Linux-Advocacy Digest #17, Volume #26 Fri, 7 Apr 00 21:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Programming Languages (Bloody Viking)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Adam Schuetze)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Christopher Browne)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (Christopher Browne)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Christopher Browne)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Christopher Browne)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Bloody Viking)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
("Otto")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Bloody Viking)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Grant Edwards)
Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY?????? ("JOGIBA")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:07:57 GMT
Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: scripts are words (scripts) that only need executable permissions and
: are not 'interpreted' but read by the shell
And the shell interprets the commands in the shell script.
: programming languages need to be compiled and translated into machine
: code before they can be used
And that leaves BASIC as an orphan. The old Commodore 64 used a BASIC
interpreter as the shell, and QBASIC is compilable. That leaves BASIC as a
cross between the two, so that distinction is actually fuzzy. It's sort of
like how race gets fuzzy in the case of the children of mixed-race
couples, and some such kids end up ambidextrous in terms of the race
issue.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: Adam Schuetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:10:30 GMT
Grant Edwards wrote:
> The most important of which is to run 8-10 terminal emulators
> on a great big monitor so I can have as many text-based
> programs running (and visible) as I need.
Heheh. I don't have -that- big of a monitor, but I agree. Using X to use
multiple text-based programs works really well. The best part is that X and
(a light-weight) window manager don't use a whole load of resources. As long
as you are running text based stuff in xterms, you don't need a massively
powerful machine. Which is nice, because it fits in nicely with my belief
that `low cost computing' is the best computing.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:12:35 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John Sanders would say:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>> It's clear that when someone "programs" things that involve Loops and
>> Data Storage, that this is programming.
>>
>So if I write a C program and do not use 'for' or 'while' or 'do' then
>I'm not programming?
Not in other than a rather mundane way.
The sorts of things that get coded in PILOT
<http://www.idiom.com/free-compilers/LANG/PILOT-1.html> were "most
mundane."
"PILOT is a primitive CAI language first designed in 1962 on IBM
mainframes. It is rather weak and has very odd lexical rules, but is
easy to learn and use. I wrote this implementation strictly as a hack,
but it works and does include an interactive tutorial written in PILOT
itself which is also a decent test load. This implementation is both
an interpreter for the PILOT language and a compiler for it using C as
an intermediate language."
The Hello, World site
<http://www.latech.edu/~acm/HelloWorld.shtml> indicates that the
"Hello, World" for PILOT is coded thus:
T: Hello World
Writing C that merely does the weak sorts of things that one would
generally do using PILOT trivially represents a mundane form of
programming, but definitely mundanely so.
--
You should talk to the DOCTOR.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/languages.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:12:36 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Leslie Mikesell would say:
>In article <CSCG4.356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > > > No, which PROPRIETARY protocols from MS would that be?
>>>
>>> ActiveX, MS-CHAP, originally SMB, originally Lan Manager,
>>> originally DHCP, and currently they are pushing for the
>>> inclusion of OLE objects within XML.
>
>>MS-CHAP i'll grant you on, though I believe it's published.
>>"originally" is meaningless. We're talking about Microsofts
>> standards today.
>
>How do you get NT machines to authenticate against anything but
>a Microsoft box as a domain controller? Is that a protocol?
>Is it published? Which component can you replace to make
>the client side co-exist with standard network authentication
>methods?
Indeed.
>>> I realize that Microsoft publishes many of it's standards
>>> to MSDN, but protects this information from Linux developers
>>> with nondisclosure agreements.
>>
>>No, there are no such protections and no such non-disclosures.
>
>So where are the domain controller documents? And what is
>really happening when IIS talking to IE pretends to be doing
>HTTP but pops up an authentication window that has a
>third box for 'domain' information? For some reason this
>doesn't work when a standard http proxy gets between
>the two. Why is that?
That's a third situation, known as Trade Secret.
>>NFS is a Sun proprietary protocol.
>
>Isn't the full spec released now?
Which one?
- RFC 1094 (NFS 2)?
- RFC 1813 (NFS 3)?
- RFC 2054 (WebNFS)?
>>> They have chosen to do their
>>> own "Active Directory" instead of X.509/LDAP.
>>
>>Which is LDAP compliant.
>
>Does that mean you can now do your authentication against
>a standard LDAP server? Or just that they pretend to
>be a standard server?
