Linux-Advocacy Digest #157, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 02:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Michael Marion)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451709 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (David M. Cook)
Re: vote on MS split-up (David Steuber)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IE for Linux (JoeX1029)
Re: Terry Murphy Demonstrates Bald-Faced Lying -was- Open Source Programmers
Demonstrate Incompetence (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: Boring (Tim Palmer)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: WHICH LINUX??? (David Steinberg)
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: No need to take sides (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:32:52 -0400
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
mlw wrote:
> Usability and reliability are far more important. For every example of
> "easy" you can present, I can post examples of where installations screw
> up the box and programs previously functioning correctly cease to do so.
AAMOF: Here's one for you...
I finally plunked down the cash for the W2kPro upgrade (I feel dirty
now... like I've betrayed the cause or something :) ) because I want to
do some large mpg captures using my TV tuner card and WinVCR. It works
under 98 but 98 has a habit of blue screening a little too often during
captures.. thus wasting my time. This is on a fresh reinstall with
nothing but the drivers for what I need to capture installed
nonetheless.
You know how the winvocates have been touting the livewire drivers for
w2k lately? Well it turns out that if I install the new "livewire"
drivers for my sblive in w2k I get my first taste of the w2k protection
program (the one that's supposed to save us from "dll hell"). It gives
you the option of replacing the system files that changed with the
proper ones, or allowing them to be replaced.. which equates to: you can
have system stability but not full functionality of your SBLive, or full
SBLive drivers but not the stability you're used to. If I do let it
install livewire and replace those files.. I get many other odd things.
If I install the drivers for my Hollywood Plus DVD card after installing
livewire, the machine BSOD's with a short message, but proceeds to
reboot before I can read it. Yipee!
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"The Tuxomatic 2200(TM) with patented Gates-Be-Gone(TM) gets rid of blue
screens in a flash! It forks! It blits! Look at those fantastic pixels!
It surfs the web! You could even host an ISP with it!"
-- Matthew Sachs on
Slashdot
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:57:02 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451709
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Today's Thorne digest:
1> Tholen tholed:
Taking made-up word lessons from Joe Malloy, Thorne?
1> Yet another example of your pontification.
Illogical, Thorne.
1> Don't you know?
I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:02:56 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:26:48 GMT, Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Specifics: Canon FB630P scanner. Parallel port version.
AFAIK, there is no standard parallel port interface for scanners. These
devices are a hack, and usually proprietary to boot, i.e. noone could write
Linux drivers even if they wanted to.
Why the hell should linux support every goddam crackhead piece of hardware
that manufacturers come up with?
If you want a scanner that will work with Linux, get one that uses a
standard interface like SCSI.
> Canon BJC 4400 Printer.
Apparently supported only at 360x360 (I don't know what the story with that
is; probably crackhead firmware in this case), but otherwise reported to
work fine:
http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/pht/show_printer.cgi?recnum=62240
Dave Cook
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:00:01 -0400
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
' I give them a lot of credit. I USE Linux on my home machine, BUT, unless
' Microsft is hobbled, no other OS is going to get a chance to really
' compete. That has been proven. The ONLY reason inroads have been made is
' that no companies have been able to go public with Microsoft's
' "business" techniques.
It might also help if hardware OEMs were required to release
specifications for creating hardware drivers for !Windows operating
systems. They only aid in the Microsoft monopoly by refusing to do
so.
The DMCA is also an aid to Microsoft. Since when does Congress have
the power to make reverse engineering illegal?
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:15:10 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Switch from Windows to Linux? Why?
Simple --- because that scanner, easy as it was to set up, is still a
nightmare to *use* for the kind of use I have in mind. If making a scan
cannot be fully automated under script control, it doesn't provide a
solution.
Bernie
--
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full
Henry Kissinger
American politician
New York Times Magazine, 1 June 1969
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:37:45 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: IE for Linux
I don't think it will come out for Linux but hey, it could happen. As reported
on slashdot though, it is coming out for FreeBSD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:22:46 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Terry Murphy Demonstrates Bald-Faced Lying -was- Open Source Programmers
Demonstrate Incompetence
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 11 Jun 2000 00:14:20 GMT, Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>He claims to believe that VMS is the only usable operating system.
>Incorrect. At home I use VMS, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, BeOS, MacOS,
>NetBSD, and others. This is documented on my public website, and is
>public information. I find all OS'es highly usable.
A DejaNews search with author = tsm@* and keywords = vms
pulls up Murphy's articles on VMS, many expressing the
viewpoint that it is the only worthwhile OS. He refers to
Unix as "Eunuchs".
