Linux-Advocacy Digest #488, Volume #27 Thu, 6 Jul 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (Aaron Kulkis)
Simon, why are you here? (Ray Chason)
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: VM Ware looks cool. ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 03:07:34 GMT
Tim Kelley wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2000 01:09:57 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote on 1 Jul 2000 19:25:27 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>>On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:01:22 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Actually, at the same time 'tim palmer' is indirectly shining a
> >pleasant light on linux, Ive noticed that some of the linvocates
> >on this newsgroup shining an equally unpleasant light by virtue
> >of not understanding what true-trolling is.
> >
> >This is a beautiful example.
>
> Well, I agree that trolling is an art, but I don't think Tim Palmer is
> all that good: no variation. The red baiting thread based on my being
> in the IWW was a nice touch, though.
>
> If you want to see incredible trolls, you need to cruise slashdot at
> -1, there is some extremely funny shit going on there sometimes.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.iww.org
Oh well,
I think that Pete Goodwin is probably the best of the Trolls as he is
constantly attempting to improve his posture and believability all
the time.
Pete actually tries where other Wintrolls fail.
Take Simon777 for instance. You bite him once and he runs away.
Pete on the other hand just hangs in there like a dog in heat.
The other thing which I belive Pete is managing to avoid is what
I call the old dribbly fart syndrome. This only add's to credibility
in Wintrolls...
All in all, I think we can expect to see some incredible action
out of them all as the noose around Microsoft tightens in
the comming months.
This Microsoft courtcase, dis-assembly thing is very painful
to them. Similar to putting a rubber band around their P.P.'s
then telling them where they can go.
It never ceases to amaze me how many former carpet baggers
we have in the Windows community. I mean these people
are using everything they know in a vain attempt to convert
Linux people back to Windows. And I mean everything is
used here.
It brought back some Python memories yesterday evening.
I got my tape of the episode where we had the TWIT olympics.
Brought tears to my eyes to see the pagantry of the thing.
The most popular argument included the one where
Linux is going to be WIPED OUT by Windows. True, it's a
Napoleonic threat at best. Yet they seemingly can't seem
to remember that the Linux development teams payroll has
yeilded very LOW taxes in most countries and is very
UN-likely to fall prey to BUSINESS CANCER such as
Microsoft is currently experiencing.
Truely there are several factors which will eventually lead
to the demise of Microsoft the corporation but there are
absolutely no situations which would mirror the same for Linux.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 03:00:46 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 02:45:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 02:01:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 01:48:41 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:14:06 GMT, someone claiming to be jedi wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 03:35:19 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:28:04 -0700, someone claiming to be Peter Ammon
>>>>>wrote:
>>[deletia]
>>>>>Or are you expecting Windows to be able to change jumpers for you, or
>>>>>have a version of * everyone else's * configuration util.
>>>
>>>> Yup. Most hardware in a system is going to be flexible with
>>>> respect to it's XT resources. IOW, an OS that chooses to take
>>>> control of the hardware at that level should know well enough
>>>> to work around hardwired IRQ's.
>>>
>>>And how, exactly, does Linux change the jumper settings on an ISA
>>>card? Source code will do...
>>
>> Linux doesn't. But it will happily use whatever resources you
>> tell it to. All the other hardware in your system is going to
>> be taken care of by PCI.
>
>
>Yea sure assuming you can figure out what config file to d=edit.
<sarcasm>
Yeah, you don't want to actually have a clue what's going
on when your system boots now do you. It's not like anything
could ever possibly go wrong.
</sarcasm>
Fortunately, Microsoft products had me well trained for that
sort of situation. (dropping things in an OSes equivalent of
autoexec.bat)
>> It merely won't second guess the hardware, or the user.
>
>Of course not.
>
>It just sits there and does nothing.
Sometimes, less is more.
>
>>>
>>>>>Again: a hardware thing, not a software thing.
>>>
>>>> Hardware only adds some additional constraints.
>>>
>>>... that software is incapable of making changes to.
>>
>> It doesn't need to. You are lying to imply otherwise.
>> IRQ's aren't THAT scarce in a contemporary kludge klone.
>
>
>Yawn....
>
>An IRQ is an IRQ. If you don't have enough you are screwed.
Except that is not the situation under discussion.
