Linux-Advocacy Digest #150, Volume #26 Sun, 16 Apr 00 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (ZnU)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Tim Mayer")
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites ("Mark Graybill")
Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (John Hasler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:08:07 GMT
In article <TX9K4.42135$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <gM0K4.41096$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > (Steve) wrote:
> > > >
> ...
> > >
> > > Windows supports both. It's amazing how you'll justify and sell a
> > > limitation as a feature.
> >
> > Windows supports both, but developers often will just skip writing
> > their
> > Windows apps to support multiple documents.
>
> I'm not sure that MDI is really a better interface anyway.
Well, MDI is a UI disaster, in almost every respect. It's probably the
reason most Windows users use multiple instances in the first place. The
Mac doesn't have that problem.
> I think it depends on the application, but isn't the idea of being
> document centric improved with the relationship of one-document for
> one-application instance?
To some extent sure, and it makes more of a difference in Windows than
Mac OS because of MDI stupidity. But the system really _isn't_
document-centric, so why pretend it is?
> > > Which way does OS X handle it?
> >
> > OS X will certainly be able to handle multiple instances, but I
> > doubt that will be the default behavior when double-clicking an
> > open app in the Finder. From an interface standpoint the idea
> > doesn't work very well given the Mac's single menu bar.
> >
> > Anyone with a copy of DP3 want to chime in here?
>
> Not me, but considering its BSD heritage your probably right.
>
> > > > 2. You *can* run multiple instances of an app on the Mac, as long
> > > > as you make multiple copies of the app on your HD. Of course, this
> > > > isn't necessary since most apps can handle multiple apps.
> > >
> > > Now that intuitive. What would you do to have three instances
> > > running, make three copies on your hard drive? Good thing those
> > > software guys at Apple didn't try writing everything themselves this
> > > time around.
> >
> > There is one (1) app on my entire hard drive -- out of a few hundred --
> > that I ever want to run multiple instances of (Hotline). It just isn't
> > an problem the way Mac software is designed.
>
> Odd, but I use it quite a bit. Mostly with IE, but then again
> selecting the icon is easier than selecting File-New.
That's what keyboard shortcuts are for ;-)
> The other big one is Visual C++, where I need to work on two projects
> simultaneously, where each project contains multiple documents.
> Notepad, Paint and Write also only support the SDI, and so need
> multiple instances to support multiple documents. After trying both
> MDI with single instances and SDI with multiple instances, the later
> is my choice.
Most of this related to the way MDI works in Windows. Things are almost
completely different in Mac OS. You really can't look at this one issue
without looking at all the UI issues that surround it.
> > > > Guess we just have more advanced software than you guys do.
> > >
> > > Now that the key -- who needs memory manage and PMT anyway.
> >
> > This issue has little to do with either.
> >
>
> PMT and memory management both have a lot to due with multiple instances.
They help to facilitate multiple instances (though Mac OS could deal
with the memory management stuff just fine if you put the executable
code in shared libs), but this is really a UI issue more than a
technical one, at least on single-user systems.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:55:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2000 15:09:50 GMT, red-5 wrote:
>
> If you want to set up your own little hippie state in the middle of
no-where,
> go for it ! Perhaps it could work.
Tell me why do we have to go somewhere out in the desert to start
everything from scratch? I got a better idea, why dotn we take all
the factories, farms ands other means of production the we have created
working for the masters?
> --
> Donovan
>
Vladimir.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:11:04 GMT
"Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
...
> >
> > I've never found it to be a nuisance. Most applications update their
> > titlebars to reflect what is currently being worked on. What I find to
> > be a
> > nuisance is having to keep all my editor windows within some other
> > useless
> > uber-window.
>
> Well, those uber-windows are just poor implementation IMO. The Mac
> doesn't have uber-windows.
IMO, having multiple main windows associated with a single application is
confusing. The uber-window at least tied all the windows associated with the
application together.
...
> > Another aspect which lends itself nicely (if not outright requires)
using
> > multiple instances of an app is a command line shell. Each shell has to
> > maintain its own environment, separate from the others, and has to be
> > able to
> > block and wait for a particular command to finish without blocking the
> > other
> > shells. It would take some pretty crafty programming to do that with
> > only one
> > instance of the shell.
>
> Can't threading handle that?
Why would you want it to? Once the OS supports multiple instances, this
becomes the ideal solution for this type of problem. Multiple thread share
memory and resources with the process, where multiple-processes are
completely isolated. Having this isolation is a great advantage when one of
them attempts something illegal (GPF).