Good question.
>>It's completely standards conforming Kerberos.
>
>Does that mean you can use a standard Kerberos
>server as your win2K domain controller? Or just
>that they pretend to be a standard server?
The creators of Kerberos made the mistake of making it possible to
create noninteroperable conformant implementations.
>>> MS-CHAP is "based on CHAP",
>>
>>Inded it was.
>
>And broke everything that understood chap. As usual.
Indeed it was.
--
You should talk to the DOCTOR.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:12:37 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when
[EMAIL PROTECTED] would say:
>On 5 Apr 2000 23:18:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
>Steinberg) wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>: Yea and you're FOS when you say it takes 2 seconds to find
>>: /etc/ppp/options scanning the entire drive.
>>
>>: Try this:
>>: cd /
>>: cd ..
>>
>>Why did you go up a directory after you went to the root directory? There
>>is no imaginary "My Computer" or "Desktop" sitting above the root....this
>>is a real operating system with a real file system, not some kludged POS.
>
>Because everytime I do a cd
>then find -name
>it never finds the file I am looking for.
>
>Bottom line is you are using my cli ineptness to cover the fact that
>find -name sux under linux.
The fact that you don't know how do it means that you can't get useful
results.
Your claims that it sucks because you are too inept to use it are
irrelevant.
>>I know...you STILL don't understand the basics of file system
>>navigation; it's sad, isn't it?
>
>Nope, cause I don't have any desire to run LinSux.
Then why are you bothering to discuss it? If you have no desire to
run it, then I think it *truly* stupid that you're wasting your time
reading and posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Surely you have better things to do with your time.
>>Look, you've beaten this find issue to death, and the result of the
>>discussion has been:
>>1. You're wildly exagerating the time it takes to do a find in Linux
>Nope. YOU are the only one claiming that you can find the file
>SEARCHING THE ENTIRE HARD DRIVE in 2 seconds.
You're a troll.
The only way that Win32 can find a particular file in less than
"minutes" is if it has some formal indexing scheme similar to the one
commonly available on Linux called "locate."
>>3. Even if there were no locate in Linux, you would still never have to
>> use find to brute-force search from root, since files on a Linux system
>> are logically organized: if you're searching for a system configuration
>> file it will be in /etc or a subdirectory thereof; if you're searching
>> for some data saved by a user, it will be in /home/<username> or a
>> subdirectory thereof.
>
>You are trying to narrow down the search. TRY THE ENTIRE DRIVE and see
>what happens..
You're a troll.
If you're going to waste your time talking about this, you need to be
more specific.
UNIX doesn't have "entire drives." It has, just like Win32, drives,
partitions and filesystems. And it's *you* that look stupid when you
can't keep them straight.
>>Everything that needs to be said, including regarding point 1, has been
>>said. There's no point in going back over it again.
>
>Of course not. You have been proved a liar and a LinoShill...
The fact that you waste your time in this forum proves that you're a
"WinShrill."
What alternative is there?
--
Q: Are the SETQ expressions used only for numerics?
A: No, they can also be used with symbolics (Fig.18).
-- Ken Tracton, Programmer's Guide to Lisp, page 17.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:12:40 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John W. Stevens would say:
>Jim Dabell wrote:
>>
>> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> > > > > So I just "programmed" my monitor to be brighter when I turned the
>> > > > > brightness up?
>> > > >
>> > > > Is your monitor a computer?
>> > >
>> > > What about laptops?
>> >
>> > What about 'em? Can the laptop continue to compute without it's screen?
>>
>> Laptops have a monitor embedded in the system. Is turning the
>> brightness/contrast/whatever up on them programming?
>
>Are monitors computing systems?
>
>> Some of them need
>> you to press a key combination to do so. Others have buttons especially
>> for it. Are they both programming? Or just one?
>
>Is writing a program to control the volume of your computer's speaker:
>programming?
>
>(a) Is using the slider on the GUI to the volume control program
>programming?
>
>(b) Is using the monitor control panel to brighten the display:
>programming?
>
>Is doing steps (a) and (b) in order to be able to do step (c): Running
>your video display software to show a movie: programmming?
>
>If after starting the movie, you go back to step (a) to turn up the
>volume, is that programming?
>
>(d) If you write a program to do steps (a), (b) and (c), then back to
>(a) for you, are you programming?
