Linux-Advocacy Digest #696, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
one step forward, two steps back.. ("MH")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451741 (Tholen) (tinman)
Re: Linux code going down hill (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (abraxas)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Matthias Warkus)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... ("1$Worth")
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Cihl)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Ray Chason)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Petticord")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Paul E. Larson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:11:17 -0400
Just checking in. (= Haven't been here in a LONG time. I used Linux for a
couple of years back in the RH 4.2 to 5.1 days. Ditched it because I just
didn't have the time, was learning windows development, going to school, and
the 'linux allure' just didn't grab & wipe off on me as easily as it does
some. Not to mention the email threats from COLA I got one day. Nice bunch.
(-:
So, I decided what the heck, I've got a little time this summer - I'll try
it again.
Quick update from the front:
The distros are doing exactly as I knew they would three years ago. Trying
to emulate windows installation programs. It isn't working. They're better
in some regards, worse in others. I've installed W2K, and on this PC, winME.
The installation was flawless.
RH still insists that my external modem is missing on each boot, (when it's
there), sometimes the sound works, sometimes it doesn't. Half of what I
installed is buried somewhere - not on the menus. The default installs I
think are a good idea. Trouble is, some of them leave you hanging with a
useless setup or bomb out trying to deliver the latter, or won't let you
setup things they didn't install very easily.
Having said that, however, it has improved for a novice.
The window managers are trying to emulate windows. It isn't working.
Neither Gnome or KDE comes close. I can see the point of trying, but if
you're going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all. It's not right.
The menu systems are a complete mess. Why does gnome have to automagically
plaster that useless bar across the bottom by default no matter what WM you
use? I know these things can be configured by hand in the config files, ..
but I thought we were doing GUIs here, remember? Drag and drop support?
Nope. Half baked at best. We're doing GUIs here, remember? We're better than
windows, remember? Not at gui's your not. Not even in the same ballpark in
the same league, in the same decade.
Memory useage. When I ran Linux last, it was RH 5.1 on a P100 with 64MBs of
ram. This box would NEVER swap. I was running Afterstep for the WM. Even
that terrible excuse for a browser NN, when running with three or four other
apps...no swap. none.. nada. I loved it. Now? HA. KDE, NN only, on a PPRO
200 with 96MBs of ram- I'm generating 50+ MB swap files. Not only that, the
system does not seem much faster than the P100. The MS bloat syndrome has
come home to roost. As I have said before, Linux was agile, and stable
because it was lean and well tuned. The apps (small & lean) most people ran
were tried and true. Now the $$ has taken over and wants the desktop.
They're trying to emulate windows. It isn't going to work. You run big GUI
based apps on top of big GUI'd window managers and you have created the same
problems you have in windows. Only worse because windows has had years
'tuning' this slop to the point that it's getting practically stable
now. --well, in windows terms any way!
If it wasn't for bedroom hackers wanting their PC's desktop to look
different because they have the newest theme of the month, with skins
flapping off the walls I don't think many home users would be coming to
linux at all. The distro's are just turning out bloated slop that doesn't
have HALF the features of windows. Thank god for building your own Linux
setup. Otherwise, I'd ditch it for good. This 'takeover the desktop' thing
is just as I predicted. A mess. The iceWM is all I need with as many
terminals as my screen will hold, running gcc or simple editors, writing
scripts so on and so on. Internet? Big apps? Forget it. NN is just plain
sub standard compared to IE. Have you ever really used IE? It's another
world. Talk about features and ease of use. Star office? I've seen it. I
wouldn't install that bug fest if Larry blew my dog. You think office is
bad? Whew. Star office is chilling.
Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think that's a
good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451741 (Tholen)
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:55:08 -0400
In article <qjOb5.34720$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> 1> Typical invective.
>
> What alleged invective, Tinman?
The one you snipped.
> 1> And the failure is yours.
>
> Incorrect, given that you are the one who failed to recognize the
> evidence I presented.
What alleged "evidence," Dave?
> 1> What alleged "evidence"?
>
> See what I mean?
Illogical, since your posts are devoid of meaning.
>
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> Typical pontification.
You really don't know what that word means, do you Dave?
>
> 2> If you mean me,
>
> I do.
What alleged "I"?
> 2> I have to ask if you're having reading comprehension problems again--
>
> You're erroneously presupposing reading comprehension problems on my
> part both previously and now, Tinman.
