Linux-Advocacy Digest #683, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 19:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Numbers for users,hackers? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Mike Marion)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (David Steinberg)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: linux, of course!! (Jim Broughton)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Karl Knechtel)
Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:26:26 -0500
On 14 Jul 2000 11:52:45 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Kenneth> I would argue that a limited constitutional republic, like
> Kenneth> the ones you and I live under, is the best way we have
> Kenneth> found to date to protect those rights.
>
> Yes but the constitution is defined by the government, which
>at least in theory anyway, is representative of the majority. So the
>majority therefore has the right to decide which aspects of life it
>does not have the right to regulate.
The people that wrote our constitution and the people who have formed
the basis for the government of england had little in common with the
majority. The rights they felt needed protecting were decided upon
without majority consensus.
Our constitution requires a much higher barrier to modification than
a simple majority. In fact it requires more than a super majority to
get an amendment passed and there are a small number of changes to our
constitution that are not allowed at all. These are not democratic
measures. I'm pleased that we have them.
> So in what sense does a constitution protect against this
>"tyranny of the majority". All it does is slow things down, by
>division of power (you need several steps to pass "unconstitutional
>laws". First you have to change the constitution!).
As I said, changing the constitution requires more than a simple
majority.. Undemocratic? yes.
Even if the whole point was to slow down democratic change, that might
be good. Often the majority is cursed with a short attention span.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.tranquility.net/~kturvey/resume/resume.html
========================================================
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist fears it is true.
-- Robert Oppenheimer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:20:35 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> Can I say "renice this every time it runs?" Can I say "renice this if
> this other program is running?" Can I say "nice this as long as these
> aren't trying to get that done?" I know the discussion is on technical
> scheduling of the CPU resource. But what I am saying would be useful,
> and that CMT approximates and that is why it was successful on the Mac
> though scoffed at by engineers, is something with a higher abstraction.
> Something which deals with the performance of the *system*, as opposed
> to the "efficiency" of a component.
>
Yes, you could use renice in all of these situations if you really wanted
to. The more I read your posts the more I dislike you. You seem to have a
tremendous dislike for engineers. You use the word "engineer" as if it is
some 4-letter word. Engineers do indeed deal with the performance of the
entire system. I am an engineer, a programmer and an end user. And I can
tell you, from all three perspectives, that CMT has no place in an OS.
There are some highly specialized areas where CMT is appropriate, but not in
an OS and not for the reasons you claim.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Numbers for users,hackers?
Date: 14 Jul 2000 22:22:31 GMT
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>>Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Still not accurate.... typically one CD is used to install several machines.
>>
>>No. Linux CDs are US$12 at local 'fancy' retail stores. Smaller shops,
>>swap meet vendors, and user groups sell factory pressed (not recordables)
>>Linux CDs (ex. Redhat) for around US$3. I know many people who spent $3 or
>>$12 out of curiosity, tried Linux briefly, and then decided it isn't for
>>them. Of people I know use Linux many have multiple CDs. For many it is
>>easier and/or cheaper to buy another CD for an incremental release (say
>>RedHat 6.0 -> 6.1 -> 6.2) than to download.
>>
>>In college dorm/lab type environments I saw much of the behavior you
>>describe, the one CD is so easily accessible few bother to get their own.
>>However in home environments it seems more people like to have their own
>>CDs, and with the cost being so low there is virtually no dis
>>
>>Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
>
> I have been using Linux since 2.0 came out, and with the exception of a
> powermac clone I owned a while back. Each linux distro wound up getting
> installed on 3 or 4 systems. Of course, after the first RH5.0, I have been
> upgrading, so it's been a pretty constant number of linux boxes on the boat.
> (4 now, plus my brother's server in Alaska.) I only buy one copy of SuSE, I
> install all the systems from that.
OK, so it's a Linux version number pissing contest, well then, I had
Yggdrasil Plug-and-Play Linux, kernel 0.9something, on my big bad-ass
486DX-33 way back when. ;-)
In any case I don't doubt your type of story happens, I just don't accept
that this is a typical scenario outside of dorm, lab, or other nerd/hacker
niches. Outside of these environments I see more CDs than Linux
installations in use by end users. Servers are a different story.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:22:56 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> when I included variations I meant Basic in general. I've found a basic
> language or something very similar to it on most platforms, in scripts or
> proper languages
Ah, I see. There is a difference though. Unlike Perl, or most C which
can simply be copied from platform to platform and run/compiled with no
(or very few) changes.. VB is likely not going to port as easily.
