Linux-Advocacy Digest #708, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:47:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:48:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>>That's not good. Add to the fact
>>>that the entire computing industry disagrees with you (for general use
>>>systems) and *explicitly* disagrees with you for desktops, and I would
>>>think even you would realize you have an incredibly weak case.
>>
>>The "computer industry" when Apple decided to use CMT I trusted, and had
>>a reason to trust, and it was valid.
>
>What changed from 1988 or so to now? Back then there was Atari,
>Amiga, Apple, and IBM in the industry; now there's Apple, Windows, and
>Linux. The PC world has gotten better, easier to use, faster, and
>cheaper. What's the problem? Or is this more vague handwaving and
>signaling? You sound more and more like Terry Pelfrey of
>c.s.amiga.advocacy with every post... vague repetitions of the same
>tired phrase, each time throwing out a few "code words" that really
>don't mean anything to anyone else, with references to those words as
>if you've proven something.
Thanks for pointing it out; I am aware of how difficult I've been. This
post was quite embarrassing in retrospect. But these are advocacy, not
technical, groups. What changed from 1988 to now is the
commercialization of microcomputer technology, where whether something
is popular is potentially due to massive cluelessness as the possibility
that it is technically valid.
>>Today's computer industry, I
>>wouldn't bet a dime on whether a single one of them had a clue. No
>
>Rest assured, they're significantly more clued in than you.
Is that why I'm employed explaining where to look for clues to problems
that engineers can't seem to solve? It is typically my lot to explain
to the clueless managers why the reason the engineers can't solve the
problems they've been tasked with is that they've been tasked with
solving the wrong problems. I don't think this is unique to my own
experience, either. Most engineers usually agree with me. In this
case, I've decided to champion a position which is truly clueless, but
which I thought was integral to understanding that Linux as a desktop
platform means it has to make sense to users, regardless of whether it
makes sense to engineers. Since obviously engineers are of the
generally valid opinion that CMT is not adequate for a modern computer,
and I had the ready example of an engineer saying that CMT was "stupid",
I thought it worth pursuing. All the meta-discussion is just a bonus,
as far as I'm concerned.
>>doubt they simply mirror the knee-jerk reaction in this group. Not a
>
>...to common sense and logic and proven results?
>
>>one of them could probably even comprehend how CMT could really work,
>>because they'd trained themselves not to consider such heresy. At least
>
>Let me assure you that the people writing for/with Apple, Windows, and
>Linux know *EXACTLY* how all of this stuff works. They are *very*
>familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of CMT and PMT. And
>they choose PMT.
Thank you. I was most certainly speaking rhetorically. Yet even
specialists can agree that others of the same specialty can be clueless.
>>from the general experience I've had with the entire IT world so far.
>>We're all just human, after all. Its probably what I'd do, if I could
>>possibly manage to be a software engineer.
>
>What problem did you encouter as a child that caused you to hate (or
>at least, emphatically deride) engineers so much? Are you
>math-challenged?
Very, but that's not it.
>It's beginning to be obvious that you are logic
>challenged, as most of these topics have been explained to you over
>and over again, and you've yet to give any examples to back up your
>own statements....
You are correct. I cannot give examples, only reasons, to back up my
statements. If they are easily refuted with logic, then I capitulate,
with my apologies. But I won't take anyone's word for whether what they
present contradicts my position; I honestly have to insist, with all due
humility, that I have to understand the statement to know if it
contradicts my position. Since what I see in this threadlet is
primarily people who don't understand my position, the fact that they
contradict my statements might not have the impact you'd expect. I'm
math challenged, not logic challenged.
>>But then I keep thinking about that Ethernet....
>
>Would you like to lead a discussion comparing ethernet and PMT/CMT?
>Please start by discussing how the comparison is at all material to
>this discussion of which is the superior multitasking method - CMT or
>PMT.
What do you think I've been trying to do? You can't lead a discussion
if everyone wants to argue if the discussion should be allowed first.
Ethernet was a novel arrangement for balancing the requirements of a
shared resource; a communication channel. It is in no way directly
applicable to the problem of sharing a CPU resource, other than that, as
far as I know. It is primarily the fact that it does not require an
external control mechanism, when previously it was accepted as fact that
one would be required to manage a communication channel. Being novel
and connectionless (without external control requirements) is also a
parallel that extends to the technique of internetworking, as
implemented in TCP/IP, and another related and very successful
technology: the World Wide Web.
