Linux-Advocacy Digest #32, Volume #27 Sun, 11 Jun 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Jim Richardson)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux in the Reject Bin at CompUSA ("Kevin Bean")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (tholenbot)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Michael Marion)
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (I R A Darth Aggie)
Re: vote on MS split-up ("David ..")
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (I R A Darth Aggie)
Hummer / Station wagon parallel (David Grogan)
Re: Linux Game Available (Michael Simms)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (One True Kong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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.
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:41:04 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 Jun 2000 10:39:20 -0500,
Tim Palmer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 2 Jun 2000 08:17:10 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Tim Palmer schreef:
>>>>>
>>>>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>>>>> >Tim Palmer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Windos blos UNIX aways. Windos is a compleat systum. UNIX is only haff-built
>and still neads DOS
>>>>> >> command mode to do things.
>>[deletia]
>>>>Are you even aware of the fact that Unix and DOS are two
>>>>different things entirely? It's like comparing a bicycle to the
>>>>space shuttle!
>>>
>>>Yes. UNIX is the bycicle, and Windows is the space shuttle.
>>
>> Then that is why Windows is still only being used by
>> the 'bicycle' crowd whereas for real work more mature
>> systems (like Unix even) are used instead.
>>
>
>What maiks you think that? Windows is everywhere. Version's of it run on home PC's
>and on large
>corparate networks. The fastest sistem on the TPC/C list (the space shuttal) runs
>Windows 2000.
>UNIX is used by a bunch of wining geeks on there old 386's (bycicals) because they
>do'nt think Bill
>Gaits desserves the money they woud halve to spend on a computer that can run Windos.
Are you seriously contending that the Space shuttle runs W2k? or any varient of
windows? ROTFLMAO!
"Houston, we have a problem"
"No, you have an issue, not a problem..."
"Houst...."....
Thanks Tim, despite the DrPepper I just snorted out my nasal cavities at the
thought of the Shuttle running on M$ anything, I am glad you are here.
Keep posting, keep making such funny statements, you're useful.
>
>> Stupid Shell tricks may seem 'cryptic' or 'primitive' to
>> you but they allow me to do things with my desktop
>> enviroment that just leave Windows users like you drooling
>> and stupified.
>>
>
>Oh, you mean shit like:
>
> finger -s $(cat /etc/passwd|awk -F: '{ print $1 }')
>
><sarcrasm>
>Wow! Those Stoopid Shell Tricks are life-savers! What wood I ever do without them?
></sarcrasm>
In this case, I'd use cut -d: -f 1 instead of the awk, but same diff.
Of course, then I'd pump it into a python or perl script to do something with
info. Like emailing everyone currently logged in to server foo that it was
going to go down for new widget installation (assuming server foo is running
PC class hw and can't deal with hot swap cpus or memory &etc)
>> No, Unix has a variety of shell interpreters that can be
>> interchanged (something DOS can't do) and they may or
>> may not be text based. All features of the OS besides the
>
>There all text-baised, it doess'nt matter wether its' BASH or TCSH or ASH or KSH or
>anything-SH.
Sure it does, the feature sets are different.
>
>> shiny happy desktop are available from the 'text shell'
>> whereas a Win9x DOS instance by itself is nearly totally
>> crippled (no devices, no networking, no multitasking).
>>
>
And here are some of the differences between MS-DOS CLi and a modern shell,
why did you ignore it?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:38:20 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10 Jun 2000 15:40:35 GMT,
Rob S. Wolfram, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yep. Let them start writing it up, then I'll let mine review it and I
>>> get back to you. Oh, and it would be nice to inform the groups of the
>>> conditions the lawyers wrote up.
>>
>>Of course, we can post a PDF of the documents.
>
>It would be wiser to put the PDF's on a webpage and post the URL here.
>Binaries are not appreciated in a text-only newsgroup.
>
>>> >Oh, and we'll do it this way: I'll put $5000 in an escrow account and YOU
>>> >will put $15,000 in that same escrow account (drawing interest in your
>>> >favor, of course, you can even keep the interest afterwards).