>In fact, the application I am currently writing in my own time is for
>Linux _only_.
God help us. And why would Murphy write software for an OS
that he claims crashes frequently (see below)?
>>It's a little strange that the *only* VMS advocate that
>>posts in c.o.l.a is a major lying propagandist against Linux
>>and Open Source. There are people here who like Macs, *BSD,
>>and even Windows NT who are much more reasonable. Maybe
>>he pretends to be a VMS nut to appear more credible than
>>he would as a Microsoft advocate in his job here, which is
>>obviously to frighten people away from using Linux. Hmm,
>>now which enormous corporation would that benefit...
>
>You think I am feigning VMS advocacy in order to promote my
>(financially motivated) anti-Linux agenda? Are there black helicopters on
>your front lawn? Go to my website. Look at all of the VAX'es I own. My
>fricking name is patterned after a DEC logo, for crying out loud. If you
>think I am _anything_ other than some DEC geek who wants to see VMS given
>a chance in this industry, and that I have _any_ other agenda, you are
>seriously mistaken.
Who knows? The only verifiable evidence is that Murphy
posts lots of derogatory lies about Linux and OSS, and
advocates VMS to the point of recommending that people run
it in emulation on pentiums. For example, here's the open-
ing of his article that started this thread. He's deleted
it now, because he's trying to back away from it:
[RESTORED]
>>>As most computer professionals know, "open source"
>>>software has a reputation for being extremely unreliable,
>>>buggy, and prone to constant failure.
I also wouldn't trust any benchmark figures he claims to
have measured comparing Linux with other OSes. His recent
scam about Unix mail programs on Sparcs taking several
minutes to open or modify a mailbox, which many people noted
was exaggerated by a factor of 100 or so, demonstrates his
lack of credibility in such matters. He's now claiming that
he somehow said it by mistake.
>As for major corporations who would benefit from Linux's downfall, let's
>see: Compaq. Sun. HP. IBM. Microsoft. SGI. Be. SCO. None of which I work
>for, or even own stock in.
Wrong. Those who sell hardware -- Compaq, Sun, HP, IBM,
and SGI -- will still sell it, regardless of which OS people
use. In fact, if their customers start using free software,
they'll have more money left to buy computers.
That leaves Microsoft, Be, and SCO. Which of these has the
immense resources, the proven history of astroturfing, and
the extensive record of unethical business practices, that
would make it likely to be the force behind much of the
lying astroturf propaganda in Usenet against GNU/Linux/OSS?
[RESTORED]
>>>Of course, since the source code is available, one need only
>>>look at it to see how devastatingly bad it is. Sourceforge has a
>>>service where programmers are allowed to share their work with others.
>>>One such contribution is the following, which allows an fgets-like
>>>function to read from a file descriptor:
http://sourceforge.net/snippet/detail.php?type=snippet&id=100122
>>Oops! Murphy the self-proclaimed expert programmer has
>>totally screwed up. The very simple function ... actually
>>does a printf operation *to* a file descriptor!
>
>Right. A typo discredits my entire point.
Wrong. The difference between his description, "an fgets-
like function to read from a file descriptor", and the
actuality, "a printf operation *to* a file descriptor", is
far too great to be accounted for as a "typo". It's a total
misunderstanding of the subroutine that he himself posted
as an alleged example of bad OSS programming. Note that he
deleted *his* description so readers could not see the
absurdity of his claim that his error was only a "typo".
>>Yes, this second example is ugly and could be greatly
>>improved. However, it does work without error.
>
>Hardly an excuse. The Apple II worked without an error, but it did not
>mean it was the be-all and end-all of computing and that all improvements
>should have stopped there.
There is nothing to excuse here. Terry Murphy's thesis,
which he has enunciated several times, and which is quoted
above, is that Open Source software is "extremely unreliable",
and he's trying to prove it by citing some ugly code that
somebody posted on a public BBS website.
What he's doing is playing propaganda games around the tacit
assumptions -- the commonly agreed-upon context -- that
constitute an essential part of all communications.
It's as if he claimed, contrary to public knowledge, that
automobiles don't work, by pointing to one that had been
crushed in a collision, and saying, "Look, that car doesn't
run, so they're all no good." Of course, when people say
that cars do work, they are tacitly excluding *crushed*
ones -- that's part of the agreed-upon context of their
communication.
