Linux-Advocacy Digest #731, Volume #27 Mon, 17 Jul 00 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
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! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (phil hunt)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (phil hunt)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (phil hunt)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (phil hunt)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (phil hunt)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (phil hunt)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Vote for the best WinTroll - COLA Oscars (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Roy.Culley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:10:28 -0400
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On 15 Jul 2000 16:20:24 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> If you have built something that includes a GPL'd component
>>>> and anything else under different restrictions, you can't
>>>> give it away, even if the other component is itself freely
>>>> available or the recipient already has it.
>>> ...those being "commercial" and pseudo-PD.
>> Jedi, of course, doesn't know what the hell he's talking about -- it's
>> pure conjecture and bullshit. Freely available software is not
>> necessarily commercial, even though it may not be commercially
>> unfriendly, like the GPL.
>>
>> If I wrote a licence, call it the CLCPL ("CopyLeft Credit Public
>> Licence") -- essentially GPL + credit clause -- it's as unfriendly to
>> proprietary licences as the GPL, but it's not compatible with the GPL.
> Yup, and intentional sabotage.
Irrelevant. If, theoretically, my *only* concern with the GPL was the
lack of a credit clause, then I would be well within my rights to
create a licence very much like the GPL with a credit clause added.
That it would be incompatible with the GPL would actually be the GPL's
fault (for the GPL would be compatible with *it*!).
> Those that really want their work to be freely exploitable
> by all instead of being the biggest hypocrites of all know
> EXACTLY what they can do to resolve the situation yet chose
> not to.
But the theoretical behind the CLCPL is that I *don't* want it
commercially exploitable. And you've done nothing to address that --
you've only lied, dodged, and obfuscated. Which is precisely what I
expected you to do.
Further, when I write something that is released under the Artistic,
the Apache, or the MPL (or even the BSDL), I obviously do *not* want it
'freely exploitable'; I want to set conditions on it, as I have
expressed by choosing to licence it.
> Drop the licence, drop the pretense.
If that was the intent, I'd make the software PD. And have. Perhaps you
should start listening to yourself -- don't call your software that is
GPLed 'free'; it's not, it's licensed. Just like *every other* software
licence, whether it's open source with redistribution rights 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
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:11:42 -0400
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jay wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:35:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Many of the rest of us don't have any problem with people who
>>> would seek to use common code as if it were their own personal
>>> property (with all that implies in software) being restricted.
>> Of course, you're not going to apologize to the BSD developers for calling
>> them, in essence, thieves, now are you? Of course not.
> Nope.
>
> If they want their work to be 'free to all' they can release
> it completely and drop any pretense. Otherwise, they are in
> no position to criticise anyone else's licence.
I have never seen BSDL developers claim that their software is 'free'
in the same sense as GPL advocates.
-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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:33:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Allow me to refresh your memory:
> >
> >" But if you're hanging around just to collect a paycheck, dude, then
> >I'd recommend suicide. We could use the space you're taking up, and
> >someone who wants to act like a civilized person wants to use it."
>
> Touche. I had presumed you weren't actually hanging around the planet
> just to collect a paycheck. Are you saying I was in error?
I had my doubts about whether you assumed I was or not, and in the
reply to that message I asked "are you talking about me?". You refused
to answer.
If I called you a orangutan that copulates with dead chimpanzees, the
fact of you not having red hair would not make it any less insulting.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:03:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >How can something be a derivative work of something that doesnīt
> >exist?
>
> The intellectual property already existed. The library might not
have,
> but the IP did, if your example is valid as intended.
In what concrete form did it exist? You can't violate IP that is inside
a person's head.
> >So, you didnīt bother following the example, yet you claim to know
> >about the status of the exampleīs elements? Thatīs not serious.
>
> I accepted your description of the relationships involved. The
process
> you described was meaningless, as regards the question you proffered.
> Only the final state of the elements is important for determining
their
> relationships.
You can't be serious. For example, when the first PC BIOS were cloned,
it
was done using cleanroom, why? Because the final state was not enough to
show that the clone was not a derived work.
> The convolutions you appeared to attempt in order to
> make something derivative in an apparently non-intuitive way were not
> easy to follow, but the intent was clear. If you think its important,
> you could try describing it again and I'll see what I can do.