More specifically, Ethernet interconnects transceivers of indeterminate
and unknown number (limited by physical resources, essentially). Rather
than have them all plug in to a switch which then interconnects the
transceivers, a shared media (bus or hub) is used, which acts passively
and does not "control" the channel. Plug in a bunch of ethernet
stations, and they will divvy up the transmit time available on the
single channel automagically using Carrier Sense-Mutliple Access with
Collision Detection (CSMA/CD), a simple set of rules for determining if
a system should or should not transmit at any one time.
It is widely recognized that one of the limitation of Ethernet is that
it is a truly horrendous system when placed under heavy load. It is an
extremely efficient system, however, gaining substantially in
performance under loads which consistently average to less than about
25% utilization. It is the fact that most channels lie dormant most of
the time which makes Ethernet effective. Likewise, I think it might be
possible that, considering CPU load averages are typically very low,
only peaking on occasion, that a more "unregulated" method of sharing
the CPU resource might provide enough efficiencies as to counter-balance
the difficulty of writing software which handles the occasional peak
more elegantly. Nothing as simple and uncomplicated as CSMA/CD,
certainly, and the difficulty of dealing with processes which don't
yield may well make CMT entirely intolerable. But the question isn't
CMT or PMT; its assuming the problem is solved in light of evidence to
the contrary. If things were really on such different time scales, than
why is whether the mouse moves or an hourglass shows up ever used to
illustrate one or the other to begin with?
>I'm familiar with Ethernet. But you basically just did more
>handwaving while completely ignoring my request. Why can't you look
>up a few things, give some concrete examples, and/or do *something* to
>lend some strength and weight to your case? As it is, it seems you
>are suggesting CMT is better...well, I'm not sure why - perhaps
>because you say it is, and as a source, so far, you've shown us a nice
>AT&T (Bell Labs? I donno) interface for re-doing niceness levels via
>the mouse button, and you submitted that as if it proved you were
>correct in your statement, when in fact nothing could be farther from
>the truth.
No, I'm suggesting that CMT is to be considered, not that it is better.
I am more concerned with whether I am correct in my position than
whether I am correct in every possible interpretation of my statements.
>So, if you want to prove something, do so. Stop the handwaving and
>CSMA/CD verbiage and dig deeper with some real-world examples. I know
>what CSMA/CD is and why we'd use it, so if that's what you're
>comfortable talking about, and you can build a serious case with it
><boggle>, do so.
I would think if you understood CSMA/CD, you would already understand
why I consider its success to support my position. Has this message
satisfied you as to the honesty of my intent?
--
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] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 16 Jul 2000 03:01:19 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:11:39 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>>However, at least the kernel has the option of forcibly moving
>>things around; on a pure CMT system, this isn't really possible.
>
>So would you say that a suggestion might be warranted that it might be
>feasible and beneficial to consider making it unnecessary, as well as
>impossible, instead of simply taking the opposite approach of making it
>possible?
No. You're continuing to ignore the principle that system-wide
resources should be managed by the operating system. If you think you
can gainsay this principle, you'd better tell me exactly why, with
real-world examples and no handwaving whatsoever.
--
Ben (why do I bother?)
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 16 Jul 2000 03:14:28 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:47:06 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>You are correct. I cannot give examples, only reasons, to back up my
>statements.
But everybody knows that you can derive all sorts of garbage with
ironclad logic if you start with false assumptions.
>If they are easily refuted with logic, then I capitulate,
>with my apologies. But I won't take anyone's word for whether what they
>present contradicts my position;
That's your failure. You've picked wrong postulates, but you think
you're hot shit because your logic is valid. This is the worst sort of
sophistry.
>More specifically, Ethernet interconnects transceivers of indeterminate
>and unknown number (limited by physical resources, essentially). Rather
>than have them all plug in to a switch which then interconnects the
>transceivers, a shared media (bus or hub) is used, which acts passively
>and does not "control" the channel.
Wrong. Everyone who can afford to uses switches nowadays. It's a bogus
analogy anyway.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:34:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:50:54 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>>>> http://www.uk.research.att.com/~dmi/linux-srt/wm.html
>>>
>>>This is just an easy interface for switching task priorities. Such
>>>things have been around forever, and have never gained much popularity.
>>
>>Well if no one mentions them when some clueless idiot on Usenet starts
>>spouting off about CMT and insists that the user needs and easy
>>interface for switching task priorities, how come it doesn't occur to
>>anyone in an *advocacy* group that nobody thinks to mention that "such
>>things have been around forever," how the fuck are they supposed to gain
>>popularity?
