Linux-Advocacy Digest #490, Volume #27 Thu, 6 Jul 00 06:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Luv Linux but it looses. (JoeX1029)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Re: VM Ware looks cool. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Luv Linux but it looses.
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm (Aaron
Kulkis)
Re: History revision 1.27a (was Re: There is only one innovation (Eddie)
THOLEN: Just shut up, you fag! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Hexdump)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Daniel Tryba)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451732 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451732 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451732 (tinman)
Re: History revision 1.27a (was Re: There is only one innovationthat (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Luv Linux but it looses.
Date: 06 Jul 2000 04:54:51 GMT
I love Linux but for alot of purposes it just isn't the ticket. Yes it maybe
free and pretty stable and somewhat secure but for anybody worried about
security, total stabilty, Solaris and SCO OpenServer win hands down. The
licenses can get expensive but you are eventually rewarded with longer uptmes
and a much more secure box. If you look at www.insecure.org it has HUNDREDS of
hacks for Linux and 1 for SCO OpenServer. Solaris has it's fair share but all
are easily correctable. Linux is a great OS but for mission critical servers
and have to go with SCO or Sun. While some people will argue my points there
really is no doubt that SCO or Sun are better server options if affordable. It
hurts to say this but, Linux isn't a top choice for servers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 03:07:04 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 02:14:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Actually I burn copies and give them away all the time. I've given
>some to the local library as well as the local high school. I get all
>of my blanks for free, or almost free, so it's just a time thing.
This statement is logically absurd.
[deletia]
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: VM Ware looks cool.
Date: 5 Jul 2000 23:53:16 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You could buy a whole freaking PC for $300.00 less monitor.
>
>If you want to run Windows applications, run Windows. If you want to
>run Linux applications (if you can find any useful ones that is) run
>Linux.
But it is much nicer to be able to keep using the other
windows on the same box while waiting for all the reboots
it takes to do anything with MS windows and apps. With
VMWare the reboots happen in the virtual machine window
and don't affect the host system. Plus, you can cut and
paste and you don't need the monitor switch or extra
network connection like you would for a 2nd machine.
>If Linux keeps trying to be Windows it is going to die just like OS/2.
Do you really think the MS-Windows influence is that bad?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Luv Linux but it looses.
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 05:10:46 GMT
On 06 Jul 2000 04:54:51 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I love Linux but for alot of purposes it just isn't the ticket. Yes it maybe
>free and pretty stable and somewhat secure but for anybody worried about
>security, total stabilty, Solaris and SCO OpenServer win hands down. The
>licenses can get expensive but you are eventually rewarded with longer uptmes
>and a much more secure box. If you look at www.insecure.org it has HUNDREDS of
...until you start putting applications on it.
[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]>
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 01:37:10 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On windows, (when I was forced to use one) I am afraid to start more
> >than
> >2 or 2 applications at the same time else it will freeze or crash or
> >get hosed somehow.
>
> Have you ever used Windows2000?
Strange.. Unix has been running multiple application for multiple
users since the 1970's.
What took MonopolySoft so long...hmmmmmmmmmmm?
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 01:40:19 -0400
Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
>
> Laura Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With Redhat 5.2 I got a book fatter than the New York City Phone book
> > that was a manual. Good Lord, just the sight of it was intimidating.
> > The Windows manual is a ~pamphlet~.
> >
> > Now that old Linux manual is a ~monitor riser~ LOL.
>
> So buy your Linux from www.cheapbytes.com, and it doesn't
> come with a manual. Problem solved.
>
> The reverse problem is much harder to solve. I'd pay
> good money for a real honest-to-goodness technical
> reference manual for Windows, but they don't make 'em.
> All they make are books that tell you what you already
> know.
Clicking on "file" allows you to access file commands.
"Save" allows you to save the file.
Thanks, Microsoft...couldn't figure that shit out on my own ...
--
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.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: History revision 1.27a (was Re: There is only one innovation
From: Eddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 05:42:04 GMT
Has anyone stopped to notice that Mr. Steven "knowitall" edwards has made
over twenty postings and not one has had anything to do with the topic of
this newsgroup: BEOS!
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: THOLEN: Just shut up, you fag!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 01:54:49 -0400
I think that about covers it.