It was a 7 line example involving only three elements. Why was it so
hard?
> [...]
> >Honestly, since you say you didnīt follow the example, how do you
know?
>
> Because only the end states are relevant, and I took your word for the
> end conditions.
I disagree.
> [...]
> >> Yes, sometimes a work is derivative merely because it is similar.
> >> Consider the George Harrison "My Sweet Lord" issue which has been
> >> mentioned several times.
> >
> >It is similar, and it is also created LATER.
>
> But you were arguing that "derivative" cannot mean "similar" in some
> contexts.
No, I did not. I actually said that similar doesn't mean derivative,
which
is not the same thing (and was what you said).
> Obviously being similar and being created later are not
> sufficient for a work to be considered derivative, or much modern
> culture would not be available.
Then similarity is not enough for a work to be considered derivative.
That's good. I agree.
> The fact that it was created later is a feature of sequential
> experience, not any mandate of copyright law. Your attempt to link
> without being derivative is a gedanken experiment which highlights
this
> point.
It is if you a priori accept that the final result is a derivative work.
That's shoddy logic.
> >> >Even if derived could mean similar, then causality must hold, or
> >> >it would be possible to infringe a copyright of a non-created
work.
> >> >That is science fiction, right next to time travel.
> >>
> >> Have you ever read http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
?
> >> Probably not, based on that statement.
> >
> >Indeed not.
> >
> >> Your example was simply trying to outfox the GPL, not time travel.
> >
> >You mean the example you didnīt follow?
>
> Based on your badgering, I've gone back and re-analyzed your example.
> And it is precisely as I expected, and as I have described.
Would you be so kind as to explain it to me?
> >Ha!. Go back in the thread, read the example, refute it and come
back.
> >Calling me ignorant wonīt do it, you know.
>
> I won't refute it, I have no need to.
Well, you need to, if you want me to accept that the end result is a
program that is a derived work of the library it links to. Until you do,
you are just saying things.
> You merely expressed incredulity
> at your program now being considered derivative of a library which
> didn't exist at the time you wrote the library,
Are you sure you read the example? It would be "at the time you wrote
the program", if you did.
> but was only available
> afterwards. I agree that it was derivative,
I don't believe it was derivative. Who are you agreeing with?
> and understand why you are
> incredulous. Nevertheless, the case still stands. You aren't
ignorant,
> precisely, you're merely missing some points about what it means to
have
> one piece of software be considered a derivative work of another. It
is
> not surprising, as software IP is a tenuous concept, and the term
> 'software' applies to both abstract and corporeal things.
Smoke and mirrors. You just try to wave the example away by saying "it's
derivative" over and over again.
> Perhaps if you think of it as "deriving functionality from" rather
than
> "deriving its creation from" it might make more sense to you. If a
> program derives all of its functionality from a certain library, then
> the program's IP is "a derivative work" of that library, even if the
> library wasn't written down until after the program was written down.
That is, IMHO, nonsense. I can't derive any functionality from a library
that doesn't exist when I code, because unexistant libraries have no
functionality.
If what you say could happen, I could turn, say, a motif program into
a illegal program by changing the lesstif license to something very
proprietary and claiming such a program to be a derived work of
lesstif. That would create such a insecurity about the right to
redistribute software it would kill the software industry.
> >> Your continuing frustration at trying to capitalize on someone
else's
> >> intellectual property
> >
> >And whose IP am I trying to capitalize on? Is this some sort of
> >abstract accusation?
>
> The author of libB, in your example, for the most part.
Read the example. Know the libB license.
> Later, libC.
> Because libC cannot be considered binary compatible to libB, despite
> your claim, if libB is buggy and libC is not.
Don't try to fudge technical terms, because it will not work.
Two libraries can be binary compatible without being functionally
equivalent. They could even do completely different things.
Trivial example: I have seen people reimplement gettimeofday() to return
a
constant date, so using LD_PRELOAD they could trick software with
expiration dates.
Two libraries consisting of both functions are binary compatible (that's
why the trick works) and the functionality is totally different.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: 17 Jul 2000 14:06:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Considering your response to Ray, I'm not surprised that some folks
> follow you from group to group, you've managed here to get 2 PLONK's
> in less than 24 hours.