>>>
>>> Nope. I said I *sell* it to you. Put up or shut up.
>>
>>My attorney told me that's what would happen. As soon as you are serious and
>>real money is involved, the other party either comes to the table or fades.
>>When you can anty up, let me know.
>
>First of all, English is not my native language. What does "anty up"
>mean? I couldn't find it in Webster or Wordnet...
Well, he misspelled it. Ante up is the phrase, and it is from poker,
where an "Ante" is the money put in to be in the game in the first
place. Don't know the etymology further than that. Ante up means basically
"pay up", "put up or shut up", etc.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Kevin Bean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in the Reject Bin at CompUSA
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:41:35 -0700
Who cares is the real issue.
I think the person who posted it is likely a newbie who lost his/her Hdd,
and wants to complain...
My point is, the synagogue is no place to dis JHVH, and a Linux message
board is an unlikely place to seek allies against Linux
Regards,
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Yep, just visited the local CompUSA here and found
> > Redhat/SuSE and the various Linux PowerPacks in
> > the reject bin selling for $20.00 or less (mostly
> > $9.99).
> >
> > Some packages were opened and resealed but others
> > were brand new.
> >
> > I asked the store manager about it and she said
> > that Linux has been one of the worst sellers they
> > have ever had. Virtually every copy returned.
> >
> > She added that most sales were returned by irate
> > customers pissed off at Linux for "erasing" their
> > hard drives.
> >
> > Sounds like Linux is gaining market share
> > alright......Not!!!!
>
> I have seen this post a couple times, yet every time I go to CompUSA, I
> *never* see Linux anything in the discount bin. I do see lots of Windows
> programs, but never a single Linux distribution or program.
>
> So, the story, at least from perspective, is one of two things. Region
> dependent or a lie. We must leave it to the humble reader to make up
> their own mind.
>
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
> sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:55:07 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> No, I think an experiment is in order.....
What you think is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
> Muahahhahahhaha! Photoshop Snap Dragon!
Illogical.
--
On what basis do you claim that many facts about the square of the
hypotenuse are "cheerful"?
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:57:56 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
> Are you really a complete idiot, or do you just play one on Usenet?
Check out my post:
http://x69.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=630992568&CONTEXT=960771388.1074659359&hitnum=0
For my opinion on him...
you'll probably agree.
I note that after I made the post, he suddenly vanished from that
thread.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"In the closed-source world, Version 1.0 means "Don't touch this if
you're prudent."; in the open-source world it reads more like "The
developers are willing to bet their reputations on this." - Eric Raymond
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: 12 Jun 2000 01:18:59 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:34:30 GMT,
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
<amV05.176239$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ I R A Darth Aggie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ > On 11 Jun 2000 13:48:02 -0700,
+ > peter44@- <peter44@->, in
+ > <8i0tu2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ >
+ > + Knowing apple is anti-command line company, this means OSX will likely
+ > + come with no or crippled command line just like their previouse pathatic
+ > + OS's.
+ >
+ > Do you even know the roots of MacOS X? one of its ancestors is NeXTStep,
+ > a BSD-based OS.
+
+ Yup. That's right. The _GUI_ of MacOS is based on NeXTStep. That's it -- no
+ other comparisions here...
+
+ Certainly not the shell...
*cough*cough*BSD and a Mach kernel...
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
From: "David .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:07:31 -0500
David Steuber wrote:
>
> Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ' ... only becasue the governemnt was able to M$ into court, and the
> ' resulting very real legal threat to M$'s continued existence .
>
> Yeah, Big Brother is watching out for you. Trust Big Brother. He
> knows what's best for you and can solve all your problems and give you
> everything you need.
>
> Give the FSF and other open source groups and people some credit, why
> don'tchya?
It wasn't the DOJ that started MS's Problems.
Enough said.
--
Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: 12 Jun 2000 01:21:41 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On 11 Jun 2000 16:20:51 -0700,
peter444@- <peter444@->, in
<8i16sj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ Yes, I know, I know also that part of its kernel is taken from
+ freeBSD.
