Linux-Advocacy Digest #544, Volume #27 Sun, 9 Jul 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451735 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451735 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics) (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics) (Isaac)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451735
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 04:13:33 GMT
Thorne continues to deny that he altered what I wrote, which included
a question about the alleged lack of "specificy" of which he accused
me, in an attempt to hide his error. Indeed, he repeated his alteration
every time I reproduced the evidence that he requested. It is therefore
reasonable to expect him to engage in further alteration of history, if
I were to repeatedly note his errors below involving no "reponse".
Today's Thorne digest:
1> The Tholenator tholed:
1> Prove it, if you think you can.
Been there, done that. Several times. All you do is continue to
alter the evidence.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Unnecessary.
1> Illogical.
1> Typical erroneous and unsubstantiated claim.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> I see you failed to answer the question, Dave. No surprise
1> there.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> I see you failed to answer the question, Dave. No surprise
1> there.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> I see you failed to answer the question, Dave. No surprise
1> there.
1> Incorrect.
1> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of "several times."
1> Prove it, if you think you can.
Been there, done that. Several times. All you do is continue to
alter the evidence.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Note: no reponse.
1> Incorrect. Are you taking incorrectness lessons from
1> Joe "Master of Incorrectness" Malloy again? How typical.
1> Note: no reponse.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 9 Jul 2000 04:03:48 GMT
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:24:26 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Actually, it's simpler than that. In the other post, it seems like his
>friend tried using a SCSI drive on an iMac _without_ a SCSI-USB
>converter.
He had the proper converter.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451735
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 04:26:29 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Note how he tries to obfuscate the issue
by referring to some alleged "requirements", but there were no
requirements. I unilaterally ignored Malloy for over a year without
making any deals, without Malloy making any offer. Malloy claimed
that he reciprocated, but that is an obvious lie, given his numerous
postings in response to articles I wrote in response to others. He's
too embarrassed to admit that he, in fact, did not reciprocate, and now
he's trying to cover up that lie with another lie, namely this
nonexistent "offer" of his, and a third lie, namely my alleged
"mistake", and a fourth lie, namely "astrologer".
Note how he also avoids the illogic of his claim that he'd have
little reason to "frequent these precincts" if I wasn't here, yet
he doesn't frequent the other "precincts" where I appear. Seems like
he's comfortable only where he can count on others to join him.
106> Tholen tholes another digest.
106>
106> Note how he now completely ignores all the issues, including fulfilling the
106> requirements for a reciprocation. He clearly claims that I haven't
106> reciprocated yet he didn't even know the terms of my offer, terms he clearly
106> did not meet. Yes, he's too embarrassed to admit that he, in fact, has made
106> another mistake. But we know it's typical Tholen tomfoolery. What can you
106> expect from an astrologer, eh?
106>
106> Anyway, on to the summary of everything of value that Tholens manages to
106> cough up:
106>
106> [Why, there's nothing here! Surprise, surprise!]
106>
106> Thanks for reading.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics)
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 00:35:21 -0400
On 9 Jul 2000, Lee Hollaar wrote:
>> If you
>> distribute your code either aggregated with the library or even
>> without the library intending that final user gets the library
>> on his own, you have accomplished a virtual distribution of a derivative
>> work.
> If you distribute your code aggregated with the library, you have
> created a "compilation", which is "a work formed by the collection and
> assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected,
> coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a
> whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 17 USC 101.
>
> And just because you may have the copyright on the compilation and
> some of its preexisting works, without the permission of the copyright
> owners of the other preexisting works you can't distribute the
> compilation.
So, please correct me if I'm wrong on this, the GPL licence only speaks
toward derivative works (at least, that's the impression I've gotten
based on what you've said). This means that you could theoretically
distribute a GPLed library and an MPLed access program and not be in
technical violation of the GPL -- so long as they are not linked into a
single executable and the GPLed library is a shared object -- because
it would then be a compilation and not a derivative work?
