Linux-Advocacy Digest #498, Volume #27 Thu, 6 Jul 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Distribution reviews (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: VM Ware looks cool. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A cute linux song ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. ("Brian")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Wasn't linux well established BEFORE antitrust action? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: A cute linux song (Jim Agnew)
Re: VM Ware looks cool. (Perry Pip)
Re: A cute linux song
Re: A cute linux song (Perry Pip)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (abraxas)
Re: A cute linux song (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:06:40 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:38:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote on Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:12:54 -0400
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>simple [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You'd love Linsux.
> >>>
> >>> Try it sometime....
> >>
> >>What`s Linsux???? a ms ripoff from Linux? Only ms could break something
> >>like Linux.
> >
> >"Linsux" is a term used to deride Linux, much like "Windoze",
> >"Losedoze", "Winsucks", "WinDOS", and "LoseDOS" are used to
>
> Actually WinDOS is not just a term of derision. It is also
> meant to point out the fact that underneath the Windows that
> run on most Microsoft users's desktops is a nasty old CLI.
> It's also meant make sure that current shills don't conveniently
> neglect the fact that for most of Microsoft's history as an OS vendor
> (even most of it's history competing with the Macintosh) that it was
> providing only a simple program loader, incapable of sensibly
> exploiting modern hardware, possesing a really nasty end user
> interface.
>
LoseDOS is further clarification, not only of the DOS component as
outlined above, that the syllable "win" is NOT appropriate when
referring to Microsoft products.
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
> of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
> |||
> / | \
--
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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Distribution reviews
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:10:48 -0500
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 09:50:27 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I have used Lynx quite a bit actually. It's too bad so many sites are
> >going out of thier way to make things totally unreadable in Lynx (you
> >almost have to do that on purpose as Lynx reads standard HTML very
> >well).
>
> Except for tables. I doesn't handle them real well. w3m does much
> better.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
True enough. I have used w3m, but started just using Netscape or
Mozilla for anything that requires tables support.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:14:51 -0400
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> It should fly. When I give a gift to someone, I expect nothing back (not
> Except it is not represented as 'gratisware'. It is quite
> explicitly represented as 'libreware' with the intent that
> it always remain so.
Then don't call it 'free'.
> Instead you're spouting "free!free!free!" like a 3 year old
> without any consideration of the full meaning of that word.
Nope. I'm saying that you're full of shit for pretending that
'libreware' is 'free' (hint: 'libre' is the animate sense of free, and
software ain't animate).
-f, part time linguist
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 06 Jul 2000 15:19:49 -0400
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your counter-example is fallacious. An example of a GPL-like parking
> lot is that it is marked 'free parking', but that means that it is
> 'free' to park there. However, a GPL-parking lot requires that you
> pay to leave the lot with your car.
No, my counter-example is just that, a counter-example. It's an example
where the word free is used in a context that is universally understood,
and universally considered unambiguous, and nevertheless confers only a
limited freedom to the party who accepts it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: VM Ware looks cool.
Date: 6 Jul 2000 14:15:12 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I agree that the software is rather pricey. I built PCs myself, and I
>>disagree that you can buy a decent computer for under $300.00, but a
>>junker, yes.
>
> The performance you get will likely be similar. VMWARE is really
> quite slow, being an actual emulator rather than something
> similar to SheepShaver. The x86 is just a bit to crufty.
No, that's partly backwards. It doesn't do x86 emulation in software
except for some magic to accomodate the fact that pentiums can't
quite virtualize themselves. However it presents virtual hardware
in the form of IDE, network, and VGA controllers that get mapped
back to the host OS. Disk and network I/O seem reasonably fast
and the screen is OK for most things other than games.
>>I personally would find it more convenient (not to mention more
>>economical) to run my home LAN on Linux, and use something like VM Ware
>>to run WinNT, Win9x, and BeOS within virtual machines. It's more
>
> Plus the virtualization of the machine that WinXX is running
> on makes the whole more reliable than it would be otherwise.
> Nevermind you could use the virtual machine as a testbed for
> new distributions.
It has a really nifty feature that allows all disk modifications
to be logged rather than affecting the real disk, so no matter
what happens you can reboot to your last saved configuration.
This would be great for testing software that might accidentally
do something destructive.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 06 Jul 2000 15:20:53 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> It may be simple, but the restrictions make it anything but free.
