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (2:1)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on Tholen (Jim Stuyck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: 28 Mar 2000 20:38:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hahahahahahaah - well, as you have so readily proven that is not the case.
> You have no idea what a journaling file system is nor where one might be
> found (outside of NTFS that is).
1. you seem to be able to divide by zero
2. you think "su" means "superuser"
3. you dont know what "su" does in the first place
4. you have a stupid name
5. XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, ext3, BFS (now available for linux:
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA008030/bfs/), UFS, etc, etc, etc.
Now then, since you seem to have such sound knowledge of filesystem
journaling, care to compare and contrast ext3 and BFS? Which is
superior? Why? Where can UFS be found? Whats so special about
ReiserFS that it gets to have all those extra letters?
Awaiting your speedy reply,
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:38:53 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:34:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>
> Considering that Aureal and Creative are OFFICIALLY supporting
> their current product, much like 3DFX has been OFFICIALLY
> supporting the Voodoo4 & Voodoo5, your assertion is somewhat
> absurd. You're claiming one probably outcome based on the
> assumptions that would lead to a different sort of outcome.
When it ships with the same level of hardware and software support
that it has under Windows, then they will be equivilant and have
equivilant exploitation of the hardware.
>>
>>>> When it is delivered and has a setup script that involves one command
>>>> that makes everything the card is capable of doing work under all
>>>> versions of Linux come back and talk to to me.
>>>
>>>That's unfair. You can bitch about that when Creative have a 'script'
>>>that works under Win9x, NT and W2K.
>>
>>
>>But at least Win9x does, I don't run NT or Win2k so I can't say for
>
> Win9x is CRAP!
sigh.........
not even worth a response.
Steve
>[deletia]
>
> Even discerning Microsoft Shills don't put up with it.
------------------------------
From: "Erna Odelfsan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Multithreading
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:46:12 GMT
Well, I think advocacy group is not exactly the best for this question,
but given that there are a lot of people in here that is at the Linux edge :
does Linux still have to use green threads for Java or are there native
threads ? If so, are there any major improvements in 2.4 kernel serie ?
Thanks in advance. I ask it mainly because I have noted that Windows 2000
threading support is native (and someone said to me that very good).
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:44:32 -0700
George Richard Russell wrote:
>
> What free spreadsheet has equivalent functionality to Lotus 123 from SmartSuite
> 96, the last 16 bit windows 3.1 version?
Why the requirement that it be free? Have you tried all of the
commercially available Unix spread sheet programs?
Take a look at:
http://www.linux.org/apps/business.html
and tell me how much of this have you tried/seen.
> Go on, list them Jedi.
See above. Xess is pretty good.
> Sufficient for a wide range of users does not equate to equivalent
> functionality, Quit moving the goalposts. And answer the question.
It isn't necessary to have equivalent functionality. It is only
necessary that the system have the functionality that the user needs.
> At least Office has seperate executables - I don't want SOffices integrated
> desktop, browser, PIM, db, spreadsheet, mail / news client, image editor,
> slide show tool etc when all I want to do is view a document and edit it.
Fine. Choose Cliq, instead.
> Lotus (ime) has always been the best. Especially for range of filters -
> from dead DOS WP's on up to Office.
Yes, but I've yet to find a suite that will import TeX/Latex, and more
importantly, that will give me the power and quality that TeX/LaTeX
will. Sigh.
> The redraw problems are a real pain.
Haven't seen 'em. Where are they, and how do you make 'em happen?
> Actually, it had problems with fonts at random times, making all fonts fixed
> width in presentations / word processed documents. In Solaris and Win 98.
But not under Linux?
> The macro langauge is not as complete as VBA, despite similarities.
Which simply proves that LaTeX is better than all of 'em! After all, you
can use any language you want to process LaTeX (Basic, C, Ada, Perl,
Python, etc.). ;->
> Nope, most Linux WP's only seem to support documents in RTF and are therefore
> limited to what can be expressed in RTF physical markup.
Which, for any serious organization, is "the right way" to do transfer
data. If what you want to do cannot be encoded in an open, standard
format by your tool, you have a reallly, really bad tool.
> Because they lack features that users want. Grammar checking. Templates.
