Linux-Advocacy Digest #82, Volume #27 Wed, 14 Jun 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Boring ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Perry Pip)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux.... (Michael Marion)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: BSOD in the airport (Michael Marion)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Boring (JEDIDIAH)
Sorry ... but I can't stop laughing at this!! (Was: Boring (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:33:25 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:51:24 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>The point is that the retail products currently being called operating
>>>systems - things like Windows, MacOS, Redhat Linux, Solaris, etc. -
>>>have nothing to do with the academic definition of the term "operating
>>>system". They all *INCLUDE* things the scientists would call operating
>>>systems, but they also all include much more. Therefore, it's totally
>>>unfair to restrict Microsoft from including in Windows functionality
>>>that falls outside the academic definition of "operating system",
>>
>> That is not what is occuring.
>>
>
>Of course it is.
No it isn't. Very little is actually bundled with most operating
systems. Typically it is just enough to manage the system itself.
These include the sorts of things that WinDOS didn't originally
bundle but eventually did over the years.
Also, those things which could be considered actual applications
were typically never "featurefull" enough to serve to eliminate
the need for 3rd part vendors.
>
>>
>> You lie to imply otherwise.
>>
>
>I'm just stating my observations. You lie to imply otherwise.
What Netscapes have the practices of Apple, IBM, Solaris or
the Linux distributors been running out of business with thier
practices. The 'most generous' of the lot, the Linux distributor
don't hopeless entangle bundled applictions into the OS and usually
offer as many choices as the market has. Preferential arangements
just aren't there.
>
>>
>> Microsoft has been quite able to bundle elements not
>> academically OS components for over a decade now without
>> any serious complaint. They've been allowed to increase
>> what they have been bundling while putting 3rd party
>> vendors out of business, for over a decade, without any
>> serious complaint.
>>
>
>Agreed. I used to work for just such a company. It was in the business
>of providing TCP/IP stacks for PCs.
That is something that can arguably considered to be an OS service
as it is management of a shared resource. In this area, the greatest
problem wasn't that the 3rd party vendors were being made obsolete
but that the Win9x install trashed their DLL's.
>
>>
>> They crossed a line with Netscape between system utility
>> and end user application.
>>
>
>First of all, that's a ridiculous claim. For one thing, "system
>utility" is just as academic a term as "operating system", and we've
No it isn't. The former are basic tools used to manage the
system, things beyond a kernel that need to be there to be
able to use that kernel.
>already agreed that such terms are irrelevant when it comes to product
>design. In addition, in products like Windows, Solaris, Redhat, and
>MacOS, the line has never even existed, because all these products
>have always included end-user applications.
Who was put out of buisiness by mspaint?
[deletia]
>> NO ONE ELSE bundles a web browser with the express intent
>> of preventing 3rd party vendors from being able to stay
>> in business developing alternatives.
>>
>
>I totally reject your assertion that Microsoft bundled a browser only
Too bad. Their own corporate communications entered into
public record state otherwise.
>to hurt Netscape. If that had truly been their sole intention, they
>would have had no reason to redesign IE prior to bundling it. In fact,
>the version that was bundled (unlike the original version) was about
>as far away from a typical end-user application as it could be. It had
>been redesigned from the ground up as a system component. That's why
>it not only added Web browsing capabilities to Windows, but it also
>enhanced the help system, the desktop, the file manager, and the API.
No it didn't. It was more of an annoyance than anything else.
Also, spliting up an application into multiple pieces doesn't
make it any less of an application. You could apply your same
perverse logic to msoffice.
When MS decides to do so, you'll probably be right behind them
on it if you aren't already.
[deletia]
>best a quarter of the effort. What did you mean by it?
>
>>>>
>>>> Thus 32bit consumer Windows with a reasonable desktop shell in
>>>>1995 rather than 1985.
>>>>
>>>
>>>According to whose definition of "reasonable"? Yours? Give me a break.
>>
>> Yours actually.
>>
>
>Huh?
>
>>>
>>>Microsoft designed and implemented a modern operating system - fully
>>>preemptive, multithreaded, robust, virtual memory, etc. - back in the
>>>mid '80's. In fact, they wanted it to be fully 32-bit and target the
>>>then-upcoming Intel 80386, but their partner IBM insisted on it being
>>>able to run on their 16-bit PC-AT. That OS was OS/2 1.x. Look it up.
