Linux-Advocacy Digest #496, Volume #26 Sun, 14 May 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: System uptime message. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) ("Leonardo")
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Kevin Huber)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again (tinman)
Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again (tinman)
Re: Online Banking (Tim Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: System uptime message.
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 11:15:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 13 May 2000 13:05:58 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>JoeX1029 wrote:
>>
>> um try "uptime" and then type into your message...
>
>
>Um...He was asking how to make a sig file that automatically did it for
>him. I don't think he wants to type it in every time.
One relatively simple method by which to do this is to have a
cron job running every half hour or so. Add the following using
'crontab -e':
0,30 * * * * /usr/bin/uptime > $HOME/.signature
and have fun. :-)
One can get arbitrarily complicated with this, of course.
Another, slightly more complicated, method would be to make
.signature a named pipe, and have a daemon running that shoves
the uptime out to it:
#!/bin/sh
while true; do
uptime > $HOME/.signature
done
The main problem with this method is that, if the daemon dies,
the news reader (as it tries to read .signature to construct
the initial file to pass to the editor) may hang if it's
not smart enough to check first to see if the .signature
file is a pipe.
>jt
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 11:21:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 14 May 2000 06:19:49 GMT <8flgi5$ch9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> *sigh* When are you Linvocates going to learn? You cannot
>> enter anecdotal evidence as proof to a claim. How the hell
>> do we know that you're not just contriving this stuff in
>> order to look like you're a techie, when you really just
>> work for the postal service, or something to that effect?
>
>I actually got a bluescreen under my W2K install last night when
>I tried (uneffectively) to start a winamp plug-in.
>
>I cut the power halfway through the 512 meg memory dump, booted
>into linux and I shall never, ever look back. I needed an excuse
>to never have a surprise shutdown ever again. My next reboot
>will be right after I compile a stable 2.4 kernel to handle a
>USB mouse.
>
>>> Microsoft products simply can't handle a LOAD!
>
>> I see. Well, according to NetCraft.com:
>
>> Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Compaq, Nasdaq, and The National
>> Football League.
>
>I happen to know that the NFL will be using something else very,
>very soon. (ok, so its not linux, but its not windows either. :))
Not yet.
bash$ telnet www.nfl.com www
Trying 204.202.130.220...
Connected to www.nfl.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
Connection closed by foreign host.
?
bash$ telnet www.nfl.com www
Trying 204.202.130.220...
Connected to www.nfl.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.1
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 11:17:58 GMT
Connection: close
Set-Cookie: SWID=E7DA5BAF-2987-11D4-9BCA-009027302310; path=/;
expires=Sun, 14-May-2020 11:17:58 GMT; domain=.nfl.com;
Content-Length: 407
Content-Type: text/html
Connection closed by foreign host.
Of course, it's possible that www.nfl.com may be switching to
a DNS rotator type of system (somewhat like www.cnn.com), and that
some systems on that rotator may be using one OS/webserver
combination, and others using some other OS/webserver.
But along that way may lie madness.
Personally, I wish www.nfl.com well, whatever they use. :-)
>
>-----yttrx
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Maintenance nightmare? What maintenance nightmare?" :-)
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 14 May 2000 12:36:42 GMT
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > > The real question here is how many companies shied away from the
> > > advantages of DRDOS because of the Microsoft ploy.
> >
> > Here's another thought:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2559857,00.html
> >
> > No one wants to use MS's technology and those who do like AT&T were paid
> > 5 billion by MS for committing to use MS's WInCE.
>
> I have a story that goes to show.
>
> The NATO Inteligence Center in Luxembourg uses Windows NT
> exclusively, but the only reason they do is because Microsoft gave it
> to them for free _AND_ paid for a Microsoft employee to work there
> full time for the sole purpose of keeping it running. They're not
> doing too bad, they only have to reboot once a month.
>
Oh well, it's the "intelligence" center; no surprises there.
At least the Free World is safe _almost_ the entire month.
<G> [AutoSarcasm 5.2 doing overtime and creating its own witty
remarks]
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 11:37:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 13 May 2000 23:16:56 -0400
<KUoT4.1473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8fj59u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Solaris on Sun hardware works.
>> >
>> >Linux on Intel hardware doesn't.
>> >
>> >Is there a need to say any more?
>>
>>
>
>
>I'm impressed.
>This person is wrong several millions of times with just one sentence.
>Good job.
My guess is that there are a number of issues with the x86/PCI
hardware that simply don't allow it to scale well.
Some new Solaris boxes, for example, can handle 64 processors.