>
>If instead of using the monitor control panel, you use the monitor
>hardware brightness control, are you not-programming?
>
>If the program you wrote in step (d) instead of using (b), uses a
>robotic arm to reach up and adjust your monitor hardware brightness
>control, are you not programming?
>
>> > In the olden days, they had hardware called "patch boards" . . . can I
>> > take it from your opposition that you don't consider modifying the
>> > hardware settings on a computer to be programming?
>>
>> It depends on the situation. As I said, the *act* doesn't change just
>> because you are using a computer.
>
>Ok, so programming can be done independently of computing systems. . .
>which implies that just 'cause you are the one executing the program in
>your head (the one you just wrote in your head), you are still
>programming.
>
>> If the act is to *solely* change the
>> way the computer is running, then it's a lot more likely to be
>> programming. If the act is to get something else done directly (i.e.
>> turn the brightness up) then no, I wouldn't consider it to be
>> programming (unless you can think of an exceptional case).
>
>If the monitor is part of the computer, and you adjust the brightness,
>isn't that the same as "change the way the computer is running?"
>
>> I meant that I was missing part of your argument because I couldn't
>> accept the fact that your opinions could be so, well, I'm not sure how
>> to describe them,
>
>Insane? Irrational? Elitist? Dumb?
>
>> actually. It's not important.
>
>Oh, I don't mind.
>
>The whole discussion was provoked in order to create a philisophical
>basis for a next generation "User Interface". The very first question
>that must be asked when creating a user interface, is just what,
>exactly, differentiates a user interface from any other kind of computer
>interface. One of the critical distinctions that must be addressed, is
>the difference, *IF* *ANY*, between "using" and "programming".
>
>My assertion generates a lot of heated response, because people are
>knee-jerking . . . the perpetual fight between people who want "user
>friendly" (their definition of user friendly) vs. the other guys who
>also want "user friendly" (THEIR defintion of user friendly) generates
>unthinking, dogmatic responses.
>
>The hope was that somebody that had been part of that argument long
>enough, would have actually stopped to think about it, and had at least
>the beginings of a description between "using" and "programming" . . .
>'cause as far as I can see, "using" is just programming with a higher
>level set of functions/sub programs/processes, wherein you write the
>program in your head, act as part of the computing system (some of the
>conditional processing is executed by you, some by the computer) to
>execute the program, then throw the program away after you are done.
>
>> > In short: If I say do, and the computer does, under what conditions
>> > would you call the action I took programming, and under what conditions
>> > would you define my actions as "not programming"?
>>
>> As a general rule of thumb, when the (short term) act you are performing
>> is intended to complete a specific task, then it's not programming.
>
>Excuse, but that describes why people write programs: to complete a
>specific task.
>
>> I think that the definition of programming is a moving target, and a grey
>> area. I don't have to define it completely to be able to say that a
>> certain action is not programming.
>
>You have to define programming at least enough to be able to show the
>difference between programming, and not-programming, in order to say
>that a certain action is not-programming.
>
>Since, so far, nobody has provided a way to define either (programming,
>or not-programming), I'd say that the discussion has been resolved to
>indicate that not-programming is the empty set.
>
>> It's about as hard to define as pornography, I guess.
>
>Pornography is trivial to define. I don't understand why you think it
>is hard to define.
>
>Simply define what parts of the body may not be represented in any
>kind of persistent visual storage format.
>
>Done. What's so hard?
Oops. You just forbade production of medical literature.
Oops. If a psych journal does an issue *about* pornography, it
becomes illegal, and so efforts to *treat* problems relating to
pornography become illegal.
>> You know it when
>> you see it. Your argument is similar to "any picture of people is
>> pornography",
>
>No, no similarity at all. You think pornography is hard to define,
>because you have attempted to apply a legal argument, wherein the legal
>argument is bushwah.
>
>> at least that's how absurd your argument appears to me. I
>> don't have to define pornography to be able to say that, without a
>> doubt, some pictures of people are not pornographic.
>
>Yes, you do have to define pornography to be able to say, *AT* *ALL*,
>that some pictures of people are not pornographic.
O-kay...
*That* means that for some purposes, perhaps "youngsters educational,"
one might want to make up a special-purpose definition such as yours
in order to establish policy for acquisition of school materials.
