Linux-Advocacy Digest #643, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 10:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451739.2345^-00000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Windows98 ("ne...")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! ("ne...")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Marty)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Why use Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451739.2345^-00000000000001
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:14:17 -0400
Here's today's Tholen digest:
> 1> Because there was none.
>
> Incorrect. You're merely demonstrating your difficulty in
> comprehending the evidence supplied.
Prove it, if you think you can, Tholen, otherwise it's merely an empty
allegation, which we have come to expect of you.
[As for real content, hey, there wasn't any! Bye!]
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:23:06 GMT
On Jul 13, 2000 at 10:34, Paul Colclough eloquently wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> Well, at least there are in three seperate directories, rather than
>>> all being placed in /usr/bin with three slightly different executables
>>> that would be a nightmare to remove without the help of RPM.
>>
>>So what? People who are knowledgeable enough to install and remove
>>software without RPM should be able to know which file is what.
>>
>>Anyway, something as large as an office suite usually installs in
>>/opt.
>
>Right, so we are getting back to geek country here where everyone knows
>exactly what every file on there system is for and what package it belongs
>to? Somehow I doub't that.
So grab installwatch and watch your problems being solved.
--
Registered Linux User # 125653
You are an insult to my intelligence! I demand that you log off immediately.
9:22am up 3 days, 12:34, 8 users, load average: 0.06, 0.02, 0.04
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:26:56 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> [...]
>>> Of course, they'd have all the source code to all the software, so I'd
>>> guess they've been well compensated.
>> That's a wonderful fantasy when it comes to actually putting food on the
>> table and a roof over one's head.
> You aren't actually still playing the "let's have sympathy for
> programmers" card, are you? I thought I'd ridiculed that sufficiently
> below:
Better a programmer than a clueless manager/consultant feeb.
-f
--
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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:23:25 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> How many times are we going to go over this? If you can't predict which
> ones are normal, then what makes you think there are any that are
> normal? Just because they haven't randomly crashed *yet*, you're going
> to assume they won't? This is *not* an issue for Microsoft or Windows.
> THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR ALL YOU GUYS WHO INSIST YOU KNOW COMPUTERS. If in
> even some *small* part, you are fooling yourselves, then it isn't a good
> thing. I rely on you guys. I don't like to think people I rely on are
> basing their opinion on assumptions. That's all.
>
> Your level of acceptance concerning "stability" is based on an
> assumption, even if it does happen to match your observations.
>
> Sorry for being an asshole about it. But we'll get rid of crappy
> Windows when people are willing to question their assumptions, and not
> before. Whether your assumption puts Windows in a good light or a bad
> light is irrelevant.
>
Once again you seem to assume that I have said that Windows can be made
to never crash. Where exactly did I say that. It can be made to run
more stable at times (and yes, you can predict that in an environment
with good administration, solid hardware and non-fiddling users it will
run more stable than in an environment with shit administration, shit
hardware, and fiddling users). This is not once saying that you can
totally eliminate crashing in Windows (or any system). So, where did I
give you the impression that I believe any system to be completely
infallible?
> --
> 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! =-----
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:28:20 GMT
On Jul 13, 2000 at 12:18, Donovan Rebbechi eloquently wrote:
>Sorry for the subject, I'm just looking for help and expediantly
>resorting to a cheap attention grabbing line (-;
>
>I'm having a hard time with an NFS server. It's running:
>Kernel 2.2.5
>knfsd 1.2 ( IIRC )
>Something's definitely wrong with this NFS version -- it crashes frequently,
>and since it's not a userland program, when NFS goes out the server needs
>a reboot. Needless to say, this is a PITA.
>
>So my question is -- what is the recommended configuration for a Linux box
>running NFS ? SHould I upgrade the kernel ?
>What is currently the most *reliable* version of NFS ? The
>server is not busy enough that I care that much about performance. I just
>want it to work, dammit!
Now you of all people should know that this is the
wrong group to ask such questons in. C.o.l.setup or
c.o.l.networking would be much better.
--
Registered Linux User # 125653
You are in the hall of the mountain king.
9:26am up 3 days, 12:38, 8 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.01
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:32:11 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>>> If almost all software is open source, then there's no reason for it not
>>> to be GPLd.
>> There's plenty of reasons to avoid the GPL, even if almost all software
>> is open source. Your assumption that there isn't a reason is false.
> Did it occur to you that if your statement is true, I might like to know
> a bit more detail? I didn't make any assumption; I stated a conjecture.
> You contradicted, but did not truly dispute it. Elaborate, or don't
> bother saying anything to begin with. You won't be affected by my
> ignorance if you don't want to be.
