Linux-Advocacy Digest #807, Volume #26 Thu, 1 Jun 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (EdWIN)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (EdWIN)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (EdWIN)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (herodotus)
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (rj friedman)
Re: Neologism of the day (herodotus)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Tim Palmer)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. (Leslie Mikesell)
WINDOWS HLP file about LINUX (Brian E Boothe)
Re: news: Google Bets The Ranch On Linux. deployed 4,000 Linux servers, with plans
to increase to 6,000 (abraxas)
Re: Bob's Law (EdWIN)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (abraxas)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (EdWIN)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Nathaniel Jay
Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 06:59:08 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Karl Knechtel) wrote:
>Marty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: Not familiar with the comic stylings of Dave Tholen, eh? No
matter.
>
>On what basis do you make this claim?
Don't you know?
>: Steve White wrote:
>: >
>
>: > whom you haven't met.
>
>: On what basis do you make this claim?
>
>It would seem the burden of proof is on you.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>: > You could be his doppelganger,
>
>: On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
>
>Incorrect.
Evidence, please.
>: > but that would require you to make sense,
>
>: That would not be adequate proof that I was
his "doppelganger" (sic).
>
>Illogical.
Incorrect.
>He claims it would be necessary, not that it would be
>sufficient.
Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim.
>
>: > and you don't.
>
>: Incorrect.
>
>Prove it, if you think you can.
Unnecessary.
>: > Given your writing style, however, you might be the
doppelganger of King
>: > Kong,
>
>: Do you claim familiarity with the writing style of King
Kong? Impossible.
>
>On what basis do you make this claim.
Don't you know?
>: > Can't do a better insult than that unless you give me more
material.
>
>: You are erroneously presupposing that I desire a "better"
insult.
>
>Balderdash.
Incorrect.
> The sort of insult you "desire" is irrelevant. What you can
>prove is relevant.
Posting for entertainment purposes again, Knechtel (little
boy)? How typical.
>: > Fovell works wonders with single words at times,
>
>: How often is "at times"?
>
>Don't you know?
I see you failed to answer the question. No surprise there.
>: > but I lack his panache.
>
>: Unfortunately, that's not all you lack, given your lack of a
>:logical argument.
>How ironic.
On what basis do you make this claim?
>: > but I digress.
>
>: Why?
>
>Don't you know?
I see you failed to answer the question. No surprise there.
>: > The Kong-ness of such a venture is evident to any regular
here,
>
>: Incorrect, as "here" consists of CSMA, COOA, COLA, and COMS-
WNA.
>
>Typical pontification.
How ironic coming from Karl "Master of Pontification" Knechtel.
>: > Marty, clearly you're in the running for the ROOA
>
>: What I'm clearly in the running for is irrelevant.
>
>Incorrect.
Balderdash.
>: > though you need to work on the obtuse-ness of your writing
(as in, increase
>: > it).
>
>: Liar. The degree of my obtuse-ness is more than adequate.
>
>Is is more or less than 135 degrees?
Don't you know?
>: > let alone csma.
>
>: CSMA is irrelevant.
>
>How ironic.
Balderdash.
>: > Indeed, proof is irrelevant
>
>: Evidence, please.
>
>Illogical.
Incorrect.
>Karl Knechtel {:>
>da728 at torfree dot net
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:10:58 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>EdWIN wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > EdWIN wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >EdWIN wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> In article <1eb72ui.nmobhfvfxrinN%Fam.Traeger@t-
online.de>,
>> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?
=)
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> >Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >> Edwin wrote:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> > Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
>> > > >> >> > news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >> >> > [snip]>
>> > > >> >> > > Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never
retreating,
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > According to Goodwin's law, this thread is
officially
>> > > >> >> > dead. Move along folks. No thread to see here.
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> And how is this "law" enforced? What happens if I
keep
>> > > >> >> posting to this thread?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >Like all who oppose Microsoft, you will be send to a
camp.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Spelling Camp. ;)
>> > > >
>> > > >How ironic,
>> > >
>> > > Incorrect.
>> >
>> > Typical pontification.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
>Taking pontification lessons from Mike "Bullshit" Timbol?
[Did Tholen ever use that one? If not, you take a two point
penalty for violation of the Tholenistic Rules of Engagement.]