That's actually mildly frightening to consider.
-f, doesn't particularly *like* the GPL, but doesn't like to consider that
its teeth might be rubber
--
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 00:43:33 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 05 Jul 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >> Helpdesks, and the fact that every company has them, is precisely why
> >> someone, everyone (meaning someone responsible for company desktops,)
> >> should switch to Linux and abandon Windows. Because contracted out or
> >> not, NO helpdesks for ANY large company have general remote admin
> >> capabilities, let alone universal and ubiquitous remote admin
> >> capabilities as they would if they adopted Linux.
> >
> >Yep... my last stint with EDS...a group of 20 of us literally
> >did ALL of the helpdesk support for approximately 15,000
> >Unix workstations owned by GM.
>
> And of the other 200,000 or so desktops, servers, and workstations owned
> by GM? What, you only supported the Unix workstations which EDS was
> explicitly contracted to support? So much for *general* remote admin
> capabilities, without mentioning universal and ubiquitous remote admin
> capabilities. Let me guess, the 15,000 workstations were either all
> Sun, or all HP (or maybe SGI).
All platforms: Sun, HP, SGI, and a a still RS/6000's still
hanging around (AIX = "aches!")
>
> Unix in general certainly shines as the sun to the weak and paltry flame
> which is Windows remote admin. Yet even then, the vendor-oriented
> distinctions in capabilities and features in remotely administrating
> multiple non-Linux (ie, non-open source) Unixen generally causes most
> help desks to pee their pants rather than deal with systems outside
> their "specialty".
True. Of course, at Purdue, I typically worked on 3+ flavors of
Unix every day just doing class work (4.3BSD on VAX-11, v7 on PDP-11,
Ultrix on VAX-11, SysV on a Harris, UT/X on Gould PN-9080 and Gould
NP-1)...
So for me, it's no biggie. Althought I must say that my order
of preference (corresponding with familiarity) is:
HP-UX and Sequent p/tx (tied)
Solaris
IRIX
AIX
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 04:46:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>These folks have been spoon fed the gui in all of it's ease of use and
>for the most part die when it is taken away from them.
Prepare for bad times, then --- because when all the bit twiddlers have
decided they have had enough, and retire or move on to something with
less all-nighters, you'll find that the drivers for your new hardware
suddenly become very very flaky.
Bernie
P.S.: Of course, there is an increasingly convincing argument that this
has already happened ;-)
--
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: Where did all my windows go?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 04:46:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8k3mj2$rpo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Would you be referring to the recent SpecWEB results? In that case,
>>you'll have to explain how using *fewer* disks in a *software rather
>>than hardware* RAID setup gave linux an unfair advantage....
>I thought it was the case the disk controller on NT was half as fast as the
>Linux one.
Only if you think that a hardware RAID, 4 channel Ultra-LVD SCSI controller
with 16M of cache is slower than an integrated-into-the-motherboard AIC-7899
dual channel Ultra-160 SCSI controller with software RAID.
Let me put it this way --- the AIC-7899 is sitting on the motherboard of
the PowerEdge 6400/700. Yet when Dell tested WindowsNT on that machine, they
used the PERC2 host adaptor. Doesn't that tell you something?
Bernie
--
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full
Henry Kissinger
American politician
New York Times Magazine, 1 June 1969
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Derivative works (Was: Richard Stallman's Politics)
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 05:02:23 GMT
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000 00:35:21 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>So, please correct me if I'm wrong on this, the GPL licence only speaks
>toward derivative works (at least, that's the impression I've gotten
>based on what you've said). This means that you could theoretically
>distribute a GPLed library and an MPLed access program and not be in
>technical violation of the GPL -- so long as they are not linked into a
>single executable and the GPLed library is a shared object -- because
>it would then be a compilation and not a derivative work?