On the other hand, the definition is not nearly so suitable for
dealing with society as a larger whole.
>> > It's the *ACT* of creating HTML that is programming.
>>
>> Even if I am writing it down using pen and paper?
>
>Yep.
I'd say that creating HTML is no more, and no less, programming than
writing a letter or a report.
Since people would not *usually* consider writing a letter or a report
to be "programming," that means that any "programming" taking place is
of a terribly weak nature.
>> When you are writing HTML, you *are not* telling *any* computer what to
>> do.
>
>Which simply indicates to me that you not only share my definition, you
>find it to narrow. . .
>
>> It is not a set of instructions,
>
>Yes, HTML *IS* a set of instructions. The <table> tag instructs the
>computer. What, however, is your point?
No, HTML is *NOT* a set of instructions, and that is the *critical*
difference between "writing HTML" and "writing C."
A document in HTML consists of a set of *entities* and *attributes.*
Nary an "instruction" to be found.
>> it is information.
>
>Point of order: all programs are information. Defining something as
>information, does *NOT* define it as a not-program.
No, but a complete and utter lack of "instructions" can indeed be
indicative of "non-program-hood."
>> It is not a
>> programming language, it is a markup language.
>
>But, once again, how is the *ACT* of creating HTML not programming? You
>claimed that HTML is not a programming language. . . fine. But that
>wasn't the assertion, was it? The assertion was that the *ACT* of
>creating HTML is programming. Even if the result is not, *ITSELF* a
>program, you have to write a program to write the HTML, right?
No, the HTML is just a set of entities and attributes.
By the way, *plonk.*
--
Q: Are the SETQ expressions used only for numerics?
A: No, they can also be used with symbolics (Fig.18).
-- Ken Tracton, Programmer's Guide to Lisp, page 17.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:12:41 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Dabell would say:
>"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>>
>> Matthias Warkus wrote:
>> >
>[snip]
>> > HTML is not something
>> > that can be executed in a meaningful way, just parsed.
>>
>> Ok, so my browser isn't executing HTML? So just exactly how did the
>> HTML cause a different set of bits to be displayed on my screen?
>>
>
>No, your computer isn't executing HTML. It's information and not an
>algorithm. The algorithms for changing your screen are spread over the
>browser, shell, OS and video card. The information that the algorithm
>in the browser works on is the HTML.
>
>*Please* understand the difference between the two concepts.
When arguing over this, it is instructive to head to the roots of
HTML, which are SGML. It provides a meaningful set of terminology to
use.
An HTML document consists of a set of "entities," which are the
various tags of which a document consists, and "attributes" that are
attached to those tags. The text that is enclosed by tags, as in
<h1> Here's a Section Title </h1> represents part of the entity.
The set of terminology used in SGML for the *representation* of
documents involves "tags" and "entities" and "attributes."
It in *no way* involves _instructions._
That is rather crucial. It's not an accident; the lack of
"instruction" is quite intentional. The intent is that "instruction"
takes place in other parts of an SGML system.
Writing the "document rendition" code will certainly involve
"programming," that is, "instructing the computer how to do
something."
At the HTML level, there is an explicit *denial* of "instructing the
computer how to do something."
--
You shouldn't anthropomorphize computers; they don't like it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sgml.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:12:44 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John W. Stevens would say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from the OS.
>> I'm stunned at how much is changed, but i'm beginning to miss the
>> things which caused me to return to windows in the first place.
>> I'd love a mail program that can sort and search mail. One that can
>> automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules.
>
>Automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules: procmail.
Or, if you're using MH or EXMH, /usr/lib/mh/slocal, which invokes MH
methods via the file .mail_delivery.
>> A contact list that integrates with the mail program so I only have
>> to maintain one list of contacts/email addresses.
>
>Ok, I don't understand this one . . . what are you asking for?
BBDB.
>> The news reading programs are very weak. I simply want the ability to
>> select what articles I want to download, tell it to download, and have
>> it happen.
>
>So, how does SLRN (as an example) fail to do this?
SLRN allows you to select *newsgroups.* It doesn't provide the "select
the articles" option, if you want to read offline.
Leafnode provides *a* capability for this; after seeing a whole lot of
Net.Wars over the issue, I am getting quite convinced that people
should be downloading the contents of newsgroups, as that is a
*useful* level of granularity, and that trying to fine-tune the
downloading of specific articles is a fool's errand, adding complexity
to the process that outweighs the benefits anywhere where the price of
metered ISP service isn't denominated in "multiple dollars per
minute."