When people say that OSS is generally quite reliable, they're
referring to Open Source software that has been created or
packaged by reputable people, such as the kernel, GNU, Samba,
KDE, Gnome, XFree86, and many other teams, and recognized
GNU/Linux distributors, not just any code in the world that
someone has scrawled "GPL" on.
>>Terry Murphy is using broad smear tactics here. The Linux
>>kernel, GNU tools, and the many applications packed in Linux
>>distributions do work properly, reliably, and efficiently
>>enough that they function approximately as well as or better
>>than the best competing systems.
>
>Calm down. My _only_ point was to poke holes in some easy code, and to
>suggest that similar problems might be present in larger projects. It's
>called "debate".
No, considering that he's also claimed that Linux crashes
very frequently (see below), what he's posting is properly
called "lying propaganda".
>My contention is that there is likely to be similarly bad
>code in larger projects since they are more complex. Disagree? Fine. But
>the personal attacks, insults, and charaterizations of my agenda are just
>plain offensive.
If Terry Murphy keeps lying, people will continue to point
out that he's doing it. And if he keeps lying in such
outrageous ways, people may also speculate about *why*
he's doing it.
>>The existence of a couple of less than perfect programs on a
>>public website has no relevance to the quality of distributed
>>GNU/Linux/Open Source software, which *by actual experience*
>>has very few bugs.
>
>Although the core GNU tools, the Linux kernel, Apache, and the X window
>system are of reasonably high quality, often exceeding their commercial
>counterparts, this says nothing about open source at large. These are the
>open source success stories which make up the bulk of the headlines. But
>they only represent about 1% of the code out there.
Major Linux distributions contain up to two thousand OSS
applications. The experience of people who use them shows
that they also are generally of high quality.
Note: Murphy snipped the following paragraph of text that
I quoted from his previous article, so that my response
to it, which he did include, would seem to be an over-
reaction. That constitutes lying (again). The paragraph
itself contains four huge lies in his propaganda campaign
against GNU/Linux/OSS:
[RESTORED]
>>>Linux crashes so much because code like the first quoted
>>>function is all over the kernel. The rest of the apps
>>>are prone to constant failure because of their own
>>>miscellaneous failings.
>>Wow, this guy beats even Chad Myers and Stephen Edwards for
>>quantities of outrageous lies in a single post. Linux crashes
>>are all traceable to hardware problems (as long as user limits
>>are set properly). And almost all of the OSS apps are very
>>reliable.
>Sheesh. Can you be a little more harsh in your characterizations
That harshness is entirely appropriate in response to
Murphy's intentional and destructive lies, which can only
be intended to deceive and frighten prospective Linux users.
>of your fellow advocacy participants?
He is engaged in deception, not honest advocacy. The two
are very different. He is no fellow of honest advocates.
>We're supposed to be debating, not exchanging personal
>insults.
He intentionally posts a series of very damaging lies,
and then says people shouldn't point out that he's lying,
on the grounds that that constitutes a personal insult!
The incredible gall of this guy!
>If you disagree with my point, respond in a calm matter.
I'm calmly pointing out what he's doing. He doesn't like
that, presumably because it makes it less likely that his
lies will be believed.
>When you make it out that I am on a smear cmapaign
It's very obvious that he is.
>out to destory your world,
There's a lot more to my world than Linux.
>that is just offensive.
Lying and deceiving are very offensive. Pointing out,
accurately, that someone is doing that, is not offensive,
at least not to honest people.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:03:26 -0400
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:22:21 GMT, Robert L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For the 2 part you have buy, do this.
>
>Put the cdrom on the cdrom tray.
>mount it ( mount /dev/cdrom )
>go to the good directory ( cd /mnt/cdrom/driver/linux )
>install it ( ./install )
In Windows:
Put the CD in.
Close it.
Click on its icon in "My Computer".
Simple. It works. Does it work on Linux? No.
>
>What? there's no Linux directory on the CD. Please verify corectly....
>Ah, no you are right, there's no drivers for Linux on the CD.
>
>Go to the manufacturer website. Send them an e-mail saying there's no driver
>for Linux on the cdrom. They will send you an e-mail with a Linux driver.
>
>If they don't do this, the companie have a really poor tech support. You
>should simply stop buying they hardware.
Which maikes no difrecne to then, because everyone ealse will keep bying the hardware
they want
to use and running Windows to use it. Which means that Linux is still the loser.
>And by the same way, send an e-mail
>here saying which companie didn't support their hardware so we won't buy
>the product anymore.
