Linux-Advocacy Digest #614, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Windows98 (Tim Kelley)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Perry Pip)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Greg Yantz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:18:13 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting ZnU from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:27:44 GMT
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[...]The method used
> >> by the Mac puts whatever program is running in the foreground in charge
> >> of yielding to background programs[...]
> >
> >It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work in practice. The fact is that
> >_any_ app in Mac OS can grab control of the processor; a background app
> >can cause the foreground app to lock up, for example.
>
> Any app grabs control, and can screw it up royal you are correct, *when
> the foreground application yields*. All good foreground applications,
> of course, yield on a routine basis. But that only highlights the lack
> of necessity for pre-emptive multitasking, when it is assumed that all
> of the programs running on one computer are under the cognizance and
> control of one operator. In multi-user systems, obviously, this
> wouldn't work at all. But on a multi-tasking single user operating
> system, it does, in fact, make sense to put the user, rather than the
> software, in charge of what's important.
I disagree. By eliminating pre-emtptive multitasking, you eliminate
the ability to do a renderining (CPU-bound) in the background while
running netscape (mostly user-input bound, occassionaly network bound).
>
> > There's the flip
> >side as well. A foreground app will often hog the processor even when it
> >doesn't need it.
>
> Isn't it nice the way the design for what was intended to be an open
> application architecture platform encourages, no, demands, cooperation
> amongst all application programmers? I think the PC could benefit from
Windows 3.1 did exactly that (user-demand multi-tasking), and it was
a complete piece of garbage. It works on Apple, because a higher
percentage of Apple software is written by...programmers with a degree
of professionalism about them.
If Apple was as popular as Windows, there would probably be as many
non-conforming pieces of software as what existed for Windows3.1
> this lesson; it would have made more sense for MS to follow this model
> than the one they did. For a desktop system, which isn't even being
> used as a workstation (though it might still be more appropriate, TBH)
> level box, it just doesn't make sense to do it the same way as a
> multi-user/host/server system.
>
> > Typing something in a news readers uses what? 2% of the
> >CPU? Yet if you're decompressing something in the background, it will
> >get dramatically slower.
>
> Better something in the background gets slower than my typing into my
> newsreader, you betcha, damn right. Whatever *I* am interacting with
> should have absolute first shot at every cycle it needs.
>
> > Huge amounts of processing power are simply
> >wasted. In the real world, PMT just works better on the desktop, and I
> >say this as one of biggest Mac fans you'll ever meet.
>
> In the real world, huge amounts of processing power are simply wasted on
> all desktop systems. Or used, if you're of a more functional mind set.
> I'd rather that power get 'wasted' in my direction than because it is
> theoretically better to do it different.
>
> I'm a big Mac fan, as well. Hell, I'm a big *Windows* fan, in some
> regards. I'm also a fan of Linux {The World's Operating System (tm)},
> and most of all of the PC, the crappiest computer architecture on the
> planet.
Novell; Banyan, etc: NOS
Linux: WOS.
:-)
>
> >Issues like what you suggest with the dialog are really just the result
> >of badly designed UI. From what I've seen of Mac OS X DP4, it seems like
> >Apple has done an ingenious job of avoiding such problems while also
> >totally eliminating the extremely irritating modality problems with
> >current Mac OS dialogs.
>
> I'm mostly thinking of Mac OS 4.2 and 6.00.004, as that's where the bulk
> of my Apple experience lies. I haven't used Macs much in the last five
> years, but my comments are still entirely valid, and will remain so even
> after everyone is using Linux on their desktop. It wouldn't surprise me
> if it was a Linux which allowed adjustment to just how pre-emptive the
> multi-tasking is. Because it doesn't make any sense, when the primary
> purpose of a computer is to provide a user interface, that that user
> interface, and whatever interaction the user is executing, should always
> have first dibs. Modal dialogs aren't any worse than BSOD or cascading
> segmentation faults.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> [A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
> [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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:24:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12 Jul 2000 12:17:26 GMT, Paul Colclough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>??? This is just crazy. There is a file system standard for linux and
>>it is followed pretty well.
>
>Just as finding something can be pretty difficult. I know distributions
>install a lot more than just the operating system itself, but being able to
>find all the files installed and the executables needed can be quite handy
>at times. I've lost count of things that have been installed and then
>simply forgot about - I know Windows programs normally always install a
>load of crap into the \windows\system folder and like, but at least the
>programs themselves normally have a directory to themselves.