> > Basically, being able to launch multiple copies of the same app allows
> > you to
> > parallelize operations without having to be concerned with it when you
> > write
> > the application.
>
> I don't deny it makes things easier for the programmer. I just think
> that users can appreciate it if programmers go to the extra effort to
> make their software able to do multiple things at once. I always hated
> the old version of Eudora that wouldn't let me compose new mail while
> the software was busy downloading a big attachment... why should I end
> up loading two copies of Eudora?
Don't confuse multiple instances with multiple threads. Multiple threads
enable a single application to do many things at once. Multiple instances
allow you to run isolated processes, but each process can still run many
threads.
> > For example, MAME is full of global variables scattered
> > across some 300 source files. Yet, if I wanted to, I could launch two
> > copies
> > of it (the OS/2 version anyway ;-)) without having to worry about them
> > stepping on each others' toes, and I didn't have to write a single line
> > of
> > code to make that possible.
>
> Well, you can do it on a Mac, too, you just have to make copies of the
> files. But the question is, why would a user want to run two copies of
> it instead of having one copy that could do multiple things at once?
> (Why the programmer prefers it is obvious, but I see no reason for the
> user to prefer it.)
Multiple instances are isolated from each other, a single instance that can
do many things at once is not. Say I run Internet Explorer twice, and then
spawn 5 other windows from the second copy. If the first instance crashes,
it will leave the other instance intact. However, if the second instance
crashes, it'll take all 6 windows with it. In the Windows world, this is the
big difference. Hence, PMT and memory management allow for multiple
instances and improve the reliability of the system.
Tim
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:23:06 GMT
Joe Kiser wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > You think that when people are made aware of this story come Monday,
> > they will treat it as trivial trash and not take any sort of action.
>
> Like the time the AP said Microsoft had 60,000+ bugs in Windows 2000,
> you remember how everyone acted? How everyone freaked out, boycotted
> Microsoft, and switched to BSD? NO? That's because nobody gave a
> damn. Sure, there will be the typical media coverage this next week
> about the backdoor in Windows. But in a month, Winsysadmins will have
> already forgotten it, and everything will return to normal.
>
> > Your not thinking very well are you Joe.
>
> Just making a prediction based on what has happened countless times in
> the past.
> --
> -Joe Kiser
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWW: http://www.mindspring.com/~joekiser/
>
> "I walk the Earth another day
> The wicked one that comes this way
> Savior to my own, devil to some.
> Mankind falls, something wicked comes."
>
> -Iced Earth, The Coming Curse
I don't know about the rest of the crowd but I'm glad this has been
established.
Microsoft! The OS for people who really don't care if their breathing in
the morning!
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 15 Apr 2000 23:32:31 -0400
On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:13:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Great, lets kill off all old and sick people too .
That's a straw man.
> Why subsidize them?
>Maybe
>because its natural for people to help others in need?
Can't we have some kind of middle ground ? Can we help without
spoon-feeding ? Sure, there's merit in the idea of tempering capitalism
with compassion ( the result is what we've dubbed "social democracy" )
>You're making a flase assumption about human nature. You think that
>once there is no
>material insentitive to work 90% of the population will stop working.
I think it's approximately a good assumption. There are certainly
certain jobs that will not get done. A lot of people would certainly
stop working, or at least, stop working *as hard*. The last bit's important --
when everyone stops working as hard, that in itself makes a huge difference.
> Commnisits
>on the other hand believe that
>desire to spend sometime doing productive stuff is a part of human
>nature.
Well show me a country where people "do productive stuff" out of their
"natural" desire to do so. ANy society, any time.
>You have a very interesting theory here, without capitalism 90% of the
>population will not
>only stop working but will also stop learning, reading books, going to
>the theatre, what else?
Look. you show me one example of a country that proves my theory wrong.
Show me *ONE* country that has removed financial incentives for doing
well without at the same time creating outrageously inefficient
enterprises.
I don't think there's a direct causal relationship, like "oh no, I can't make
money, so I'll stop studying", but it's definitely a motivating factor.
So under your system that removes financial incentive, it seems clear that
people *will* be less motivated -- the only question is "how much less".
I would argue that the ansdwer is "quite a lot less". I would argue that
your idealism mregarding human nature is *THE* main reason why there is no
communist country that the communists are willing to claim for their own.