Can a classical x86/PCI box running NT (or anything else) handle
64 processors? Or even 32? 16? Biggest I've seen -- albeit I haven't
seen many -- is 2. I've heard that there may be some quad
Xeons out there, though, just haven't seen 'em yet. :-)
I could be totally wrong, though. There are also issues with
cost effectiveness -- monoprocessor PCs may be slow, but they're
dirt cheap. (Of course, that may be one reason why they
are slow... :-) )
I'm not sure what the most cost-effective solution might be,
and it may depend on the application -- number-crunching, data-moving,
configuration flexibility, or physical durability? :-)
So, when one asks "does it work?" I say "At what?" Any PC --
Intel, Mac, Amiga, Atari -- can work very well as a doorstop... :-)
>
>Jim
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NT? New Technology? Not There. No Thanks!
------------------------------
From: "Leonardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 14:12:23 +0300
Reply-To: "Leonardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nice writing Stephen!
And so true also :-)
--
Leonardo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8fk6rk$8hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yeap typical stephen, nothing but personal attacks. Nothing to backup
> his claims.
>
>
> In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fjtff$ul3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2568904,00.html
> >
> > Yep. Typical Templetonism. If he's not posting the useless
> > rambling of computing journalists, then he's twisting facts
> > to suit theories, rather than theories to suit facts. And, as
> > always, he assumes that journalists not only have the expertise
> > and facts of experienced system administrators at their
> > fingertips, but also that they themselves are experts in the
> > electronics industry.
> >
> > Of course, if you give Matt factual data, _your_ presentation
> > becomes mere opinion, and inconsequential. In short, in order
> > for something to be factual in Matt's eyes, the following
> > condition must hold:
> >
> > fact == ("What he wants to hear"("Anti-Microsoft"))
> > +
> > ("Half-assed journalist rambling")
> >
> > I really think it would be easy for someone to emulate Matt
> > Templeton, if they so desired out of pure entertainment.
> > After all, 16kb of mental capacity can't be all that
> > difficult to mimic, can it?
> >
> > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > just simply follow these steps:
> >
> > 1.) _NEVER_ have an opinion of your own. Always post
> > the opinions of other people, and regard them as
> > solid, grounded fact(s). Then, when the opinion
> > which you posted is proven to be nothing but
> > contrived baloney, you can easily say "well, I
> > didn't say it... he/she did!"
> >
> > 2.) Quantify things that cannot be quantified by placing
> > the word "real" in front of them. For example:
> >
> > "REAL" work (this is my favorite)
> > "REAL" operating system
> > "REAL" useful
> > "REAL" professionals
> > "REAL" architecture
> > etc.
> >
> > In order to properly use these phrases in a sentence,
> > you must make sure that the "real" [word] part references
> > your favorite OS, or architecture, etc.
> >
> > Ex: Even though [company] uses [OS-a] and [OS-b]
> > its clear that the "REAL" work is done on
> > [OS-a].
> >
> > NOTE: [OS-a] is usually the equivalent of a UNIX-variant,
> > or even more likely a Linux flavor.
> >
> > or
> >
> > Ex: You use [OS-c]? Try using a "REAL" operating
> > system, like [OS-a]!
> >
> > or
> >
> > Ex: [OS-d] for 3D graphics? Well, Maya, Lightwave
> > 3D Studio, and other high-end software may run
> > under it, but "REAL" 3D animation professionals
> > use machines running [OS-a]!
> >
> > NOTE: Make sure to make generalized assumptions and comments
> > about fields of work which you know absolutely nothing
> > about, when using "REAL" phrases. The above is a perfect
> > example of such an assumption.
> >
> > 3.) If you post a URL to a source of information, and
> > that URL is has been sufficiently been torn apart
> > and shown to be a load of mule cookies, simply
> > post that very same URL over and over again, stating
> > that it is indeed factual, because you said so. If
> > your debating opponent refuses to acknowledge that
> > you are correct (which you are, because your posts
> > clearly outnumber his), then return to step number 2.
> >
> > 4.) Finally, when your debating opponent gets sick and
> > tired of your bull muffin-saturated malarchy and
> > anti-anything-Microsoft whining, and they insult you
> > because you're too underdeveloped to parse anything
> > in that walnut-sized brain of yours, simply state
> > how "sad" it is that they cannot have a logical
> > argument with you.
> >
> > Okay, I have the algorithms laid out here. However, I
> > must ask the folks in CSMA, what's a good language to
> > design a wankerbot in? Perl? Perhaps a LISP language?