>
I think you went a little further than Mr. Hollaar did. If you distribute
the library, you'll need to be more careful since you need to comply with
the GPL in order to do so.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 01:19:31 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 05 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >Basically, for corporate work.....the desktop PC is DEVOLVING into
> >an appliance which is
> >
> >a) a Word Processor / Spreadsheet / Presentation Tool manager
> > (i.e. glorified typewriter) PLUS
> >b) small custom input/output front-ends for servers.
>
> I certainly agree of your general characterization of the business
> desktop's role and purpose. What I disagree with is the on-going
> fallacy that this is "devolving". The fact is, that has always been the
> purpose and use of the PC, and since the PC began fulfilling that role,
> there have been frequent and insistent claims that this role is somehow
> served best by a special purpose device rather than a general purpose
> microcomputer. Yet all actual attempts to migrate away from general
Oh..make no mistake. A general purpose microcomputer fits
the bill the best... it's just that the actual processing
for any tasks more trivial that generating spreadsheets,
short documents, and slide shows is best done on something
centralized, with the desktop machine merely serving as a
highly configurable front-end I/O device.
> purpose microcomputers as "wordprocessing and web browsing" front ends
> have failed. I believe this is for the simple fact that an appliance
> capable of doing these things in a modern business environment requires
> the flexibility of a general purpose microcomputer, despite the
> recurring fantasies that special purpose devices would somehow be more
> effective or feasible. I suspect this effect will continue, and they
You're correct that those fantasies will never be fulfilled.
Remember Sun's experiment with "diskless" workstations?
AAAAAAARGH!
> will still be talking about the benefits or efficiencies of appliances
> for decades if not centuries to come.
>
> >In effect, the idiotic desktop anarchy of the 80's and early 90's
> >is comign to an end, as management discovers that computing is best
> >left to the professionals.
>
> That "idiotic desktop anarchy" was called "the PC revolution", and it
> was predicated on the fact that end users are perfectly capable of both
> administering and operating a computer. Programming tools should be
Operating: yes
Administrating: very few.
> created by professionals to allow programming to be accomplished by
> non-professionals.
>
> Be that as it may, there is much to be said for the idiocy of the use of
> such systems in large scale business environments. Still, the
> flexibility of a PC cannot be hand-waved, and a certain tolerance for
> anarchy is a necessary component of that flexibility.
>
> >The proliferation of desktop computers is rooted in vanity.
> [...]
> >However, with the introduction of the IBM PC (which was just as
> >much of a toy as the previously mentioned machines), the PC was
> >now suddenly a "legitimate" computer (WHY? Because it had those
> >three little letters on it: IBM. Now... a PC became STATUS SYMBOL...
> >and that is where all of the corporate idiocy started.
>
> That is one way of putting it. But I never thought that at the time,
> and see no evidence for it in retrospect, either. To me, it appears
> that the IBM PC became a business tool to an extent that the hobbyist
> computers that preceded it did not because of an accident of history. It
> has been attributed to any number of causes, but the fact is that the
> IBM PC was the first truly open computer platform. IBM did not own the
Apple ][ and ][ was just as OPEN. Peripherals proliferated.
And an Apple with 64k of mem was significantly cheaper than
a PC with 32k of mem.
> specification. Unix had previously severed the inherent and previously
> necessary link between hardware and software by providing an OS which
> was independent of the underlying architecture, and this introduced the
> concept of a "third party operating system" not as an alternative, but
> as an integral functional capability, of the computer. Earlier, it was
> taken as a statement of fact that a computer manufacturer also designs,
> writes, and produces the operating system for their computers, and there
> was no notion that the two were separate (outside of those who deal with
> the distinction, such as OS developers).
Yes, I am well aware of this. I had initially believed that
Unix was pretty much supported only on DEC equipment. Then I
picked up "The C Programmer's Reference Manual/Guide/Book"
(can't remember precisely) by Ivan Boesky (Prentice Hall)
wirebound, yellow cover. And it listed standard data sizes
for int, char, etc. on several machines. I was surprised
to see IBM 370 and Interdata (some number) listed.