>What are you talking about? $4 an hour is standard rate for most of the
>service industry. You may get
Well as I said, I know illegals that can easily find a job that pays
$10- per hour or better. Maybe the ones getting $4- an hour are all stupid
or something ( it'd explain why they're stuck in the service industry )
>it from their grate grand
>parents who made a fortune off the land they stole from Native
>Americans.
Old money only goes so far.
> Private property + inheritance rights
>is what causes the growing gap between rich and poor.
Note: you haven't demonstrated a "growing gap" between rich and poor
>Most American workers are in credit card debt up to the ears. Lose your
I guess they're lousy at managing their finances. I'm not in credit
card debt up to my ears, and I'm earning less than most of these workers.
>your car,
What are you smoking ? Do you realise that a car is a luxury, and not
an inalienable right ?
> your house,
Look around. Most people outside of the US can not afford to own a house.
>lower middle class/povery levels. Btw I dont know how you manage to
>live well on 15K.
I live on it because I am smart enough to manage my finances sensibly.
> Thats barely >survival level.
Don't be an ass. I survived for a year on 7.1k as a graduate student at
UT. THough I'd admit it wasn't fun. Even that is a damn sight more than
the Cubans are getting.
So you can't accuse me of being in an ivory tower. I've lived in America
on less than a worker's salary, and quite frankly, not only do I find
it pretty comfortable, it is MUCH more comfortable than say the life
of a Chinese professor, and it is probably more comfortable than the
life of those in other countries. Moreover, my living conditions really
are comparable to those of some of my profs. We live in the same area,
we have the same kind of accomodation, we take the same train to
school. My computer better than theirs (-;
Look, I don't know what you consider to be an acceptable salary, but I'm
pretty sure that NOONE will have an "acceptable" salary under your communist
system.
>This is a joke how is a worker who cant even afford life insurance for
>his kids gonna get enough
>money to start a small buisness?
Maybe he should think of getting his carreer on track before he thinks
of creating more financial obligations for himself.
[ hyperbole and sweeping generalisations snipped ]
[ snip ]
>As an IT person you are in a much better position negotiating with you
>master, because
>there is a temprorary shortage of skilled people on that market. But
>for the rest its
I am just a lowly graduate student living on less than an American workers
salary -- and I'm quite comfortable with that.
[ more Marxist bleating hyperbole snipped ]
Yeah, if you believe that bosses are inherently evil, of course
you're going to think like this. However, someone needs to manage/control
things unless your goal is anarchy, and the communist leaders have been
no better historically than the evil capitalist bosses you whine about.
Look, if you want to talk about "demeaning", take a look at the
psychology of those who try to immigrate to the US, usually from
COMMUNIST countries like China and Cuba, and basically put aside
their pride in the process ( by resorting to means like greencard
marriages, etc etc )
Demeaning is to be born into a country where
the leaders have been stupid enough to "experiment" with "communism".
Where everyone is busting their ass to get to America so they can be
"as good as the White people". For a country trashed by communism
( or if you want to be pedantic, "communist experiments" ), that is
demeaning to the entire country.
>I think people want to work and be productive , want to help other,
>want to do good things.
>this is not a reflex that has to be constantly reinforced by regular
>cash injections.
I believe it is.
Can you name any place that practices your philosophy ( of not using
financial incentives ) where skilled professionals earn more than
American workers ?
>Unpleasant jobs will be shared, so everyone will have a chance to do
>something creative.
Maybe some people don't have the skills to do anything creative.
Under your system, I'd be trying to lay bricks ( and doing a lousy
job ) while the construction worker would be trying to prove theorems !
ROFL !!!
>> Quite unlike capitalism when people
>>who do *want* to work cant find any.
>>Look, you name a single communist country, just one, where it's as
>easy to find a good job as it is in the US.
> >Ah, you can't. Why not ? Is it because communism SIMPLY DOESN'T
>WORK ???
>
>Its alredy working on a small scale.
It's only working in instances where the members of the state are
a small core of dedicated volunteers. You will never be able to
acheive the same on a national level.
You deliberately ignore the failures of "communist experiments" and try
to say "they were not communism". Well maybe they didn't achieve it, but
they tried, and failed. What this goes to show is that attempts to
achieve communist utopia invariably end in tragedy, and the results
leave their victims in much more "demeaning" situations than the American
IR system.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 22:49:43 -0500
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:11:06 -0400, Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> C Lund wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, but why *would* you want three instances of an app running? That
>> > might make sense on something as silly as WIndows, but not on the Mac.
