Linux-Advocacy Digest #165, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark (Pete Goodwin)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Number of Linux Users ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Processing data is bad! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Server list for the bored (WhyteWolf)
Re: Linux....The Cold Hard Truth.... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south) (Johnathan D. Hogue)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 18 Jun 2000 07:18:42 GMT
>Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM.
True. It doesn't matter what it can run on DIRECTLY, but the indirect effect
of this is important. Something small enough to run on a 2M system won't take
up too much overhead on a 160M system in all likelihood, and I'd rather run
apps in my RAM than operating systems.
>Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user
One computer for a family. Life is simplified by giving each family member his
own directory to organize files, and his own user configuration. Even Win9x
offers primitive multiuser support for that reason.
>not waist time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that
>can't
>even be disaballed,
Run in single-user mode, or set no password. About as secure as a big red sign
that says "Crack me" but it does what you want.
>There is NO REASON
>to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off the desktop, and NO REASON to
>turn off the
>Window manager
If you want to try a different one, there is a reason. If I prefer GEM or
GeoWorks to the Windows GUI, why shouldn't I be able to unload the GUI I don't
use? Similar principle will apply for Berlin v. X.
> This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull to most
>users. Windows still wins.
That doesn't follow. How is Windows, which provides no over-network feature,
winning?
>Multitasking is only usefull to normal
>people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
Actually, at least one aspect of multitasking is extremely useful:
suspend/resume a process. That way, you don't need a new window to pop out of
an app and perform a task.
>10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that alreaddy
>shipped with UNIX
>to beagen with.
The 80x86 did not ship with a *ix to begin with. The MacIntosh didn't either.
Nor did the CBM Amiga, Atari 680x0-based machines, or sundry others.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:29:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I *think* you can still get licenses for these products if you try
> really hard. You'd probably have to talk directly to someone in MS
> though. With some license rationalization you can probably find
> you've got extra Win9x licenses lying around anyway so you can
> 'unupgrade' the original licenses and survive an audit.
Really? Extra unused Windows 9x licenses lying around, tell where would
someone find them. Where do they come from. I can assure you that there
are none around here, since they don't come in cracker jack or cereal boxes.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:40:07 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ihgde$nsa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > SUBST was not removed, it still in Windows 98SE, I just tried it and
it
> > worked. I doubt it was pride that made them remove JOIN and ASSIGN
more
> > likely users had it blow up in their face. User can be very dumb, if
> they
> > are in control of their machine.
>
> I recall that after the installation of a Dos upgrade the subst utility
did
> disappear. I guess that for whatever reason it was brought back again. I
> wonder when tha happened?
>
Which DOS upgrade, since I checked 486 with DOS 6.22 and SUBST is there
also. PocketPC Ref, makes no mention of SUBST command being missing from
any DOS version, also checked a couple of the other DOS references.
> Do you mean that when a user gain control of a computer they are prone to
> loose the power of speech? I have been in control of many computers over
> the years, and I have never lost my voice. Neither has any one else that
I
> know who have used or have been in control of their computers. Is there
any
> medical research into this condition?
>
I'm not even going to comment on the stupidity of your statement.
>
> > Atleast with Windows 98SE a SUBST drive comes up a normal drive, I
can't
> > comment on networking or SUBST before DOS 6.0 and Windows for
Workgroups.
> I
> > never used either before then....
> > BTW which show was the demo at? I guess MS is great at having demos
> blow
> > up. ;)
>
> Based on this, I have check my Window 95 dos utilities and have discovered
> that it is back with this release as well. A subst drive on Windows 95
> appears as a normal drive and not a network drive in both explorer and
file
> manager. I guess some where between Windows 3.x and this version the bug
> that caused a subst drive to appear as a network drive was fixed.
>
I think your wrong, about SUBST being missing for a bit, if you can every
figure out which version, I would be interested.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:54:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin R. Day) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>VC++ will compile to UNIX?
>
>Colin Day
No, I built the UNIX version of POVray. By that I mean I started with the
basic sources, took config.h from UNIX, ripped out pratically everything
and built my custom version.
Incidentally, if I increase the Bounding Threshold to 25, so that POVray is
now running the same on Windows as Linux, I see the following results:
Windows 98 SE 28 minutes 30 seconds
Linux 32 minutes 42 seconds
Windows 98 SE is _still_ running faster than Linux.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:10:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Palmer) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>1. It scails down
>
>Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of
>RAM. Windows runs on todays computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run
>on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer from 1991 doessn't mean shit.
Actually I means I could hang onto my older PC and use it as a Samba file
server. Windows works on it, but see later.