>>
>> So? QNX ran fine on a 8088 & it didn't hurt it any. That's a
>> side effect of sane system design,
>>
>
>No, it's a side effect of having a consumer market share of zero and
>the backward compatibility implications of such a market share.
IOW, Microsoft just weren't up to it. They couldn't manage the
feats that both IBM and Apple managed. Legacy support is no
excuse for shoveling crap.
>
>>
>> things advocated by the
>> academics you show such obvious anti-intellectual bias against.
>>
>
>You've got me all wrong. I am not biased against all academics - only
>those who mistakenly believe they know anything about commercial
>software product design.
What makes "commercial software" so magical?
>
>>
>> Besides, a product in the labs doesn't mean squat if your captive
>> customer base is still stuck doing manual memory management.
>>
>
>Umm, we were talking about OS/2 1.x, a product that made it well past
>the labs, yet was totally rejected by the market due to insufficient
>backward compatibility and despite its academically superior design
That's the first I've heard of it actually.
>and implementation.
>
>>>>
>>>> Prior to August 1995, the 'market leader' was still subjecting fools
>>>>like you to DOS, yes that's MS-DOS, 10 YEARS after the introduction of the
>>>>Macintosh and the 386.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is total bullshit, Jed. I was running OS/2 1.x with a nice GUI
>>>back in 1988. In 1992 I was running Windows NT. These were both
>>
>> Both of these were limited scope non-consumer systems.
>>
>
>Nevertheless, my point stands. It wasn't Microsoft that subjected
>consumers to MS-DOS until 1995. On the contrary, Microsoft tried all
Yes it was. IBM had a better OS in the wings and Microsoft
chose to push it over DOS, despite the DOS compatibility
being there and even the Win16 compatibility being there.
>it could to move consumers to a real OS. Unfortunately, consumers
>chose the path of best backward compatibility, subjecting themselves
>to MS-DOS until 1995.
No, consumers chose what was being shoved down the throats OEMs.
[deletia]
>>>former), and were both solid, modern GUI operating systems. MacOS in
>>>2000 is still a joke as far as OS design is concerned. It's a great
>>
>> ...not compared to the competition. It still manages to be
>> more robust in some ways (registry) than the most numerous
>> competitor.
>>
>
>Sorry, but I have to challenge you on this registry thing.
You must be joking? It can't even reliably survive a power hit.
The Mac may be more likely to crash, but when Windows goes down
it very likely won't come back up again.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:36:59 GMT
Nope, I deal with more Fortune 100 customers in a day than most
yo-yo's in this forum deal with in their entire lifetime.
This is the real world, unlike the Carnival of COLA....
Linux seems to be universally hated in this real world.
Sometimes for invalid reasons and sometimes for good reasons.
Doesn't matter as the end result is that Linux, in reality, not the
minds of the advocates, is going nowhere.
I see it everyday....
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:17:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
wrote:
>Are you sure you weren't looking in the mirror speaking to another one
>of your schizophrenic personalities?? That would be quite consistent
>with your posting behavior on Usenet.
>
>Perry
>
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:02:55 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>This morning in fact. One of the top booksellers in the country. They
>>are mostly IBM based but have Sun and HP also as well as rack after
>>rack of Compaq Pro stuff. Linux was a miserable experience for them
>>and it has been jettisoned from their upgrade plans.
>>
>>The DP manager turned green when I asked him about Linux and went into
>>this whole dissertation about hackers, comprimised security and so
>>forth.
>>
>>Sounds like Linux made a great impression on them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:57:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:06:07 GMT,
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Nobody is interested in Linux, nobody that I speak with anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry to burst your bubble but when was the last time you actually
>>>spoke to another human being face to face?? Your "social life" over
>>>the Internet doesn't count.
>>>
>>>Perry
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:30:55 GMT
On 14 Jun 2000 16:29:12 -0500,
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Now, it's tommorro. What happens when the average user doesnt' remember wheather it's
>"scanimage"
>or "scanpicture" or, worse, yet, when the user does'nt remember what's supposed to go
>in front of
>the word "scanner"?
>
You type Ctrl-R and search your command history to get the command you
entered the day before. Duh....you haven't used Linux very much, have
you?? Why don't you actually learn how to use an OS before you make
comparisons to other OS's??
