Linux-Advocacy Digest #687, Volume #26 Thu, 25 May 00 17:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Desktop use, office apps (George Russell)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Pete Goodwin)
Re: how to configure corel linux boot to GUI? (David Steinberg)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Nix)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Nix)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: FFS, RIAA sues SuperPimpSoft (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Wintrolls! M$ will get the blade. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Malloy invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?)
(EdWIN)
Re: Who is Linux hurting the most ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 19:18:43 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 17:29:55 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>And yes, early Unix GUI's were about as functional as twm xclock and n*xterm's
>>to suit user taste.
>
> Actually, all the usual Windows95 suspects were there. WIMP is
> wimp, regardless of what apps you happen to have available.
Consistency, keyboard short cuts for actions, and dnd for more than text are
two lacks off the top of my head.
>>Office 95 in 16Mb 486 - I wouldn't load Navigator in twm on that and expect
>
> '95 in 16M? Puleeeze.
Go back to 95 - read the system specs for the time - 16Mb was uneeded luxury...
> Just who do you think you're trying to kid? Many of us are ex-windows,
> ex-dos, ex-Win9x users. We simply know better than your feeble attempts
> at lying straight to our faces.
I see your an exuser - some of us still use 95 era machines and software, and
don't let the clouds of memory interfere with the day to day realities of the
systems in front of us.
> We've experienced the truth for ourselves firsthand.
And so have Windows users on those machines. And so have I. If you doubt 95
versions of Windows and Office can run in 16Mb, go learn. Office 97 or Windows
98, hell no, but Office/Win 95, yes.
> That's why we ended up Linux users to begin with
So you could run inferior Office applications? Of the many resons for switching
to Linux, in 1995 that was not one of them.
George Russell
Registered Linux user 61117
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 19:39:39 GMT
"Joseph Kehoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Average users are unable to install windows as well.
What do you mean, "average users"?
Bernie ";-)" Meyer
--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety
Isaac Asimov
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 25 May 2000 14:36:41 -0500
In article <8gihq9$58g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: I've forgotten which versions shipped with which kernel, but
>: there were a lot of cases of lost data reported. Many people
>: just assumed that was the nature of Linux filesystems. There
>
>THey should have assumed it was in the nature of linux distros. It was
>the distros decision to ship an untested kernel. I didn't even
>consider the idea.
You have made it pretty clear that the distros shipping
is in fact the only testing mechanism, so they don't have
any other choice.
>: Having a central repository would make it possible to see if
>: a bug had already been reported. If it hasn't, it would encourage
>: people to take the trouble to report the new ones and they
>: would be able to report any new unreported details about existing
>: ones without a lot of duplication.
>
>Kernel bugs are not of that kind. Bugs that can be replicated are
>fixed.
Sometime, maybe. Meanwhile people are trying to use the thing.
>:>You are saying that no distro comes with NFS ready to go?
>
>: VALinux is the only one I know of that interoperates more or
>: less correctly with non-Linux systems, because they include
>: H.J. Lu's patches in the kernel as shipped.
>
>Are you talking about nfs v3? (userspace) nfs v2 has been OK for years.
I'm talking about knfsd's v2 attempts.
>: It has mostly worked OK with itself except for all_squash being
>
>root_squash? Yes, that's standard.
All_squash. If you did not put no_all_squash in the exports line
all users became nobody on the mount. Not a fun surprise in
my emergency reconstruction of our cvs repository. At some
point in the 2.2.x series, no_all_squash became the default
again. Since I'm not tracking them either, I have no idea
which versions had the problem.
>: the default for at least several versions. The problem is with
>: other systems. I had a disk go out on a Sun box holding a
>: cvs repository and replaced it with an NFS mount from an
>: early 2.2.x kernel. Cvs locking is about as conservative as
>
>Sun's expect nfsv3 with statd and lockd and so on. Those
>are now present in linux, but I wouldn't trust them. Tell
>the sun it has a v2 server.
No, this was an old SunOS Sun. Different problem.
>Well, dot-locking is the standard "conservative" method.
>
>: I ended up with frequent lock contention where the directory
>: was actually gone, but still appeared in the client's view.
>
>This is an nfs design bug. Directory handling is strange. You know
>about the mkdir; cd, rmdir; trick, and the time-to-believe timeouts for
>executable files (which a directory is).