> More powerful? Perhaps. But is it as easy to use as VB? I use VB cause I can
> crank out code in a hurry and with very little debugging and the tools and
> 3rd party support is fantastic.
IMO, yes.. Perl is. Sure it gets harder when you're trying to do things
that are more complicated, but it's the easiest language I've ever
learned. Then again, I already understood regular expressions and such.
Support for perl is pretty impressive too. Probably due to how widely
it's used.
> show a programmer some VB code and I'll bet he can figure out what it's
> doing quickly and usually pretty close to accurately. Show a programmer some
> C++ or Perl and not everyone one them could figure it out nearly as easily
There's a big difference between "most programmers could figure it out"
and universal.
> or quickly and perhaps not as accurately. THAT"S what I was getting at. I
> mean, be serious, whenever I see anyone writing "pseudocode" they typically
> write it in a short-hand of BASIC. Gee, it sure is easy to get that
Bah.. I never use pseudocode. The only times I ever had were while in
school when I had to hand in the different steps. I actually do a lot
better if I just code, then test each part step by step.
> VBA for controlling other MS products. My time invested in learning VB is
> tranferable from App to app to type of application and need to another. I
Sure... in windows, since they all use VB or some variation. Sure
doesn't help when you move over to a Unix system though.
> use one language to get all the things I need done, from the lighest weight
> to most anything out there. I'm not trying to represent VB as any ultimate
> anything - it's just that it's a perfectly valid tool IMHO.
No argument there.. it's a tool that works for you (and others). The
way you said you don't care for C++, Java and Perl but do prefer VB made
it seem as though you thought VB was a better language. Which, IMO is
far from the truth.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Our system is already Y2K compliant but you can improve your Y2K
compliance
by using the special CD, which carries out some minor fixes." -
Microsoft
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:24:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>So, let's try this again. You said that the USPTO somehow has something
>to do with defining a "derivative work". I asked why you think they
>have anything to do with that, see how it is a copyright concept and
>they deal with patents and trademarks (hence, their name). I also
>said that the Copyright Office had a circular on derivative works, but
>that it just repeats what the statute said.
You apparently (no, you definitely) jumped in to the middle, and I know
this from the quoting history, already snipped. So I would surmise that
you are aware of the fact that the exchange began with someone else
saying that RMS had something to do with defining derivative work, and I
was merely disagreeing with him in a mirror illustration, not that it
began with my bold assertion as to who does define such things. Which
leads me to further speculate that you were purposefully jumping in
because you noticed that I had apparently said something which could
remotely be disagreed with, if one were unaware of the context or
conversation.
You seek to alter the argument by exploiting the potential ignorance of
those involved, as Jedi would say.
>I never said that you said that 'The PTO clearly and completely defines".
>I did ask why you think the PTO has ANYTHING to do with defining what
>a derivative work is?
You know, patents, intellectual property; a common conceptual glitch.
The PTO is cited often in early discussions of software as intellectual
property. It was their change in policy in 1976, in fact, which is said
to have....
I see why you don't understand. You're saying that PTO has nothing to
do with copyrighted materials at all. And normally you might be
correct, but in this case I don't think so. The reason that I
referenced the PTO (aside from the fact that it was meaningless, as my
statement that they don't define derivative works is true either way)
was because it was their decision in 1976, declaring that software
should be considered intellectual property. Formerly, it was merely
considered part of the computing machine, and was protected (as it is
today, from the end-user's perspective) as licensed trade secrets. This
move by the PTO was matched, I believe, by the hasty addition of a
section to the copyright law to reflect software's reclassification in
that regard, which brings us to where we are today in terms of software.
I'm not sure if I have the sequence of events correct in full, but the
historical accuracy doesn't really mean much in this practical context.
>And I got my answer, from the nonsense that you subsequently posted.