> Auto correction. Mail merging. Wizards. the list goes on.
None of which describes stuff *I* want. . . in short, your list is your
list, not everybodies.
> > Sensible is subjective.
> > GUI configuration is available.
>
> for mutt and elm? Show me where.
He's talking about Netscape.
However, ZMail was/is graphical, and of course, has graphical
configuration. As just one example.
> > "intended for desktop usage" is gibberish.
>
> As opposed to console usage on a multiuser system.
Wrong. Elm and Pine can be used in graphical mode.
> elm and mutt do not have especially modern UI's - and are not intended
> to have.
Precisely. You can use 'em in multiple modes across multiple different
transports, unlike your vaunted GUI'fied MUA's.
> > Tool tips really shouldn't be that crucial for NS.
>
> Its just and example of the comforts of a well desinged UI, so
> lacking in Linux / X11 / Nutscrape whatever.
Netscape has help. I can't say as I ever needed it, but hey, if what it
has isn't good enough for you, then feel free to suggest changes that
can be added to Mozilla or Amaya.
> Comapre the docs with say, slrn to those of Agent. slrn's assume more
> knowledge and familiarity with Unix / USENET / etc.
As opposed to what?! Assuming familiarity with Windows?
> Its also not terribly task based - there is no documentation of howto
> change, for example, the colours used. It just says edit the rc file.
Which, for the Unix user, is clear, simple and intuitive.
> Not terribly novice welcoming.
But much, much more useful and productive in the long run.
> Nor is falling back to vi as editor.
As opposed to what!? Would you complain if a Windows program fell back
to Notepad (or what ever the current default system editor is in
Windows. . . ) as the default editor?
Falling back to VI is an example of how Object Oriented Unix is. . .
just how many different editors do you have to learn to use under
Windows (where just about every single application implements its own,
with its own quirks and oddities!)? Under Unix, you learn one editing
interface, then use it everywhere.
> Nor having to quit and restart to change configuration options.
Hmmm. Can you say "Reboot", anyone? Windows has its fair share of
unnecessary requirements.
> Nor having slrnpull a sperately configured and run application.
A vastly superior design to bunging everything together into one big
"Blob" object. . .
> >Ease of setup is
> > also pretty much a non-issue. Leafnode is quite nice in this respect.
>
> Yes, you like to edit things like /etc/inetd.conf? /etc/leafnode/leafnode.conf?
Yep. It's much more consistent, leveraging off of existing learning, as
well as being more flexible and powerful.
> But they shouldn't force me to setup and run a local server, just to read news
> offline.
Yes, they should. Object Oriented is a far superior methodology to your
"Big Blob" design methodology.
> It was an example - I can think of few uses to me for piping messages.
Oh boy, there goes Windows. It just stopped working totally!
Message passing (IPC) is a basic and integral ability in all modern
OS'en. Windows simply limits how and where you, as a user, are allowed
to use message passing.
> > Your position is based on lies and GROSS ignorance.
>
> And yours simply on the assumption that if Linux doesn't have it, its not
> worth having.
My stance is based on: having tried it, I find the Unix/Linux philosophy
*FAR* superior.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:48:15 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:56:37 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > The point being, that with root and rm, you can wipe out an entire user
>> > database in seconds. With WindowsNT, you have to take ownership of each
>> > and every file and folder. This has to be done manually, and cannot be
>> > done by mistake, or on the fly.
>>
>> Which simply proves that NT is less safe than Unix.
>
>Huh?
>
>> With the Unix "admin" account, you *CANNOT* "take ownership" of other
>> peoples files. In fact, you cannot delete/modify other peoples files
>> unless they give you permission first.
>
>An admin should be able to to do whatever he wants in a system. He
>shouldn't be at the mercy of his users.
So while using the created Admin account, if it turns out that your
really *do* want to delete those user files, you can then su root and
do so. The accidental deletion of user files is thus prevented.
>The argument isn't about security, it's about safety. For instance, suppose
>you run a program as root that has a bug in it, and it randomly writes to
>disk sectors or it accidentally trashes a file it shouldn't be touching.
Are you suggesting that if you run a buggy program in NT that it
cannot write to disk sectors or trash files it shouldn't be touching?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:50:55 GMT
Sour grapes at best.