[deletia]
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 03:09:37 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> Michael Marion wrote:
> >
> > Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >
> > > (BTW, ReiserFS is *incredibly* fast. A find over a directory tree with
> > > several tens of thousands of files will be finished in less than a
> > > minute.)
> >
> > Ouch.. you weren't kidding. I just did a find on my two linux boxes at
> > home on /usr. The P2-350 with UW-SCSI drives and a 720Meg ext2fs /usr
> > took about 2-1/2 minutes, while the Athlon 650 with EIDE (non-ata66)
> > drive 2.1Gig Reiser /usr took 50 seconds!
> >
> > Sure the system/CPU speeds will make some difference, but that's still
> > quite a large margin.
>
> In this test, the CPU speeds are insignificant, as both CPU's can
> process data at over 10,000 times as fast as the disk drives
> can pass it out.
>
> In nearly all systems, the primary processing bottleneck is the
> disk drives.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
NOT TRUE! According to Microsoft it's the keyboard.
Hence the airodynamic version we see here today!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:11:11 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Tue, 04 Jul 2000 23:21:33 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote on 4 Jul 2000 21:49:27 GMT <8jtm57$gn1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >How can you move from VM on an S/390 to linux on an S/390 and lose EBCDIC?
> >>
> >> Who says we've lost it? :-)
> >>
> >> dd conv=ascii if=ebcdic_file of=ascii_file
> >> dd conv=ebcdic if=ascii_file of=ebcdic_file
> >> dd conv=ibm if=ascii_file of=ebcdic2_file (different mapping?)
> >
> >
> >That's good for PRINTING Characters, but the control-characters
> >have different nuances, and don't translate very well.
> >
> >For example, EBCDIC doesn't have anything that corresponds exactly to
> >the control characters SOH and EOH (Start of Header, End of Header).
>
> Interesting. Now that I didn't know.
Some books have EBCDIC charts along with ASCII.
If you ever see one, you'll recognize immediately that it's a mess.
Such as... the alphabet is not contigous
(I believe) The EBCDIC code for I is EBCDIC('H') + 4
or somethine weird like that.
Strange, periodic breaks in the printing character codes.
The control codes are mixed among the printing characters.
It's a mess.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 03:06:23 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 02:41:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yea and every violinist has written a concerto......
...or more accurately, everyone who has written a
concerto (at least one that would survive long enough
to reach your ears) is a musician.
>
>The problem with you LinoScrews is that you have yet to realize that
>money drives everything.
That certainly explains the birth of the internet.
>
>You can fantasize all about Open Sores all you want but until some
>crafty company see's a way of making money off of it, driver support
>for Linsux will always be lacking. And shit flows downhill so that
>translates into no Linsux users.
You are simply dellusional.
>
>It's really very simple.
You're an idiot.
People buy or consume product because it is profitable in terms
of utility to do so. Saving a few bucks, or saving millions of
bucks can be quite an incentive. Not everyone is a robber baron.
Infact, most people AREN'T robber barons. The record industry is
finding this out the hard way at the moment.
Robber barons aren't the only people that are motivated by $$$.
This fact used to work in Microsoft's favor due to rampant piracy,
now it will work against it. If you are unaware of this historical
trend then you are a clueless transient newbie.
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 02:31:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>>>And in the big picture of it all they account for virtually no market
>>>share at all.
>>
>> ...but they account for ALL OF THE PRODUCT.
>>
>>[deletia]
>
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:15:35 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:24:08 +0100, Alex DeLarge
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Why is it that all you LIE-nux nuts alwase clame that Windo's crashes all
> >the time when its not trew?
> >
> >I don't find that windows crashes all the time, in fact I use windows for
> >lots of things, including this post. But I do know for a fact that it slows
> >down over time because of the registry getting bigger. I do know that it's
> >memory management is awful (NT's is better but not much, and I've not had a
> >chance to test 2K's). I do know that it's TCP/IP stack is absolutely
> >diabolical.
> >
>
> Its better than UNIX. On UNIX if your downloading a file you cant
> evan make new connectian because of "host name lookup faleure".
> Windo's doesn't halve this probelm at al.
Clue for the fucking clueless:
Either you keep every IP address for the entire freaking internet
in your hosts file, or you rely on DNS servers.