>You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
So while you were right that I inadvertently used the PTO when I wasn't
referring to patents or trademarks, but copyright issues, you're going
to have to troll longer if you want to 'catch' me at something you might
reasonably be able to declare is 'nonsense'. Because it is the PTO,
actually, which is who defined software as copyrightable, by declaring,
ironically, that it was patentable. That they do not have any
regulatory burden for copyright is rather irrelevant, in the context of
the original comment which you attempted to troll.
Because they also, it turns out, share as much responsibility for
defining what is a derivative work in copyrighted software code as
Richard Stallman.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 14 Jul 2000 22:27:37 GMT
Drestin Black ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: ahh, the laugh of the "elite" eh?
Hardly. I don't claim to be "elite." I'm three-quarters through an
Computer Engineering undergrad degree, I've only had two programming
jobs, and I'm not much of a hacker in my spare time, either.
I've dabbled in many languages, but I'm only really competent in two,
going on three.
: hey, VB is easy to use. And it is fast and I dare say you won't find a
: language more universaly recognized than basic. It does the job quickly -
: when you need a quick job done. Prototype, RAD or even some smaller
: client/server projects, VB has it's place. *I* laugh at the ignorance of
: anyone that would choose to ignore a tool and prefer to do something the
: harder way every time ... just because.
I'm not saying that VB doesn't have some uses; the funny part is naming it
as your "favourite" lanugage.
Yes, if you want to quickly fill a simple need, and don't care about
sacrificing efficiency, VB can be useful. It's also pretty forgiving of
mistakes, and if you screw around for a while, you can usually stumble on
some way of doing what you want. And there's a shiny-happy IDE, which
often speeds up this process.
I just can't see why anyone who has written as much code as you claim to
would select VB as his favourite language. It's not particularly elegant,
it's not particularly powerful, it doesn't lend itself to particularly
good design. It can be useful, but so can Perl, which you don't
like. Why do you actually *like* VB?
>From some of the things you've said in the past, I'm inclined to believe
"preference" for VB is based mostly on ignorance of the alternatives.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:29:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:25:09 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>>>You say that there is no likelyhood of libraries being GPL, despite,
>>>say, REALITY, and I am the one that's making bad rethoric? Excuse
>>>me while I puke.
>>
>>And you say you're an engineer? You might work well with computer code,
>
> It is actually quite common for engineers to be overyly
> pedantic and to indulge in endless and heated debates over
> various interpretations of minutia. Computer Science is one
> of those areas where small differences can be quite significant.
But that's my point. I had thought that the endless debate over minutia
was caused by a fascination with intricate issues where correct or
incorrect were somewhat meaningless terms and that everybody recognized
that. That isn't the same as not being able to understand the term "no
likelihood". I didn't realize they were all just arguing over nothing
but misinterpretations of whatever the last guy had said.
[...]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. 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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:27:58 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:53:34 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:38:10 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
> >> >> >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
> >> >> >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
> >> >>
> >> >> The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
> >> >> bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
> >> >
> >> >But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
> >>
> >> That just shows that Apple likes to skimp on hardware while
> >> overcharging their customers...
> >
> >Hardly. The Mac came about as a direct result of the Lisa; a more
> >expensive system that nobody bought. Incidentally, the Lisa supported
> >PMT. This was one of the corners Apple had to cut when trying to build a
> >lower cost system.
>
> ...which in no way contradicts Jedi's poing, that Apple likes to skimp
> on hardware while overcharging customers. After all, if the C= Amiga
> could do it then, why not a much larger Apple Computers, Inc.?
Amiga was a separate corporation purchased by Commodore just before
it's release.
At the time, Commodore was HUGE.... the C-64 sales were absolutely
trouncing Apple //c and Apple //e sales.
A few years later, Atari, failing to spot the new direction of the
market (the Atari 520ST and 1040ST never gained more than a niche
market).... Commodore tried...they even had a SysVR3 unix port in
1992...alas, they never captured even a narrow slice of the business
market...and thus, they soon filed for bankruptcy as well.
--
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: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux, of course!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:32:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> This is a killer.
>
> 1. Linux is not an organization.
>
> 2. I have yet to see any case where "Linux killed someone" or "Linux
> raped someone" or "Linux encouraged war".