Nope, just like my favorite new example, two-hour free parking.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:20:28 -0500
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >> I could buy myself a cheap PC just to run Linux. A CA810 system comes to
> >> mind. Nice and cheap. Ah, but I've got no room left in my house for a third
> >> PC. What about a laptop? Hmmm... where can I find a list of Linux
> >> compatible laptops?
> >
> >If you are actually serious about this, why not buy one pre-loaded?
> >Tuxtops.com is a good place to buy pre-loaded Sony Viao laptops (and
> >some IBM). Or do a search on Linux laptops. There are several
> >companies pre-loading, even Dell and IBM themselves.
> >
>
> That wouldn't be any fun. What would he have to complain about
> if he couldn't pick obscure hardware and make it fail somehow?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, he could still buy aftermarket hardware and then complain that his
new TuxTops Linux laptop didn't support the newest version of
_WHIZBANG_DEADLY_HARDWRE. At least if he really wanted to complain,
that would be one way of doing it. But you are right, it's easier to
complain if you buy a laptop that is already known to not support Linux
in any way shape or form, and then try to get it to run.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:26:38 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:21:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote on Thu, 06 Jul 2000 02:14:09 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>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.
>>
>>I have yet to hear of one single person who has stuck with Linux,
>>although many have tried it.
>>
>>Linux speaks for itself....
>
>Am I correct in assuming that each of these copies has been subtly
>modified to put in adverts for Windows 2000 every chance it gets
>(i.e., during startup, or perhaps in various banners in kfm or
>konqueror or even Mozilla), and the source code modified to subtly
>crash with no discernible reason why?
I wouldn't know how to do it even if I wanted to, and no they are
exact copies of the original CD's which are mostly shrinkwrap
varieties.
>I for one could do that, given time, a Red Hat 6.2 source distribution
>(which I'd want to have anyway, for various reasons), and inclination
>(which I don't have).
It's all geek to me..
>If not, I simply fail to see the point of the above statement.
>Unless you're pulling our collective legs again -- which is
>always a possibility. :-)
Not at all. Linux is a hot topic of discussion amongst musicians,
mostly because musicians have little money and the price of software
is idiotic at best.
I throw them a Linux CD and let them go to town.
They discover soon enough how inferior Linux is and I don't have to
say a word.
Linux speaks for itself. Try it and see.
>I like Linux. I could see myself distributing copies, given the right
>conditions. (Mind you, I'm not sure I have the guts to stand in
>front of a major electronics store looking slightly nerdy... :-) )
I look a little nerdy myself, and I would venture to say Linux would
go over big at the local electronics shop.
>You do not like Linux (one can draw this conclusion from various
>admissions in the past). So unless you give the recipients thereof
>an advert for Win2k or Win98SE or WinME, I fail to see the point
>of this activity.
The point is that a person interested in Linux is given a free copy by
me. If they like it and continue to use it great. But, experience has
shown that most dump it after trying it. Some scerw their entire
systems up (their own fault, not Linux) and become rabid anti-Linux
people.
It's great...The more the merrier.
Linux wants to come out of the geek closet and compete with Windows?
Then it has to be able to take the heat, like Windows does, of people
trying to make it work without having a clue.
>Perhaps a pamphlet from Microsoft...
Nahh. They have ugly looking women in their ad's.
Worse than IBM...
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:54:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>
>>>>But how many people are actually USING Linux?
>>>
>>>>I have some 15 different distributions/versions on my shelf and use
>>>>none of them.
>>>
>>>May I assume that you will soon donate them to your favourite
>>>Linux-Giveaway initiative?
>>>
>>>Bernie
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:28:01 GMT
And don't YOU pretend to understand Linux.
You don't have to mount an audio CD....
idiot....
On 6 Jul 2000 19:02:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> It's a fsking cult I tell you.......
>>
>
>Dont pretend to understand what 'fsck' means.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Jul 2000 14:23:05 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Moral justifications that only justify the license in it's own right,
>>but don't justify the lie about the license being free.
>
> It's no lie.
>
> Minimal encumberances are a necessary element of being "free"
> in practice rather than merely in theory.
It is really hard to defend this justification, given the large
variety of software that really is free without the encumberance.
>>Nice speech, but begs the issue.
>
> No, it is a description of the necessities of liberty as they
> actually are in practice.