>
>Was there a question in there? That wasn't a complete phrase, or at
>least it was one heck of a run-on - can you re-phrase that for us?
Yea, that was one train-wreck of a question. That's what happens when
your I/O keeps blocking but your queues don't support inheritance
scheduling and your kernel processes starve. (Thanks, Ben.)
I said "so how come it took so long for someone to tell me across four
OS advocacy groups? Isn't directing clueless users to information about
their concerns more appropriate behavior than ridiculing them? My
position was clearly that making task priority more responsive to user
needs is important, and I find it rather unfortunate that nobody thought
to mention that such things were already being addressed.
In summary, we can now perhaps move to a different grounds, but the same
subject, and free from the CMT issue. Because I think I'd like to
suggest, in great humility, that if anyone had responded to my earlier
posts "No, Max, your question is not whether CMT is feasible, but
whether PMT scheduling algorithms need a great deal of improvement.
Here are some web pages which address those concerns."
If you're going to say "you don't know what you're talking about",
that's all right. Its when the next sentence is ridicule, not
instruction (not that it wasn't in all cases, to be sure I learned a lot
from many helpful people free from meta-discussions for the most part)
that I stop trying to be cheerful and civil.
I'd also like to say that several people have noted with disdain and
disfavor my "put down" of engineers, when the only people I meant to
insult were the people who were ridiculing me. In all, I'm thankful for
the opportunity to voice my concerns and appreciate the indulgence that
most have given me. I've lashed out, and shouldn't have. I apologize
to engineers everywhere, not just those reading this. Engineers are
generally intelligent and well educated, and it is an undeserved
prejudice to suggest that this makes them likely to be limited in
thinking, and I have fostered that prejudice with my lack of restraint
in using the word to indicate such insult. I am glad to have learned
that lesson, and thank everyone who posted for helping me learn it.
But I'll close by noting that while clueless in a wide assortment of
ways personally, I have yet to meet an engineer, "real" or otherwise,
that isn't also clueless in some regards. But I guess that can be said
of just about any variety or type of person.
- tmax d8=?
Wondering how I can have gathered so many clues, and still be so
clueless....
====== 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]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:34:19 -0500
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:47:06 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:48:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>That's not good. Add to the fact
>>>>that the entire computing industry disagrees with you (for general use
>>>>systems) and *explicitly* disagrees with you for desktops, and I would
>>>>think even you would realize you have an incredibly weak case.
>>>
>>>The "computer industry" when Apple decided to use CMT I trusted, and had
>>>a reason to trust, and it was valid.
>>
>>What changed from 1988 or so to now? Back then there was Atari,
>>Amiga, Apple, and IBM in the industry; now there's Apple, Windows, and
>>Linux. The PC world has gotten better, easier to use, faster, and
>>cheaper. What's the problem? Or is this more vague handwaving and
>>signaling? You sound more and more like Terry Pelfrey of
>>c.s.amiga.advocacy with every post... vague repetitions of the same
>>tired phrase, each time throwing out a few "code words" that really
>>don't mean anything to anyone else, with references to those words as
>>if you've proven something.
>
>Thanks for pointing it out; I am aware of how difficult I've been. This
>post was quite embarrassing in retrospect. But these are advocacy, not
>technical, groups.
I beg your pardon? You think you can blindly advocate things without
providing technical reasons here?
Oh...wait - you've done exactly that. Never mind.
>What changed from 1988 to now is the
>commercialization of microcomputer technology, where whether something
>is popular is potentially due to massive cluelessness as the possibility
>that it is technically valid.
In other words, your theory is that products come to market due to
product popularity rather than because it's what you would have
chosen. Products that make money deserve to live and flourish if they
can; products that can't make money will die. That's in the absence
of a monopoly situation - and I think we're in one now; I think it's
pretty well known around here I'm strongly for the breakup of the MS
monopoly.
But really, this is more mental tomfoolery on your part - you've said
nothing WRT PMT vs CMT, and this comment doesn't even begin to address
that, which leads me back to my handwaving point:
>>Or is this more vague handwaving and
>>signaling?
....was my comment.
>>>Today's computer industry, I
>>>wouldn't bet a dime on whether a single one of them had a clue. No
>>
>>Rest assured, they're significantly more clued in than you.
>
>Is that why I'm employed explaining where to look for clues to problems
>that engineers can't seem to solve?