> > Will it require any artificial intelligence programming?
> > If so, then it won't work as this bot was not designed
> > to use intelligence.
> >
> > Also, do you people have a standard rating system for
> > trolling? If so, it might be a good idea to implement
> > something similar in COMNA. Of course, in true Microsoft
> > tradition, we'd have to take credit for it. ;-) j/k
> >
> > And finally, if you do have a standard troll rating system,
> > what did my post rate? :-)
> > --
> > .-----.
> > |[_] :| 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
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 07:02:59 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >The really sad thing is, Erik actually *believes* that Microsoft is
> >a squeaky clean company which doesn't have a dirty tricks dept.
I believe no such thing.
Likewise, I think people give MS way too much credit. If you listen to most
Linux advocates, Microsoft is an omnipotent organization capable of single
handedly cornering the market, every action is a secret plot and conspiracy.
They would have you believe that Bill Gates is a mastermind strategist that
is capable of pulling the wool over hundreds of millions of peoples eyes.
This organization is so powerful that the only way to stop it is through
government regulation.
Yet this same omnipotent power is incapable of forming a coherant argument
in a court of law. This same omnipotent organization is so powerful that
they can't even make new products like MS Bob and the Palm-sized PC take
off. They have such control over the consumer that they can't even manage
to get their flagship personal finance product gain a foothold in the
market.
No, I simply believe that MS is where they are for several reasons. 1)
Most of MS's competitors were simply stupid. Taking wait and see approaches
when Windows and then later when Windows 95 came out. Losing their
marketshare because they were content. and 2) Microsoft listens to the
majority of their customers, giving them what they want even if it's not
what they need.
Microsoft succeeds because they know where their money comes from. Almost
all of MS's competitors got lazy at some point and forgot to listen to their
customers. Intuit has a business model similar to MS's. They listen to
customers as well as producing a good product and stay on step ahead of MS.
They are rewarded by the lions share of the market and keeping MS in check
in their market.
Microsoft is also the turtle in the old "The turtle and the hare" story.
They may not be fast, but they catch up to the rabit when it's slacking off
and not paying attention because it thinks it's so far ahead.
Does that mean that I believe MS is innocent? No. But I do believe that
much of what is attributed to them, is merely dumb luck and stupidity.
> "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by
> utter stupidity." :-)
Exactly.
> Or something like that.
>
> That said ... it's clear that Microsoft wasn't exactly the
> cleanest wheel on the car; the fact that they gave away IE
> while improving it (indicating that someone was spending money
> on engineering resources, as IE wasn't and still isn't open
> source) [*] hurt Netscape fairly badly (although Netscape
> didn't help itself, to be fair -- 4.7 is still somewhat
> unreliable on HP-UX). I will admit that IE 5 is an excellent
> browser -- on Windows NT, anyway. [+]
If you consider the browser to be part of the OS, they didn't give it away
for free. It's cost was included in the OS. Furthermore, IE helped sell
other products, such as MS development tools that used IE features.
Netscape didn't have those revenue sources. This isn't nefarious though.
General Motors most certainly develops better car stereo's via AC/Delco from
car sales, while Clarion doesn't have that revenue source either.
> And the strange error message when running Win 3.1 on top
> of DR-DOS, coupled with the even stranger encoding of
> various parts of the code, illustrates this even more
> readily.
Again, a beta version of Win 3.1. Less than 0.01% of (Not 1%, .01%) of
Windows customers ever saw the message. (consider that Windows 3.1 sold
over 100 million copies in it's lifetime, and only 15,000 people were on the
Windows 3.1 beta. And of those 15,000, Only a small percentage was running
DR-DOS. IIRC MS claims only 7% ever called about the message). That's only
1050 people out of 100 million. You do the math.
> None of these are of course proof (although intentionally
> encrypted code is a fairly big piece of circumstantial evidence!)
> that Microsoft intended to play dirty. But I certainly
> wouldn't trust Microsoft any farther than I could throw them.
Nor should you.
> [+] Interesting issues with Windows refresh, though. IE5 does
> its thing elegantly and such with the Windows windows manager
> code (wherever it is), but if one wants to run a Java
> application such as Borland JBuilder, or even Netscape, the
> contrast to handling refresh events is rather striking.
> I'm not sure if this is because of insider knowledge of Windows
> in IE5, or (more likely) sloppiness and/or external requirements
> from other windowing systems in the case of Java and Netscape.