Perry
------------------------------
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: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:40:12 GMT
I hope that somebody will someday teach you how to speak English......
If English is NOT your primary language than I apologize.
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:33:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:51:24 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>The point is that the retail products currently being called operating
>>>>systems - things like Windows, MacOS, Redhat Linux, Solaris, etc. -
>>>>have nothing to do with the academic definition of the term "operating
>>>>system". They all *INCLUDE* things the scientists would call operating
>>>>systems, but they also all include much more. Therefore, it's totally
>>>>unfair to restrict Microsoft from including in Windows functionality
>>>>that falls outside the academic definition of "operating system",
>>>
>>> That is not what is occuring.
>>>
>>
>>Of course it is.
>
> No it isn't. Very little is actually bundled with most operating
> systems. Typically it is just enough to manage the system itself.
> These include the sorts of things that WinDOS didn't originally
> bundle but eventually did over the years.
>
> Also, those things which could be considered actual applications
> were typically never "featurefull" enough to serve to eliminate
> the need for 3rd part vendors.
>
>>
>>>
>>> You lie to imply otherwise.
>>>
>>
>>I'm just stating my observations. You lie to imply otherwise.
>
> What Netscapes have the practices of Apple, IBM, Solaris or
> the Linux distributors been running out of business with thier
> practices. The 'most generous' of the lot, the Linux distributor
> don't hopeless entangle bundled applictions into the OS and usually
> offer as many choices as the market has. Preferential arangements
> just aren't there.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Microsoft has been quite able to bundle elements not
>>> academically OS components for over a decade now without
>>> any serious complaint. They've been allowed to increase
>>> what they have been bundling while putting 3rd party
>>> vendors out of business, for over a decade, without any
>>> serious complaint.
>>>
>>
>>Agreed. I used to work for just such a company. It was in the business
>>of providing TCP/IP stacks for PCs.
>
> That is something that can arguably considered to be an OS service
> as it is management of a shared resource. In this area, the greatest
> problem wasn't that the 3rd party vendors were being made obsolete
> but that the Win9x install trashed their DLL's.
>
>>
>>>
>>> They crossed a line with Netscape between system utility
>>> and end user application.
>>>
>>
>>First of all, that's a ridiculous claim. For one thing, "system
>>utility" is just as academic a term as "operating system", and we've
>
> No it isn't. The former are basic tools used to manage the
> system, things beyond a kernel that need to be there to be
> able to use that kernel.
>
>>already agreed that such terms are irrelevant when it comes to product
>>design. In addition, in products like Windows, Solaris, Redhat, and
>>MacOS, the line has never even existed, because all these products
>>have always included end-user applications.
>
> Who was put out of buisiness by mspaint?
>
>[deletia]
>>> NO ONE ELSE bundles a web browser with the express intent
>>> of preventing 3rd party vendors from being able to stay
>>> in business developing alternatives.
>>>
>>
>>I totally reject your assertion that Microsoft bundled a browser only
>
> Too bad. Their own corporate communications entered into
> public record state otherwise.
>
>>to hurt Netscape. If that had truly been their sole intention, they
>>would have had no reason to redesign IE prior to bundling it. In fact,
>>the version that was bundled (unlike the original version) was about
>>as far away from a typical end-user application as it could be. It had
>>been redesigned from the ground up as a system component. That's why
>>it not only added Web browsing capabilities to Windows, but it also
>>enhanced the help system, the desktop, the file manager, and the API.
>
> No it didn't. It was more of an annoyance than anything else.
> Also, spliting up an application into multiple pieces doesn't
> make it any less of an application. You could apply your same
> perverse logic to msoffice.
>
> When MS decides to do so, you'll probably be right behind them
> on it if you aren't already.
>
>
>[deletia]
>>best a quarter of the effort. What did you mean by it?
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus 32bit consumer Windows with a reasonable desktop shell in
>>>>>1995 rather than 1985.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>According to whose definition of "reasonable"? Yours? Give me a break.
>>>
>>> Yours actually.
>>>
>>
>>Huh?
>>
>>>>
>>>>Microsoft designed and implemented a modern operating system - fully
>>>>preemptive, multithreaded, robust, virtual memory, etc. - back in the
>>>>mid '80's. In fact, they wanted it to be fully 32-bit and target the
>>>>then-upcoming Intel 80386, but their partner IBM insisted on it being
>>>>able to run on their 16-bit PC-AT. That OS was OS/2 1.x. Look it up.