Immaterial. The question is, do you know enough about CMT vs. PMT to
even comment about it; I think the overwhelming answer is a pretty
strong "no".
>It is typically my lot to explain
>to the clueless managers
Tell me, do you like *anyone* in this world besides yourself?
>why the reason the engineers can't solve the
>problems they've been tasked with is that they've been tasked with
>solving the wrong problems. I don't think this is unique to my own
>experience, either. Most engineers usually agree with me.
That, I would have to see to believe.
>In this
>case, I've decided to champion a position which is truly clueless,
Well, that we can agree on.
>but
>which I thought was integral to understanding that Linux as a desktop
>platform means it has to make sense to users, regardless of whether it
>makes sense to engineers. Since obviously engineers are of the
>generally valid opinion that CMT is not adequate for a modern computer,
>and I had the ready example of an engineer saying that CMT was "stupid",
>I thought it worth pursuing. All the meta-discussion is just a bonus,
>as far as I'm concerned.
Was there a question in that sentence? A comment? A thread? A
point? *Anything*? You say Linux has to make sense to users, then
you start up on the CMT v PMT bit again - what's the correlation
there? Is someone suggesting Linux is the be-all OS because (and only
because) it has PMT? Otherwise, you've completely failed to make your
point. Much like Terry Pelfrey in c.s.amiga.advocacy, you raise
nonissues and completely avoid the question at hand, all the while
flinging your hands around violently.
>>>doubt they simply mirror the knee-jerk reaction in this group. Not a
>>
>>...to common sense and logic and proven results?
>>
>>>one of them could probably even comprehend how CMT could really work,
>>>because they'd trained themselves not to consider such heresy. At least
>>
>>Let me assure you that the people writing for/with Apple, Windows, and
>>Linux know *EXACTLY* how all of this stuff works. They are *very*
>>familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of CMT and PMT. And
>>they choose PMT.
>
>Thank you. I was most certainly speaking rhetorically. Yet even
>specialists can agree that others of the same specialty can be clueless.
Do you see anyone (besides people who've obviously put no time into
thinking about such things, such as yourself) saying CMT is the way to
go in a general purpose desktop OS?
>>>from the general experience I've had with the entire IT world so far.
>>>We're all just human, after all. Its probably what I'd do, if I could
>>>possibly manage to be a software engineer.
>>
>>What problem did you encouter as a child that caused you to hate (or
>>at least, emphatically deride) engineers so much? Are you
>>math-challenged?
>
>Very, but that's not it.
That's unfortunate, actually. Math is one of many facets of logic,
and logic is something you have demonstrated yourself as sorely
lacking.
>>It's beginning to be obvious that you are logic
>>challenged, as most of these topics have been explained to you over
>>and over again, and you've yet to give any examples to back up your
>>own statements....
>
>You are correct. I cannot give examples, only reasons, to back up my
>statements. If they are easily refuted with logic, then I capitulate,
>with my apologies. But I won't take anyone's word for whether what they
>present contradicts my position; I honestly have to insist, with all due
>humility, that I have to understand the statement to know if it
>contradicts my position. Since what I see in this threadlet is
>primarily people who don't understand my position, the fact that they
>contradict my statements might not have the impact you'd expect. I'm
>math challenged, not logic challenged.
I suggest you are logic challenged in that you've completely failed to
put forth any argument yet you continue to hold onto your concepts and
beliefs without any ability to back them up. This isn't quite like
saying "I like the color red." - You have distinctly and clearly
said CMT is better for a modern desktop OS. That's absolute nonsense.
Worse, though, is when reasonable people have repeatedly offered to
debate with you, and you do nothing more than vague handwaving and you
bring up nonsense arguments - devoid of examples or reasons.
>>>But then I keep thinking about that Ethernet....
>>
>>Would you like to lead a discussion comparing ethernet and PMT/CMT?
>>Please start by discussing how the comparison is at all material to
>>this discussion of which is the superior multitasking method - CMT or
>>PMT.
>
>What do you think I've been trying to do? You can't lead a discussion
>if everyone wants to argue if the discussion should be allowed first.
>
>Ethernet was a novel arrangement for balancing the requirements of a
>shared resource; a communication channel. It is in no way directly
>applicable to the problem of sharing a CPU resource, other than that, as
>far as I know. It is primarily the fact that it does not require an
>external control mechanism, when previously it was accepted as fact that
>one would be required to manage a communication channel. Being novel
>and connectionless (without external control requirements) is also a
>parallel that extends to the technique of internetworking, as
>implemented in TCP/IP, and another related and very successful
>technology: the World Wide Web.