>
> The potential independence of the components, and the lack of ownership
> of the specification of the PC revolutionized the way computers are
> considered and used. Yes, anybody could own a computer before then, and
When IBM discovered that they had lost control of the platform due
to cloning...they invented MicroChannel architecture. I was
glad to see *that* die, even though, technologically it was better,
it was also an attempt to bring back a proprietary standard.
The marketplace wisely ignored it (the installed ISA base was so
huge that it made no sense to develop an MCA card before the ISA
equivalent...thus adding more momentum to ISA)
> there was nothing preventing them from learning how to program or doing
> so. Nor does the PC inherently make that capability more evident.
> Still, the reason the open architecture of the PC had such a profound
> impact was that while anyone could learn to program a system prior to
> that point, they were learning a proprietary system over which they had
> no control. The non-proprietary nature of the PC platform, on the other
> hand, allows an end user/consumer to control their system completely, at
> least through the mechanism of market competition if not their own
> technical freedom to contribute to that market without the need for
> "permission" or proprietary knowledge of the developer of the system.
Not quite. MS-DOS was proprietary.
It just ran on non-proprietary hardware.
>
> >Because once the managers started having these things on their
> >desks, and putting their own software on without any sort of real
> >input from the Data Processing department... they lost practically
> >all authority to control the wave of machines that started appearing
> >in their departments.
> >
> >So... the only sound way to manage it.... turn all of the PC's
> >(EVEN THOSE BELONGING TO UPPER UPPER MANAGEMENT) back over to
> >the Data Processing departments...
> >
> >And, so, what we are seeing now, is DP managers trying to put an
> >end to the cubical-level anarchy . At several companies where I
> >have worked.....it's to the point where having any software not
> >installed by the company is grounds for immediate termination.
>
> This is an obvious flaw in the implementation of business computers.
> The correction, however, is not help desk tyranny. It is, instead, to
For example, at Kmart, there's a whole group of 15 people who do
nothing but test different software for Windows stability issues.
Due to the continuing DLL fiasco, some combinations of installed
software will lead to desktop crashes.
To avoid this, they and others have implemented a "no unauthorized
software on *OUR* PCs" rule.
However, iF everyone was running SCO Unix, I doubt that this ever would
have become an issue.
> ensure that the environment supports whatever level of cubical-level
> anarchy is desired without those independent decisions being capable of
> screwing up the system as a whole. In other words: we wouldn't have
> that problem if users weren't kept so ignorant and Windows wasn't such a
> crappy OS. Unix, the Internet, and the PC itself all point the way
> towards "cooperative anarchy" by providing a framework within which
> individual choices can be made without requiring modification of the
> framework itself. Unix embodies this principle with the "one tool one
> job" method of assembling simple components to perform complex results.
> The Internet implements a three-level connectivity framework which
> allows any-to-any connections using any number of physical links to
> support any number of software communications. The PC provides for the
> independence of specification, hardware, and software.
>
> Each of these, rather than being a devolution to anarchy, is an
> overthrow of tyranny, in its own way. Linux, of course, merges the
> three together in a unique way that re-enforces each. It will be a
> golden age of end-user computer, most certainly, once people are willing
> to step up to the plate and admit they need to learn how computers work
> in order to benefit from computers.
That's the big problem. Most Americans not only are too lazy to
progress from ignorance...they justify it by becoming PROUD of
their ignorance.
>
> >Actually, the M$ spiralling upgrade cycle is turning out to be their
> >own undoing. When I was at Kmart, my department (unix server support
> >team) was looking into putting Linux in our cubicles. That was about
> >2 years ago. The simple fact that we could LEGALLY make as many
> >installs as we wanted off of one $50 set of CD's was already looking
> >very attractive.