Tholen mode resumed: Don't you know?
>> > Taking pontification lessons from Eric "Incorrect"
>> > Bennett?
>>
>> How ironic coming from Marty "Master of Pontification."
>
>Having attribution problems, Ho You?
On what basis do you make this claim?
>> > > >coming from the person who recently wrote:
>> > > >"Now it's time for Microsoft to puck blood."
>> > >
>> > > Posting for entertainment purposes again, Marty
>> >
>> > Obviously not.
>>
>> Evidence, please.
>
>Obviously not.
Incorrect.
>> > > (little boy)?
>> >
>> > Typical invective, the usual resort of one who lacks a
logical
>> > argument.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>Self-evident.
Typical pontification. No surprise there.
>> > > How typical.
>> >
>> > How ironic.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Simple: because your pronunciation of how typical my statement
was is quite
>typical on your part.
Posting for entertainment purposes again? How typical.
>> > > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's
Discussion
>> > > Network *
>> >
>> > Yet another example of your pontification.
>>
>> Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim.
>
>How ironic, coming from the person who just foisted yet another
pontification.
>
Classic invective, laced with irony. Are you taking
pontification lessons from Eric "Master of Pontification"
Bennett again? How typical.
>> > > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in
Usenet -
>> > > Free!
>> >
>> > Where is your evidence? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>>
>> Open your eyes, Marty.
>
>Unnecessary.
Ironic.
>> Are you taking inappropriate posting lessons from Eric "Olga
and
>> Horatio" Bennett again?
>
>Non sequitur.
Incorrect. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why,
nowhere to be seen!
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:14:17 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Translation: How much libel do you think you can get away
with?
>
>
>Kong is in Singapore,
Prove it, if you think you can.
>you twit.
Typical invective.
>Unless he stows away on a container ship
Illogical.
>filled with laptop monitor parts,
Non-sequitur.
>I don't think Fovell has anything to worry about.
What you think is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
>
>steve
>
>
>reply to: steve[no space]white at mediaone dot net
Typical pontification.
* 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:20:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting abraxas from alt.destroy.microsoft; 1 Jun 2000 04:25:16 GMT
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Well, of course you can. But why do you see fit to fail to punctuate
>> contractions correctly? You just don't like things dangling above the
>> line? You had a mishap with a single quote on a bus? You lost the use
>> of your right pinky in a book-bindery explosion?
>
>Again, four words minimum.
Take ten, with my blessings, if you can stand it.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:20:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 05:19:19 GMT
>On Wed, 31 May 2000 07:50:05 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[...]
>>But let me stop right here by saying that this is only an analogy, at
>>best. Beta isn't a a brand-name product; it is a patented _technology_.
>>Windows isn't _technology_, it is a brand-name product.
>
>That's a diversion. The analogy is entirely valid and relates to
>market acceptance versus merit.
I don't agree. Particularly because Windows' popularity is
*demonstrably* not based on customer selection, but on OEM bundling.
>BTW, what type of one inch system
>does virtually the entire sub-broadcast studio use? Beta. Why?
>because of its technical/quality superiority.
Because they aren't concerned with whether they can get an entire long
movie onto one tape, that's why.
I could see *maybe* using the "VHS/Beta" analogy for the Mac v. PC
issue, though even there it is a stretch. But as soon as Windows is a
public specification, then we'll see whether operating systems work like
VCRs. And I'll certainly not be the one harping about how the "VHS -
Windows" is 'inferior' to "Beta - Linux". But technology and brand name
are not entirely the same thing, even when you're talking about
proprietary code.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
From: herodotus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:29:30 -0700
Many Windows users show the classical signs of Stockholm
Syndrome. They become ardent defenders of their captors. If Gates
sodomized them, they would thank him for the colonic massage.
* 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: 1 Jun 2000 14:31:00 GMT
On Wed, 31 May 2000 13:06:49 Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
¯> > Note: no relevant response.
¯Note: still no relevant response.
Poor little RAT. How sad it must be for him. Having gone
through the punishment of shock and the reward of food
pellets, he is so proud of himself for having been
conditioned to type.
