Linux-Advocacy Digest #592, Volume #26 Fri, 19 May 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: a great job ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Charlie Ebert: COMNA's new official punching bag... (was Re: Things Linux can't
do!) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: a great job ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Your office and Linux. ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Your office and Linux. (Streamer)
Re: Your office and Linux. ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451683.943^-000000000003 (Marty)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:18:42 -0500
Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > OLE was introduced as part of the OS in 1992, it was NEVER an office
only
> > solution.
>
> Wrong.
Pre-OLE2 was useless. I don't even consider it OLE since it was so
radically different.
OLE2 was introduced in 1992 as part of the OS.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: 19 May 2000 04:13:14 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: >
: > Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > : On 18 May 2000 00:44:19 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II
: > : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: > : >Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
: > : >
: > : >: On 16 May 2000 23:40:20 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > : >: wrote:
: > : >
: > : >: >I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
: > : >: >late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me?
: > : >
: > : >: Linux has come a long way since 1996. Your knowledge is a bit dated.
: > : >
: > : >I'm sure it is. I'm not arguing the technical validity of Linux here,
: >
: > : But you are here:
: >
: > : Message-ID: <8fmlur$i7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > : http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623294410
: >
: > : __It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
: > : __very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
: > : __but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
: > : __possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
: >
: > : You are making a claim here. Then you immediately follow with:
: >
: > : __This
: > : __has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
: > : __hardware problem.
: >
: > : You are basing your claim on anecdotal evidence. Wait a minute, that's
: > : nearly 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
: >
: > *sigh* Perry, you just don't comprehend very well, I'm afraid. No, that
: > wasn't an insult... it was an observation.
: >
: > Let's analyze what I've said:
: >
: > "...it's quite possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees."
: No. This is an untrue statement.
No it isn't. If you knew half as much as you claim to, you'd know that
what I'm saying has, and does happen (though the frequency of such
occurrences are small).
: > This statement is true. It's true, because such occurrences have been
: > documented, and presented. The reason why this has happened is because
: > The X Window System runs as a privelged root process. If an X server
: > suddenly decides to misbehave, X can lock up. As others pointed out, this
: > does not necessarily lock Linux up, but it can make it impossible to get
: > to Linux locally.
: IF it were the truth it wouldn't require wordy explanation of logic.
It's called "backing up one's claim". How predictable that you would fail
to notice such a thing.
: It is not true.
Whatever.
: >
: > Also notice that I said "it's quite possible". I didn't say "it will".
: No, it's not possible either.
Whatever.
: >
: > You are taking what I am saying, inflating it into something it's not, and
: > then claiming that I'm using the same arguing tactics as Charlie. In
: > effect, you are arguing much like politicians argue. You're looking for
: > deep semantic relationships that aren't there from common sense
: > viewpoints, but that can be drawn by an irrational need to win an
: > argument, it would seem.
: My tactics don't include total bullshit.
<SARCASM>
Oh, of course not. You're "tactics" consist purely of carefully
constructed reasoning and logic. You are perhaps the most potent debatee
I have ever gone up against.
</SARCASM>
: >
: > In short, you keep taking what I say out of context. That is your
: > problem, not mine. If you'd stop trying to see what isn't there, you
: > wouldn't need to be wasting so much time typing.
: You can't take total bullshit out of context.
As you'd obviously know. Otherwise, you wouldn't rely on it so heavily
for your own arguments.
: > --
: > .-----.
: > |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
: > | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
: > | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
: > |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
: Would you mind SSE...
: Run along now and masterbate on some other advocacy group's time.
No thanks. I'm engaged to one of those things know as "women" (those
curvy things in those magazines of yours). I don't need to "masturbate".
Judging by how nauseating your words are, I can only imagine what a
disgusting individual you must be in person.
You sir, are about as clever as a bag full of doorknobs.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:21:58 -0500
Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, he did say
...
> You do know what a "symbiotic" relationship is, right? And you can
> grasp the concept of "Windows and Office--working together...", right?
> And "collaborate" and "vice versa" are in your dictionary too?
>
> But you claim they don't work closely together.
> So how is what Craig said "not what he said at all"?
No, I did not claim they don't work closely together.
Why do you people keep claiming I say things I obviously have not said?
I've said that Windows takes things that the Apps group develops and makes
it part of the OS, not the other way around.
And if I haven't said it specifically, i've certainly implied that Office
makes use of new OS features. But 3rd parties can make use of those same
features as well.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:24:25 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g1u9h$8cn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >They, together with Intel, brought computing to the masses.