On the contrary, your reading comprehensions problems are well known.
> 2> I didn't start this thread,
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say you did, Tinman.
Then why refer questions to me?
> 2> nor did I choose the newgroups. ("
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say you did, Tinman. You were in it
> before I was, however, so you are in a better position to pass on the
> relevant reference.
On the contrary.
> 2> Serious, to everyone out there, if you don't enjoy this kind of thing,
> 2> killfile Tholen as author and subjects with "Tholen" in them
>
> How will that stop them from seeing your postings, or Thorne's, or
> Malloy's, or Bennett's, or Pott's, or Amodeo's, all of whom post those
> ridiculous articles allegedly for "entertainment" purposes?
Irrelevent.
> 2> (if you don't enjoy this kind of thing, that's safe, since I don't
> 2> think Dave's ever said anything worth reading except for grins),
>
> What you think is irrelevant, Tinman. I've posted plenty that is
> worth reading, such as the evidence for your lies.
On the contrary, your posts have only entertainment value.
> But you're too
> busy entertaining yourself to seek out the truth.
What alleged "truth"?
> 2> and I will try to put that string in the subject of all posts
> 2> contained tholeny tholenisms and other tholenesque trivialae
> 2> (and encourage others to do so as well).
>
> It would be simpler for you to just stop your "entertainment" at the
> expense of other readers, Tinman.
And why do you do post, Dave, if not for entertainment? I ask for
entertainment only.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:50:53 GMT
In article <8kmtao$m3d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Murphy) wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Are you talking about standard CD-ROM distribution published by
> >the distributor (as opposed to some cheap-bytes CD you picked up
> >at a local computer show?).
>
> Assuming this is a jibe at cheapbytes,
> I've used CDs from http://www.cheapbytes.com/
> for the last 4 versions of RedHat,
> and never had any problems.
Cheapbytes and LinuxMall CD-ROMs are great ways for experienced
and knowledgable users to purchase upgrades to their current
Linux distribution. They are also a great way to provide media
to well-supported users.
I've just found that giving cheap-bytes or LinuxMall CD-ROMS to
brand new novice users, who have never even test-driven Linux
before, to do more harm than good unless I am physically there
to help them do the installation. I've also found that there
were some distributions (Red Hat 5.0) that weren't even the
same as the production distribution, and didn't install properly.
For a new novice user, I reccommend that they pay the $40, get
a copy of Linux that comes with telephone installation support,
and use that telephone number if they find they are having trouble.
Even as an experienced user, I've often found that if I do have a
wierd problem with a particular device on a new release, a 5 minute
call to the support line can save me 2-4 hours of "Figuring it out".
It took 2 minutes to find out from Red Hat which sound driver to
use for my Thinkpad 600. I once spent 2 hours chasing a problem
that was caused by an error in an install script (Red Hat knew about
the problem and gave me the file name, line number, and change
in less than 1 minute.
Often a distributor will include a little "gotcha" that encourages
users to call in for support. This gives them a sense of how many
people are buying their product. It's one of the few ways to measure
replication rates.
> The title of this thread, incidentally, is nonsense.
> Linux code has been steadily improving over the years.
Of course it's nonsense. This doesn't mean there aren't a few
bumps along the road. New major changes (2.2 kernel, glibc, elf,
and 2.4 kernel) do sometimes need a few months of road testing
before they get really stable. Still, a "first release" Linux
upgrade is usually more stable than a "Service Pack 5" version of
NT 4.0. In fact, if you make one or two of those phone calls,
the upgrade is usually more stable than Win2K. And that's
just the ".0" versions. The 4.2, 6.1, and Mandrake 6.5 and 7.0
versions were rock-solid. Microsoft can only wish for such
stability under the best of circumstances. Linux is reliable
even under the worst of circumstances - like running 30-40
major applications under a single machine including
DNS, WNS, DHCP, SAMBA, Apache, Sendmail, NNTP, and MySQL all on the
same machine, all at the same time, along with all of the workstation
software.
In NT/Win2K world, this would be like running DOMAIN Master,
Shares, IIS, BackOffice, SQLServer, AND Word, Excel, Powerpoint,
Access, AND Outlook - all on the same machine, 24/7.