>
>I guess what I want really is a text mode utility to show every RPM
>installed and being able to select one and find out exactly what files are
>installed and where, there is a nice one for KDE, but I don't run X much as
>I much prefer text mode (basically because the Linux box is normally
>accessed via a network and telnet is much faster than X when the server is
>a 486)
Paul,
There is a way to do this with both of the major packaging systems
(deb and rpm). The X package utils don't offer you any more than the
text mode one.
For rpms:
1. To see what package owns a file, and get the package description:
rpm -qif <filename>
2. List all the packages installed
rpm -qa
(then you just grep for what you want, and go from there, like so:
3. To see what files are in an installed package, where you don't know
the whole package name ...
rpm -qli $(rpm -qa | grep binutils)
... or uninstall them
rpm -e $(rpm -qa | grep ^XF)
3. To see what files are in an uninstalled package, and to see the
package description
rpm -qlip <filename>
4. Generate a list of all the files and package descriptions in a
directory with a lost of rpms:
rpm -qlip ./*rpm > packages.text
(you could then use this info to find out what package a file you need
is in, for instance)
There's lots more, jsut look at the man pages. There is absolutely
nothing like this in windows.
>I guess it's just because of the sheer number of utilities installed by a
>standard linux distro compared to that installed by a Windows installation
>(virtually nill)
You have everything you need to find out what you want!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iww.org
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:23:13 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000
> >Even Windows 95 has pre-emptive multitasking. Mac OS before
> >Mac OS X (in other words, the version of Mac OS that Mac
> >users are using today) does not.
>
> There is reason to believe that this is a good thing. The method used
> by the Mac puts whatever program is running in the foreground in charge
> of yielding to background programs if it wants to, while pre-emptive
> multitasking allows Windows to have background processes take control
> without waiting for the foreground process to yield.
This doesn't seem to be a problem on Unix machines. The problem
is Windows' insistance that every "alert" or "warning" window
should immediately grap the FOCUS of the GUI.
Unix allows you to keep your GUI focus wherever the USER has
has chosen, and STILL delivers the ability to print out that
500-page document in the background.
The problem isn't pre-emptive multi-tasking, it's the IDIOTIC
decision among the M$ coding staff that decreed that every time
a new window pops up, the GUI focus should immediately switch
to the pop-up.
> This does seem a
> bit in the Mac's favor in terms of being appropriate for a system which
> is intended to be used as a user desktop. Anyone who has been
> frustrated by a menu disappearing repeatedly because some dialog box
> wanted to pop up will recognize some of the trade-off. For a
> client-only system, the foreground *should* have to yield before any
> background processes can take control, by some reasoning.
>
> > In all other respects, it's
> >just as crappy as Windows and actually crappier than Windows
> [...gripes about IMac snipped...]
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> [A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
> [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"
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:44:32 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> If I wrote a program which used libraries, and there are many
> essentially equivalent (for my purposes) libraries available, but the
> *only one* that my code will work with is a GPL library, then it is
> safe, and indeed proper, to reasonably believe that my software is
> "based on" (and thus a derivative intellectual work) of that GPL
> library.
Except that the law seems to state otherwise. You are allowed to
manufacture a video game which runs on a console game system
without permission, license, or payment to the maker of the
console, even when this game can run only on this system.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:52:48 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, 8 desktops within KDE, selectable at the click of a button.
> > Multiple desktops seems to be a concept Windows users have a hard
> > time grasping.
> > It is something I could not live without and is one reason why
> > Windows lags behind Linux.
>
> I don't have a hard time grasping the idea of a multiple desktops; it's
> just that having six very weak desktops and two desktops that are
> nearly there hardly constitutes 'choice'.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Pete, I think you've missed this point. I will answer here rather than
watch this turn into the typical shouting match (which will probably
happen anyway). He isn't talking about different desktop environments,
he is talking about different desktops within the same environment. In
KDE or GNOME or Enlightenment or most other desktop environments, there
is a way to set up multiple "virtual" desktops. This is what he is
talking about. You can switch between your 4 or 6 or 8 or *however many
you've picked* desktops in real time. You have one desktop filled up
and want a clean one to start something else, click on desktop two and
start whatever you want there. It is something that is indespensible
once you get used to it. I typically have netscape up on desktop one,
GIMP up on desktop two, XEmacs on desktop 3, and desktop four circulates
between an office suite (StarOffice or Corel) and whatever other thing I
may need. It's an extremely useful feature.