You assumed, you ass. I need not elaborate any further than I have done
already -- and you've ignored.
>> When you say this, you demonstrate that you haven't the faintest clue
>> about the realities of software development.
> Thank you. I try.
You've succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.
>> There will *always* be a
>> market for ownership of software, since it is *that* which provides the
>> vast majority of the funds for the production and maintenance of
>> software. For your delusional fantasy to become anything close to
>> reality, then software will have to *stop* being a competitive
>> advantage. Which won't happen.
> You're just begging the question. Since ownership is required for
> capitalism, capitalism is required for software. How much capital do
> you need to improve a product that's already written? Answer: as much
> as you can get, and if that ain't jack, then that ain't jack.
Please stop revealing your ignorance; as someone who *writes* software
for a living and deals with the improvement of 'a product that's
already written' every single fucking day ... I know what software
costs to write, and it ain't what you pretend to think. (I'm not sure I
give you the benefit of the doubt on thinking at this point. You seem
to have bought your own hype.)
> I didn't even realize, I guess because I must be just plain immune to
> it, that this is a FUD tactic. You are honestly trying to scare people
> into avoiding GPL by saying "if you buy that, no software worth buying
> will be available". An entirely ludicrous statement, and it has nothing
> to do with the "realities of software development". It is the reality
> of a free market. If software is worth buying, it will be available.
But only if there can be controls on where it goes.
> As long as there's a free market. And right now there ain't, but its
> the only market you've ever seen for software, so you *assume* it is the
> only one which could exist.
No, I don't. I happen to have seen a few different types of software
markets (that all exist simultaneously!) -- and the ability to sell
software licences or copies simplifies the whole process. When the only
way that software companies can make money is as services companies,
you don't get as good software in general.
Please -- get a fucking clue, nitwit.
-f
--
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
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:34:09 -0400
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> GPL restrictions are only a problem for software *exploiters*; they
>>> don't cause any severe burden on software *developers*, and they cause
>>> no burden whatsoever on end users. No wonder you guys are scared. You
>>> must be exploiters. And the GPL is actively and intentionally hostile
>>> to you. Unapologetically.
> Below we can see that Austin is loosing by his propensity for foul
> language and insults.
Above we see that Stumped rests on an old -- and worthless -- saw.
(Hint: switching to stronger language and insults is a way to get
through to the utterly idiotic people -- like you and Maxine. You
obviously don't recognise facts, so you have to be beat over the head
with your own stupidity.)
-f
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 13:36:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Quoting Lee Hollaar from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 11:53:44
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>It is not necessary to modify or distribute the re-used code for the
>>>U.S. Government Patent and Trademark Office to consider your work a
>>>derivative, either. RMS is just a bit more stringent in applying that
>>>point to ensure he maintains control of his intellectual work.
>>
>>Just what does the United States Patent and Trademark Office have to
>>do with considering your work a derivative?
>>
>>Just asking ...
>
>As far as I know, they define the concept. I'm possibly
>over-simplifying, as the statutes aren't really the Office. But they
>develop legal guidelines for what might be considered derivative, and
>the courts interpret them when they apply the law, AFAIK. If not, then
>assume I was speaking rhetorically.
The Patent and Trademark Office is responsible for (not too suprisingly)
patents and trademarks. Copyrights are handled by the Copyright Office,
which is part of the Library of Congress.
Their circular on derivative works basically restates the language of
the statutue. You can find it at --
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ14.pdf
While a court may look to something the Copyright Office has written,
the court has the ultimate authority in interpreting the law.
You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:36:32 GMT
Tinman wrote:
1> That's tinman. ('
How ironic, coming from someone who is also Tinman.
1> And why else would I post?
I prefer not to presume.
1> On the contrary.
Having trouble completing a sentence Tinman?
1> My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
Incorrect. Witness the fact that you have been digestified.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:40:03 -0400
On 12 Jul 2000, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'll bet it would make GIF get replaced
>> real fast if that was the only reason you had to charge for a product
>> that works with GIF files, huh? Sounds like a good thing to me.
> It is, and it hasn't in spite of a lot of noise to that effect.
> I assume IE and Netscape contain licensed code where someone
> swallowed the cost, but those licenses only cover use in that
> specific program - they didn't have to provide you with unlimited
> modification and re-use rights.
IIRC, the GIF licensing terms are only situated around the creation of
GIFs. (It's also not really around GIF, but the compression
technology.)
I'm not surprised that Maxine here doesn't get the fact that despite the
kvetching, PNG *still* hasn't taken off as a general graphics format.