More realisticly, both Java and Netscape are portable applications, and thus
make certain sacrifices in speed for portability. For instance, it's
unlikely that they will use assembly code in the rendering engine, while MS
most certainly does. Additionally, Netscapes code is so hacked together it
required a complete rewrite (over 2 years of effort so far and it's still
not done) for version 6. Anyone that's read the original Netscape code
knows how poor it is.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
From: Kevin Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 May 2000 06:15:07 -0500
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linux is one of the WORST examples of OSS development.
Oh, bullshit. Don't think you're going to get away with unqualified
and unsubstantiated claims like that.
> It's more unstable than its sister software and less secure.
Linux does not prioritize stability and security to the level of other
OSes, granted, but that is because of its primary use as a desktop OS.
Linux can be made to be secure, and modern installations are much
better than in the past. But when it's not a priority and most
users don't care, what do you expect?
Linux is one of the most useful and usable PC operating systems I have
ever used. I would not recommend its use to run critical medical
monitoring devices. Does that mean it's not useful? No, obviously it
means that it is just not the best choice for that application.
Everything is a tradeoff. You can have extreme stability if you are
so conservative that you don't make many changes to the core OS. But
this is at the expense of features, which is what desktop users often
want.
There is more to open source than providing superior open code. In
fact the superior code argument is mostly propaganda, and many of us
just want an alternative that's useful, productive, and free from
vendor oppression. Linux certainly does well on those counts. And it
works *well enough* for the tasks it is typically used for. In fact
it works quite well. It does not have the CPU scalability or
reliability of Solaris, VMS, or MVS, but it does what it does *well
enough*, and that has been sufficient to attract millions of technical
users. While VMS may win on some technical merits, Linux is cheaper
and more useful for the average user.
-Kevin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 14 May 2000 12:19:09 GMT
In article <CJoT4.1472$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I R A Darth Aggie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 13 May 2000 01:31:48 GMT,
>> bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
>> <8fiba4$bfc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> + Complicated: More than what is necessary
>> + Necessary: what is actually required
>>
>> User 1: newbie, wants to run some card games and office applications.
>> User 2: serious Gnome programmer, going to be throwing all kinds of stuff
>> on the screen
>>
>> If you cater to the needs of User 1, then you may cut down on the
>> capabilities of User 2.
>
> Not if it's a component system.
>
>>
>> + Actually that is what i wanted anyway. Windows and Mac offer builtin
>> + controls, but that doesn't mean that programmers have to use them.
>>
>> Oh. And they can override them?
>
> Yes. And yes they appears to virtually always get used. Winamp is the only
> program I can think of that doesn't.
> After all, why spend time recreating a toolbar when you can do better app
> logic?
>
>>
>> + Do you expect users not to want to do gaming with their computers?
>>
>> Again, there are different levels of capability. The one-size-fits-all
>> approach doesn't really work.
>
> Everyone needs a nice looking environment that's fast.
> Two things I think X sucks at currently.
> (Fonts)(XFree86 3.3 stable series [Hint: XFree86 isn't fully stable/complex
> and not widely shipped])
What's wrong with X fonts? The problem is that you probably can't configure them.
Xfree not widely shipped? Linux install base is up to, what, 5 or 10 million, and most
distro's use xfree; assuming not everyone wants/needs to install an X server, let's
say, for arguments sake, that 10% installs Xfree, that's about 500,000 to 1,000,000
copies. If that's not widely shipped I don't know what is, and even if it's less
numbers (which i seriously doubt) it would still qualify for the term "widely shipped"
(in my opinion). What's your idea of "widely shipped"?
>> + Unfortunately the very architecture of X is so old and backwards that
>> + it is in many cases impossible to add modern features.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> Antialiasing is a good example.
> I hear it's next to impossible to add since it breaks the X spec.
> An Xfree86 developer said recently they are waiting for an updated spec to
> allow it (X 6.5 I'm thinking).
That's strange since it's been available under X for quite some time, through the
freetype library; it's integrated with XFree 4. I did an experimental install and it
worked flawlessly and the truetype fonts do look quite good, especially in netscape.
Performance is quite good too, meaning that I can't tell the difference between bitmap
and tt fonts rendering speed.
>> + A GUI architecture would benefit everyone involved.
>>
>> If that where so abundantly obvious, you'd think there would be more
>> effort into making one?
>
> There are a few.
> It seems to be such an extreme effort that it's just not being done.
> The only way to make one would probably be to use all available code (Mesa,
> Berlin, XFree86, svgalib, etc) to put something together.