No, I didn't know about that (how should I have found out?), and
the Sun was seeing the directories for hours after they were
gone. I think I had to unmount and remount to clear them.
>: I fixed this by switching to cvs's client/server model, but
>: then found that doing a 'cp -R' to copy a directory tree from
>: a freebsd machine to a Linux-served NFS mount ended up with
>: mostly 0-length files.
>
>If they were read-only files, quite possibly. The order of transfer
>of data and meta-data has to be carefully controlled!
Nope, no read only files/directories involved, just bugs or
incompatibilities. I found others were having similar problems
in the newsgroups, found H.J.'s patches, and assumed that the
fix would find its way into the kernel. As far as I can tell
(which isn't very far because there is no way to track any
kind of resolution here), it hasn't so I've been sticking
to the VALinux distribution to get something that works at
all.
>How is an end-user going to spot a kernel bug?
If there were a tracking system, there would be a place to
sort this out.
>In the case above
>he will be told that ifconfig is deprecated in such situations.
Why should it take a kernel developer's time to let an administrator
know that? The layering of software gets even worse. For example
RedHat's 'ifup' script that wraps ifconfig now adds routes for the
alias addresess. You really don't want this unless they are not
on the same subnet because it turns the default source address for
outbound connections into the last-added alias. As far as I can
tell the way to turn this off is undocumented.
And while we are on the subject of networks, I see some very
strange behaviour when asymetic internet routing causes
something that looks a bit like a SYN flood. If one branch
of a redundent route goes down for a while I sometimes see
connection requests come in (at the usual many-per-second
rate) where my replies don't make it back to a large number
of them for a few minutes while the internet routes reconverge.
Apache seems to stop accepting requests in this situation
long before I should be out of sockets or anything else.
Is there any way to survive this condition more gracefully?
>:>As you know, it's a very heavily supported system.
>
>: In its own quirky way. What the developers accomplish is
>: great, of course, but they have their limits. I just don't
>: think the support system can sustain growth. Even without
>: a flurry of new bugs (which we may get with 2.4) the number
>: of new people hitting old bugs is bound to grow, and these
>: people don't need developer attention at all.
>
>Old bugs are either fixed or "not a bug but a feature".
Sorry, but that's just not true. There have always been
some number of things that just plain don't work and
require workarounds or using certain kernel revs for
anything you expect to keep running.
>: Yes, this is nice sometimes, but generally not. Suppose the
>: question was needing files bigger than 2 gigs on pentium
>: machines. How much developer time does each end user need
>: to burn on that question?
>
>Very few people need 2GB files on ia32. The ones who do are
>savvy enough to kow they need them ad savvy eough to figure that
>2GB is 2^31.
Wrong answer - it's a few minutes of video, a tar image of a not
very big partition, or a very small database. But people are savvy
enough to know that the *bsd's have had large file support for
years, as does NT and solaris. The question is, when can
we expect it to work with Linux as well and how much pain
do we have to go through before it works right?
>: That's exactly my point. There were people who knew about it
>: but going through all the channels I could find turned up
>: nothing.
>
>Why didn't you just post to the eepro100 list? It's low traffic. A
>bug report would have been welcome. Clicking on the drivers web page
>shows the list link (and archive!).
As you said, it probably wasn't the drivers fault - and there was
no reason for me to suspect it.
>Mainstream bugs (interesting bugs) are fixed at once, if fixable.
>"NFS doesn't work right" is a bug, but not a very interesting one.
>It works well enough.
If that isn't a joke, would you mind explaining your philosophy
in being associated with Linux at all? Is it just something
fun to do? A neat toy that is just as interesting broken
as working? What is your motivation to do anything with it
if it doesn't matter if it is correct or not?
>: I've only used solaris and freebsd against it, and both failed
>: in various ways. I've seen reports of aix/hpux having
>
>I've been using solaris and irix against linux NFS (in both directions)
>for years with no identifiable unsolved problems.
The user space server was reliable - just too slow for any
real activity. It is the kernel version that is the problem.
>I have a huge book on NFS semantics and design open on my desk at the
>moment. It makes it very plain that NFS canot be expected to work the
>way you wish under countless circumstances.
Under the same circumstances, other servers have worked correctly.
>That said, protocol
>mismatches have existed from time to time, and been corrected.
>Whose bug it was is moot.
You seem to disagree with the FAQ at:
http://nfs.sourceforge.net/
which mentions a variety of known bugs and comes a lot closer
to matching my experience.