-f
--
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: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 13:49:27 +0100
>>>>> "Hyman" == Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hyman> Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The free market system is something we invented at some point in
>> time, as decided was a good idea. Its is not a force of nature,
>> or inevitable, nor the only way forward.
Hyman> The free market system is probably as old as humanity
Hyman> itself. It is the natural system which arises when two
Hyman> parties each have something the other wants, and
Hyman> circumstances rule out taking by force.
This argument has been put forward many times or all sorts of
different ideologies. When we had a monarchy that was the natural
order of things, now we have a oppressive, competitive class system,
and that is the natural order of things. I do not believe it.
I also think it ignores much history. The free market as
we know it now was invented, just prior to the industrial
revolution. Previously very different systems of trading were in
place.
>> I can not give you copies of the software that I write, because
>> someone else owns it.
Hyman> Private property is the backbone of freedom. Without it, you
Hyman> are a helpless vassal of whatever arbitrary distribution
Hyman> system is in power.
Where as at the moment?
The point with property is that there is that property that
you need to live (housing, cooking equipment etc). It was actually out
of a desire for ownership of such property (specifically land for
growing in those days) that much of the ideology of the left came
ironically enough.
But this is wholly different from the property that earns
money for the owner. Land in excess for instance of what a person
needs for their life. The money that this produces for the owner comes
from somewhere, and from someone's hard work. But not the
owners.
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 13:45:04 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:28:20 GMT, ne... wrote:
>On Jul 13, 2000 at 12:18, Donovan Rebbechi eloquently wrote:
>
>Now you of all people should know that this is the
>wrong group to ask such questons in. C.o.l.setup or
>c.o.l.networking would be much better.
I tried a help group and didn't get a response.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 14:48:05 +0100
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wooding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I never understood this to be honest. I see no contradiction
>> between democracy and personal freedom. Indeed I think that they
>> go hand in hand.
Mark> The problem with democracy is that (in the usual
Mark> implementation) everyone gets an equal vote. But most people
Mark> aren't ever-so clever.
I'm afraid I find this rather arrogant. Most people are
capable of surprising perception if you actually spend the time to
find out what they think.
The problem is that most people are never actually asked
what they think on an issues, and have the information that they need
to find out the answers with held from them.
Nor does it answer my question about personal freedom and
democracy!
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: 13 Jul 2000 13:49:12 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:09:47 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>I think that's the problem I'm harping on about - Linux seems to expose
>its configuration much more so than Windows does. Also, things don't
>seem to be so well integrated as Windows.
A lot of config can be done via the GUI.
>For instance, I installed XFree86 4.0.1 on top of Linux Mandrake 7.1. I
>found after installation a lot of the tools that I would use in 7.1
>don't really work too well now.
XFree86 4.x comes with a lot of dire warnings about it's readiness. It is
"ready" enough for Linux geeks, but not regular users.
>I want a machine that "just works". I'm not terribly interested in all
>the nitty gritty (which Linux forces me to look at), I want an easy to
>configure, easy to use system. Windows gives me that, Linux doesn't as
>yet.
I get the feelihng you want it both ways -- you want to be on the
bleeding edge ( Mandrake, XFree86 4 ) and you want it to just work.
Choose either one, you can't have it both ways.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 14:49:36 +0100
>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth P Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kenneth> The concept is simple. There are some aspects of life that
Kenneth> not even the majority should have the right to regulate.
Kenneth> Some things are outside the legitimate right of government
Kenneth> to regulate at all.. no matter what form of government it
Kenneth> is.
And how are you going to maintain these essential freedoms?
The dictatorship of the market that we have at the moment does not
give a damn many basic human rights. I would argue that democracy is
the best way to protect these rights.
Phil
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:50:25 -0400
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> And personally, I think that end-users should be writing their own
> software. Certainly businesses should be developing their own stuff; it
> ain't that hard. Take a wordprocessing object from over here, stick it
> with an email client object over there. Simple, easy, affordable.
> What, it isn't that easy?
*snort* *guffaw* *laugh*
Software development, you overblown asinine twit, is not putting
together Lego blocks. Business managers have been wanting that since
computers first arrived -- and every time they have been given the
ability to do so, the products have flopped or not been used by the
original targets.
COBOL is a grand example. Yes, it's used everywhere. But it's used by
programmers, *not* by business managers. It was originally created so
that business managers could write their *own software*.
Novell came out a few years ago with a visual program building
environment. It isn't sold anymore.
Software development is a very labour and capital intensive *art*.