--
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] (Hexdump)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 07:11:13 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:44:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
>3. SoundBlaster Live, still is supported in an abortive manner. No
>Livewire, no SoundFonts, no effects, no Synth A / Synth B an so forth.
>Works fine under Windows and Win2k, which also has Livewire.
[snip]
Hmmm, I must be imagining that I'm listening to midi files.
ALSA, look into it. Was a pain to setup, but well worth the trouble
(I'm not using kerneld). Sound quality, for me, is excellent. Granted
there are probably features that aren't implemented yet, but it is far
better than you seem to think.
Hexdump
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 07:25:08 GMT
In article <8jvpnf$2cvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> And you lie constantly, as has been proven to one and all beyond the
> shadow of a doubt.
I cannot help your erroneous conclusions.
>
> Face it, pete, you wanted an easy replacement for windows. You wanted
it
> to just *work* right out of the box; you didnt want to have to read
any
> instructions, you didnt want to have to use your brain, and you are
> resentful because you feel like an idiot.
See above.
> And rightfully so, because you *are* an idiot.
About the level of conversation I came to expect.
> Linux clearly isnt for you, pete. So quit whining and move on.
No, you are incorrect, and I won't.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 07:28:46 GMT
In article <8jvpqi$2cvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> Ah. So when someone exposes your lies and deciet, they are a 'brick
wall'.
When the are clearly wrong and keep using insults, yep.
> All youre doing is pissing and whining like a spoiled little girl,
> and thats all you EVER do.
Your opinion of me counts for very little.
> Everyone thinks your credibility is zero. Seems to me that thats
> YOUR problem.
I see no evidence of what you say. In any case it doesn't make any
difference. Linux lags behind Windows. Whether you believe I have any
credibility makes no difference to that fact. Your slurs and insults
won't make it go away any time soon.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: 6 Jul 2000 07:42:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:>: Yea, but I can walk into virtually any household in my town and
:>: chances are good that if they have a computer, it's running Windows.
:>
:>If I walk into virtually any household in my town and chances are good
:>that if they have a computer, it's running Windows illegally.
: Maybe, but with the abundance of pre-loads I would say that at least
: the primary pc in a given household is legal. The others are probobly
: pirated though.
And by pirating one copy that copy becomes pirated also.
:>Can that be said of Linux?
: Can't say because I have yet to find a single person I know that has
: stayed with Linux after installing it.
wave.
:>Probably not. But the marketshare is still growing.
: It is growing big time in the server area and rightfully so, but on
: the desktop it is not growing at all..
So what you really want to know is if you walk into any house
in your town how many people are using NT4 Server or the W2k servers.
_That_ would be a fair comparison. And since these don't come
preloaded (often) the userbase is pretty small if you pick homes
at random.
: Sure people are trying it, but nobody is actually sticking with it
: unless you count geeks and programmers.
Sorry, I'm a geek and a (mostly windows) programmer and still I
keep running Linux and most people I know run similar.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,nl.scouting
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451732
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 08:02:10 GMT
Today's Haakmat digest:
1> Still no answer.
Why do you resist providing one, Pascal? It was, after all,
my question.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451732
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 08:03:59 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> I really don't think you know what that word means....
What you think is irrelevant.
1> Are you sure?
Absolutely.
1> Engaging in speculation as to your motives is hardly worth my time.
Irrelevant, given that no speculation is required.
1> On the contrary.
Typical pontification.
1> Typically vague.
How ironic.
------------------------------
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 10:08:43 +0100
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:22:12 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:51:05 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:39:32 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Jim Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>> >Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
>>>> >defined?
>>>> >
>>>> >hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
>>>>
>>>> No, that's exactly what it isn't. The whole point of PnP is that
>>>> IRQs etc. are settable by _software_ so that you don't have to
>>>> bugger around with jumpers. In theory it should be simple for a
>>>> PnP-aware OS to find a working configuration, but somehow Windows
>>>> manages to break in exciting and unpredictable ways.
>>>
>>>Because of hardware that doens't follow the PnP standards.