>>
>> The answer to that question is quite simple. Because you can use the
>> same app
>> to do 3 completely different things at the same time, without relying on
>> the
>> programmer to have the forethought of creating their own "MDI" or their
>> own
>> tasking strategy. It makes coding quite a bit simpler and allows the
>> average
>> application to be made much more flexible without adding any code.
>
>
>But that is a nuisance for the user, who then has to remember which
>instance of the program is doing what, and keep switching between them.
A trivial issue. Even if someone has such a poor memory that they
can't remember such a simple thing while they're working with it all
they have to do is try two more times.
>
>The initial example given was three copies of a web browser. That seems
>pretty pointless, since web browsers are already well able to handle
>multiple tasks at once.
>
>The only times I see a good reason for having the OS allow multiple
>copies of an app to launch is when the system is multi-user, or when
>you're dealing with a run-and-forget command line application like gzip
>that doesn't have any user interaction once it's launched. Neither Mac
>OS nor Windows 9x is multi-user, and web browsers are not gzip.
I find it very useful to run multiple instances of CAD programs. I can
have different preferences set for each instance and switch between
them as needed instead of having to change things each time.
--
Every Mac user is an idiot. Every goddamned one of us.
Andy Walton
3/19/2000
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:48:21 GMT
Colleagues...
It is an understandable phenomenon to have pent up emotions over a company
(Microsoft) that has gained as much success as they have in part because of
less than ethical methods (e.g. lying, deception, manipulation - even
illegal actions like violating copyright laws); and because the more
advanced technology that we so admired and loved has to eat their dust; and
because Microsoft has the non-technical believing Windows was the better
technology (and anything else Microsoft or the media tells them.)
However, it pains me to see such emotion vented in a newsgroup that has a
different objective. It wastes news server space and lines in our listboxes.
Get a Microsoft memento and vent your emotions by destroying the memento (or
loving it - whatever your stance), then get back to helping support and
nurturing our esteemed OS - Linux. Although for some reason, I cherish
reading about Microsoft's "black eyes", my suggestion would be to focus on
the good (Linux), and leave such spam out of this newsgroup.
Let's take the energy that could be spent on such negativity, and divert it
to our dedication and motivation to expanding and sharpening our skills so
we can make Linux the most advanced and viable operating system on the
planet. It is already in the lime-light, so each time it conquers a new
piece of the market away from Microsoft, we can celebrate in our revenge!
Best!
-Mark Graybill
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:49:29 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Dear Chad.
> >
> > Microsoft is asking everybody to delete that .dll.
> > They wouldn't ask us to delete the .dll if it weren't a threat.
>
> Because people are too stupid to set their permissions correctly.
>
permissions for you NT people are like what you have to do in Linux.
You know, Linux. That cruddy operating system which let's you do things.
Well, your not supposed to have to do that to NT as they were supposed
to set your operating system up right folks and NOT include any .dll's
with passwords like netscapeengineersareweenies....
>
>
> Not to mention that there is a buffer overrun that was discovered (which has
> nothing to do with this false 'backdoor' urban legend) and since this DLL
> is pretty much depricated, MS is just advising to delete it for precaution.
Depreciated = Netscape is out of business.
>
>
> If MS were interested in backdooring your system, why would they tell you
> to delete it?
>
Perhaps the entire world knows about it now Chad?
>
> > You can't call a guy a moron and an idiot if there's been a story published
> > about a security threat from a Microsoft product, THEN have Microsoft tell
> > you to delete the .dll because it IS a security threat.
>
> But the reason they're telling you to delete it is completely unrelated to
> this crazy "back door" nonsense.
>
But what of the comment you just made in the paragraph above Chad?
What did you say above. "IF MICROSOFT WERE INTERESTED IN BACKDOORING YOUR SYSTEM
THEN WHY WOULD THEY TELL YOU TO DELETE IT?"
Everybody jump back up one line and read Chad's thought train here.
The guy can't even manage to have complete thoughts.
>
> > That just makes you look stupid.
Let me say this again Chad. That just makes you look stupid.
>
>
> Hmm... truth is stupid? Ok! Then I'm a flaming moronic truth-telling idiot, if
> that's what interest in the truth makes me. I suppose I could be cooler and
> jump on the anti-MS conspiracy and disreguard all fact, evedience and truth,
> like you obviously have.