How disappointing and incomprehensible it must be to his
little RAT intellect to discover that others have no wish to
get down to the RAT intelectual level in order to pretend to
have a discussion with it.
Poor little RATTY - how forlorn he sounds squeaking away to
himself. But it does go to show you - they may be able to
condition a RAT to type, but so far they have been woefully
unable to imbue it with the slightest rudiments of
understanding.
Maybe they should try running it through the maze a few more
times and really turn up the voltage on the shock
treatments. If it doesn't kill him, maybe it might have a
salutory effect on his self-awareness. Either way, it would
get him to stop his constant 'in your face' squeak ups.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Neologism of the day
From: herodotus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:31:34 -0700
It's the one you say when you try to use Access.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 1 Jun 2000 10:34:29 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 11:33:27 GMT, Jorge Cueto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Its not hear yet and it never will be, that's all I know.
>> Well, I am using 2.4.0-test1 and it goes perfectly, still minor bugs,
>>but improves up to 80% at hard disk access. Bugs as are small that
>>I could myself even fix them to have a full working 2.4-test1, indeed,
>>I use it as daily kernel.
>>> W2K doesnt crash. It really is stabile. Not like Linux that crashes every
>>time you move the mouse,
>>> so you half to use the Linux vursion of DOS to keep it from freezing.
>> I suppose that you are joking at here. GNU/Linux is perfectly stable.
>>Windows 2000 Professional
>>is almost perfectly stable (stable enough for desktop use indeed). Just my
>>own tests.
>>
>>> Then its the applications falt. Get real applications.
>>
>> An application can't fuck the OS, if so, the OS is as bad as my
>>vocabulary :-)
>>
>>> What does that have to do with Linux? It would crash Linux to. Liunx cant
>>do anythign withtout
>>> crashing accept show that ugly DOS prompt.
>>
>> What does this crap mean ?
>>
>>> Something has to have access to kernle space, or Linux wouldn't crash so
>>much.
>>
>> Well, I thought you were joking above, now I perfectly understand that
>>you have
>>not used GNU/Linux in your life.
>>
>>> Why can't the admin clik the "STOP PRINTING" button? Why does he half to
>>entber arcane DOS command?
>>> Because its LINXU THATS WHY!
>>
>> Again, have you ever tested Enlightenment, KDE, GNOME, iceWM, Window
>>Maker, Afterstep, BlackBox,
>>fvwm, mlwm, amiwm, etc ... ? No, but, why do you talk about you have not
>>tested ?
> That much is obvious. This is the kind of argumentation that
> comes from trusting 3rd hand reports and rumour...
>[deletia]
> Comparing a bash prompt to a DOS shell is quite simply laughable.
> WinDOS can't even compete on that basis, without even getting into
> WIMP and graphics.
Windos blos UNIX aways. Windos is a compleat systum. UNIX is only haff-built and still
neads DOS
command mode to do things.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: 1 Jun 2000 09:41:54 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>what? WHAT?! You ran a copy of NT5 and you claim it's different than W2K?
>
>NT5=W2K - this is the final fact to prove you are completely devoid of any
>knowledge of Windows NT in any way. Please cease and desist trolling this
>newsgroup until you have even a basic understanding of the products.
Aren't you the guy who pretended not to understand that following
standard conventions, Linux kernels numbered 2.3.x are betas
for release version 2.4 so you could claim the beta didn't exist
when in fact it has been publically available for a long time?
Now you think people should understand a totally arbitrary name
switch of something that was not generally available????
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: WINDOWS HLP file about LINUX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian E Boothe)
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:43:43 GMT
IVE Compiled a Windows 95/98 HLP file on LINUX for Newbies includes alot
of helpfull information for the linux Newbie if ya like to get this HELP
file please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and i can send it to ya
THANKS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: news: Google Bets The Ranch On Linux. deployed 4,000 Linux servers, with
plans to increase to 6,000
Date: 1 Jun 2000 14:53:32 GMT
Jorge Cueto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Google said it turned to Red Hat (stock: RHAT) Linux primarily
>> because of the cost. The OS itself costs nothing, compared
>> with $500 to $900 per server for Windows servers.