>2. It's multi-user
>
>Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to
>me is that I have to remember a password just to be able to get into my
>own computer. Users want to get their work done, not waist time "logging
>in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that can't even be
>disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time
>somethign goes wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to
>support through VT100 terminals can get the're own computer, and the
>"administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail, news, bin, sys,
>and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
The fact that I can login into my older PC file server means I can shut it
down remotely. You can't do that with Windows 98 SE!
>3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>
>And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows
>is. There is NO REASON to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off
>the desktop, and NO REASON to turn off the Window manager. These are all
>useless feetures, and Linux gains NOTHING over Widnos for halvign them.
>Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you to turn off the multi-user
>"feature". Now THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
My god a spell checker would be handy here.
It is useful NOT running a GUI as that sometimes gets in the way. Why run a
GUI on a server? As for not being able to turn off multiuser, why do you
consider that 'inflexible'?
>4. You can logg in remotely
>
> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And
> since it's a feature that
>only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for normal users is that they need
>a password (see #2) to keep hackers out, where they don't need one if
>they run Windows.
Yes I do find it useful logging into my Samba file server remotely from my
Windows 98 SE PC.
No I do not find it useful that Windows 98 SE has minimal security. Even
Windows 2000 has the full blown username/password thing you don't like.
>5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>
>Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows
>more usefull to most users. Windows still wins.
It's only really useful if you have a network. Otherwise it's an unusable
feature. It must also slow things down a bit, as its yet another layer for
the GUI to work through.
>6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>
> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking
> is only usefull to normal
>people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
ROFL. You're kidding right!
>7. It gives you "choice"
>
> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most people's
> "choice" is MS Windows
>and the fine MS software that goes together with it. They would never
>give up all that just to run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps
>except if they were tricked into it.
I think the complaint against Microsoft software is that its (i) expensive
and (ii) bloated. Also Microsoft have a lot of bad pratices deliberately to
keep competitors out of what it considers as its markets.
>8. It's "free"
>
> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring
> the installation, and
>then more and more time after the installation as one thing after
>annother goes wrong.
My Samba server hasn't gone wrong yet. I switch it on, it's there. I switch
it off for the night (it's too noisy in the house to leave it permanently
running).
Contrast this with my Windows 98 SE PC. I switch it on, and recently it
told me my registry was corrupt and I should reboot to repair it. I reboot
and it tells me exactly the same thing again, so I kill the ScanRegistry
crap that doesn't appear to be doing its job. I switch it off and due to a
bug in Windows 98 SE it hangs on shutdown.
>9. It's Open-Source
>
> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when they
> can just run Windos
>like they've been doing and have world-class sofrware.
What bugs in Linux. So far I've seen one 'kernel oops' in software that was
acknowledged as less than stellar. Yet see above for my regular experience
with Windows 98 SE.
>10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that
>alreaddy shipped with UNIX to beagen with.
>
>Yawn.
ZZZZZZ
>:
>:post
>The post command is unknown.
>:exit
>The exit command is unknown.
>:close
>The close command is unknown.
>:quit
>File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
>:save
>The save command is unknown.
>:s
>No previous regular expression.
>:Oh darnit!
>The Oh command is unknown.
>:?
>No previous regular expression.
>:quit
>File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
>:!
>Usage: [line [,line]] ! command.
>:! quit
>File modified since last write.
>bash: quit: command not found
>quit: exited with status 127
>:?
>No previous regular expression.
>:DIE YOU PIECE OF LINSHIT!!!!!!
>The DIE command is unknown.
I'm no fan of vi but even I know q! gets you out.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:19:34 GMT
"John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >As I remember NT had 70% and Unix went from 31% to 33% which was not
>> >expected for Unix.
>>
>> For a total of 101 to 103% of the market being served by NT and UNIX alone
>> ;-)
>100 companies. All use NT and Unix. NT has 100 percent share and Unix has
>100 percent share. Hey, thats 200 percent in total they shout. How can that
>be correct? ;)
Wouldn't that be market *penetration*, rather than market *share*? I don't
think you can have more than 100% market share...
Bernie
--
If a cluttered desk signs a cluttered mind,
Of what, then, is an empty desk a sign
Albert Einstein.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:19:35 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8iets4$1f5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I don't think I'd like my ray tracer to have stability problems. Do you?
>Except that's not what I built. I built the UNIX version with VC++ V6.0 and
>modified the config.h to suit. The version they are talking may have
>stability problems but mine is a much smaller build.
And why would *that* be? Do you want to imply that the person who built
the executable on the Pov site had no clue? I mean, you *were* using the
same compiler, to compile the same code.
And let's be serious here for a second --- how extensively have you tested
your build? Have you rendered anything other than the chess2 scene? And
what do you think how much rendering the Pov people did before they put
that paragraph about stability problems in the Readme?