>
Chad,
I could tell you that CF4 will kill you and the first thing you'd try to do is
ram a bottle of it up your nose and turn it on.
>
> > If the .dll wasn't a threat then they shouldn't have told the world to delete
> it.
>
> Since the DLL was under intesnse scrutiny, another, rather minor buffer overrun
> was detected. Since the DLL is pretty much depricated, MS didn't see any point
> in
> supporting it. Remember, this was with the FrontPage98 extensions back when
> VisualInterDEV 1.0 was out. No one runs VID 1.0 anymore, so there's no use for
> the DLL anyhow.
>
> C'mon people, know your facts before you start spouting of this ignorant BS.
>
We got our facts straight Chad. Now it's time for you to pull your head out.
How about that. And watch your train of thought next time should you attempt
to communicate again.
>
> > You CAN'T KEEP turning the WORLD into FUDSTERS every time a new BAD THING is
> > EXPOSED about Microsoft products...
>
> Considering nothing was exposed, I guess that makes you not only a FUDSTER,
> but a liar and a defamer, right? Consider it a favor that I'm only calling you
> guys raving lunatics concerned only with FUD.
>
Sticks and stones Chad.
>
> > The FUDSTER, moron, idiot campaign carried off by Microsoft Trolls is clearly
> a
> > problem.
>
> Damn that truth! Always hurts when you're smacked by it, doesn't it, Charlie?
>
It appears he feels he's won some magnificient prize. Brandishing it like his
fathers jock strap he goes parading thru the house!
>
> > It leads people to believe that using a Microsoft Operating system is a SAFE
> and
> > SANE
> > thing to do!
>
> Of course, there's been no evidence otherwise, why SHOULDN'T they believe this?
>
Once again! Because they are telling us to delete a .dll which is a security risk
Chad?
Ha! My god. Was it VD which drove to this?
>
> > Isn't that just amazing here folks. The press reports the security flaw, the
> > back door.
> > Microsoft says to delete the .dll as it's a security risk.
>
> Microsoft says there's no Backdoor, many 3rd party sources confirm this.
>
I had to delete the rest as it really didn't matter from this point forward.
You see readers,
Case #1 above Chad says, Microsoft has no intention of backdooring anybody so the
.dll doesn't matter.
Case #2 almost a heartbeat or so down from Case #1 Chad is saying,
it's totally unrelated to back door issues and this is silly nonsense.
And finally in Case #3, Chad changes mind again and says that there's
NO BACKDOOR and that many 3rd parties comfirm this.
So for a re-cap. #1. There IS a back door but the .dll can't be used by it.
#2. There IS a backdoor which MIGHT affect the .dll
but this is silly nonsense.
#3. Chad finally tells us that there IS no backdoor
PERIOD.
So once again for the Microsoft user we see infinate flexibility in the operating
system.
After all, infinite flexibility in an operating system and it's people is what
truely makes
a GREAT OPERATING SYSTEM FOR THE MASSES.
An operating system which can be ANYTHING for ANYBODY at ANYTIME!!!!
In a recent film festible in the state just south of Louisiana, 9 out of 10
nitwits
who recently just arrived via bus agree that infinite flexibility is the key to
marketing sucess in the 21st century. Then they all were found dead the
following
morning in their showers as they attempted to wet shave with their Toshiba 2100
Satellites
running Windows 2000.
And now for something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!
Thank you Chad for clarifiying this whole thing to the world.
We hope to have you on as a guest with the Linux Advocacy real soon.
Ladies and Gentlemen
Goodnight.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 01:49:47 GMT
red-5 writes:
> Ugh, why am I arguing this point?
Because you react to the word Nazi in the irrational knee-jerk fashion that
you think all Americans react to the word communist.
> The November revolution was not a military coup, it was a revolution,
> with the backing of the people, which is something the Duma did not have.
What the Duma (the Russian parliament) lacked was the backing of the army,
due to the unfortunate decision to continue the war.
> Stalin's rise to power was due to the assassination attempt on Lenin,
> manoevering Trotsky out of the way, and a lot of bloodshed.
Stalinism would have happened without Stalin. It always does, when the
radicals sieze power.
> "Putting Lenin on the throne" is a ridiculous phrase- and one that shows
> a complete lack of knowledge of history.
>From the point of view of the Russian people the Bolsheviks were just a new
and more vigorous dynasty.
> I advise you to go and read some history books.
I've read quite a number of them, including histories of the Russian
Revolution. Most were not written by Bolsheviks.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