>
> No, that was Apple, and Tandy/Radio Shack who put them in
> stores on every corner. Then IBM who later gave them a respectable
> name.
Neither Apple or Tandy could be considered suppliers to "the masses".
Apples market share has always been very low, as has Tandy's. In the early
days, only hobbyists owned tandy computers.
One could say that Apple and Tandy brought computers to the layman, but not
"the masses". Since that would indicate a ubiquitiousness that neither
Apple or Tandy was able to pull off.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert: COMNA's new official punching bag... (was Re: Things
Linux can't do!)
Date: 19 May 2000 04:17:12 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: >
: > Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > : Evan DiBiase wrote:
: > : >
: > : > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > : > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > : > > I don't know where they are developing this crap BUT, seems like
: > : > > everytime I call them on a WEB page,,, they read it,,, then they
: > : > > change their approach to something different.
: > : >
: > : > What? I don't seem to recall you ever pointing me to a web page. Of course,
: > : > if you want to show me the post where you did, I'd be happy to read the page
: > : > and tell you what I think.
: > : >
: > : > > If you ask me, I think these two are independants.
: > : >
: > : > What? Political Independants? What are you talking about here?
: > : >
: > : > -Evan
: > : > Very, very awake... which is a bad thing when one needs to get up in 3
: > : > hours.
: >
: > : You can't remember me pointing out web pages?
: > : Do a sort on my name and go back and find the messages kid.
: >
: > Uh, you haven't posted a _SINGLE_ URL since you started babbling into
: > COMNA. The only thing you've put into COMNA, is a load of Linux zealot
: > whining, and useless insults. What I find amusing, is you seem to think
: > that you are looking "high and mighty" with all of the nonsense you keep
: > spewing. The truth is, you simply look "high".
: >
: > I'm afraid, dear Charlie Brown, that you've missed Lucy's football yet
: > again, and it is _you_ that is laying there, with the crack pipe sticking
: > out of your mouth. Why don't you get off your lazy rear, and try backing
: > up some of those wild claims you've made earlier? Could it be that it's
: > because you know as well as the rest of us do that you're so full of crap,
: > that you've become a pez dispenser for plants?
: >
: > : By Independants, I mean you seemingly don't have an opinion.
: > : You just like to advocate.
: >
: > Huh?! Are you actually saying these words? You have just described
: > yourself with the precision of a surgeon. Are you for real, or are you
: > just here for the sole purpose of annoying people?
: I've posted http://www.freebsd.org twice now.
: You laughted at http:\\www.freebsd.org once and posted
: at it!
So, you're stating that http://www.freebsd.org/ provide proof for
everything you've said? That's simply rich.
: So how can you say all this crap?
It's quite simple, really. Neural impulses from my brain send signals to
my fingers, dictating which letters to press, as I see fit to place text
on my console.
But I must ask, how do you manage to type? I would think the absence of a
brain would render one unable to communicate in such a manner... oh, silly
me, you aren't communicating. You're just mouthing off.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:24:11 -0300
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 19:21:01 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >They, together with Intel, brought computing to the masses. They brought us
> Apple did that sooner.
Not to the *masses*. Apple was (and still is) elitist. Their systems were
(and still are) almost always more expensive and had (and still have)
this "artsy fartsy" side to them that many people just don't care for.
> >cheap computers and cheap software. Computer no longer is a dirty word
> Commodore & Atari did that sooner.
They were considered "game" computers, rather than "general purpose"
(read "business") computers...
> Billy is a sand bagger. DOS rode on the good name of IBM.
> Low cost PC computing was due to the efforts of cloners
> like AMD and Phoenix. Microsoft had nothing to do with it.
> If Intel had it's way, an 4M 486 would still cost $1000.
I do remember having a Cyrix processor once, but this was
in the post-386 era. Intel was the main motor, but of course
competition was (and is) essential to keep those prices low.
> They make lousy chips too. With their cohort Microsoft, they
> helped ensure that computing in the year 2000 would be
> constrained by Intel's circa 1981 mistakes. Even when Intel did
> get it's act together, it took Micrsoft another 10 years to
> take advantage of it (i386).
Programs written fifteen years ago for DOS still run on modern PCs
(running Windows) WITHOUT RECOMPILATION. That's
legacy support the competition (Sun, Apple, etc.) can only dream of.
Now, legacy support is very expensive on the technological level.
That's why Windows and the Intel architecture are so twisted.
But, legacy support is what people want.
> Linux exists because Billy was a sandbagger and lots of people
> realized it: most notably a college kid in Finland.