>
>
>
>"Tiberious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ecrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject:
>> Installing a printer, scanner and Fax program on a Win98SE
>> system.
>>
>> Specifics: Canon FB630P scanner. Parallel port version.
>> Canon BJC 4400 Printer.
>> Software including Winfax and what ever came with the
>> scanner and printer.
>>
>> Install printer with CDROM supplied. Nice CanoCraft programs and
>> Greeting Card Designer included. Add's all kinds of menu options to the
>> standard print menu so that resolution, paper size, diagnostics and so
>> forth are easily accessible to the user.
>>
>> Install scanner, including Adobe Photoshop (Home version, almost the
>> same as pro version) and Canocraft software plus a large selection of
>> other software.
>>
>> Install Winfax. Surprise, surprise, it recognizes the printer and
>> scanner and adds a fax option to all menus.
>>
>> Super easy.
>>
>> Try out all options and there are wizards to guide the user through all
>> the operations of scanning/printing and faxing and most importantly ALL
>> FUNCTIONS WORK TOGETHER, meaning you don't have to scan a printed
>> document in order to fax it. You can just do it from the scanner menu.
>>
>> Linux on the other hand?
>>
>> 1. Doesn't support the scanner.
>> 2. Barely supports the printer.
>> 3.Gimp vs Adobe? Need I say more?
>> 4. You are on your own trying to figure out how to make things work.
>> Assuming of course you CAN make things work.
>> Integration between programs like in the Windows world? You'll be
>> lucky if the programs put an icon in the menus let alone work together.
>>
>> This person walked into Staples, presented a problem and walked away
>> with a solution for $225.00 that was a breeze to install and worked from
>> the getgo.
>>
>> Switch from Windows to Linux? Why?
>>
>> Why should someone take a step back in time to a half supported system?
>>
>> What advantage does the person above gain running Linux?
>>
>> I have yet to se a valid reason to do so except for cost, and running a
>> desktop system kills that reason.
>>
>> Sorry but Linux loses again.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:03:57 -0400
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jorge Cueto wrote:
>>This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has finally
>>won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
>
>
>I think the real problem with advocacy is that Linux has won.
Uhm, no. Not even close.
>What is Microsoft going to do in the next 5 years but die.
The government can't do anything to them until the appeals proscess is over. By then,
this whole
UNIX revival thing will halve blone over.
>
>If people don't think the KDE is a better desktop than W2k then
>what are they going to say when KDE2 is out soon?
>
That it sucks. Just like the KDE befor it. You can put Windos like environmant ontop
of UNIX, but
thats' still UNIX under theare, and you can't get rid of the limmitations of UNIX
except by getting
rid of the UNIX. That is why UNIX+KDE fales now just like UNIX without it did, and
UNIX+KDE2 will
continnue to fale in the future.
Just face it: UNIX is the PAST. Leave it in the 1970s whear it belongs.
>I think the Microsoft community realizes that there is no competing with
>Linux as the Linux community comes out with a new version roughly once
>every 6-9 months.
Yeah, and you accuse Windwos of making peopal upgrade.
>This in comparison to Windows 2-4 year revisionary
>history,,, with complete writeups from the ground floor up.
>
>Charlie
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:14:04 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Let us know when you have a mainframe in your living room.
Better let your wife know first though :)
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:07:16 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tiberious wrote:
>
>> Linux on the other hand?
>>
>> 1. Doesn't support the scanner.
>> 2. Barely supports the printer.
>
>Let us know when Windows runs on everything from a 486 to a mainframe, and
>then we'll start making comparisons of which has the best "hardware support".
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:22:00 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
> > suddenly been tasked with setting up Linux boxes
> > for web-hosting, newsgroup serving, routing, NAT
> > translation, and firewalling. I spent more than
> > 100 hours just trying to comprehend httpsd.conf.
>
> Did you at least get through the httpd.conf fairly quickly?
Not really. In addition to being on Linux, it was also the first web
server I've setup on ANY platform. Took forever to comprehend what all
those obscure directives were doing. Plus, since there's no GUI to
lean on, even if I got a directive right, I might've had a bit of
punctuation out of place or something. Plus I was trying to setup an
SSL server, so that added another layer of complexity to it. Finally,
after I did all the hard work, I stumbled across Webmin. What a
lifesaver that thing is. Course, now I know what all that stuff means,
so I could do it manually now, but Webmin still makes it a lot easier.
>
> Bottom line, get help! Find someone who's been there. If you
> ask about Linux in a room full of 30 people, at least 5 will know
> enough to be helpful.