>>
>>Feh. That's *too* easy. Why is it, then, that a piece of hardware that
>>resolutely fails to install and configure under Windows (no idea
>>whether or not it "follows PnP standards") is capable of being
>>installed flawlessly, in one hit, on the same machine under Linux? The
>>hardware in question, BTW, was a Creative AWE32 and a Pace modem.
>
>Yet some people on here say Linux does a -worse- job of PnP detection
>than does Win2k. Hmm... I think there's still a lot of confusion on
>the issue. In any case, I've not had problems, save one, with
>hardware installation in any X86 W2k or W98 (or Linux 2.2) machine.
I honestly couldn't comment on whether Linux does a better or a worse
job. What I can say is that when it goes wrong on Linux, it is
possible for someone technically competent to do something about it:
when it goes wrong in Windows, there's very little one can do. I
actually replaced a perfectly good ISA plug and play modem in a
customer's Windows machine simply because we couldn't get the thing to
work properly on the IRQ and port addresses it was set up for -
fortunately the replacement PCI card was OK. The ISA modem is now
performing good service in...a Linux box!
>The one problem - inserting an unknown-brand NIC into an HP6645C (the
>$150 computer) caused the machine to yell at me during powerup (before
>an OS is loaded) with some sort of conflict, so I popped that NIC out,
>put in another one, and all was well.
>
>>If a bunch of h8ck3r g33ks can get it to work, why on earth cannot
>>Microsoft?
>
>On the contrary, those products were made to work in Windows. It's
>you that hasn't gotten it to work; I suspect doing a bit of research
>(BIOS PnP turned on?
<sigh> Yes. I didn't start doing this stuff yesterday.
> Did they have any IRQ assigned to them ever, if
>not PnP hardware?) and such would help a lot...
You don't say! :-)
Sure, but I hear this a lot from MS advocates when I have questioned
these problems in the past. Trouble is - no-one can ever tell me
*what* I'm supposed to have done wrong, and when the problem
eventually does get resolved, it doesn't seem to have been as a result
of my doing anything any differently. Whether it's NT crashes, spooler
failures (should having bidirectional support turned on for a network
printer *really* crash the entire spooler and require the NT machine
to be rebooted?), or hardware installation problems, the difficulty
always seems to be that the Windows product in question tries to do
something in a certain way, and if that fails, leaves no option for
sensible manual intervention.
If it all worked perfectly, it would be a non-issue. It doesn't, and
therefore it is. At least Linux accounts for the possibility that it
might not all work perfectly, and one has the opportunity to
investigate and correct the problem, or manually intervene.
Admittedly, it works fine most of the time, but two things emerge:
one, you're never completely in control of a Windows box; two, support
for Linux problems is *infinitely* better than support - whether via
Usenet or Microsoft - for Windows products.
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 10:10:36 +0100
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:50:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Madrake has this automount application that is supposed to take care
>of that automatically, when running audio CD's.
>
>If you were correct, why does it work sometimes?
>
>Linsux, is full of bugs.....
Which get fixed. Remind me - how many bugs did Microsoft admit to
their being in the first release of Windows 2000?
And how many of them are fixed, months later?
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 10:22:11 +0100
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:16:56 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 11:33:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>>So why doesn't Linux have IRQ problems?
>
>Some here have said it does; there's still confusion on the issue.
IRQ problems are a function of the hardware. IMO, Linux copes with
those problems better than Windows does, at least insofar as there is
always the option of tweaking an isapnp.conf file and getting it to
work that way.
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 10:20:31 +0100
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:17:06 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:39:32 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Because of hardware that doens't follow the PnP standards.
>>
>> Feh. That's *too* easy. Why is it, then, that a piece of hardware that
>> resolutely fails to install and configure under Windows (no idea
>> whether or not it "follows PnP standards") is capable of being
>> installed flawlessly, in one hit, on the same machine under Linux?
>
>Luck. It works in both directions.
Sure, and I agree with you. The thing is, when your luck runs out on a
Windows box, you're stuck. At least, on the Linux machine, you still
have some options left.
> ISA "PnP" hardware is a crap shoot. Always has been, always will be. The
>only exception to this rule IME is the original SB16, which is detected and
>installed flawlessly in ever OS I've ever tried (that supports it).