>>>
>>> So? QNX ran fine on a 8088 & it didn't hurt it any. That's a
>>> side effect of sane system design,
>>>
>>
>>No, it's a side effect of having a consumer market share of zero and
>>the backward compatibility implications of such a market share.
>
> IOW, Microsoft just weren't up to it. They couldn't manage the
> feats that both IBM and Apple managed. Legacy support is no
> excuse for shoveling crap.
>
>>
>>>
>>> things advocated by the
>>> academics you show such obvious anti-intellectual bias against.
>>>
>>
>>You've got me all wrong. I am not biased against all academics - only
>>those who mistakenly believe they know anything about commercial
>>software product design.
>
> What makes "commercial software" so magical?
>
>>
>>>
>>> Besides, a product in the labs doesn't mean squat if your captive
>>> customer base is still stuck doing manual memory management.
>>>
>>
>>Umm, we were talking about OS/2 1.x, a product that made it well past
>>the labs, yet was totally rejected by the market due to insufficient
>>backward compatibility and despite its academically superior design
>
> That's the first I've heard of it actually.
>
>>and implementation.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Prior to August 1995, the 'market leader' was still subjecting fools
>>>>>like you to DOS, yes that's MS-DOS, 10 YEARS after the introduction of the
>>>>>Macintosh and the 386.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is total bullshit, Jed. I was running OS/2 1.x with a nice GUI
>>>>back in 1988. In 1992 I was running Windows NT. These were both
>>>
>>> Both of these were limited scope non-consumer systems.
>>>
>>
>>Nevertheless, my point stands. It wasn't Microsoft that subjected
>>consumers to MS-DOS until 1995. On the contrary, Microsoft tried all
>
> Yes it was. IBM had a better OS in the wings and Microsoft
> chose to push it over DOS, despite the DOS compatibility
> being there and even the Win16 compatibility being there.
>
>>it could to move consumers to a real OS. Unfortunately, consumers
>>chose the path of best backward compatibility, subjecting themselves
>>to MS-DOS until 1995.
>
> No, consumers chose what was being shoved down the throats OEMs.
>
>[deletia]
>>>>former), and were both solid, modern GUI operating systems. MacOS in
>>>>2000 is still a joke as far as OS design is concerned. It's a great
>>>
>>> ...not compared to the competition. It still manages to be
>>> more robust in some ways (registry) than the most numerous
>>> competitor.
>>>
>>
>>Sorry, but I have to challenge you on this registry thing.
>
> You must be joking? It can't even reliably survive a power hit.
> The Mac may be more likely to crash, but when Windows goes down
> it very likely won't come back up again.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux....
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:40:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> His latest article is a real doozy...
>
> http://infoworld.com/researchtools/subject_index/index_f.html
Next time try posting the URL that actually goes to the article:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/06/12/000612oppetreley.xml
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Windows95, Word97, Excel95: With all the criticisms of Microsoft, at
least they provide "best-before" dating on many of their products...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:41:11 GMT
Maybe for YOUR scanner/printer but for most of the world, waiting for
INSANE to support it, even if INSANE is ugly as hell, is a pipe
dream....
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:34:12 GMT, Michael Marion
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> The name of the game is faxing something now, not waiting for some
>> geek to write a program so you can do it.
>
>Waiting?!? It's available now! Has been for years.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux....
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:44:11 GMT
Mistype, I had several browsers open at once. Netscape let me down
again....
Netscape, one reason why I don't run Linsux.
At any rate, you found it so how about some constructive dialog
instead of slamming my typo's....
??????????????????????????????????
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:40:54 GMT, Michael Marion
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> His latest article is a real doozy...
>>
>> http://infoworld.com/researchtools/subject_index/index_f.html
>
>Next time try posting the URL that actually goes to the article:
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/06/12/000612oppetreley.xml
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BSOD in the airport
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:45:05 GMT
Mikey wrote:
> If you are in the New Orleans airport, take a look at this column in
> concourse C that is supposed to have schedule information or something.