Nobody except the politically based open source Linux supporters,
really cares about compatability with competing products.
Does Ford care if their wheels don't fit on a Chevy?
I certainly don't care that Steinberg has a version of Cubase VST for
Mac because I run Windows.
It's all about making money, no matter how you look at it.
steve
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:39:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
> Not at all. People like you sacrifice quality and choice for
> a myth of universal compatibility. Morons like you are why
> NT isn't as 'universally compatible' as Microsoft's main OS
> nevermind BeOS. If the market were less driven by twits like
> you, there would be no 'compatibility' issue with Linux or Be.
>
> Both could compete on their relative merits rather than the
> degree to which they satisfy "gotta be DOS compatible".
>
> 'you' were absurd in the days of DOS3 and 'you' still are.
>
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:04:48 GMT
Has it occurred to everyone that in it's 9th or 10th year, Windows/DOS
didn't support the SBLive!? Or that all of these sound editing programs
likewise wouldn't have worked in the DOS of the time?
Linux is relatively young. While certain Linux advocates will try to
shoot down my opinion because it's some form of sacrilege, in truth, Linux
is playing catch up in a field which has been dominated for a long time by
one player. It is catching up, but catching up is not *caught* up. On the
whole it's simply unfair to compare Linux's relatively picky hardware
support with Windows' "been in the business for XX years and now the
hardware vendors are making stuff to our specs instead of just making them
to function the best they can overall". The support is there for Windows
because for a long time there wasn't much of an option. You can't expect
lightning fast turnaround from the hardware or software companies, they're
relatively new at this game of developing for more than one platform.
Notice, before you flame, that I'm simply saying that Windows has
seniority and by that it has come by certain advantages. These are not
inherent to Windows. If the positions of Windows and Linux were reversed,
the situation would look much the same. The status quo will always look like
a "safer" position, even if it's not the *better* position.
PS- Before you guys even start, Steve, I'm NOT supporting you in this, I'm
telling it as I see it. If it supports your point in any way it is
coincidental. And Terry, just don't even start, I'm not trolling. If you
want to accuse somebody of that, look elsewhere.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 28 Mar 2000 21:11:33 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > : Oh, just like the SYSTEM account still exists under NT.
: >
: > Yes, but you cannot log in as System. So your point is moot.
: You don't know much about NT. It only takes a small program to get a
: command.com up and running as the sysetm user.
Please explain how this is possible.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 28 Mar 2000 21:17:33 GMT
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: This argument has been resolved: if you really want safety, use Unix!
: :-)
*giggle*
What this whole thing comes down to is perspective. Arguing it further is
relatively pointless, as people's opinions cannot be proven or disproven.
: > A pedantic point? Perhaps, but it's still an valid one, IMHO.
: Nope. Not valid, since you can make your system *SAFER* running Unix,
: than you can with NT.
I disagree. I think a system is only as any good as its admin is.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: 28 Mar 2000 21:19:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > maybe Linux will catchup some day later too and claim Linus wrote it.
>>
>> If he writes a JFS he has a right to claim that he wrote it. Implementing
> is
>> different from inventing. M$ often `confuse' the two.
>>
>> -Ed
>>
> and if MS writes something they can claim to have implemented it. if they
> write something no one else has written before they can claim to have
> invented it. So...?
What exactly have they invented?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 28 Mar 2000 21:21:23 GMT
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
:
: > Yet, the root account still exists on the system. You seem to have
: > overlooked that little fact.
: Do you agree that a *malicious* administrator can pretty much destroy
: any system, whether it be NT or Unix?
Fair enough. :-)
This argument was more for fun, than for perspective.
: The issue was that NT makes it more difficult for the Administrator to
: accidentally delete users' files while root doesn't. The solution, as
: has been pointed out to you, is to create an Administrator account in
: Unix which doesn't allow the deletion of users' files. That solves the
: accidental deletion of user files, does it not?
Yes, it does. I'm just arguing from the (admittedly somewhat pedantic)
point that having the ability for such power is neither necessary, nor
practical, IMHO.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:29:42 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:04:48 GMT, "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has it occurred to everyone that in it's 9th or 10th year, Windows/DOS
>didn't support the SBLive!? Or that all of these sound editing programs
>likewise wouldn't have worked in the DOS of the time?
