Linux-Advocacy Digest #689, Volume #26 Thu, 25 May 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (David Steinberg)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Paul Kimoto)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (s@-)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Jonathan Abbey)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?) (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Shock Boy")
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?) ("Shock Boy")
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Tholen's Thole tholenated - Thread now tholenified (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: You have never seen Linux like this (Nicholas Murison)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ (Marty)
Re: UNIX Linux only ISP (Darren Wyn Rees)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
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: 25 May 2000 21:12:59 GMT
Seán Ó Donnchadha ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) wrote:
: >
: >Wow! Maybe you WERE there...
: >...leading the Microsoft defense.
: Oh, of course! My comments are all part of the astroturf campaign,
: right?
No, just pointing out that Microsoft's legal defense was hardly more
convincing than your pathetic ad hominum against the judge.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 25 May 2000 17:17:42 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8giu23$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, s@- wrote:
> If you are not happy with the source control system you
> are using, get a better one. The answer is NOT not to use one.
>
> Can you imagine working on 500,000 lines program without source
> control system??
There have been attempts to track bugs and patches, and control source,
but they have failed because Linus didn't like how they worked. Larry
McVoy promised to build him a new, custom system. It is called
"BitKeeper", and (presuming that it turns out to be real and not an
extended form of vaporware) it will be used at some date in the (distant?)
future.
There is an article at http://lwn.net/1999/features/BitKeeper.phtml, mostly
about the non-OpenSource-ness of this product. In any case, it tells us:
: Some background is in order. Larry has built up an impressive resume
: over the years, with stints at places like SCO, Sun, SGI, and
: Cobalt. Much of that time has been spent hacking on one kernel or
: another, and, at Sun, putting together configuration management tools.
: BitKeeper provides all of the features of systems like SCCS or CVS, and a
: lot more. BitKeeper was designed from the beginning to work with
: multiple source repositories, and to facilitate moving patches from one
: repository to another.
: The multiple repository scheme is designed to work well with large,
: globally-distributed development teams. The patch management allows for
: the handling of changes, and for filtering these changes on their way up
: to the "master" repository. In the Linux kernel case, this means that
: Linus can benefit from much greater peer review of patches before he has
: to see them. With some luck, the result should be a reduction in the
: number of "Linus does not scale" burnouts that have occasionally halted
: kernel work in the past.
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: s@-
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 25 May 2000 13:41:12 -0700
>In article <8gihq9$58g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
What a MORON you are.
That is exactly what a bug-tracking system do.
A bug-tracking system is a vehicle to manage progress towards solving
a defect in a product.
Communication between interested party about the specific bug is done
via this system. This way, all communications, information, and
final resolution is kept in one centralized place for ever and is
not lost.
compare this to the idiotic process of people in the dark sending
email to doug and alan asking questions and wasting time.
I just hope that peter is the exception to the rule, and linux
programmers are more mature and expeirenced software engineers
than this particular idiot project them to be.
/s
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Abbey)
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 16:18:57 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
| > Given the non-package specific dependency checking tools already in
| > Linux, one would think that you could build a dependency database
| > quite independent of rpm or deb.
|
| You can. It's called `the filesystem'.
|
| (GNU stow, opt-depot, STORE and similar programs automate this process.)
You can find links to a whole bunch of these things at
http://www.arlut.utexas.edu/csd/opt_depot/opt_depot.html
Jon (one of the primary authors of opt_depot)
--
===============================================================================
Jonathan Abbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied Research Laboratories The University of Texas at Austin
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX http://www.arlut.utexas.edu/gash2
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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 17:30:32 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) wrote:
>:
>: Oh, of course! My comments are all part of the astroturf campaign,
>: right?
>
>No, just pointing out that Microsoft's legal defense was hardly more
>convincing than your pathetic ad hominum against the judge.
>
Hey, I fully admit that MS royally screwed up their defense. That
doesn't mean however that Naptime Jackson *ISN'T* a biased and
vindictive luddite.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 21:31:58 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you run consumer Windows, you ultimately still run DOS.
If I were running DOS when I run a WIN32 app, I would see 16 bit segmented
pointers. I don't.