>: The way things stand, every user has to experience every problem.
>
>Distros are expected to solve that.
Someone was obviously mistaken about that. And why should even
each distro have to find each problem separately?
>: That is even worse than commercial systems where they may not
>: let you see the real bug reports but will at least try to steer
>: you away from them.
>
>Distros are commercial systems.
Not in the sense that they have any control over the product.
>You're not obliged to use it. And frankly, anyone using NFS is
>in the < 1% category. Also it had to be put in so linux could compete
>on speed. That was important.
That is too bizarre for comment.
>:>Ask yourself "bugs known by WHOM"?
>
>: That's the problem. If anyone knows, why doesn't everyone?
>
>Because it makes not one bit of difference to fixing bugs.
Fixing the bugs isn't the point. Avoiding the damage they
cause is the point.
>Bugs are fixed
>by communication and contribution among the many many developers
>involved. The kernel is too complex for most anyone to be able to
>work on in isolation. It's an interacting system. It needs an
>interacting medium as the conduit for work on it. A bugtrack system
>is not that.
Yes, you described exactly what a bug tracking system does.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 19:44:11 GMT
hauck[at]codem{dot}com (Bob Hauck) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Yes. DOSEMU will run the vast majority of DOS programs. Not sure what
>you mean by the printing thing, but I've not had any trouble printing from
>DOSEMU.
Will it run WIN32 command line programs or just the 16 bit DOS programs?
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: how to configure corel linux boot to GUI?
Date: 25 May 2000 19:58:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: And if it's not documented you are screwed...Typical Linoshit..Read
: this read that read everything to accomplish which would normally be
: an easy task.
Yeah?
I want to change the way Windows boots. I want my NT 4 Workstation box to
boot directly to a command prompt. No GUI.
If you could kindly point me to a Wizard or some such crap that makes this
easy, please do. If you could point me to a documented file to edit, that
will do too.
For your definition of "normally" (which is of course, "using Windows"), I
suspect this really is NOT "normally an easy task." For mine ("using
Linux"), of course it is: change one character in in one file.
Summary: you're full of it.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 25 May 2000 20:49:48 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> [1] Having two separate "enlightenment" and "enlightenment-nosound"
> packages that differ only in their dependencies is, in my opinion,
> broken packaging.
You *do* comprehend the concept of virtual packages, don't you?
(That is, `this is not a bug. This is a feature.')
--
`Q: Why did they deprecate a.out support in linux?
A: Because a nasty coff is bad for your elf.' --- James Simmons
------------------------------
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 25 May 2000 20:51:49 +0100
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the problem isn't with the install, it's when you go to remove or
> upgrade. sometimes it's hard (or at least tedious) to figure out what
> all things went where. then when you find a random file, you wonder
> where it came from.
GNU stow fixes this pretty well. STORE fixes it far too well (the same
way as stow) and is so complicated that nobody can work out how to use
it ;)
If you need external databases to work out where things come from, you
are in trouble if they get corrupted. If the database is the filesystem
itself, then that adds no additional points of vulnerability (as you are
using the fs anyway).
--
`Q: Why did they deprecate a.out support in linux?
A: Because a nasty coff is bad for your elf.' --- James Simmons
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 19:50:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 15:08:19 +0200, Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- snip --
> Yeah, yeah, I know. The judge agrees with your point of view, so now
> he's superhuman, infallible.
I'm confident that this would be sincerety rather than sarcasm has the
judge agreed with your pov . . .
> I think demonstrating that Jackson pretty much closed his eyes and
> ears - and literally went to sleep - every time an MS witness got up
> on the stand should be enough.
Yup, it probably would be. Too bad that that ain't what happened.
-- snip --
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:06:13 -0400
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course I do NOT admit that Datacenter does not yet exist. In fact,
using
> > your own logic, I'm using NT Datacenter - it just happens to be called
NT
> > Datacenter version 5 build xxxx - since that's the way the release
numbering
> > works.
> >
> > It's up and running and beta 2 is on a UPS truck to me right now -
denial is
> > shameful.
>
> And your statment that "Datacenter is much more real than Linux 2.4" is
false.
> Linux 2.4 exists at least as much as Datacenter byt your own logic.
>
I don't agree. Linux 2.3.99999 may exist but I've never seen Linux
2.4.00000 - have you?