In KDE and GNOME this feature is accessible from the "Control Center"
application (much like Windows control panel) that allows you to change
options. You can set up as many or as few desktops as you want. Most
Windows users never even realize what those extra desktops are, if they
ever even realize they are there at all. They are quite useful. If you
want a blank desktop at any moment you don't have to minimize everything
to get there, just move to another unused desktop and there you go.
Some people never get the hange of it, others never want to, but if you
do get used to it you really miss it when you have to use an OS that
doesn't have it.
If I'm mistaken on your interpretation of what he was talking about,
forgive me. Just trying to enlighten what could have turned into a big
useless fight.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:02:40 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Have you seen the desktops on Linux? Two unfinished ones, and six
> minimalist!
>
You keep repeating this Pete, but in reality there are many more
desktops available, and very few of them are "finished". KDE and GNOME
probably won't be finished for a long time. Finished implies the won't
ever continue development. In that case, Windows isn't finished
either. And for some people, the minimalist approach isn't all that
bad. Once again, we are talking about opinions. I don't agree with
those that say everyone should use Linux, but I also don't agree that
you can't use Linux productively. Anyway, your 2 unfinished and six
minimalist information is just plain wrong. There are a *lot* more
desktop environments/window managers available for Linux (or any Unix).
Some of them have been around for ages (not necissarily a good thing),
much longer than Windows.
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
It is true that none of the current desktops look and act exactly like
Windows, but that makes them different. To other people these desktops
are *better* than Windows interfaces (including me), to you Windows is
better. A subjective opinion at best. But, that's the case with most
things in computers at the moment. Until someone comes up with
something truly revolutionary that people just can't live without,
everything is going to be an opinion.
My opinion...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:00:55 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:10:11 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, 8 desktops within KDE, selectable at the click of a button.
>> Multiple desktops seems to be a concept Windows users have a hard
>> time grasping.
>> It is something I could not live without and is one reason why
>> Windows lags behind Linux.
>
>I don't have a hard time grasping the idea of a multiple desktops; it's
>just that having six very weak desktops and two desktops that are
>nearly there hardly constitutes 'choice'.
>
He's talking about having multiple workpaces, i.e. virtual
desktops. The default for KDE is 4. You access them with the buttons
"One", "Two", "Three", and "Four" on your Kpanel. Try it
sometime....duh...
The fact the all Linux desktops have multiple workpaces and Windows
doesn't proves that Windows lags behind Linux on the desktop. The fact
that you have been using (and whining) about KDE all this time and
never figured that you have multiple workpaces proves people are 100%
correct when they call you a moron.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:17:27 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> 16:15:30 -0500
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Unless I said that, I didn't. I try very hard not to insinuate, so I
> >> apologize if I 'seemed to' be saying you were defending MS. I do
> >> believe you were defending Microsoft's position, and that unknowingly,
> >> not the company. By shifting blame for computers which don't work from
> >> the computers to those running them, and further pointing out that this
> >> is an assumption, because you have never seen a company that runs their
> >> computers well, you defend Microsoft's position as "most popular and
> >> therefore it must be OK, at least, if you know what you are doing."
> >>
> >
> >This is such a load of crap. I never said any such thing. I do not
> >think that MS is OK.[...]
>
> They why did you post:
>
> "I agree that Windows seems to crash a lot more often that what was
> originally stated, but in some cases it is possible to set it up to run
> without crashing *a lot*. But you have to have an administrator that
> knows what he is doing, users that don't fiddle with the control panel,
> and a solid network/server setup in a business to really keep them
> running smooth."
>
> It sure sounded to me like what I said. Again, you are not defending
> MS, or saying it is OK. You're defending Microsoft's *position*, and
> saying that Window's crashes can be avoided by competence. This is a
> mistaken position, so forgive me for disagreeing with it.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> [A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
> [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! =-----
So, did you read any of the other things I said in my previous post?
Like the part where I said I probably should have state it as *it should
be possible, in a perfect world, under MS control....*? Or is it simply
easier to pick and chose to make it look like I'm still not admitting my
mistake? Fact is I admitted that I stated what I meant in the wrong
way. You keep jumping up and down on it even when I admitted it. OK,
until I unequivocally say it you won't be happy so here it is:
I'm a complete and total idiot. Anything I say, have said, ever will
say is complete crap and anybody that listens to me should be shot just
on principle for giving credence to a moron such as myself.