If I were running DOS when I run a WIN32 app, I would see HUGE pointers if
I went beyond 64K bytes. I don't.
This all applies to Windows 9x. On Windows NT/2000 DOS isn't even there.
It may have a DOS header on Windows 98 but it runs like a 32 bit flat model
app. You're generalising just a little.
Pete
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
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: 25 May 2000 22:36:58 GMT
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/24/2000 at 08:44 PM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> > Basically, if you have FP13 on a CDROM or locally, or know how to find
> > it on an FTP site, you're fine.
>
> Basically, you are too computer illiterate to use OS/2. Windoze was
> designed for idiots like you.
>
> Bye bye!
>
That's the (bad) Linux answer, Bob. It doesn't work too well with
OS/2.
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: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary
Split Save It?)
Date: 25 May 2000 22:37:05 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You speak of Godwin's COMMENT as if it's the Law of Conservation of
> Energy.
>
>
There are strange correlations between those two...
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: 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: 25 May 2000 22:43:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >Either I'm an extremely lucky man, or you must be doing something
> >wrong. I have been running Warp 4 since end '97 (when I won a copy in
> >a raffles at the local UG). No fixpack has ever even been near it and
> >yet I am running NetScape 4.6 with no more than the usual - NetScape
> >related - headaches. I didn't even see a single y2k problem, although
> >many people told me Warp 4 without fixpacks was not compliant. Who
> >told you you need fixpack 5 for NetScape?
>
> Netscape, when I tried to install it.
Oh, wait.
You may be right. I checked again, and on Warp I'm still running 4.04.
It's my Linux version that's at 4.6.
My bad. Sorry.
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: josco <[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 15:06:41 -0700
On Thu, 25 May 2000, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) wrote:
>
> >:
> >: Oh, of course! My comments are all part of the astroturf campaign,
> >: right?
> >
> >No, just pointing out that Microsoft's legal defense was hardly more
> >convincing than your pathetic ad hominum against the judge.
> >
>
> Hey, I fully admit that MS royally screwed up their defense. That
> doesn't mean however that Naptime Jackson *ISN'T* a biased and
> vindictive luddite.
Hey, I'll agree with vindictive. A judge's job is to be vindictive: use
the law to determine punishment and remedies.
This nightmare ends when MS says it's sorry.
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/22/000522opmetcalfeflash.xml
For you I might suggest this book....
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0394800753.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg
"Bartholomew and the Oobleck easily qualifies as a Seuss classic, first
told way back in 1949. And its message--the importance of owning up to
your mistakes and saying that you're sorry--is as timeless now as it was
then. "
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[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, 25 May 2000 22:09:45 GMT
<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-2hYgJE1IC2fy@localhost...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> > news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-kG9cixDrQoke@localhost...
> > > > Yes, it is. But Windows shipped a different version, and when you
> > install
> > > > Windows, it changes your config.sys to point to the version in the
> > windows
> > > > directory.
> > > >
> > > > Try again.
> > >
> > > So how come even this morning I was able to run a shop-bought copy of
> > > Windows 3.1 in an OS/2 (Warp 3) VDM without even knowing at that point
> > > about the himem.sys file that was supposed to have been changed?
> >
> > I'm not sure how the conversation switched to this, but the original
> > argument was about the code that detected non-MS-DOS. Since the warning
> > messages are disabled in the retail version of Windows 3.1, it wouldn't
show
> > them.
> >
> [Bzzzztt!]
>
> Wrong answer. This is the same copy of Windows 3.1 that originally
> refused to run with DR-DOS 6 (I only ever bought the one - I kept
> switching the underlying operating system until it would function
> reasonably well, going - in an upward line - from MS DOS 5 via DR-DOS
> 6 to OS/2 Warp 3).
Funny, the entire DOJ investigative staff could not find a single copy of
Windows3.x of any variety that refused to run with
Dr-Dos.. including all internal beta's, etc.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary
Split Save It?)
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:09:57 GMT
"Mayor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <0_WW4.10747$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Mayor writes:
> >
> >>> Christopher Smith writes:
> >
> >>>>>> We sic Tholen onto you.