> $900 is too much for a company ? Let's be serious. I agree in that
> GNU/Linux is cheap, but price does not seem to me important in
> this case. If they use GNU/Linux, I encourage them to do, but, primary
> because of the cost ?
Do you know what a license for 6000 copies of W2K server costs?
>> And the
>> hardware is also cheap. Red Hat runs on commodity white-box
>> PCs rather than more expensive RISC Unix servers."
> The same that above. If you want, you can buy a good Solaris by a
> good price. Again, okay to use Linux, but, how much money do Google
> manage ? $10 a week ? Can't understand. Besides, white-box PCs
> hardware is awful compared to a server destined hardware, isn't it ?
> They would need to balance among several machines to achieve normal
> PC's fail tolerance when happen.
900x6000=5400000. Thats 5,400,000 dollars to you and me. Thats not too
shabby for a network that can kick living shit out of the similarly
priced sun hardware. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bob's Law
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:53:21 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Lyday wrote:
>>
>> EdWIN wrote:
>> >
>> > >> > > >>>>>> We sic Tholen onto you.
>>
>> Bob's Law invoked. Tholen mentioned. Thread is now
officially dead.
>
>This thread is much like OS/2.
Typical pontification.
>Declared as officially
Illogical.
>dead by so many,
How many is many?
>yet it
>keeps on going. :-)
Prove it, if you think you can.
>
* 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 1 Jun 2000 14:56:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting abraxas from alt.destroy.microsoft; 1 Jun 2000 04:25:16 GMT
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, of course you can. But why do you see fit to fail to punctuate
>>> contractions correctly? You just don't like things dangling above the
>>> line? You had a mishap with a single quote on a bus? You lost the use
>>> of your right pinky in a book-bindery explosion?
>>
>>Again, four words minimum.
> Take ten, with my blessings, if you can stand it.
I dont like apostrophes.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:56:56 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
herodotus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Many Windows users show the classical signs of Stockholm
>Syndrome. They become ardent defenders of their captors. If
Gates
>sodomized them, they would thank him for the colonic massage.
These are just the kinds of remarks that turn casual Windows
users into ardent Mac bashers. Too bad you didn't get the
intent of the orginal post. :-P
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's
Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in
Usenet - Free!
>
>
* 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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 09:58:53 -0500
Monkeyboy wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathaniel Jay Lee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (deleted)
>
> > Actually, he has stated this many times to management. He has went to
> > management over and over and hit them in the head with the proverbial
> > baseball bat. I have seen him say right in front of the company owner
> > (if not directly to the company owner) that Linux is complete shit and
> > we have to use Windows to even think about getting work done. This is
> > his main argument. And the only one that he ever seems to bring up. I
> > say, if that sort of argument continues to work with management I don't
> > want to be here. The fact is, when the guy complains I always do the
> > same thing. I ask him what he needs to do (and yes, I am polite to
> > him), I show him how to accomplish it with the software already
> > installed on his machine, and I ask him if he need something more, or if
> > the software will do what he wants. He always tells me that will work
> > fine, then runs straight to my boss (the money man) and tells him that
> > Linux is a complete pile of shit and we need to have Windows. I'm
> > sorry, but I'm not going to convert the goddamn network to Windows. I
> > know it, I've done it before, I'm not fucking interested in spending the
> > rest of my life supporting something that is basically unsupportable. I
> > enjoy administering Linux or other Unix type systems (BSD and Solaris in
> > my experience at the moment). There are plenty of ISP jobs for these
> > types of systems in my area, it just pisses me off that I have to look
> > for another job because one person out of the whole company can't deal
> > with a little learning. What a bunch of crap.
>
> Blackmail is one option. Set him up with a 20 dollar prostitute,
> preferably on the company's parking lot. Have her approach him. Make
> sure that a crack pipe is somewhere in plain sight, when you take your
> Polaroid pictures. Keep the sun or other light sources behind you when
> you take the pictures and preferably do it through the open car window
> (must coordinate with the whore) so as to avoid distracting reflections
> and glare. Long distance telephoto lenses are good too but to get the
> juicy details there is no substitute for a close-up.
>
> M
This is a really good idea. Come to think of it, I have a digital
camera. A few pictures like that set up on the company intranet,
WHOO-HOO! No more Winders bitchin.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[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
******************************