Software development requires highly imaginative workers, not mere
worker drones. These are *facts*. They're a hell of a lot more useful
than the stupidity that you have so far exhibited.
Software is not, and likely never will be, the domain of blowhards like
yourself.
> Sounds like we need to find someone who will sell us (and install and
> maintain and develop...) some better end-user programming environments.
>
> There will always be the need for software. That is why the GPL is not
> a stupid idea, but a good one. It is the only open source license that
> recognizes that. An unlimited need, and unlimited supply; tell me again
> why the profit needs to be there?
I've never claimed profit needs to be there. There *does* need to be
enough to reward those who work very hard at software development.
Software developers are needed far more than twits like you -- without
us, you don't get the software to get your job done. Open source, or
not.
-f
--
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: 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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:50:35 -0500
This conversation is obviously going nowhere. You seem to be trying to
find some mythological "perfect statement" yet you refuse to say what
the hell you mean. When re-reading these posts from the outside here is
my take on what it looks like.
ME: The sky is blue, and the clouds are white.
YOU: No that statement is false. The clouds are white and the sky is
blue. And further more there are days when their are no clouds at all
so your pre-supposed assumption that the dome over your head is always
white and blue is entirely false.
ME: OK, so I stated it improperly. Let me try again: The sky is blue
and the clouds are white, but the entirety of the dome over our heads
may not always consist of just the blue and white of sky and cloud.
YOU: No, you are still incorrect. The clouds are white, and the sky
only appears blue to your eyes. It is an optical illusion based on
(snip nasty scientific explaination). And furthermore you are ignoring
the days when it is overcast when in fact the entire dome over your head
will appear in shades of gray and on a clear day it will be entirely
blue. Now, why don't you admit you are wrong?
THIRD PERSON: WHile your statement is correct it doesn't invalidate the
previous persons attempt at a statement. In fact you are both right,
just that your statement is an attempt to include further factors.
YOU: You are both incorrect. Until you word the statement exactly the
same as me you will be completely incorrect.
ME: What are you talking about?
<CONTINUED>.....
Seriously. I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are trying to
get at. I know Windows crashes are random. But I also know that given
two companies with the same number of computers and these conditions:
Company1 Company2
Knowledgeable Admin Computer illeterate dumbass admin
Solid hardware Cheapest hardware money can buy
Restricted users Users have free reign
Company 2 is going to have more crashing and difficulties with their
systems than Company1. This is all I was saying. If you take that to
mean that I am blaming my problems on someone else, I have no idea where
to go from here.
BTW, I actually worked with someone that didn't have the foggiest clue
how to work with any computer. He was the network/systems administrator
at the last place that I worked and he created more headaches than you
would ever believe. He installed W2K betas (beta 2 I believe) on all of
the servers one weekend and we spent an entire week trying to get back
to where we needed to be (one week flushed for users). In the end I was
blamed for the problem because I didn't warn him that it was a beta (he
was supposed the be the systems administrator?!? I asked him if he
wanted to see the beta, I had no idea he was going to install it on
production machines.) This was one of the things that lead to me
leaving (voluntarily or else sort of situation). So I know from
experience that having a dumbass in charge of the network leads to
problems. You can tell me I'm wrong all you want, but that is a fact.
Now, whatever the hell you are talking about, why don't you just say it
rather than throwing back my statement and repeating over and over again
that I am blaming someone else for my problems? Windows is next to
impossible to administer properly anyway, adding an incompetent network
person into the mix just makes it that much more difficult (imagine
someone randomly choosing machines to install things on and then you
have to go clean them up). I'm sorry you feel that means I am blaming
my problems on someone else, but I did my job. Yes I know for a fact
this guy created about 90% of the problems we experienced. Yes, I know
for a fact that even if he hadn't we still would have had *some*
problems with Windows. Yes, I know for a fact that any system will have
some problems (there is no such thing as perfection in computers, at
least not yet). So what am I missing? You keep telling me I am wrong,
yet refuse to tell me what aspect of what I am saying is wrong. So tell
me. You think I'm a narrow minded blame skipping moron....
Prove it. Show me what the obvious thing is that I'm missing. Show me
where I blamed others for my problems. Show me how godlike you think
you are (I've sensed quite the ego coming off of you. You really
believe you know better than anyone else whatever it is you think you
know, yet you don't apparently know it well enough to actually say it,
and then you blame that on your "ability to get ahead of everyone around
me, including myself" as if your brain is moving too fast for words).
If you are so much more intelligent than all the rest of us put
together, than you should be able to put into words whatever it is you
are trying to say. So....?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