Meanwhile, I'm holding DataCenter Beta 2 in my hands and Beta 1 is running
right this second. It says W2K Datacenter, it doesn't say "W2K Adv. Server
Soon-to-be-enhanced-to-DataCenter-Abilities"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:03:54 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 19:44:11 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Will it run WIN32 command line programs or just the 16 bit DOS programs?
Win32 console programs are not DOS programs. They won't run on plain
DOS, as opposed to DOS-under-Windows.
However, DOSEMU will run most 32-bit DOS apps, such as those that use the
Rational, Phar Lap, or GO32 DOS extenders. It runs Borland C++ 3.x and
DJGPP just fine for example.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:09:15 -0400
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > and before production versions of linux supported 32 processors it was a
> > beta version of linux that did.
> >
> > just like datacenter now...
> >
> > quit being silly.
> >
>
> You are right. This whole discussion is silly. If you want to say that
> Datacenter exists, then fine. But then you must also admit that Linux 2.4
> exists and your whole argument that " linux smp SUX" disappears. But as
> far as the general public goes, Linux supports 32 processors today while
W2K
> does not.
>
I maintain that I've not seen a kernel stamped Linux 2.4. 2.3.xxx maybe but
not 2.4. That is true.
Linux SMP is not as good as NT SMP - that remains a fact. I am not aware
that 2.4 has been not only made available but actually tested to demonstrate
it has better smp support. Sure, somewhere linus said: "Hey 2.4 will have
better SMP support" but where is that *proven*?
Today, linux can run on 32 processors while only a beta version of Data
center can do the same. True. Wait until July/august, then Datacenter will
be released and both will have 32 processor support. Then we can test and
see which scales better. Based on tests with Unisys servers we've seen and
run I'm putting the easy money on the safe bet. Near linear scaling, I never
thought I'd see the day... and then I did... got the windows media file
too...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:35:38 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 25 May 2000 09:13:44 -0600...
...and Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
> > On Thu, 25 May 2000 04:34:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > >
> > >Fucking idiot. The guy's printer works under the most popular OS on
> >
> > So? Now are we, members of a free market, to only restrict
> > ourselves to a singlular choice now as if we were captives
> > in some Stalinesque regime?
>
> Stop feeding him already.
>
> I wonder if simon7777 is related to our good friend tek7777.
They are *all* related. Most of the trolls here are just one person.
We've already proven that time and time again AFAIK.
mawa
--
Papierstauentferner!
Partnerbefriediger!
Pauschaltourist!
Pastisverdünner!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: FFS, RIAA sues SuperPimpSoft
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 20:35:02 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 25 May 2000 15:08:07 GMT...
...and Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2000 21:21:33 -0500, Mike Trettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper) wrote:
>
> >> The RIAA have demanded SuperPimpSoft remove the auto-decoder from PAN,
>
> >I don't get it. Why aren't they sueing Forte? Pan isn't the only
> >newsreader that automatically decodes multipart binaries.
>
> Because the RIAA is made up of suits with no clue.
Probably they think that the little bit of rather daft logic that
glues the multiple parts together is some kind of big evil dangerous
algorithm; Pan is free software, so they are afraid of that evil being
reused by others.
mawa
--
Papierstauentferner!
Partnerbefriediger!
Pauschaltourist!
Pastisverdünner!
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:13:01 -0400
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > then again, W2K works perfectly for me and my clients - doesn't even
depend
> > on what you want to do - it does it all.
> >
>
> That just proves my point. Let me refresh your memory. The one place
where
> the current production Linux kernel has trouble with SMP is when serving
> static web pages using multiple NICs. Now, if you want to talk about beta
> code, the 2.3 kernel has a multithreaded IP stack, a kernel module for
> severing static web pages, and other general improvements to SMP
> performance. For my purposes, I don't have any need for serving any kind
of
> web pages. I do have a need for huge amounts of cpu power and huge
amounts
> of disk I/O. With Linux for S/390 I currently have a 12-way S/390 G6 and
a
> farm of 3390 disk drives - none of those wimpy ide or scsi drives. W2K
can't
> possibly compete with Linux on S/390. Not to mention the huge effort it
would
> take to port my code from AIX to W2K. Porting from AIX to Linux for S/390
is
> a breeze.
>
Wonder when I'll see some s/390's in TPC benchmarks? You know, smoking those
wimply scsi drived Compaq's with their lame Intel architecture...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wintrolls! M$ will get the blade.