If it makes you feel happier, I've had Aaron plonked for several
months now...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:31:45 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:20:00 -0700, KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I've just read a news article linked from Linux Today that Sun are
>> thinking of open-sourcing Star Office under the GNU GPL.
>>
>> Does anyone have any speculation as to why they might do this? Apart
>> from hurting MS, of course?
>>
>> The article is at
>> <http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/news/0,4538,2604174,00.html>
>>
>
>This is one of the times that I think they are doing it precisely for the
>publicity. Notice the qualifiers, hence: "Sun is *considering* GPLing
>StarOffice" not that they are actually doing it. I think it is part of some
>half-baked though probably successful strategy to increase mindshare for
>StarOffice. Just wait and see: they will not go through with it. Sun is one
>of the most propietary companies there are. And Sun knows all about
>marketing.
The problem with that strategy is that if they don't follow through and GPL
it, they will have generated a lot of cynicism. I think the open source
community is already somewhat cynical of Sun anyway.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:47:47 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Jul 2000 00:32:44 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) writes:
>
>> I've just read a news article linked from Linux Today that Sun are
>> thinking of open-sourcing Star Office under the GNU GPL.
>>
>> Does anyone have any speculation as to why they might do this? Apart
>> from hurting MS, of course?
>
>This is Sun we're talking about here.
>
>What other motive do they have apart from hurting Microsoft?
>None. McNealy and Ellison (Oracle) hate Microsoft
That's true, IMO.
(They've got good reason to, from a business point of view; a world where
MS is increasingly dominant, is a world where no other large software
company can thrive. If they control the desktop, they control what other
software people can use, and other computer companies can only exist
at their suffrance. And increasingly, as computing integrates with other
industries such as telecoms or banking, MS would be able to use its dominance
to control those industries too. (This scenario is what would happen without
govmt regulation of MS, and without a competitor such as Linux and a
1/2 competitor such as the Mac))
So Sun's and Oracle's interests are in cutting MS down to size, not letting
it get too dominant. Intel's too. (Note that all three companies are
increasingly getting involved with Linux / open source software).
>more than the most
>vehement Mac/Linux/Amiga cultist hybrid I know. The only reason they
>did this is because Microsoft Office is an inpenetrable market.
>
>Literally.
>
>There is NO WAY anyone can compete. The featureset is done (and has
>been done since Office 4 or 5) and everyone uses it because most sold
>systems come with it anyway. It's basically a part of Windows that
>everyone either pays for or pirates.
>
>So, since Office only runs fully on Windows and partially on Macs --
>(hey, where's the Linux version? There are more Linux machines than
>Macs...) the only other solution is to give one away and hope that it
>takes over.
Another aspect is that MS Office doesn't run on Sun; Star office presumably
does. If people on their expensive Sun boxes can run the same office suite
that they run on their cheap Linux and Windows boxes, then Sun doesn't lose
market share so quickly.
(Without Linux, Unix would be perceived as a no-future OS by now, and Sun
would be really struggling).
>It's the browser thing all over again. Microsoft Office will
>eventually be "integrated" into Windows, so that people won't be
>tempted to use something else -- but the Redmonians may as well milk
>it for all they can up until that day.
Quite possibly (unless MS is split up). OTOH, there's MS's .NET idea, which
like Sun's plans for Star Office involves running the software as an Internet
application. Am I the only person who odesn't much see the point of this?
I suppose it might make sense when everyone has fast, reliable links, but it
doesn't make much sense now.
>Hell, how many people went out and got Office 2000, just because it's
>the "new thing"?
MS Word has been getting *worse* since about 1995. The guy who came up
with that stupid paper clip wants to be shot. What *were* they thinking of?
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:04:47 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:57:29 +1000, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 02:59:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>
>>I've just read a news article linked from Linux Today that Sun are
>>thinking of open-sourcing Star Office under the GNU GPL.
>>
>>Does anyone have any speculation as to why they might do this? Apart
>>from hurting MS, of course?
>>
>>The article is at
>><http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/news/0,4538,2604174,00.html>
>
>They probably earn far less in sales then they spend in development
>and support, so they may as well give it away just to piss MS off.
They're already giving it way.
>Maybe they can write it off as a tax loss ? It cost them heaps.