> It has a monitor with the Windows BSOD. It was blue-screened when I was
I remember seeing a monitor at O'Hare's United terminal several years
back (right after the newer one opened)... all that was on the screen:
C:\>
Ha!
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Windows 98 is a browser stapled onto a
graphical OS duct-taped onto an ancient
character-based DOS with roots in the '70s.
-Jesse Berst, Editorial Director ZDNet AnchorDesk
Tuesday, September 8, 1998
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:37:37 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But why should the user have to deal with something so obtuse? That's
> the question.
What is so obtuse? The using a directory as a mount point? Having the
contents of the directory hidden when it is used as a mount point? Or
dealing with system security preventing the access to a "mount point" before
a volume is mounted?
Using a directory as a mount point is flexible and elegant, it permits you
as a system administrator to build a overall file system which ever way you
determine is best for the support of the tasks of the given host.
As I have stated in another branch of this thread having the contents of a
directory hidden when the directory is used as a mount point, is a very
handy feature for the unix systems administrator. It provides a safe and
handy failure mode fall back position, as well as serve additional uses.
For example consider building a new /usr/bin directory to upgrade the
applications and user utilities on your host. To have a safe fallback
position with minimal system distruption in case things go wrong. Build
your new /usr/bin in a temporary partition or a removeable media. Once you
have tested it and are ready to go live with the upgrade, mount the
temporary parition using /usr/bin as your mount point. If thing go wrong
umount it everything will be bak to what you had before any changes were
made. If everything goes fine, replace the contents of /usr /bin with the
contents of the temporary partition. There are others ways to do thins but
this is the safest for having a secure fallback.
If are talking about dealing with system security by causing the user access
to unmounted volume because of the permission settings on the mount point
directory, then how would you prefer that situation to be handled? You can
either permit access to the, refuse access or trigger the automounter. Unix
can handle any of these situations.
P.S. In my experience those who complain about system security are the
biggest security rinks. Either as a result of their stupidity or duplicity
they are the ones who if given a chance will cause the worst damage to the
system and the origanization.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:52:33 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:41:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Maybe for YOUR scanner/printer but for most of the world, waiting for
>INSANE to support it, even if INSANE is ugly as hell, is a pipe
>dream....
...even with Windows you're dependent on such things.
Notice the NT advocates blaming bad drivers for any stability woes.
(When they aren't blaming bad admin)
>
>
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:34:12 GMT, Michael Marion
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> The name of the game is faxing something now, not waiting for some
>>> geek to write a program so you can do it.
>>
>>Waiting?!? It's available now! Has been for years.
>
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:53:48 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:02:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>This morning in fact. One of the top booksellers in the country. They
>are mostly IBM based but have Sun and HP also as well as rack after
>rack of Compaq Pro stuff. Linux was a miserable experience for them
>and it has been jettisoned from their upgrade plans.
>
>The DP manager turned green when I asked him about Linux and went into
>this whole dissertation about hackers, comprimised security and so
>forth.
...this from someone that runs Sun's and HP's?
>
>Sounds like Linux made a great impression on them.
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:57:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:06:07 GMT,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Nobody is interested in Linux, nobody that I speak with anyway.
>>>
>>
>>Sorry to burst your bubble but when was the last time you actually
>>spoke to another human being face to face?? Your "social life" over
>>the Internet doesn't count.
>>
>>Perry
>
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Sorry ... but I can't stop laughing at this!! (Was: Boring
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:48:12 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:36:59 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nope, I deal with more Fortune 100 customers in a day than most
Oh please!! And then you spend all your spare time (which you seem to
have *alot* of) posting nothing but lies and spiteful hatred against
Linux on c.o.l.a under dozens of different identities and ISP
accounts, even engaging in dialog with yourself as needed when no one
repsonds to your posts!!! Do you really think anyone believes you?? Go
out and get a life.....
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:56:32 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:02:57 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> And my Mac software won't run on my PC...
>> Your point?
>>
>>
...better yet, this fellow has Mac software and then has the
gall to whine about some OS not supporting ALL hardware...
>
>You said:
>
>My scanner/printer is supported under Windows, just like 99 percent of every peice
>of
>hardware out on the market.
>
>I said:
>
>My Linux box supports IBM 3390 disk drives and OSA network cards. Can your
>Windows box do that?
>
>I think my point is obvious.
Linux will run his PPC MacOS software too...
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