If there weren't any really free software the proposition that it
wouldn't be possible might be reasonable. But...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:27:01 -0500
David Steinberg wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : This is rather odd. If the guy is an advocate why did he state that he
> : bought from the one company he knows sucks at Linux support (which is
> : even odder when you consider how Compaq has jumped on the Linux wagon)?
> : In his article he says he bought a Compaq, then he says that he knows
> : Linux has real troubles with Compaq hardware. I would say by his
> : methods that he is a Window advocate. Although, he did manage to get it
> : working in the end, which makes me wonder...
>
> Why assume he's advocating at all?
>
> Perhaps he figures his target audience consists of people who want to run
> Linux but need advice about how/where to run it. He is advising this
> audence not to use Compaq hardware to run Linux.
>
> The fact that he doesn't conclude, based on his negative experience with
> this hardware and Linux, that Linux "sucks" separates him from the trolls
> that post here. Clearly, he has enough experience with Linux on other
> hardware to know that's not true. Instead, he draws the reasonable
> conclusion that using Linux with that particular hardware isn't easy. His
> readers learn that they should avoid that hardware if they want to run
> Linux.
>
> (I think his message and his intentions are clear from the article,
> regardless of the FUD-spin that Simon/Steve/Heather/etc. puts on it.)
>
> --
> David Steinberg -o)
> Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
Yeah, just making conversation. And actually, the article does come
across as if he is jumping both sides of the fence at times. I'm not
sure if he's an advocate of anything, but it is an interesting tie-in to
talk about.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:30:50 GMT
Hi Aaron:
Aaron Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I've yet to see even a 400 VA battery backup that wasn't equipped
>with a 30A wall cord.
Sorry dude, apples and oranges.
First of all, most UPS's are equipped with a 115V 15A wall cord.
Second, a 400VA battery backup is capable of amazing short term power
generation - limited only by the internal resistance of the batteries, the
collective on-resistance of the power MOSFETs and the cumulative resistance
of wire and solder.
Violation of any of the myriad rules of order at the alter of the mighty
electron will release the magic smoke from the weakest links, often the most
expensive components.
Where is this thread going, anyway?
Best regards,
Brian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Jul 2000 14:30:03 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>> It may be simple, but the restrictions make it anything but free.
>
>Nope, just like my favorite new example, two-hour free parking.
And in the fine print: any work done while sitting here must
be given away, along with any tools used to do it. Not
quite accurate, but car analogies are always flawed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Wasn't linux well established BEFORE antitrust action?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:36:53 -0500
Adam Smith wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In today's Boston Globe, columnist H. Bray wrote the article:
>
> > http://www.globe.com/dailyglobe2/188/business/Palmtop_suffers_Microsoft_
> > too+.shtml
>
> > He makes the argument that the doj/ms antitrust action has given
> > several technologies an opportunity to thrive. Linux was listed
> > as one of those technolovies. I think this gives WAY too much
> > credit to the antitrust trial for the rise of linux.
>
> > As I recall, linux was well established prior to the
> > antitrust trial getting under way.
>
> I think you're misinterpreting Bray's comments. What he actually said
> was:
>
> Ever since Microsoft Corp. found itself
> ensnared in the federal antitrust
> lawsuit, industry mavens like me have been
> on the lookout for signs that the software
> titan was going soft under the strain.
>
> There have been a few: Microsoft's inability
> to quash the growing popularity of the Linux
> operating system, and the retirements and
> departures of many of the firm's key
> executives.
>
> Note that he's not giving the antitrust case credit for Linux's rise;
> rather, he's saying (and has said several times previously) that had
> it not been for the antitrust case, Microsoft might have taken more
> direct action against Linux in the last two years.
>
> As far as I can recall, Microsoft hasn't really made any aggressive
> attempt to curtail the growth of Linux. (Please correct me if I'm
> wrong.) Why not? Maybe it's because Microsoft as an organization was
> blind to Linux's potential and never considered it a serious threat.
> But maybe it's because with the DoJ breathing down their necks, they
> didn't dare take any action against Linux for fear of looking even
> more anti-competitive. That, I think, is Bray's point.
>
> --
> Adam Smith
> Boston University
> Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
>
> "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in
> practice there is."