> >
> >>>>> Who is "we"?
> >
> >>>> We is us.
> >
> >>> Who is "us"?
> >
> >> Us is "we", obviously.
> >
> >Classic circular reasoning.
> >
> If A=B does not B=A?
And that does nothign to tell you if in actuality, A=B
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: 25 May 2000 17:15:56 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >We geeks are in demand. According to the L.A. Times, there will be
>> >nearly 800,000 new jobs created for application developers and system
>> >administrators in the United States this year. There will be fewer than
>> >400,000 applicants for those positions.
>>
>> Keep in mind that many/most of these positions are configuring
>> and troubleshooting things that should be fully automatic.
>...or for automating things that need automating...
Right, but the same thousand things that need automating will
be each be done separately 800 times by different people
in different places.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:26:35 GMT
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What I found particularly strange is how you refer to the fixpack process as
> > awkward and annoying. Have you done an RSU installation? That's the
> > smoothest type of system update I've ever seen in my life. You browse on over
> > to IBM's site, find the fixpack, click on it, walk away, and a few minutes
> > later, your system is up to date. "(boggle!)"
>
> ...if the .rsu is not broken, if the FTP transfer doesn't fail on
> package 9 of "1 through F", if the FTP site is reachable, if the FTP
> site is doing better than .5k per sec, if RSUINST is the right
> version, if you have a copy of the right version of the Rexx FTP
> library installed, if you have enough disk space for the C:\BACKUP to
> hold the 20 megabytes of old files you need to store to fix the 100
> kilobyte bug you only need to have patched, if you have two hours to
> wait for 95% of the same code you've already downloaded and installed
> in last quarter's fixpack, if you can remember which funny-named
> directory on your hard drive has the Rexx script you run from the
> command line to resume downloading because it's faster than going
> through the web based system that re-downloads the same "kicker" file
> each time, then yes, RSU is very smooth.
I gotta say, I've never had a single problem you mention. Not a one. Of
course, being able to connect to *.ibm.com at 200K/sec probably helps that a
bit, but I didn't always have it that good and still never had a problem. I
do take the precaution of waiting a week or two before downloading a fixpack,
which has saved me from countless problems that I have heard from others.
> But I wish there was a more granular update mechanism.
The last NT update I did (SP3 IIRC, back when I used to run that sort of
thing) was far worse as far as granularity was concerned. It was one whopping
xx MB EXE file.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 25 May 2000 17:25:49 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Let me guess. You're also confident that the world would have been a
>better place had Microsoft never existed, right? Why do Microsoft
>bashers all seem to think they can see into alternate realities?
Perhaps they are acquainted with the original and alternative
products that Microsoft bought or bullied out of existence
using what what are now being exposed as unfair practices.
People did manage to get their letters typed before MS-windows
ever existed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: 25 May 2000 23:32:28 GMT
"Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Bzzzztt!]
> >
> > Wrong answer. This is the same copy of Windows 3.1 that originally
> > refused to run with DR-DOS 6 (I only ever bought the one - I kept
> > switching the underlying operating system until it would function
> > reasonably well, going - in an upward line - from MS DOS 5 via DR-DOS
> > 6 to OS/2 Warp 3).
>
> Funny, the entire DOJ investigative staff could not find a single copy of
> Windows3.x of any variety that refused to run with
> Dr-Dos.. including all internal beta's, etc.
>
Yeah. They asked me to mail my copy to them (not being a US citizen,
ordering didn't work), but they wouldn't pay my asking price.
Bill did, however...
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: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen's Thole tholenated - Thread now tholenified
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:39:20 GMT
Shock Boy wrote:
>
> "Mayor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <0_WW4.10747$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >Mayor writes:
> > >
> > >>> Christopher Smith writes:
> > >
> > >>>>>> We sic Tholen onto you.
> > >
> > >>>>> Who is "we"?
> > >
> > >>>> We is us.
> > >
> > >>> Who is "us"?
> > >
> > >> Us is "we", obviously.
> > >
> > >Classic circular reasoning.