Linus wanted to create a "better Minix" exploiting the power
and the availability of the cheap 386 architecture. I'm sure that
Linus wasn't driven by his realisation that "Billy was a sandbagger".
I think it was his love for technology that made him create Linux.
Francis.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 19 May 2000 04:23:10 GMT
Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
: > <snip>
: >
: > Hey dipshit did you bother to check the headers? If you had half a
: > brain you would have understood my post. I was implying that Charlie
: > was a lintroll. A brain dead lab monkey would have understood that from
: > the whole "you are emberassing the rest of US" part, but I guess it was
: > a litlle too much for you eh?
: No, I got it. Obviously you don't understand that Charlie is not merely a
: linux troll, he is a linux advocate -- one of the better ones too. If he
: embarrasses you, it makes me wonder what type of a Linux advocate you must
: be.
I find your praise of a person like Charlie most disturbing. If you
really think that a person who says little more than "If you don't use
Linux, then fuck you!" is an ideal advocate, I'd hate to experience your
definition of a zealot.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:57:11 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> I find your praise of a person like Charlie most disturbing. If you
> really think that a person who says little more than "If you don't use
> Linux, then fuck you!" is an ideal advocate, I'd hate to experience your
> definition of a zealot.
You basically say the same 'FU' statement to all of us Linux users, no matter
how sophisticated you think your vocabulary is.....you haven't fooled me as to
what the real meaning/demeaning content of your statements are.
I haven't seen the 'ideal' advocate for anything, so I'm not making that
statement you are trying to put in my mouth. I find Charlie to be a little
more zealous than the majority of us. Considering the amount of zealousness
from the Windows' camp over the years in other newsgroups dealing with OS2,
Macs, Linux, etc., I think Charlie has a long ways to go before he reaches the
obnoxious levels of expression as achieved by the "S"es and "Steve"s of the MS
world.
As for the way I advocate Linux, I don't do it Charlie's way at all...but I'm
not going to say he is totally out of line in his methods (unless he suddenly
renders the non-linux newsgroups inoperable).
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 19 May 2000 04:58:09 GMT
Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: > I find your praise of a person like Charlie most disturbing. If you
: > really think that a person who says little more than "If you don't use
: > Linux, then fuck you!" is an ideal advocate, I'd hate to experience your
: > definition of a zealot.
: You basically say the same 'FU' statement to all of us Linux users, no matter
: how sophisticated you think your vocabulary is.....you haven't fooled me as to
: what the real meaning/demeaning content of your statements are.
And exactly how do I do this? By showing the claims of others to be
baloney? This is not saying "FU". This is saying "you're wrong".
The only people I ever tell off, are people like Charlie; people who make
claims, fail to back them up, and then call other people idiots when they
don't "get it".
: I haven't seen the 'ideal' advocate for anything, so I'm not making that
: statement you are trying to put in my mouth. I find Charlie to be a little
: more zealous than the majority of us. Considering the amount of zealousness
: from the Windows' camp over the years in other newsgroups dealing with OS2,
: Macs, Linux, etc., I think Charlie has a long ways to go before he reaches the
: obnoxious levels of expression as achieved by the "S"es and "Steve"s of the MS
: world.
: As for the way I advocate Linux, I don't do it Charlie's way at all...but I'm
: not going to say he is totally out of line in his methods (unless he suddenly
: renders the non-linux newsgroups inoperable).
Charlie doesn't advocate Linux at all. All he does is spew evangelical
nonsense that has no bearing in reason whatsoever. If you consider this
to be acceptable, then I must, as I already stated, question your own
reasons for praising him.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451683.943^-000000000003
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 05:28:47 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Today's Tholen digest is full of nothing:
>
> Are you suggesting that your post does not contain any material?
Jumping to erroneous conclusions again, Eric? Taking jumping to erroneous
conclusion lessons from Bob Osborn?
> Illogical,
Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> but that is to be expected,
According to who, Eric? You?
> coming from you.
How ironic, considering that comment came from you.
> On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
I see you've taken to ignoring evidence and responses again. How convenient.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: 19 May 2000 00:29:25 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'd like to upgrade to that version as lack of anti-aliased fonts are
>>unacceptable to me.
>>
>>StarOffice 5.1 is a good example of an app where the fonts look unreadable
>>at most point sizes.
>
> No they don't. They're quite readable even at msword default sizes.
> This is simple exaggeration, or fabrication.
This depends almost entirely on your pixel size. If your screen
resolution is low, X looks bad. The higher the resolution the
less you need anti-aliasing.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