>
> I think also that Microsoft's upgrade cycle spiral is their undoing in a
> related but distinct way. By requiring a larger and more powerful PC at
> every major upgrade in order to support increasingly less efficient and
> bloated code, One Microsoft Way managed to arrange for a workstation
> class system to be implemented on everyone's desktop, thus allowing a
> secretaries PC to be capable of comfortably running a world-class Unix
> system complete with X GUI.
quite true. I have often thought that it is quite ironic....the
business communities tolerance of more and more bloated MS-ware
has driven down the price of ridiculously high-powered equipment.
By my desk, I have more disk space, and more clock cycles/second
than the combined total of Purdue's schools of Electrical Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering,
Industrial Engineering, and Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering.
And this is at a school where EVERY engineering undergrad ended up
taking, at a bare minimum, 15 credit hours of courses that required
programming on Unix to fulfill homework and project assignments.
>
> >Now that M$'s shenanigans are being circulated among management
> >everywhere,... M$'s house of cards is beginning to crumble...
> >
> >And.. so... the era of bloated software on desktops will come
> >to an end.
> >
> >Seriously... there is absolutely no need for the average corporate
> >user to have a 500+ MHz on their desktop....
>
> But you miss the point; there is no reason for the average corporate
> user to *not* have such power on their desktop. The extra hundred
> dollars or so of price for a high-end CPU is just market manipulation;
> it doesn't cost nearly so much more to manufacture a 500+ MHz chip than
> a 400Mhz chip, or even a 4.77 MHz chip, considering the economies of
> scale involved. And even then, such a price differential still pales in
> comparison to the difference between a PC and a typical workstation from
> a Unix vendor.
very true. But then again, I wouldn't trust an "enterprise" level
database to even the best x86 type architecture if it were running
ANY form of LoseDOS.
The Unix vendors can all justify their price for one reason:
THEIR SHIT WORKS!
>
> >Stripping down the desktop PC as a sophisticated, highly flexible
> >front-end for the servers... basically ... an X-terminal, only
> >a little smarter... is exactly what we do need....the sooner
> >the better.
>
> Spoken like someone who isn't familiar with the nightmare of trying to
> run X-terminals. Its more efficient to allow anarchy, and clean up the
Actually, I have. When I first worked at the GM tech center,
50% of the desktops in the department I administrated were
X-terminals. And then there were some REALLY old Motorola-based
Sun-3's that couldn't run any of the software (everything was for
SPARC), so they were just used as X-terminals. (Besides, their
disk drives were so pitifully small, they couldn't handle any
of the engineering work done in this department anyway--
specifically, finite element analysis of completed designs
for verification before going off to the CAM people.
> messes when they occur, despite the fact that it causes much more
> grousing about "clueless users" from the desktop support people. An
> X-terminal, only a little smarter, is exactly what a PC is. Except it
> is a lot smarter, and for good reason.
I'm saying the current usage is moving TOWARDS the X-terminal model.
but, instead of having the central computer drive the display with
commands to an X server on the desktop hardware, the desktop machine
has it's own "intelligent" interface.
>
> I see your comments as little more than the last echoes of the "glass
> house mentality", though I don't mean to discount them by saying so. I
> think the recursive "terminal/diskless workstation/network PC/desktop
> appliance/everythings-a-web-page" issue is quite fascinating, and
> consider the counterpoint very important in recognizing the true value
> and importance of the "personal computer".
The big problem is, most corporate end-users know just enough
to fiddle around and completely screw up their system.
On Unix systems, it's no problem, because they don't have
admin privileges. On the M$ boxes..it's a severe problem.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
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: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 01:20:31 -0400
Steve Hix wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The "newish" Zips are USB. Imacs dont have USB. WHy expect SCSI
> > peripherals to run on SCSI-less machines.
>
> I think you meant to say that iMacs don't have anything *but*
> USB.
I thought they ran Firewire, not USB.
>
> There are a couple of USB-to-SCSI converters. Don't expect
> great performance, but the SCSI Zip would probably work.
>
> --
> --
> Steve Hix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