>> I'd also like the ability to have it automaticly combine
>> and decode messages. Several windows programs, (outlook, agent, etc)
>> have these abilities. I'm surprised Linux still doesn't.
>
>Actually, Linux has several of these. I wrote one. In fact, it was
>written as a generic, portable program that would run on DOS, Windows,
>OS/2 and Unix, and was completed and in use before version 1 of Linux
>was released.
>
>A German site picked up the program (it was/is freeware), and used it to
>fill up their hardrives in a matter of days.
>
>The modern version assumes that it is running partially over a PPP link,
>so it has an optional module that will, if you have a shell account on
>your ISP, undecode (either uuencode or base64 format) before moving the
>resulting file to your home machine (thereby saving 25% of the
>bandwidth), as well as having built in data base support (based on
>PostGRES). The modern version is, of course, Linux only.
>
>> Are there any modern applications in development that meet these
>> needs?
>
>There are modern applications that are *finished* that meet these needs.
EXMH has been offering this sort of thing for many years now too.
>> Everytime I tried to search for an answer to this question, I
>> found a lot of advice saying to use mail, trn, etc. Yeah, I used those
>> programs for a while; but I didn't upgrade to linux to use the same
>> text based programs I used 10 years ago.
>
>Ok. What, precisely, is wrong with text based programs? If they work,
>why do you care that they are text based . . . especially as what you
>want to do is text processing.
>
>Hey, if the interface is more important than the functionality, then be
>my guest, insist on GUI'fied stuff. . .
Indeed.
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #18. "My undercover agents will not have
tattoos identifying them as members of my organization, nor will they
be required to wear military boots or adhere to any other dress
codes."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:17:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Why Windows NT Server 4.0 continues to exist in the enterprise
: would be a topic appropriate for an investigative report in the
: field of psychology or marketing, not an article on information
: technology. Technically, Windows NT Server 4.0 is no match for
: any UNIX operating system, not even the non-commercial BSDs or
: Linux."
That is hilarious. Some Finn codes up a kernel and gives it away free does
better than a damn-near-a-terabuck corporation could. Does the judge use
Linux?
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:22:31 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >That would explain why "only" 20% of the webservers are using it. As
Steve
> >mentioned, only the more important sites use it.
>
>
> Yeah, 20% and dropping...
> (pauses to remember the name of the only webserver that shows increasing
> market share, and has done for months...hmm... A-somthing, atachyon? no,
> that's not it, !OH! I remember Apache... that's it. 60% and climbing...)
>
Yeah, it is climbing on the back of the small ISPs. Ever wondered why it is
so cheap to host someone's seldom visited domain? Try to ask for hosting a
site which gets over 100K hits per day, see what the ISP says about the
price then.
Otto
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:22:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: - People wanted an operating system that their employees could
: work with, without having to smoke pot, grow a beard, and get
: fat on coffee and twinkies.
And what's wrong with a beard and long hair? I don't smoke pot and I don't
drink coffee. And I use Linux and login with a UNIX shell account.
And what does a beard and long hair have to do with UNIX anyways? Go to a
Linux fan club. Most of the Linux fans have short hair and no beard.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:27:21 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:05:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.development.apps Grant Edwards <grant@nowhere.> wrote:
>> Oh, and gbuffy. It's the one X application other than rxvt
>> (and a window manager) I run consistently.
It's a mailbox monitoring program. It looks like a small box
full of rectangular buttons. When one of the mailboxes has new
mail, the button lights up. I press the button, and a new rxvt
running mutt pops up. Pretty cool.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Where's th' DAFFY
at DUCK EXHIBIT??
visi.com
------------------------------
From: "JOGIBA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY??????
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 20:13:59 -0400
Bob Young (RedHat) makes Gates look like Superman.
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 03:04:56 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG) wrote:
> >> I saw him on tv this morning and he looks different. Any ideas on
> >> this?
> >>
> >He looked like a geek. A nervous billionaire geek, but a still a geek.
> >Did a quick altavista search for reconstructive surgeons offering
> >geekoplasty and got no hits.
> >
>
> LOL LOL!
>
>
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 4 days 19 hours 38 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