>>Comparing the official, supported linux version (I downloaded it in the
>>meantime) to the official, supported Windows version, on my Celeron400,
>>gives times of 19:20 and 20:58 minutes, respectively, with linux being
>>the faster one.
>Then please explain why I'm seeing the VC results faster than Linux?
How does one relate to the other?
>Or could it be VC produces code that is faster than GNU?
Yes, that could be. It could also be that VC produces code that is less stable
than that produced by gcc.
I don't know about you, but my priorities for compilers are
1) correctness
2) correctness
3) correctness ;-)
4) stability
5a) speed of code
5b) diagnostics
I don't really care whether you can improve on 5a, if it impacts on something
higher up in the list.
Bernie
--
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to
your grandmother
Albert Einstein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:19:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8if186$1lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Pete, *please* get it through your thick skull that your "print one
>>million 31 character strings to a file" test (I use the word loosely)
>>has nothing to do with the disk, and in fact not even with the OS
>>itself.
>Ah yes, it goes somewhere magical does it? Some alternate reality I've
>never heard of?
Nope --- it goes to the file system cache.
>Printing 31 million characters to a disk _does_ involve the disk, as that's
>where it ends up (who has a thick skull now huh?).
OK, Pete, here is something you can do to convince yourself of the fact
that things *don't* hit the disk during the timed portion of the "benchmark".
a) On one VC, run "vmstat 1". Wait till your system is quiet. Now, on another
VC, run sync, wait for the system to settle down (have a look at the
first VC), and then run the "test", and once it is done, quickly switch
back to the first VC. Have a look at the column labelled "bo" --- notice
the distinct lack of big numbers. Now, switch back, type "sync" again,
and have a look at the "bo" column *now.
b) If that doesn't convince you, try this: Delete the test.dat from the
previous run. Sync the disks (typing "sync"), and then run the "test".
As soon as it finishes, switch off the machine. Switch it back on, and
see whether the file is there.
>And yes the OS _does_ get involved, as the OS gets involved with
>everything that goes on.
The thing is that the time you measure is not spent in anything related to
the OS. Try allocating a small buffer, and replacing the "fprintf" with
an "sprintf" to that buffer. "sprintf" runs completely in the app's context,
no OS calls. Does it reduce the running time on your machine? It's doing
the *same thing* as fprintf, except that it stores the result in memory
instead of sending it to a disk buffer.....
>Does scheduling occur without the OS knowing or is that another
>alternate reality.
And where, exactly, does scheduling come into your "test"?
Bernie
P.S.: BTW, how do you manage to take 6 seconds to run that? Even compiling
without optimization, I can't get it to take more than 1.6 seconds
on my Celeron400.
--
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
George Santayana
Spanish-born philosopher, 1863-1962
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:19:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 17 Jun 2000 14:35:17 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Funny --- I read that comment on an 80x27 console, with a 9x32 charcell,
>>displaying on an Apple 21gs two page greyscale fixed frequency monitor,
>>at 75Hz refresh. And it was trivial to set up, too ;-)
>That's nice Bernie I'm sure you had quite a rush setting it up.
No, I got the rush when I spent US$20 for a nice, extremely sharp 21" monitor,
and that was after I tripled the asking price ;-)
Say, how much did *you* pay for that 21" monitor on *your* desk?
Bernie
--
I'm sure I take rowing too seriously by many peoples standards- but,
they are not rowing people.
Stuyvesant B. Pell
Princeton, 1953
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: 18 Jun 2000 17:47:38 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
>The US is a little less than half of the worldwide computer market,
>so that means that there are 45 million computer users in the US,
>which amount to about 1 in 6 Americans being a "satisified Linux
>user". Which, as everybody knows, is just patently ludicrous.
Uhm, has it occurred to you that possibly markets are not quite that
homogenous?
Let's, for the sake of the argument, assume that Florida and Alaska
had the same share of the US GDP and population, 2% each (I know, I
know, but use your imagination!). If someone said "There are 10
million snow mobiles registered in the US", your logic would lead to
the conclusion "This is ridiculous! We all know that Florida has 2% of
the US market, and I assure you there aren't anywhere near 200,000
snow mobiles registered here".
Replace "US" with "world", "2%" with "a little less than half" (source?),
and so on, and you can see how your argument falls apart.
Bernie
--
Winston [Churchill] is so wonderfully eloquent, impressive, and wrong
W.J. Blyton
English journalist, 1887-1944
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf)
Subject: Re: Server list for the bored
Date: 18 Jun 2000 08:01:15 GMT
In article <8ih1b5$1d7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <8ibkor$bn3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf) wrote:
>
>> www.linuxsucks.com ... Linux
>
>Probably for proof that it sucks; i.e. whenever the site is down, they
>can just blame it on Linux.
or becaace they needed a decent server to run
there web page off of
>
>> Amazon ... Compaq Tru64 UNIX
>
>Actually, they've just announced a major switch to HP, but I'm sure you
>don't follow the news. Not Linux anyways.