So, in fact, LoseDOS *DOES* suffer from this same problem
the only difference is, the error message is
"Host [blah blah] Unknown IP address"
Which means the same goddamned thing, you moron.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Simon, why are you here?
Date: 6 Jul 2000 02:21:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>No I'm not, I'm simply saying that folks don't give a hoot about the
>root cause of Linux's lack of hardware support. Chances are good they
>own the hardware (pre-load) and may be curious about Linsux.
>
>When all that Win hardware or even (as in my case) non Win hardware
>fails to function Linux will be deep sixed and the Linvocates can
>argue over who is responsible till they are blue in the face. Won't
>matter because they have lost another customer.
Evidently not in your case, since you keep coming back here whining that
Linux doesn't support your Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
Simon, NOBODY GIVES A MICRODAMN if Linux supports *your* hardware. I care
that Linux supports *my* hardware. And it does, because companies that
make Linux-supported hardware get my business, and companies that make
LoseModems or other such crap don't.
And frankly I can't be arsed to write a driver for an Illudium Q-36
Explosive Space Modulator just because some Wintroll acts like a baby on
Usenet. Until I have an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator of my own,
it just doesn't matter to me.
If you want Linux to support your hardware, here are your options:
1) Check for Linux support before you buy;
2) Write the driver yourself; or
3) Be patient, and QUIT WHINING.
(1) requires you to go to linuxdoc.org and RTF-HOWTOs.
(2) requires some programming ability, and again you have to go to
linuxdoc.org and RTF-HOWTOs.
Since RTF-HOWTOs seems to be beyond you, all I can suggest is (3).
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:24:16 -0400
Rich C wrote:
>
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8jvuu3$2mq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Why? We don't all have to agree.
>
> Agreed. :o)
>
> >
> > >It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of
> a
> > >useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these
> components
> > >are NOT part of Linux. However, when confronted with the issue that
> Windows
> > >version [whatever] has a nice user interface, they instantly point to KDE
> or
> > >Gnome being "just as good." This type of two-headed posturing is not
> > >constructive.
> >
> > Yes it is, as soon as you understand that there is no single dictator
> > controlling what combination of components you may use.
>
> But the premise of claiming certain components to be part of GNU/Linux to
> support one argument while at the same time disowning them to support
> another is logically flawed.
>
> >
> > >Well, which is it? Are the KDE/Gnome desktops part of "Linux," or aren't
> > >they?
> >
> > The choice of using them or not comes with Linux. And for the same
> > price...
>
> Fine. You are arguing that the separation of components is a good thing, and
> that the benefit of "mixing and matching" is a result. This is the same
> philosophy that the auto companies used in the 1980's with their "parts bin
> engineering" mentality. But since cars in the 1980s generally sucked, there
> are obviously drawbacks that need to be addressed.
This model works better in some respects than in others.
Example: The railroads have been using this EXACT same model from the
very beginning... identical hitches on all cars allow ANY car to be
inserted or appended ANYWHERE within the train.
Car design, due to the physical interface between components, doesn't
work very well on this model.
Conversely, the Audio Visual industry works VERY well on this same
concept (or have you not noticed that you can replace your Panasonic
VCR with a Sony VCR, and expect it to hook in and work IMMEDIATELY
without making any modifications to other equipment).
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:28:27 -0400
Rich C wrote:
>
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8jvuu3$2mq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Why? We don't all have to agree.
>
> Agreed. :o)
>
> >
> > >It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of
> a
> > >useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these
> components
> > >are NOT part of Linux. However, when confronted with the issue that
> Windows
> > >version [whatever] has a nice user interface, they instantly point to KDE
> or
> > >Gnome being "just as good." This type of two-headed posturing is not
> > >constructive.
> >
> > Yes it is, as soon as you understand that there is no single dictator
> > controlling what combination of components you may use.
>
> But the premise of claiming certain components to be part of GNU/Linux to
> support one argument while at the same time disowning them to support
> another is logically flawed.
>
> >
> > >Well, which is it? Are the KDE/Gnome desktops part of "Linux," or aren't
> > >they?
> >
> > The choice of using them or not comes with Linux. And for the same
> > price...
>
> Fine. You are arguing that the separation of components is a good thing, and
> that the benefit of "mixing and matching" is a result. This is the same
> philosophy that the auto companies used in the 1980's with their "parts bin
> engineering" mentality. But since cars in the 1980s generally sucked, there
> are obviously drawbacks that need to be addressed.