Hmmm. It certainly *did* detect and install flawlessly in my NT
Workstation box. For a while. Then it stopped working, which is where
all the fun *really* began.
>> The
>> hardware in question, BTW, was a Creative AWE32 and a Pace modem.
>
>The former of which I know will installed fine under Win95, once you have
>the drivers.
Yup. And it has done. Which is why it was all the more perplexing that
it wouldn't install under NT Workstation. I actually thought the card
had failed, and bought a PCI SB card, which *did* install fine. It's
more than likely that something odd had occurred, and that the problem
was not to do with the AWE card, but I couldn't find that out from the
O/S, and I was fresh out of options.
>> If a bunch of h8ck3r g33ks can get it to work, why on earth cannot
>> Microsoft?
>
>If I'm not mistaken the AWE32 was released after Win95, so it's quite
>understandable it would have problems with that. I've personally witnessed
>them install flawlessly under Win98, so I know it's not a problem there.
>The Pace modem might be a problem. Again, it's not Microsoft's
>responsibility to support hardware. *Especially* broken hardware (although
>they tend to go out of their way to support broken software and hardware,
>for the sake of market share).
It's no-one's responsibility. But the reputation of any software
vendor relies upon how easy their product gets on with the hardware,
regardless of whether they're responsible or not - and it's simply not
good enough just to blame the hardware on every occasion. Of course,
MS have been able to get away with that for years, because there was
very little else in the marketplace that ran on the same architecture,
so if stuff didn't work with the Windows family, it was easy to write
it off as broken hardware. Now that Linux is gaining popularity,
plenty of people have had the chance to test their - allegedly -
broken hardware under a different OS which, amazingly, copes fine.
The bottom line with Linux is: if it's supported, you'll be able to
configure it. No strange plug'n'play errors, no odd IRQ conflicts
appearing spuriously. Of course, if it isn't supported, then you're
SOL, but that seems to be becoming less and less of an issue as LInux
continues to develop and mature.
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451732
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 05:42:03 -0400
In article <P3X85.20353$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> 1> I really don't think you know what that word means....
>
> What you think is irrelevant.
Then why do you continue to reply to my posts?
> 1> Are you sure?
>
> Absolutely.
Too bad, being wrong like that's not a good thing.
>
> 1> Engaging in speculation as to your motives is hardly worth my time.
>
> Irrelevant, given that no speculation is required.
On the contrary.
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> Typical pontification.
You really don't know what pontification means.
> 1> Typically vague.
>
> How ironic.
How ironic.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: History revision 1.27a (was Re: There is only one innovationthat
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 06:04:57 -0400
Eddie wrote:
>
> Has anyone stopped to notice that Mr. Steven "knowitall" edwards has made
> over twenty postings and not one has had anything to do with the topic of
> this newsgroup: BEOS!
the topic here in comp.os.linux.advocacy is LINUX
The topic over there in comp.os.unix.advocacy is UNIX
Dork.
--
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: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 05:07:30 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:25:37 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> >>
> >> >You want Liberty for buyers on the slave labor of add on developers.
> >>
> >> You have the trappings of being a capitalist yet you expect
> >> to be able to use other's work for free. That is simply
> >> absurd.
> >>
> >Actually, a gift is a gift. I don't argue against using the
>
> Here would be a classic case of oversimplification.
>
> This might fly in a preschool but not here.
>
GPLed software isn't free and has redistribution encumberances. Calling
the GPL free is not accurate because of the encumberances. I guess that
a short attention span can make you confused like you are. :-).
The issue of 'preschool' is interesting, and growing away from the GPL
or (just as good or better) grow away from the lies and
misinformation associated with the cult. The major problem is the
cult like status, and taking it as a simple license (without
calling it free) is certainly an improvement. GPL is just another
commercial license. It might even be a slightly improved license,
but it ain't free :-).
>
> It is time for you to move on charlatain.
>
You have created another information free sentence. It is both
incorrect, and you lower yourself to vacuous namecalling. Identifying
with the GPL can make you feel bad, and trying to make others
feel bad with mindless namecalling is pretty obvious.
Hey, I am not arguing against GPL, I am arguing against lying. You are
ONLY defending lies and deception by defending the unqualified term
'free'
when describing the GPL...
John
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