+
+ Your point is?
Just beyond your grasp.
+ Just becuase the kernel is from another Unix kernel means nothing.
+ It is only the kernel. The shell is not in the kernel you idiot.
No, it isn't. But unlike the Ghost of MacOS' past, it could be added.
It's also been in the developer's releases.
+ Does OSX come with bash??
We won't know until it ships.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
From: David Grogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Hummer / Station wagon parallel
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 21:33:33 -0400
A while ago I read an article/essay paralleling the OS situation with a
place to get cars where linux was like a hummer that you could work on
yourself and windows was a station wagon with the hood welded shut. But
now, for the life of me, I cannot find it. Anyone got the URL? Thanks
a lot...
David
------------------------------
From: Michael Simms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Game Available
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:47:56 +0100
Hi
Well, thanks for the flames from several people, its refreshing to see
usenet hasnt quietened down from flaming the people that are at least
trying to post things that are useful. Lets see, my title was accurate
and non-misleading and I admitted that it was only partially
advocacy-related, but no matter that it was only partially, it WAS
advocacy-related.
A brief nettiquette refresher:
1 ) I slightly bent nettiquette by posting an article that was only half
on topic
2 ) Replies involved a one line reply quoting my entire article
3 ) Flames were sent to the group, instead of to my email address.
Please, before flaming me for a slight bending of nettiquette, dont
completely break two of the rules yourself.
Now, to respond to the comment I wanted to respond to:
> By "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Yes, but note also that they are putting both versions in the same box. (At
> least that's how I read it.) So how are they going to separate the sales
> figures for the Linux version vs. the Windows version?
>
> Unless it's by how many of each type of machine log into the host server(s).
>
> -- Rich C.
This is most of the reason I wanted to push the game, Tux Games is the
only dedicated Linux supplier. Phantom EFX has said that they will be
looking at the sales we generate to determine if their future titles are
worth porting.
Their other retailers are all either generic or windows-only.
THIS is why I wanted to draw some attention to it. Trust me, we make
about $1.20 per sale of this game, it is NOT worth my time financially
to post here. However I WANT gaming for Linux to thrive! I want games
companies to look at Linux and say 'There is a market we cannot miss'. I
dont care if you buy it from Tux Games or someone else, as long as the
developers know that the sale is for a Linux copy. Obviously Tux Games
is the company I founded and I would like it to continue to succede, but
I founded it because *I LOVE LINUX AND WANT IT TO SUCCEDE* and this is
my contribution.
If you want, phone up the developing company and order a copy direct
from them and tell them you are buying it for Linux. That is FINE with
me. So Tux Games doesnt make $1.20 or so profit. That isnt the issue for
us. The issue is that the developer sees the demand!
If I was simply trying to push games I would have posted for every one
of the other 40 products we sell. I didnt, because it WAS NOT RELAVENT!
This is! This makes a difference to the possible future Linux support by
a commercial games developer.
To further respond:
> By "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> PS: Also check out that these are all gambling games. Next he will post
> gambling links.
I would have posted mostly the same kind of thing no matter what the
game was, if it was important.
I quoted the name of the game, so nobody would have any surprises.
Suggesting I would post links for gambling, well, how would that help
Linux, Linux advocacy, or Linux gaming? It wouldnt, so I wouldnt.
I am SURE some people will take exception to what I have posted here
(hey, it wouldnt be usenet if every article didnt get at least ONE
flame) but please, do not flame to the newsgroup. Send it to my email
address. That way people who start frothing wont make Linux advocates
look like raving zealots, which doesnt help anyones cause. I promise I
will read each flame and be very offended by every one I get {:-)
Michael Simms
Tux Games
ps. I do not use a spellchecker, so I am aware there are spelling
mistakes and typos above. Please feel free to flame those in personal
email too, if it will make you feel better.
--
Tux Games - http://www.tuxgames.com
We supply the games that will distract you from working.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:47:36 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:34:21 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>> Such as? What are they? Where can I see your work? I went to
>> www.mohawksoft.com and saw no evidence of the sophisticated programs you
>> have developed. Where are they being used?