>
> >
> > >All current versions of Windows include a GUI user interface, and for
> what
> > >it's worth, it IS easy to use.
> >
> > For some people, some of the time, for some things. It is not
> > particularly easy to use when the machine running the program
> > is elsewhere, or you have many machines and want to control all
> > of them from one screen/keyboard, or cut and paste between them.
>
> Yes, Linux is superior for network management functions. But this does not
> apply to the average user's desktop system, where all they want to "manage"
> is their local machine.
>
> >
> > >Linux is claimed to be "just a kernel" which, in and of itself, is not
> much
> > >good. It requires many GNU utilities, at an absolute minimum, and SOME
> type
> > >of GUI, to be considered "useable" as a desktop system.
> >
> > For some things - and probably for most people.
>
> In what applications is "just the kernel" useful?
The kernal defines the model, the environment..the horizons which
determine what a program can do....and the rules that the application
must follow.
LoseDOS is severely hampered by the fact that the kernal does NOT
have any concept of different users having ownership of files
and directories, for instance. Thus, entire classes of problems
cannot be solved on a Windows machine without the programmer having
to CUSTOM MAKE his own way of keeping users from destroying each
other's data (either accidentally or maliciously).
Even LoseDOS NonTechnology fails to address this.
Do you want others, or do will you be wise, and admit defeat now.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 07:32:54 +0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> Linux will always play catchup to Windows for device drivers - why? -
>
UDMA 100!
Pete, get your facts straight first before you open your big mouth.
Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:38:34 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Let me see what does Linux not support on my system...
>
> 1. Even though Linux detects my USB ZIP 250 drive, it does not work.
>
> 2. Linux notices my scanner (HP 4200C USB) it leaves it alone; no drivers.
>
> 3. I switched to a Voodoo 5 5500 card; Linux has no drivers for this. Even
> though the card is Voodoo 3 compatible, the driver refuses to install.
>
> So now I have a console only Linux system. End of evaluation.
>
> Windows support all of these products as there are drivers available for
> them.
Does Windows have a driver for my 6-tape HP DAT changer????
Noooooooooo.
so, what's your fucking point, moron?
>
> Pete
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VM Ware looks cool.
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 07:41:53 +0400
Don't equate Laura with your poor mentality. She doesn't want
to do reboots just to use Winblows. Period.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> If Linux keeps trying to be Windows it is going to die just like OS/2.
>
>
Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:40:05 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niall Wallace) wrote in <8k025t$a0f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Only because all of those things only have Windows and/or Mac Support.
> >
> >If the people who made the things wrote linux support for them (ie
> >drivers) thern they would work.
>
> Even drivers written for things don't always work. I have a wheelmouse
> which doesn't work either. The best I've got is a crazy mouse.
sounds like a personal problem.
>
> Also, I forgot the WinTV card. Linux never even noticed it was there.
Translation: Pete is a moron.
>
> Linux will always play catchup to Windows for device drivers - why? -
> because there's no money to be made in writing device drivers for free, so
> there's no incentive to write them.
>
> Pete
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 03:39:17 GMT
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Bernie
>> --
>> Thomas --- Jefferson --- still surv--
>> John Adams
>> 2nd President of the US
>> Last words, 4 July 1826
>Actually, Jefferson had died earlier that day.
I know --- but those were the days of less-than-instantaneous communication.
In fact, Jefferson's last words should have been the .sig in either the
previous or the next post I made... the random .sig generator tries to pick
quotes made on or close to the current date (it started out as a program to
assign quotes to the days in a calendar I gave to a friend, and mutated
from there).
Bernie
--
It is easier to make war than to make peace
Georges Clemenceau
French Prime Minister 1906-09
Verdun, 20 July 1919
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 03:39:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>There are very few airline pilots in comparison to the number of
>people that use air travel on a daily basis.
And yet, airplane companies don't talk to passengers when they decide
how to rearrange the instruments in the cockpit.
And remember --- the pilots could fly without passengers (although it
would be a rather expensive hobby). I am sure I wouldn't want to be
a passenger if there were no pilots ;-)
Bernie
--
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full
Henry Kissinger
American politician
New York Times Magazine, 1 June 1969
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