Well, I've been trying to do just that, but I think your estimate is a
little off. I've been in this business for 10 years, and I'm the only
guy I know with ANY Linux experience. Hell, I'm the company's "linux-
guru" now, and I've only been doing it for 3 months. To somebody who's
been in this world for a while, there're resources, but for a new guy
just breaking in, it's hard to know where to look for a helping hand.
Thank god for Barnes and Noble. They actually have a whole section
devoted to Linux now.
> The point is that it's completely unrealistic to expect to be fully
> proficient with ANY operating system in 20 hours. And I've seen too
> many WinTrolls posting in this group, on ZDNet boards, and
as "experts"
> with less than 10 hours of real experience (barely enough to set the
> silly thing up), who claim that they are qualified to make comparisons
> between Windows NT and Linux. I suppose that since they've carved a
> turkey a few times, they're qualified to do heart surgury too.
>
Ouch! That's a little harsh. I'm fairly new to this stuff, but I like
to crow a little about my accomplishments, meager though they may be.
Course, I try not to be obnoxious about it, but the bottom line is, I
can't tell anybody else around me about it, because they don't have the
faintest idea what I'm talking about. Besides, nobody starts out an
expert.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:53:43 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: WHICH LINUX???
JEDIDIAH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: This wouldn't happen to be wmconfig by any chance?
: That has been available in Bughat for quite some time now and
: Mandrake is at it's core a dressed up Bughat...
Actually, one of the things I noticed when moving from RedHat 6 to
Mandrake 7 was how Mandrake had broken and abandoned wmconfig, which did
make moving among desktops on RedHat rather less of a hassle. I'm glad to
hear that it (or something equivalent) has made it to Mandrake.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:21:30 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:08:05 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I think it's funny to see all these investors flooding the Linux Advocacy.
Only stock I own is Pepsi Cola.
>It just proves a very strategic point that Linux is INDEED a threat to
>Windows...
Where is that?
I can't name one person that I have met that has actually kept Linux
on their system for any length of time after actually trying it.
>Why else would all these magnificent jerkwads be here on our advocacy
>posting if it weren't a threat.
Can't say. Why are YOU here?
>They BOAST linux is hard to install, Windows 98 runs faster, there's more
>hardware support for Windows, Windows has more applications, Windows
>runs better.
Windows does on all counts.
>When in reality it doesn't do any of these things.
ANY?
Please look up the word in the dictionary.
>And by posting to this group, they intend to SUPPORT their failing OS
>by posting weird untrue articles as if Linux Advocacy were hooked
>to QVC of the Home Shopping channel....
Does QVC run on Linux?
I'd like to see how many PC systems they would sell if they were
preloaded with Linsux.
My guess is none.
>The more they post, the closer to the end for Microsoft in their own words,
>emotions, and comments...
Who cares about Microsoft's legal battles, except you.
They did wrong they get punished. That's it.
>They are living in fear of the future right now. They know it doesn't look
>good for Microsoft.
Nobody really cares, except you of course.
Microsoft isn't going to disappear anytime soon.
>They are our barometer for Microsoft's death.
Looks like a low pressure system is headed your way.
>As time progresses on, it will get worse for the Linux Advocacy.
>The diareah of the Wintrolls will continue until the Federal Judge
>pulls the handle of that majic toilet and it will all be over.
Linux get's flushed on a daily basis. I see it everyday in my day gig.
>Don't forget to wipe.
>
Better use bleach because Linux is nasty....
>Charlie
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:48:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Yeah, and we've chosen to abduct all the people who post in this
>newsgroup who like Windows. You're not wanted on your planet anyway!
Yes, PLEASE, abduct me! Anything has got to be better than Earth!
8)
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 Jun 2000 13:30:34 +0800
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:06:44 -0400, Timo Ely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Man some of you zealots just don't know when the shut the hell up. FUCK
>LINUX FUCK WINDOWS and most of all... FUCK YOU!!!
Thanks for your input, I'm sure it will have a profound effect on the OS wars.
Perhaps you'd like to go to China, and try your unique tallents solving the
Russo/Chinese conflicts this way ?
(I'm glad this person doesn't use Linux!)
>
>Thank you.
>
>
>"Matt Templeton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
>>
>> > It's only a computer.
>> >
>> > That's all I have to say.
>>
>> You're right, it is only a computer. But I want _MY_ computer to do what
>> _I_ want the way _I_ want it to. I can do this with Linux but NOT with
>> MS software,.
>>
>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 18 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