I didn't say it was linux ... I said it
wasn't Windows
>
>> Ebay ... Solaris
>
>Blatantly false. The main web server runs on Windows. Check netcraft
>for crying out loud. The back end database, which crashes every ten
>minutes and cost eBay $2,000,000,000.00 in market capitalization last
>summer, is indeed running Solaris, and is one of Unix's most notorious
>failures of all time.
well the thing was i did check netcraft
and thats what was reported when I first tried
probley
sounds like Ebay needs more compentent
techs tho ... sence after all they did have
holes in there system that let credit cards
to be read by "anyone" with out trying
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
-=-=-=-=-
You will lose an important disk file.
-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Linux....The Cold Hard Truth....
Date: 18 Jun 2000 08:44:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2000 17:05:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>My firm sponsors retail space for computer shows around NYC and the surrounding
>>
>>What an amazing guy Steve/Mike is! Last year he told us
>>he's a physician in NYC specializing in removing household
>>objects from gay men's rear ends.
>One could make a fortune performing the procedure at Downtown Beekman
>Hospital, a stones throw from the West Village that is.
>Ever see a man with an imploded fluorescent tube in his rectum?
>Not a pretty site........
>How about the latest model Kirby vacuum cleaner containing most of the
>lower bowl of another "gentleman".
This stuff probably comes from the propaganda put out by
Steve/Mike's (un)Christian fundamentalist religion.
He's obviously not both a doctor and a seller of computer
fair space, so he was lying, as usual. And after reading
hundreds of his posts, I doubt very much that he has the
intelligence to get through medical school.
>BTW I am NOT everybody on you list. You need to check better.
>
>You are only half right.
Bullshit. This guy lies more often than he tells the truth.
He has *negative* credibility. If he says something, then
the *opposite* is likely to be true.
All the names on that list are there because their posts
match various characteristics of the ones he admits to.
>>And this year he said his company bought thousands of
>>new PCs for its employees (all using Microsoft Windows,
>>of course). There must be a whole lot of computer shows
>>around NYC!
There's his *third* alleged profession!
>>Partial list of his fake names:
>>
>>Steve/Mike/Heather/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/Sewer Rat/
>>"S"/Sponge/Sarek/piddy/McSwain/pickle_pete/Ishmeal_hafizi/
>>Proculous/Tiberious/Amy/...
------------------------------
From: Johnathan D. Hogue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:27:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel) wrote:
> tholenbot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> : wrote:
> : > If it were a real, even only vaguely human, being, such as they
may
> : > harbour not at Ann but at Cornell, he/she would have picked
> : > the intentional blooper which you may find in one of the [snip
me]'s.
>
> : My last reply to you was generated using the Eliza clone that comes
with
> : Emacs.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> : How predictable that you failed to recognize this fact,
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> : as well as the fact that the nature of the replies in that last
message
> : was a clear departure from my usual posting style.
>
> Illogical, as he is not "a regular" to Tholenbot threads, and
therefore
> should not be expected to recognize your "usual posting style".
>
> : This bot
>
> Which bot?
>
> : picked up on your reference to Eliza and switched its botting
> : algorithms as a result, so either it's not really a bot or it's more
> : advanced than any bot its author has ever witnessed.
>
> On what basis do you claim to know what bots "its author has ever
witnessed"?
>
> : > Welcome back, Hasan B. Mutlu, glad to see you are risen from the
> : > grave!
>
> : Does it surprise you that a posting identity with "bot" in its name
> : would behave in a bot-like manner?
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> : Perhaps you should try using your brain.
>
> How ironic.
>
> : > Are you still with AT&T?
>
> : You erroneously presuppose that I was ever "with" AT&T.
>
> Incorrect. He presupposes that Hasan B. Mutlu was "with" AT&T.
> Reading comprehension problems again?
>
> : [Ed. Yes, I have considered writing a real Tholenbot.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> : Several times in fact.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> : I have written a Bill Gates simulator,
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> : but it just talks to you,
>
> Incorrect.
>
> : it doesn't reply. I've never found the time to tackle writing a
real
> : Tholenbot.
>
> Balderdash. You would have had plenty of time had you not wasted it by
> tholenbotting the "old-fashioned" way. How embarrassing!
>
> : But hope springs eternal.]
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> : --
> : Prove that it's just a flesh wound, if you think you can.
>
> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
> Karl Knechtel {:>
> da728 at torfree dot net
>
What is all this crap?
--
John Hogue
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