>
> 3. WTF crawled up your ass and lived?
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
Come on take it for what it is an attempt
(and a good one) at HUMOR. People in this
NG take things just WAY to seriously.
I on the other hand am still laughing.
JIM
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. 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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:29:23 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:30:01 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8kn2kt$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : > >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
> >> : > >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
> >> : > >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
> >> : >
> >> : > The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
> >> : > bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
> >>
> >> : But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
> >>
> >> We did it with 64k of total memory on a 2 Mhz Intel 8085. The executive
> >> itself (implementing the PMT) occupied 1k.
> >>
> >> As I explained in these groups a couple years ago, it is less the
> >> resources than the design orientation. The Original Mac was very tight on
> >> memory. If they had given up a few K for a simple PMT system, they would
> >> have had the orientation from the start. For whatever reasons (perhaps
> >> valid) they felt that other features needed to be there first.
> >>
> >> When they wanted to add MT, they were in a hard place. I remember that it
> >> was considered "impossible" for a time, until the CMT hack appeared.
> >
> >I would have thought, wrt to hardware resources, it had more to do with the
> >amount of CPU grunt available - wouldn't the overhead of a PMT scheduler
> >have a quite noticable impact on a GUI OS with such a slow CPU ?
> >
>
> Not at all, as the first Amigas proved. They wiped the floor with the
> slow Macs - it wasn't until years later that Apple had a Mac system
> that could even begin to compete with the current Amiga systems.
And they were using the same CPU's.
Amiga was the first to have a 3-D rendered "bouncing ball" demo...
which featured a non-uniform surface on the ball.
--
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 R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:31:45 -0400
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "V'rgo Vardja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8kmlmh$1bh2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <snip everything>
>
> Use Windows 2000 Professional...
>
> Most Winvocates would agree with you, Win9x is a stinking pile of dog shit.
>
Aren't these the exact same shit-heads who, only 10 months ago, were
babbling incoherently about how Lose98 was so excellant that absolutely
NOTHING could be better?
> Stu
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:04:22 GMT
tinman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Tinman wrote:
: >
: > 1> Jumping into conversations again Karl? Cool, have fun!
: >
Thank you. I just hope the COLA people aren't mad at me, in case I ever
decide to start following that NG (believe me, I'd *like* to, but CSMA eats
up enough time as it is!)
: > Still posting for entertainment purposes, eh Tinman?
: That's tinman. ('
Still playing semantic games, tinman?
: And why else would I post?
Don't you know?
: > Not surprising,
: > considering that you are being digestified.
Illogical. Digestification is the result of posting for entertainment
purposes, not the cause.
: On the contrary. My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
Meanwhile, I see you still have not provided any evidence of the existence
of this alleged "polycarbonate exterior". How typical.
: --
Incorrect.
: ______
Illogical.
: tinman
Non sequitur.
;)
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:36:30 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nahh.
>
> Linus is cool.
>
> Gates is the ultimate geek.
And a computationally clueless one at that.
When he wrote his first book, the self-annointed "seer of the future"
complete missed the Internet.
Then Mosaic and Netscape started making it a household word, and
old jerk-boy had to recall all of his books and write a new chapter
to cover the offending gaffe.
I wonder if the lying slime-bucket made the publishers print the
printing history as if the first printing never happened?
I wouldn't put it past him.
Megalomaniacs NEVER publicly own up to making a mistake.
Some day, they'll find him in a bunker with a pistol in his cold, blue
hand.
>
> I've heard keynotes by both of them and Linus is pretty interesting.
> Gates tone of voice irritates my ears. He looks like a bloated geek
> these days :)
>
> Scott Mcnealy is pretty cool also as is Bob Young of RedHat.
What do you expect?
INNOVATORS are cool.
Imitators aren't.
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:05:19 +0100, "Stuart Fox"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8klulq$gp4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I was going to post a humorous reply to this, but then I realized it
> >> would be attacked by a bunch of losers defending a dying operating
> >> system from a has-been company run by a geek and changed my mind.
> >
> >I'm sure this will probably start a whole set of Linus is geekier than Bill
> >Gates discussions...
> >
--
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
******************************