I wonder if maybe Microsoft has been hugely affected by the trial. A
few years ago (maybe only two) I expected to see a huge MS backlash to
Linux. The backlash I figured would happen (and still expect at any
moment) is an attempt at MS Linux, which will completely and utterly
suck. What better way to destroy Linux? Make a version of it that is
buggy and slower than hell and market the piss out of it, then when it
fails MS can say, "See? Linux sucks, just like we said all along, now
please come back to the Windows fold."
Of course, this could backfire if they ever make the attempt to say they
will support their version of Linux. But I wouldn't look for that to
happen. After all, they don't support Windows (and never have as far as
I can tell). If you don't believe me, try calling a MS support line
sometime. I swear, you will recieve one of the canned responses:
1. It sounds like a hardware problem (number one response from MS
techs).
2. It sounds like a software conflict caused by (insert third party
software here). You will need to format and re-install without (insert
third party software here) and purchase (insert MS attempt to mimic
third party software here) to have an "officially" supported system.
(Note: I have actually heard this one myself.)
3. We don't support your copy of Windows. Call your reseller (probably
second only to you have a hardware problem.).
And that's pretty much the only support MS will give on any product they
ever sell.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:33:57 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:00:13 -0400...
...and Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 a lot of BSD-licensed utilities. And a lot of X-licensed
utilities. And a lot of Artistic License perly stuff. You get the
picture?
> I think it's time we took ownership of the various GUI desktops that ship in
> GNU/Linux
The name "GNU/Linux" is just as misleading as simply "Linux".
> distributions, even if it means acknowledging certain flaws in
> each. After all, to be really "useable" as a desktop environment, a GUI must
> be installed.
Nonsense. Why should the Linux people take ownership of what runs on
Linux? Most of what runs on top of our kernel will happily run on
dozens of other platforms.
> This of course does not mean that one can't argue that the separation of the
> GUI from the kernel adds to the stability of the core OS, and that this
> design is superior to the various flavors of Windows. But then we must
> accept that this separation invites certain problems, such as a lack of
> basic feature integration (cut and paste, drag and drop, etc.)
How is this a problem with the kernel?
mawa
--
Einblattlocher!
Elektrogriller!
Erbsenpürierer!
Zweifingertipper!
------------------------------
From: Jim Agnew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:35:20 -0400
File
System
Cache
K for filling out the work
kinda like a unix style scandisk, i guess
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It's a fsking cult I tell you.......
> >
>
> Dont pretend to understand what 'fsck' means.
>
> -----yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: VM Ware looks cool.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:40:00 GMT
On 6 Jul 2000 14:15:12 -0500,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It has a really nifty feature that allows all disk modifications
>to be logged rather than affecting the real disk, so no matter
>what happens you can reboot to your last saved configuration.
>This would be great for testing software that might accidentally
>do something destructive.
>
Yeah, great for checking out the latest and greatest vbs viruses:)
Perry
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:40:07 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's a fsking cult I tell you.......
>
> Now they have their own theme song.....
Do you understand that "fsking" is a mispelling of "fscking" which
represents the processes of running the filesystem check utility of unix
that is called "fsck". Your use of the term makes it appear that you think
that "fsck" is an alternate spelling of a certain four letter word. Your
statement restated using the Windows and Dos utilitiy programs for the
similar purpose would be:
It's a chkdsking cult I tell you.......
or
It's a scandisking cult I tell you.......
I know what you meant to say and that would have been stupid enough, but
using "fsking" makes you appear pathetic and nothing more.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:44:38 GMT
On 6 Jul 2000 19:02:26 GMT,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> It's a fsking cult I tell you.......
>>
>
>Dont pretend to understand what 'fsck' means.
>
For Simon 'fsck' means masturbation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: 6 Jul 2000 19:57:25 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
Erroneous? How many deja posts have to be dug up before youll claim
responsibility for your own lies, coward?
>> Linux clearly isnt for you, pete. So quit whining and move on.
>
> No, you are incorrect, and I won't.
>
If I was incorrect, you wouldnt be having such a difficult time
figuring it out.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 6 Jul 2000 20:02:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And don't YOU pretend to understand Linux.
>
> You don't have to mount an audio CD....
>
As I stated before, that was my mistake, I havent listened to an audio CD
on any platform for about 3.5 years. Too quick to type, not quick enough to
consider that not everyone converted to mp3 cds when I did.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