The one thing that Linux can do that Windows 2000 can't is allow
remote access to 20-30 remote "desktop" users who want access
to X11-Client applications. Microsoft offers Citrix, PCAnywhere,
or SMS remote access to ONE remote user. Even then, you'd better
have someone at the remote site to rescue you if the machine
locks up.
Do we even need to talk about security?
> --
> Timothy Murphy
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> tel: 086-233 6090
> s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 15 Jul 2000 15:12:51 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
: my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
: applicable licensing agreement]-
How much to keep quiet?
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 15 Jul 2000 15:15:01 GMT
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
>> oh, grow up and get a life child. You couldn't possibly know how much code
>> I've done and copyrighted in my life. Yep, as in registered at the copyright
>> office, not just a little (C) in some remarks somewhere.
>
> "Registered at the copyright office" *sigh*. You don't even *need*
> to
> put "a little (C)" somewhere. Any original work carries copyright, (C)
> or no (C). Address of the "Copyright Office" where you registered your
> code, pretty please? Copyright registration numbers, pretty please?
> Quel con, ce mec.
Come on dresden, you're being challenged here...
Lets see your code, and the copyright registrations.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:04:02 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:47:36 -0400...
...and Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > What does it take to get this guy to stop attaching his rediculous
> > signature to his posts? Most times the content of his replies are 1 or
> > 2 lines and yet, after many people pointing out that his signature is
> > far too long, he does nothing!
> >
> > It's a shame as his comments are normally reasonable and well put.
>
> And my .sig is written they way it is for equally valid reasons, even
> if they are not immediately clear to you.
It's been long enough. *PLONK*
mawa
--
Zwei Dinge sind unendlich - Das Universum und die menschliche Dummheit.
-- Albert Einstein
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:37:28 +0100
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > I smell a rat. 5.5 hours for Windows 2000? Twenty minutes for Linux with
> > Gnome. Sounds like a fishy story to me. They both usually take around the
> > same time.
>
> Caldera 2.1 took 20 minutes on my PC. Mandrake 7.0 took about 40
> minutes,
> but installed close to 1G of files (Caldera half as much). That was on
> an AMD K6 running at 200MHz, and, more importantly, a now long
> obsolete 20x CD drive. Twenty minutes for an up-to-date box seems
> reasonable. I would never dream of trying to install Win2k. For
> one, I have only 64M of RAM. Next, I don't know anyone to burn me
> a pirated Win2K set. Finally, if I did, I wouldn't bother. As I
> posted earlier here, some day, I might have a go at installing
> my pirated copy of Win95, only to play Fallout 2.
Both Windows install and a Linux install (RH6.1) takes about 20-30 mins
for me, BUT the first time I installed Linux loads of time.... but I
didn't know what I was doing (and I'm now glad that I fumbled around
'cos trashing your hard disk a few times does cause you to remember
things).
Like most things in life - if you know what to do then either OS will
install with ease most of the time...
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 15:39:08 GMT
Well, this is obviously a troll, but i'll answer anyway.
MH wrote:
> =
> Just checking in. (=3D Haven't been here in a LONG time. I used Linux f=
or a
> couple of years back in the RH 4.2 to 5.1 days. Ditched it because I ju=
st
> didn't have the time, was learning windows development, going to school=
, and
> the 'linux allure' just didn't grab & wipe off on me as easily as it do=
es
> some. Not to mention the email threats from COLA I got one day. Nice bu=
nch.
> (-:
> =
> So, I decided what the heck, I've got a little time this summer - I'll =
try
> it again.
> Quick update from the front:
> =
> The distros are doing exactly as I knew they would three years ago. Try=
ing
> to emulate windows installation programs. It isn't working. They're bet=
ter
> in some regards, worse in others. I've installed W2K, and on this PC, w=
inME.
> The installation was flawless.
I don't think the installation programs are emulating Windows in
particular. What the distributions want, in general, is to provide for
easier installation procedures for new users. The older installation
procedures were good in itself, but they tended to scare off these new
users.
> RH still insists that my external modem is missing on each boot, (when =
it's
> there), sometimes the sound works, sometimes it doesn't. Half of what I=
> installed is buried somewhere - not on the menus. The default installs=
I
> think are a good idea. Trouble is, some of them leave you hanging with =
a
> useless setup or bomb out trying to deliver the latter, or won't let yo=
u
> setup things they didn't install very easily.