>
> The client/server idea X was based on is rare, thus in the year 2000 the
> benefits don't outweight costs of extra overhead.
If this and other newsgroups concerning X are to be judged by, there are a lot of
people (incl. me) using X over a network regularly, where the client/server model
excels... There's no better model. Thus your reasoning is only valid for you and the
few people that reason just like you.
> I can tell you one thing. Even with an AMD 850, Voodoo3 3500, and XFree86
> 4.0 + 3DFX drivers, the 3D screensavers still seem slow
> compared to the very fast performance you get in NT. It's like slow motion
> using XFree86 3.3, and that's still accelerated.
Slow, fast, numbers? If you're getting bad performance with that configuration you
have got it seriously misconfigured. I've got a voodoo3 3000 and i've used both xfree
4, which gave quite a performance boost, and xfree 3.3.x which i'm currently using
(3.3.5 to be exact). The reason i'm using 3.3.5 is that myth 2 only works with the
glide v2 lib and the xfree 4 drivers have not implemented glide compatibility yet
(it's scheduled for an autumn release).
> Clear their is some killer overhead or limitations. I can see Railroad
> Tycoon actually refreshing/updating the screen on my PII system.
As i said, it's a matter of configuration and if you can't be bothered with it you
should let someone knowledgeable do it or just troll your way back to windooze/mac.
> Available qualityt TrueType fonts are limited and without
> antialiasing/smoothed fonts, text especially Times looks horrible.
Haven't we been through this before? I seem to recall...
>> + I would start such a project, but I don't have the time to do it and
>> + give it the attention that it needs. If someone is willing to start or
>> + has started such a project, I would gladly help in its implementation.
>> + I am a seasoned programmer and I am not afraid at all of getting my
>> + feet wet.
>>
>> Go volunteer with the Berlin group.
>
> They don't seem to be making extreme progress
Just quit trolling and get on with your life, bug someone in the m$ support department
instead...
/Peter K
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 08:22:47 -0400
In article <qLSS4.661$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Bob, shall we come up with some clever name to call you, as you keep
> > > > > corssposting this lame namecalling to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
> > > > > comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy?
> > > >
> > > > Boob Germer has been the accepted name ever since (I think) he tried
> to
> > > > claim that the USB bus doesn't provide power to peripherals.
> > >
> > > Not such a good choice, it's insulting to both women's anatomy and
> > > seabirds.
> > >
> > > He needs a new moniker. Ladies and Gentleman, I suggest a contest!
> > >
> > > Winners get to join Bob's country club, unless, of course, they are
> > > cornell grads. ('
> >
> > How about "Bob Gerber" as a reference to his mental age?
>
> Despite Bob's obvious infatuation with name calling, I don't think it's
> particularly mature to stoop to his level.
Of course, you're free to judge, but what I have in mind isn't simple name
calling--he needs a moniker with flare, something special. Simple name
calling won't cut it.
I don't want to talk down to him, and it seems unlikely that he will rise
to anyone else's level, so it's either ignore or stoop. ('
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 08:24:31 -0400
In article <8fhbvt$clk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "tinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Not such a good choice, it's insulting to both women's anatomy and
> seabirds.
>
> True.
>
> > He needs a new moniker. Ladies and Gentleman, I suggest a contest!
> >
> > Winners get to join Bob's country club, unless, of course, they are
> > cornell grads. ('
>
> Jeez, I'm not even a 'merkin - probably couldn't even be a waiter at Bob's
> glorious country club :).
I dunno, are you good looking? Mebbe we could pass you off as a nouveau
riche software producer? If you golf or play tennis well, we could go for
a pro position and infiltrate from below....('
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Online Banking
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 07:38:11 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Is there any reason why Netscape in windows would work with a Online
> Bank and Netscape in Linux would not? I have tried Redhat 6.1 with
> Nescape 6.1 and 4.7 and Suse 6.4 with Netscape 4.72 and I can not view
> my online bank account. It gives no error message, it just gets stuck
> after logging in. I got javascript, style sheets enabled, cookies
> enabled. I have tried 3 Netscape versions in windows 95 and NT and they
> all work fine. The browser should make these things independent of the
> OS. I use Linux with many secure Brokerage accounts and shopping sites
> and Never had a problem. Could my bank have a bug in their .asp files?
> This bank http://www.citifi.com (this isn't my bank)claims my browser or
> OS isn't good enough. Why is that?
I've used several versions of linux netscape for online banking ... are you sure
you have the US-only (128 bit encryption) version of netscape?
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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
******************************