Does that make you feel better? Sometimes it seems that's the only way
to get someone to realize you are admitting your mistake. I didn't
state what I meant properly. That's exactly what I said. You seemed to
miss that part of my follow up post to you, or intentionally ignoring
it. Either way, I said it again. I didn't properly word what I was
intending say. Don't know how many different ways I can say that.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:22:06 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 07:15:02 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> And Windows lags behind Linux in some hardware products.
>
>But Windows has more hardware support than Linux (I'm thinking desktop
>PC's).
Well you didn't say desktop PC's. You allways seem to leave out
qualifiers, in an attempt to create false generalizations. Also, you
are talking about 98SE, not W2k, which has no better PC HW support
than Linux.
>> Totally subjective. Most people are just used to one desktop or
>another.
>
>Have you seen the desktops on Linux? Two unfinished ones, and six
>minimalist!
Have you seen the desktop on Windows? One inflexible unfinished one!
And not even a usable CLI environment to fix your system you out when
you're GUI fails you. (On Windows a 'usable CLI' would include at text
based registry editor capable of fixing broken configurations).
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:17:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >AFAIK, you never own a program you license.
> >And if you are not granted the right to use by the license, none
> >of those rights you mention exists, right?
>
> You don't need permission to run a program just because you don't own
> it.
Hm? You either have a licensed copy, or someone who has a licensed
copy lets you use it.
Either way you are granted the permission to use it through the license.
If the license wouldn't allow you to let others run the program, you
probably can't.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
From: Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Jul 2000 10:35:55 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> > 16:15:30 -0500
> > >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > >> Unless I said that, I didn't. I try very hard not to insinuate, so I
> > >> apologize if I 'seemed to' be saying you were defending MS. I do
> > >> believe you were defending Microsoft's position, and that unknowingly,
> > >> not the company. By shifting blame for computers which don't work from
> > >> the computers to those running them, and further pointing out that this
> > >> is an assumption, because you have never seen a company that runs their
> > >> computers well, you defend Microsoft's position as "most popular and
> > >> therefore it must be OK, at least, if you know what you are doing."
> > >This is such a load of crap. I never said any such thing. I do not
> > >think that MS is OK.[...]
> > They why did you post:
> > "I agree that Windows seems to crash a lot more often that what was
> > originally stated, but in some cases it is possible to set it up to run
> > without crashing *a lot*. But you have to have an administrator that
> > knows what he is doing, users that don't fiddle with the control panel,
> > and a solid network/server setup in a business to really keep them
> > running smooth."
This does not seem unreasonable to me, and I am no MS fan. Yes, Windows
is essentially unreliable and unmaintainable. However, it is possible
to reduce the symptoms somewhat (if not effect a cure) with careful,
conservative administration.
> > It sure sounded to me like what I said. Again, you are not defending
> > MS, or saying it is OK. You're defending Microsoft's *position*, and
> > saying that Window's crashes can be avoided by competence. This is a
> > mistaken position, so forgive me for disagreeing with it.
Are you kidding? I suspect you have a personal agenda that interferes with
your reading comprehension. To quote:
"in some cases it is possible to set it up to run
without crashing *a lot*"
This is something I have said myself (if not in those words) and it is
in no way an admission that all Windows crashes can be avoided by
competence. You're trying way too hard.
> So, did you read any of the other things I said in my previous post?
> Like the part where I said I probably should have state it as *it should
> be possible, in a perfect world, under MS control....*? Or is it simply
> easier to pick and chose to make it look like I'm still not admitting my
> mistake? Fact is I admitted that I stated what I meant in the wrong
> way. You keep jumping up and down on it even when I admitted it. OK,
> until I unequivocally say it you won't be happy so here it is:
> I'm a complete and total idiot. Anything I say, have said, ever will
> say is complete crap and anybody that listens to me should be shot just
> on principle for giving credence to a moron such as myself.
> Does that make you feel better? Sometimes it seems that's the only way
> to get someone to realize you are admitting your mistake. I didn't
> state what I meant properly. That's exactly what I said. You seemed to
> miss that part of my follow up post to you, or intentionally ignoring
> it. Either way, I said it again. I didn't properly word what I was
> intending say. Don't know how many different ways I can say that.
You might have screwed up the wording elsewhere, but the part that I
quoted directly seems pretty much on target.
-Greg
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