> Having said that, however, it has improved for a novice.
When you say that you're accustomed to older versions of Linux, even
mentioning these problems seems strange at best.
For instance, i don't recall Linux ever mentioning anything on boot
about modems. They either work or they don't. And how can the sound
work sometimes and sometimes not? In Linux it either works always, or
never. Three years ago installed programs were never mentioned on any
menus.
You talk about default installs. Well, there i really have to agree
with you. The default installs tend to install programs most people
will never need, like Apache, SSH, various ftp-servers and stuff like
that. Programs people often WOULD have a use for, don't get installed,
like Sane for instance. Standard installs, however, depend heavily on
the distribution, and maybe you will find one that suits your needs.
I wouldn't describe it as badly as you say, though. For now, i'd go
with selected exactly the packages you need, but this required a
little experience in knowing what all the packages do exactly.
> The window managers are trying to emulate windows. It isn't working.
> Neither Gnome or KDE comes close. I can see the point of trying, but if=
> you're going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all. It's not righ=
t.
> The menu systems are a complete mess. Why does gnome have to automagica=
lly
> plaster that useless bar across the bottom by default no matter what WM=
you
> use? I know these things can be configured by hand in the config files,=
..
> but I thought we were doing GUIs here, remember? Drag and drop support?=
> Nope. Half baked at best. We're doing GUIs here, remember? We're better=
than
> windows, remember? Not at gui's your not. Not even in the same ballpark=
in
> the same league, in the same decade.
KDE is actually a general Unix GUI-system that's making an attempt to
bring a user-friendly GUI to all Unix and Unix-like systems, including
Linux. KDE uses a policy of 'borrowing' ideas from Apple and Microsoft
for this. (Mostly Apple)
Gnome is a more Linux-specific approach, and not as much a
Windows-clone. Gnome looks a little more like the all the older WM's
in Linux/Unix, like CDE.
The only window-manager which deliberately emulates the Windows
desktop, is Fvwm95.
Drag 'n drop support has been completely rewritten just recently, and
both Gnome and KDE are going to use it in their next incarnations.
(I'm talking about XDnD, of course)
> Memory useage. When I ran Linux last, it was RH 5.1 on a P100 with 64MB=
s of
> ram. This box would NEVER swap. I was running Afterstep for the WM. Eve=
n
> that terrible excuse for a browser NN, when running with three or four =
other
> apps...no swap. none.. nada. I loved it. Now? HA. KDE, NN only, on a PP=
RO
> 200 with 96MBs of ram- I'm generating 50+ MB swap files. Not only that,=
the
> system does not seem much faster than the P100. The MS bloat syndrome h=
as
> come home to roost. As I have said before, Linux was agile, and stable
> because it was lean and well tuned. The apps (small & lean) most people=
ran
> were tried and true. Now the $$ has taken over and wants the desktop.
> They're trying to emulate windows. It isn't going to work. You run big =
GUI
> based apps on top of big GUI'd window managers and you have created the=
same
> problems you have in windows. Only worse because windows has had years
> 'tuning' this slop to the point that it's getting practically stable
> now. --well, in windows terms any way!
If you run the same WM's you did three years ago, you will have the
same amount of memory usage, too. NN hasn't changed much, either. It
added some support for things, and some instability with it. Looks
like somebody is exaggerating here. :)
And again, nobody's trying to emulate Windows. They're just trying to
get more user-friendly, and not lose too much stability and
flexibility in the process. We'll see how it turns out pretty soon.
> If it wasn't for bedroom hackers wanting their PC's desktop to look
> different because they have the newest theme of the month, with skins
> flapping off the walls I don't think many home users would be coming to=
> linux at all. The distro's are just turning out bloated slop that doesn=
't
> have HALF the features of windows. Thank god for building your own Linu=
x
> setup. Otherwise, I'd ditch it for good. This 'takeover the desktop' th=
ing
> is just as I predicted. A mess. The iceWM is all I need with as many
> terminals as my screen will hold, running gcc or simple editors, writin=
g
> scripts so on and so on. Internet? Big apps? Forget it. NN is just pla=
in
> sub standard compared to IE. Have you ever really used IE? It's another=
> world. Talk about features and ease of use. Star office? I've seen it. =
I
> wouldn't install that bug fest if Larry blew my dog. You think office i=
s
> bad? Whew. Star office is chilling.