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:14:01 -0400
So?
And W2K will STILL be superiour to Linux... yawn...
"Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Judge Jackson is considering the idea of chopping M$ into
> three pieces -one more than the government's proposal of two.
> Nice. The more the merrier.
>
> Ferdinand
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Malloy invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?)
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:14:18 -0700
In article <fP9X4.13513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Joe Malloy writes:
>
>> Ach, du lieber! Tholen tholens again!
>
>Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
On what basis do you make this claim?
>>>> Tholen tholenates:
>
>>> Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
>
>> Asked, answered,
>
>Incorrect, Malloy.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>> answer willfully miscontstrued, eh Tholen?
>
>Obviously not, Malloy, given that no answer was provided by you.
>
>>>>>> Oww! Tholen tholenates:
>
>>>>> Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
>
>>>> Asked, answered,
>
>>> Incorrect, Malloy.
>
>> Balderdash, Tholen.
>
>On the contrary, you are quite incorrect, Malloy, given that no
>answer was provided by you.
>
>>>> answer willfully misconstrued, eh Tholen?
>
>>> Nope.
>
>> Ooops, you meant "Yup."
>
>No, I didn't, Malloy.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> More evidence of your reading comprehension
>problem.
How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote that.
>> You're forgiven.
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that I meant something other
than
>what I wrote, Malloy.
Incorrect.
>>>>>>>> The Tholen tholens:
>
>>>>>>> Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
>
>>>>>> Asked, answered
>
>>>>> Incorrect, Malloy.
>
>>>> Balderdash, Tholen.
>
>>> Where is the alleged answer, Malloy?
>
>> In a previous posting, Tholen.
>
>Typical lack of specificity.
Balderdash.
>>>>>> and not-comprehended by Tholen.
>
>>>>> I can't comprehend what isn't there to comprehend, Malloy.
>
>>>> Heck, you can't comprehend what I put there for your
delectation,
>>>> Tholen.
>
>>> On the contrary
>
>> Your response does nothing but assert the contrary.
>
>Therefore the use of "on the contrary" is appropriate, Malloy.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>>> I've comprehended everything
>
>> No, you haven't.
>
>Yet another example of your pontification.
How ironic coming from Dave (Master of Pontification) Tholen.
>> Figures.
>
>It figures that you would pontificate, Malloy.
Posting for entertainment purposes again, Tholen (little boy)?
How typical.
>>> you've put "there"
>
>> I did not place "there" there, Tholen.
>
>Non sequitur.
Irrelevant.
>>> but it doesn't include an answer to my question.
>
>> Yes it does, Tholen.
>
>Incorrect, Malloy, given that no answer was provided by you.
Reading comprehension makes a cameo appearance in Dave Tholen's
replies. How typical.
>>>>>>>>>> We sic Tholen onto you.
>
>>>>>>>>> Who is "we"?
>
>>>>>>>> The *real* question is how sic [sic!] is Tholen?
>
>>>>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote that.
>
>>>>>> Not nearly as ironic as the sic [sic] "induhvidual" who
just typed
>>>>>> that!
>
>>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote that.
>
>>>> Not nearly as ironic as the sic [sic] "induhvidual" who
just typed that!
>
>>> How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote that.
>
>> Not nearly as ironic as the sic [sic] "induhvidual" who just
typed that!
>
>How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote that.
Argument by repetition, Tholen? How typical.
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who is Linux hurting the most
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:15:49 -0400
didn't you know? they all work for free and give away everything they write
for your company to everyone else in the world cause they
steal^H^H^H^H^Hborrow code from other open sores(tm) projects to create
theirs anyway.
Are there any paid linux programmers? besides, I didn't know there was a
language called "linux" - I thought it was a kernel.
"Sandi Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:p%aX4.117$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am looking for Linux programmers. I will pay $1000 referral fees for
> anybody you refer and we hire them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen Barton
> Xpedition Company, L.P.
> 512-327-9172
> 888-842-9172
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Fax 512-327-1725
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:17:55 -0400
there are obviously not enough of them... he probably works for a linux ipo
that is now being forced to do something other than make claims...
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Sandi Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I am looking for Linux programmers. If anyone can help locate some that
> > would be great let me know.
>
> Spamming for programmers?
>
> I don't think that'll work very well.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