>
>Mohawksoft.com is my personal website, not that of people that have
>hired me.
I repeat my above questions to you. What major software products have you
developed so that I can review your source? You are an open source
advocate, so obviously you have "many projects of 250k lines" (your own
claim) whose source I can review (unless you are a hypocrite). Can you
please post a URL to your code?
>> How do you know the size of the file up front? What if you are reading
>> from a pipe?
>
>Then of course, it would fail, but that is a reasonable condition to
>code for if this is a general purpose routine.
No it's not. Any program which is developed on Unix needs to work with
pipes. If you don't, you are not harnessing the power of the Unix tool
chain. This is the point.
>> For starters, you cannot mmap a pipe. Since you are a Unix developer, you
>> are used to going for the "90% solution" - but the rest of us wants code
>> which will work for every case, including pipes. True you can attempt to
>> mmap it, but think of this as the failover function for when mmap fails.
>
>OK, you can't mmap a pipe. That is a reasonable exception and should be
>coded for, however, realloc is an expensive function, a general purpose
>function should not suffer performance for a single bad condition.
If you don't like the realloc's, make BUFLEN infinite. Then it will only
realloc when input is coming slowly. There is _no_ way around this,
however much of a wizard programmer you think you are. You _can_
incrememnt the realloc'd buffer in larger increments, but then you waste
your space. It's a trade-off: time or memory. I chose memory. Since you
think you know the answer to this tradeoff in the general sense, I'd sure
like to hear your explanation.
>> Furthermore is mmap portable? Does it work in VMS? OS/2? Windows? Some old
>> VAX with an ancient version of Ultrix installed? My code is portable and
>> will work anywhere ANSI C is present.
>
>mmap is portable as a concept. No major system in use today does not
>support this ability. And note, "try to use mmap."
But you don't know the design goal of the program. If the main design goal
was portability, it would indeed be considerably smarter to use fread and
realloc instead of mmap. You are applying your own contrived standards to
the code, not because you are interested in bettering the code, but
because you are interested in making me look bad.
>> Finally, if you need to make internal modifications to work with
>> the data (which you almost always need to do), you need to make a copy of
>> it _anyways_. Better now than never.
>
>But no changes are made in your example. You read into a buffer and then
>memcpy into another buffer. That is bad programming no matter how you
>look at it.
You don't understand.
The function is called "read_in_file". It is understood that this function
simply reads in a file. Obviously the caller would do parsing and the
like.
Somewhere in engineering your dozens of 250k line, high profile projects
which users all over the world rejoice is using, you may have heard of a
concept of "modular programming". If you have 50 different file formats to
parse in a single program, you use a common function to read in the file,
and a different function for each parser. This is basic, basic software
engineering.
You need two buffers because you don't know how much input is available
before you get the input. Which part of this don't you understand?
>> I cannot use the original malloc buffer because I do not know the size of
>> the what is left to read ahead of time. I get the size as a return value
>> from fread, and do not know it ahead of time. That could be worked around
>> with select, granted, but then you run into portability problems.
>
>You should not be assuming the nature of the buffer passed in to you.
>Period. If you are going to manipulate the pointer in any way, you must
>allocated it.
I believe your confusion stems from your misunderstanding of realloc.
Let me briefly quote the program again (abbreviated)
.... func ( .... char **ptr ....)
{
....
*ptr = NULL; <-- Are you complaining about this?
....
while (....)
{
....
*ptr = realloc(*ptr ....); <-- Or this?
....
}
....
}
If I understand your argument correctly, you are claiming that I may
potentially be trying to realloc stack memory.
You are wildly incorrect.
The function is passed a pointer to a virgin pointer. This virgin pointer
is immediately set to NULL. The virgin pointer, when realloc'd the first
time, does the same as a malloc - it gets new memory.
Apparently you do not understand the basic function call realloc. When
passed NULL, it is the same as malloc.
>> As can any function which returns a pointer.
>
>Not true. You make an assumption of the nature of the pointer. This is
>out and out bad.