IIRC they bought Star Office for $400 million.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:10:50 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:12:41 -0700, Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In part because they need to attract developers and they realize that
>the best way to attract developers without paying them is to license
>under the gpl.
That's possibly part of it.
However, making a big complex program open source won't necessarily
attrack many outside developers -- look at netscape.
OTOH, does Star Office need many developers? I doubt it, office suites
are mainly old ideas by now, and won't be coming up with any readical
new features. The main things that'll need changing with SO in the
future are small improvemnts, such as compatibility with MS's continually
changing file formats.
> AFAIK, Sun's SO-based star portal is the only office
>software that is in any real position to compete with micros~1 office as
>sgml embedded office applications. Of course, SO has the advantage of
>being portable across multiple platforms and browsers whereas office
>will work on one platform and in one browser.
It's interesting that a lot of Internet Applicance software is becoming
Linux-based. Putting SO on cheap home PCs running Linux seems sensible.
Cheap office PCs too (perhaps controlled by a Sun Server as a rebirth of
the "network computer" concept -- which might save on admin costs).
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:27:18 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Jul 2000 12:18:30 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Peter> 2. Are you going to try to convince me that the standard of
> Peter> living for even the dismally poor today is *really* worse
> Peter> than what we had in the past? It's gonna be a really hard
> Peter> thing to convince me of.
>
> Do I need to convince you off this? Well the US's own stats
>show that for the average working man the standard of living has
>increases less in the last 25 years than the hours of work that they
>are doing. Within both the US and the UK the rate of TB is rising (TB
>is simply caused by the conditions of poverty).
I think resistance to drugs has something to do with it as well.
> In the UK the rate on
>infact mortality is rising.
>
> Now of course if you step out of your first world state of
>mind, and look at the Sahal
ITYM Sahel.
>(where something like 1/3 of the
>population has HIV), or any of the numerous places that the US or the
>UK have invaded over the last 20 years to protect their commercial
>interests, then it becomes quite clear that in fact yes things are
>worse.
>
> Phil
BTW, what's you're work phone number, Phil? I don't seem to be able to
email you.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:27:53 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Jul 2000 12:24:10 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How would you ensure that everyone has access to capital
>though? In our current society capital appears to be used to enforce
>the class divide between those who produce and those who live of what
>others produce. I would like to see and end to this class divide and I
>think that it is possible, but my own ideas do not involve
>capital.
How do you mean?
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:22:56 GMT
In article <8kuqhk$7v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> >Perhaps if you think of it as "deriving functionality from" rather
than
> >"deriving its creation from" it might make more sense to you. If a
> >program derives all of its functionality from a certain library, then
> >the program's IP is "a derivative work" of that library, even if the
> >library wasn't written down until after the program was written down.
>
> Maybe if you aren't talking about a "derivative work" in the copyright
> law sense, but instead about something in your own little world.
>
> A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more
> PREEXISTING work ...
>
> 17 USC 101, emphasis added.
>
> Also, under 17 USC 102(b) and a number of court decisions, copyright
> does not protect functionality, but expression. It would be strange
> indeed if functionality was what made something a derivative work.
Oh THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU :-)
Now, Max, would you let the argument die? You obviously didn't know
what you were talking about.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Vote for the best WinTroll - COLA Oscars
Date: 17 Jul 2000 14:17:36 GMT
In article <3967723e$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to suggest that we now have an entertainer's award -
> similar to the Oscar Awards - for these tireless entertainers.
Surely these should be called the Stevens...?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: 17 Jul 2000 14:15:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Tammy Hahn"...for the clueless and humor impaired, is the unification
> of "Tammy Fae Baker" and "Jessica Hahn"
Neither of whom I have any recollection of posting at significant
levels to this newsgroup (unless it was in a killfiled thread. :^)
Let's face it, nobody round here gives a flying fsck about any of
these people. As far as we're concerned, *you* are the problem since
it is *you* that is acting the kook on c.o.l.a and not Tammy or
Jessica. It is even possible that these people are stirring you up
precisely because you are so easily stirred.
Cease fulminating or FOAD.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy.Culley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:29:15 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Grief, you call yourself a 'Unix Systems Engineer'. The Internet grew up
under Unix and yet you cannot abide by simple netiquette. GROW UP and
shorten your annoying .sig.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