>
>More specifically, Ethernet interconnects transceivers of indeterminate
>and unknown number (limited by physical resources, essentially). Rather
>than have them all plug in to a switch which then interconnects the
>transceivers, a shared media (bus or hub) is used, which acts passively
>and does not "control" the channel. Plug in a bunch of ethernet
>stations, and they will divvy up the transmit time available on the
>single channel automagically using Carrier Sense-Mutliple Access with
>Collision Detection (CSMA/CD), a simple set of rules for determining if
>a system should or should not transmit at any one time.
>
>It is widely recognized that one of the limitation of Ethernet is that
>it is a truly horrendous system when placed under heavy load. It is an
>extremely efficient system, however, gaining substantially in
>performance under loads which consistently average to less than about
>25% utilization. It is the fact that most channels lie dormant most of
>the time which makes Ethernet effective. Likewise, I think it might be
>possible that, considering CPU load averages are typically very low,
>only peaking on occasion, that a more "unregulated" method of sharing
>the CPU resource might provide enough efficiencies as to counter-balance
>the difficulty of writing software which handles the occasional peak
>more elegantly. Nothing as simple and uncomplicated as CSMA/CD,
>certainly, and the difficulty of dealing with processes which don't
>yield may well make CMT entirely intolerable. But the question isn't
>CMT or PMT; its assuming the problem is solved in light of evidence to
>the contrary. If things were really on such different time scales, than
>why is whether the mouse moves or an hourglass shows up ever used to
>illustrate one or the other to begin with?
In English, please? Especially the last sentence, please. It makes
no sense.
The question isn't "What do I do when I'm at 25% load and under?" -
the question is, "What do I do when I have 5 tasks, and they all want
all of the CPU it can get?" and "What do I do when I have 3 tasks, 1
of them wants all of the CPU it can get, and 2 would be happy with
1-2%, and the 'heavy-use' task is happy in the background?" That has
no strong parallel with ethernet - unless you mean to draw parallels
between CMT and ethernet deadlock at high utilization, of course.
>>I'm familiar with Ethernet. But you basically just did more
>>handwaving while completely ignoring my request. Why can't you look
>>up a few things, give some concrete examples, and/or do *something* to
>>lend some strength and weight to your case? As it is, it seems you
>>are suggesting CMT is better...well, I'm not sure why - perhaps
>>because you say it is, and as a source, so far, you've shown us a nice
>>AT&T (Bell Labs? I donno) interface for re-doing niceness levels via
>>the mouse button, and you submitted that as if it proved you were
>>correct in your statement, when in fact nothing could be farther from
>>the truth.
>
>No, I'm suggesting that CMT is to be considered, not that it is better.
It's been considered. It isn't better. Next question?
>I am more concerned with whether I am correct in my position than
>whether I am correct in every possible interpretation of my statements.
I see. And your position is that CMT "is to be considered" - well,
how can you be right or wrong on that "position"? Really, you should
be in politics.
>>So, if you want to prove something, do so. Stop the handwaving and
>>CSMA/CD verbiage and dig deeper with some real-world examples. I know
>>what CSMA/CD is and why we'd use it, so if that's what you're
>>comfortable talking about, and you can build a serious case with it
>><boggle>, do so.
>
>I would think if you understood CSMA/CD, you would already understand
>why I consider its success to support my position.
Regardless of whether or not CMT finds a busy computer, it will kill
all tasks but the frontmost (exaggurating only a little bit) until the
frontmost is done, regardless of the amount of 'traffic' (cpu time) in
use. OS scheduling of other tasks is very difficult and cannot be
done perfectly - by definition, programs must themselves choose how
much CPU time to give or take, which is impossible for a programmer to
guess. CPU time is incredibly inefficient, as the frontmost task can
get nearly 100% of the CPU's time, even if it only needs 1% - other
programs running will literally starve for CPU time.
That's what killed CMT.
Now, would you care to comment about CMT, rather than some strange
commentary about ethernet?
>Has this message
>satisfied you as to the honesty of my intent?
Not at all. You wave your hands and do nothing to back up your claims
or provide reasoning. The CSMA/CD posting was cute, but utterly
meaningless. Anyone with an internet connection can look up the
meaning of that information; I remain unconvinced you are anything
more than a troll.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:37:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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?
LOL. Make me an offer. ;-]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