When Linux can fully exploit the features of a given piece of hardware
and the typically bundled software that allows the use of these
features, as well as Windows or better, then it can claim that the
given piece of hardware is supported.
Until then........
Steve
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:50:11 +0100
Drestin Black wrote:
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > maybe Linux will catchup some day later too and claim Linus wrote it.
> >
> > If he writes a JFS he has a right to claim that he wrote it. Implementing
> is
> > different from inventing. M$ often `confuse' the two.
> >
> > -Ed
> >
>
> and if MS writes something they can claim to have implemented it. if they
> write something no one else has written before they can claim to have
> invented it. So...?
They tend to implement things (badly, or not - it doesn't matter) and claim to
have invented them.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:31:29 -0700
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> >All the possible values? Valide ranges? Next you'll say the sendmail.cf is
> >friendly since its text.
> Um no I won't, and you picked one of the most obscure text config files
> possible, and on purpose.
Personally, *I'd* say that the sendmail configuration file is friendly.
The reason people argue that its not, is that they confuse the term
"Easy" with: "I already know this". Basically, they just haven't
learned the language. English is easy for somebody who knows english,
but incredibly confusing, ambiguous and difficult for somebody who
doesn't.
Once you spend the two hours worth of reading and experimenting to learn
the rule set syntax, sendmail becomes infinitely more friendly than that
?&#$ MTA that other people are forced to use. As an added extra bonus,
I can find out what sendmail will do in *EVERY* case with *EVERY*
message very simply . . . the details are not kept hidden from me.
Anything I want to do, I can do, by simply adding/modifying/deleting
rules. On GUI'fied MTA's, if the configuration utility doesn't have the
capability you want in one of it's menus or selections, you're dead
stuck.
"For Unix users: Ease of use means letting me do what I want or need to
do!"
> >There are more obscure rc formats than frontends.
> Obscure rc formats are the exception I assure you.
I've never, ever found an undocumented dot-file syntax. Never. The
syntax is always documented, and in most cases, very easy to use.
> >You must have been really dumb then. What is it, four or five dialog boxes?
> Perhaps, but its been over 3 years since I've seen Free-Agent, so please
> forgive my "dumbness" ?
>
> She was there, shes a long term Windows user, she couldnt do it. This
> puts the gun to the head of your assertion that Windows GUI config is
> *easy*.
There is really only one way to translate the word "easy" when it is
used by a Winvocate: "Easy means that I'm allowed to choose one of a set
(possibly, a set of one) pre-defined default configurations."
Which, of course, doesn't solve the problem of teaching the user what
all that stuff *MEANS* (how do you make it easy to configure your news
server, when you don't even know what a news server, or for that matter,
new is!)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:38:40 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:29:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:04:48 GMT, "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Has it occurred to everyone that in it's 9th or 10th year, Windows/DOS
>>didn't support the SBLive!? Or that all of these sound editing programs
>>likewise wouldn't have worked in the DOS of the time?
>
>When Linux can fully exploit the features of a given piece of hardware
>and the typically bundled software that allows the use of these
>features, as well as Windows or better, then it can claim that the
>given piece of hardware is supported.
>Until then........
This is a bit disengenous. Until you can demonstrate that the
median Windows user would find your particular shilling standard
relevant, then you can bitch about what Linux does or doesn't do.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Jim Stuyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:42:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot fail to note that this "rebuttal" wasn't posted from his
"university account." Could it be that he's afraid of yet another
reprimand? I doubt if "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will respond to
this article.
> Jim "little boy" Stuyck writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Still can't get your attribution straight, eh Stuyck (little boy)?
Where did I go wrong?
> >> 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.
How about that 1998 complaint? What was the outcome of that? A
reprimand?
> > 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.
How about that 1998 complaint? What was the outcome of that? A
reprimand?
> > 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.
What was the result of the "early 1998 complaint?" Reprimand?
> > 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.
I'm happy to talk about the "early 1998 complaint?" Are you? Will
you? Will you from the "university account?"
> > 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).
Did you tell the university the "truth" when responding to the
1998 complaint?
Jim Stuyck
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