> > >
> > If A=B does not B=A?
>
> And that does nothign to tell you
What it does "nothign" to tell us is irrelevant. What you can prove is
relevant.
> if in actuality, A=B
Illogical. A=B is a given. Haven't you been paying attention?
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 18:46:41 -0400
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hey, I fully admit that MS royally screwed up their defense. That
>> doesn't mean however that Naptime Jackson *ISN'T* a biased and
>> vindictive luddite.
>
>Hey, I'll agree with vindictive. A judge's job is to be vindictive: use
>the law to determine punishment and remedies.
>
vindictive:
1. Disposed to seek revenge; revengeful.
2. Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful.
-- www.dictionary.com
Is this really what you believe a judge's job is to be?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:49:57 GMT
Joe Malloy writes:
> Tholen tholes again:
On what basis do you make that claim, Malloy?
>>> Tholen tholes:
>> On what basis do you make that claim, Malloy?
> On the basis that you are doing that activity which is characterized by
> "thole."
Classic circular reasoning.
>>>>>> We sic Tholen onto you.
>>>>> Is that idiot still around?
>>>> What allleged "idiot", Aaron?
>>> Ha ha, you have to ask, Tholen?
>> There was no evidence provided, Malloy.
> It was obvious to all but you, Tholen,
How can something that isn't there be "obvious", Malloy?
> as the affected party.
On what basis do you make that claim, Malloy?
>>> QED!
>> How ironic.
> Not very.
"It was obvious to all but you, Malloy."
------------------------------
From: Nicholas Murison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You have never seen Linux like this
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:47:59 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> I love it - guy posts a job opportunity - the very idea of a paid linux
> programmer - and he is told to fuck off (politely) and is kill -filed..
>
> yep, the linux community - it's own worse enemy!
>
> "Nicholas Murison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Please fuck off
> > --
> > Nicholas John Murison
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Don't mess with penguins
> > Registered Linux User #153895 http://counter.li.org
Methinks you missed my point, Drestin. Sure, I'd like a well-payed job
as much as the next guy (or girl), but spamming a newsgroup with the
same bloody message several times over using fake headers is just beyond
lameness.
Oh, by the way: I'm an INDIVIDUAL, I do not speak for the entire
community. Shall I maybe label you as one of Bill Gates's personal
cock-suckers because you're not up in arms about Linux?
--
Nicholas John Murison
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't mess with penguins
Registered Linux User #153895 http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:58:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "It was obvious to all but you, Malloy."
Who are you quoting, Dave? Resorting to using made-up quotes?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Wyn Rees)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: UNIX Linux only ISP
Date: 25 May 2000 23:04:30 GMT
+ uk.comp.os.linux, followups set there.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy on 25 May 2000 20:55:24 GMT,
Sparc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in <8gk3vs$kfp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Rebel Net is the UK's first UNIX and Linux only
> ISP.
This does not seem correct... Please clarify.
www.uklinux.net was here months before you.
And there were other 'Linux' ISPs before uklinux.net
(although I don't remember any being free).
> No windoze users allowed to connect to us, we have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> designed a service with UNIX an Linux only in mind.
This is rather silly, to say the least.
> We hope you will be interested, join the rebellion!
>
> http://www.rebel-net.co.uk/
According to the above site, a copy of Linux will
be delivered for ONLY 10 UKP. Ho, ho... Why
not try http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk and get
a copy from a rather trustworthy source, for less
than a fiver.
Darren
PS. www.rebel-net.co.uk looks almost unintelligible
with Lynx... And why not give any graphics you
insert some bloody ALT descriptions/names.
--
this is my .sig, show me yours
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 23:08:11 GMT
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > I'm sure that some will call this an example of Godwin's Law,
but
>
> SCREW GODWIN, his declaration is sheer idiocy.
>
> Anybody who claims that a discussion of historical examples is
> the end of a thread is an IDIOT>
Well, what Godwin said was that any thread that referenced Hitler
would never, ever die, but would become more and more off topic.
To look at the newsgroups line, I'd have to say he has a point,
wouldn't you? :D
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