No I am not. You do not understand you realloc works. I am not trying to
realloc stack memory. The fact that you even thought this shows how
inexperienced you are. Weren't you the guy who thought A20 had something
to do with the ffffh segment?
>> You cannot use the return value for the return pointer; using the return
>> value for anything but the status is bad manners.
>
>That's OK, but you did pass in the address of the pointer which you
>manipulate. There is no need for it to be a valid pointer. You could
>easily have done the initial malloc. In fact, should have.
I ___do____ perform the original malloc. This is what realloc(NULL) does.
Which part of this don't you understand? I'm here to help you understand
this.
>> So could strcpy. Would you fire the author of strcpy?
>
>Yes, but strcpy has a documented behavior, yours does not advertise, nor
>have the ability to check, that a pointer must have been allocated from
>the heap. The closest C library function to your routine is strdup,
>which allocates the memory itself.
My program will work if the original pointer to a pointer is on the heap
or the stack. The _dereferenced_ pointer to a pointer (i.e. the pointer)
is assumed to be uninitialized, and is set to NULL at the top of the
program. When this (NULL) is realloc'd, it has the same effect as malloc,
for the n'th time.
>> And miss those lucrative MohwakSoft options. The horror!
>
>No work at a company where I get pulled into the interview process.
>Believe me, you've heard of them.
I find it greatly amusing that you think you are so much better than
everybody else because you are in the hiring process for a famous company.
I'm an engineer for a Fortune 500 computer company ("Believe me, you've
heard of them"), and I'm part of the interview process also, but I don't
go around using that as part of my credibility, threatening to not to hire
people, when I make technical mistakes on the newsgroup. You have
completely unimpressed me with your technical knowledge so far, and have
made several extrememly serious technical blunders in this discussion; it
seems you are far more interested in wielding your power as a hirer/firer
than in making sound technical judgments.
>For the sake of argument, I would not hire an engineer that would
>require micromanagement. Once I have buy-in, I don't want to hear a
>thing until it is done, or news of a problem, far in advance of it being
>serious.
Mmmm, so what do you do all day? It sounds like you're a manager, not an
engineer.
>Short of that, I want to see sandals, Frisbees, and long lunches on
>fridays.
Oh dear. Not much room for professionalism?
>> 2. The code I wrote was written as an example of a specific type of
>> programming. It was not intended to be production code.
>
>Obviously. It is a bad design. There can be no argument. If there is,
>you are arguing for the sake of the argument.
There was ___one___ bug in it (which you couldn't even identify), which
was easily fixable. From a portability standpoint, it is the best design
possible. I challenge you to code a portable function which does the same
thing, better. Most of your flames for the code came because you didn't
understand what the code does, which seriously calls into question your
credibility.
>> Nice. Care to disclose your turnover rate?
>
>0, I hire right. None of the people I have ever hired at a company have
>ever been fired. Conversely, people that have worked for me have come to
>other companies to work for me again. People that have hired me in one
>company, have hired me in other companies.
How many people have you hired?
Speaking for myself.
------------------------------
From: One True Kong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:49:51 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <8i17dp$hll$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > > in
> > > message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Illogical, given that the posting is in this newsgroup, not your
> > > > > > garden.
> > > > >
> > > > > Usenet posts need not be solely self-referential.
> > > >
> > > > I see that, having found it hot "out there", you have taken over the
> > > > tending of Chris Pott's balderdash garden. How predictable.
> > >
> > > Is a balderdash what grows if you bury a Tholen ?
> > >
> >
> > Ask Chris Pott, it's his balderdash garden.
> >
>
> No, I think an experiment is in order.....
>
> Muahahhahahhaha! Photoshop Snap Dragon!
Muahahhahahahaha! Not Photoshop Snap Dragon! Photoshop Bamboo! Snap sound
comes when Bamboo strap strops and shops my butt, with or without photo!
Muahahhahahahaha!
--
The One True Kong
©2000 The Church of Kong, Inc.
"Muahahhahahhaha!" -- Me.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