But you can still have it the way you had it three years ago. IceWM
still exists. Linux is a *fully modular* system. You can install it
anyway you want it. It doesn't require any more work than it did three
years ago.
> Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think that'=
s a
> good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.
See above. Desktop extensions are only being *added* to Linux. They
are not replacing any old systems.
-- =
=A8I live!=A8
=A8I hunger!=A8
=A8Run, coward!=A8
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 15 Jul 2000 14:55:56 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>All right, so I've been overstating the case. But when somebody says
>that something which has been successful in the market does something
>"wrong", I can't help but notice that they have to be making
>assumptions.
Windows is successful in the market. You are claiming that Windows does
something wrong. (So do I, of course, but it isn't PMT.) Now what
assumptions are you making?
>If I have twelve apps waiting for user
>input, it is because I want them to wait. I don't want them to slow
>things down by increasing their priority; it isn't *that* kind of
>"scheduling".
Those twelve apps are *waiting*. They are using zero percent CPU. You can
raise their priority to the moon and it won't make a whit of difference.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "David Petticord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 15:53:13 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> everybody ends up just waving dead chickens, proud of their voodoo power
> >> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >
> >> >HA!
> >>
> >> I take it you recognize the issue I'm trying to discuss, right?
> >>
> >> Whenever I ask an MCSE a tough question, and they start their little
> >> "Microsoft shuffle" where they pretend to know how to answer...
If you two are through having fun. ;-)
I'll put my $0.02 in even though I know it will head into a discussion over
defining "tough question" to mean a question a MSCE can't answer.
You'll know this has happened when I post the response "OK, You win."
A real-life situation...
A client calls me up complaining he got a Dr. Watson the night before. He
tried but couldn't make it happen again. I walked him through using the
Dr. Watson control panel to enabling logging. For good measure, I told
him to wave a dead chicken over his head and maybe the problem
won't happen again, but if it did, to call me.
A week later, the client calls me again complaining about another Dr.
Watson. I walked him though e-mailing me the log file. While I studied
it, I told him to rub a raw egg all over his system, break it open into a
bowl and tell me what he saw.
After a knowing "hmmmm", I explained that I would have to consult
the spirits (vendor) and I would get back to him.
Later I asked if the system happened to be on a network with Unix
machines and over an ancient burial ground. After he confirmed it
was, I responded with knowing "Aaaaaah".
Then I sent my client a new executable and toad's tongue for him
to install explaining this should fix the problem, but if it doesn't to
call me.
The client happily paid the requested fee.
As I have stated this is an "almost" accurate account of a real-life
situation (the Voodoo activities may have been an embellishment).
It turns out the Dr. Watson log file pointing to an application that
used UDP ports which are normally free in a Microsoft only
network. The vendor (not Microsoft) provided an upgraded
executable that moved the UDP port used and added
protections against future overlaps.
To some, an explanation of "if you look at the documentation
provided to you, it clearly states this application assumes an
isolated subnet or, at least, free use of the following UDP ports."
sounds like so much double talk and whining. It so happens the
client in this situation could grasp my explanation and agreed
he shared responsibility for the problem. He was delighted
that we provided a solution that didn't require him to reconfigure
his network (he out-sourced his IT department and it isn't as
accommodating).
The point...
Yes, it is easy to point to most professional fields and accuse
some of "being a quack", "practicing voodoo economics", etc.
This has a lot to do with the difficulty of the average person
differentiating between an honest assessment and double talk.
Most professionals tend to shy away from telling paying
customers "I don't have a clue." and start listing the possible
problems which could be described as "shuffling" to a
casual observer.
My Opinion,
David Petticord
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 15:59:43 GMT
In article <NHSb5.316668$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> What does it take to get this guy to stop attaching his rediculous
>> signature to his posts? Most times the content of his replies are 1 or
>> 2 lines and yet, after many people pointing out that his signature is
>> far too long, he does nothing!
>>
>> It's a shame as his comments are normally reasonable and well put.
>
>Amen, brother! I was considering bringing it up but I felt stupid because I
>never really understood the .sig. It seemed like a conversation among the
>letter people.
>
If anyone is interested -
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC45
http://wise.fau.edu/netiquette/net/signat.txt
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
