Linux-Advocacy Digest #736, Volume #27 Mon, 17 Jul 00 17:13:11 EDT
Contents:
Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: linux, of course!! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Help with printer ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Mike Marion)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Colin R. Day")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (mlw)
Re: Open letter to T. Max Devlin (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:33:27 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:37:54 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:13:00 -0400, Ed Cogburn
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Linux is focused enough to become a treat to Microsoft! Seems focused to
>>> me!
>>
>>
>> Microsoft considers anyone writing PC software besides themselves to
>>be a threat.
>
>
>Yep, just like Ford considers anyone else making cars besides
>themselves to be a threat. Welcome to the business world.
Fortunately, Ford is considerably less able to exert their
will on the rest of the industry and there are no natural
barriers making it difficult for someone to buy Ford one
year, Nissan the next and Oldsmobile after that...
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:19:51 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Port 53 is the standard port for DNS servers to listen on. Sounds like
someone was trying to see what they can learn about private networks through
their DNS servers. I have been having a large number of probes on that port
and on port 119 which is the standard port for NNTP servers to listen on.
I have been seeing more an more of these probes on these two ports as of
late. Something I have found is that every so often they are probed with
packets that have an IP address in the range of 192.168.x.x. Unless there
is an attempt here to just consume bandwidth, thses packet are laughable
since any response to them can nnot be rerouted back to the source.
Besides leaning the names and addresses of a network from the DNS server. A
prober could learn much more if the server's database contains WKS, HINFO,
TEXT, MB, HESOID and other such records.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kuj1f$d7u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Dynamic IP address such as ours attract far more attention than
> >one would think.
>
> I just got a connection attempt from 203.228.50.65 on port 53.
> Now why someone from eurasionrail.net would try to connect on that
> port I do not know, but I doubt it was sweet and innocent.
>
> Bernie "still using 14.4k" Meyer
> --
> Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years
> organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the
> office
> David Broder
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:36:25 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >you have not shown how the user has any more control in CMT than
> >in PMT.
>
> You are correct in that respect. Thanks for pointing it out. There
> were two methods of control I was considering, one direct and one
> indirect. The direct, in classical CMT, is that the user controlled
> which process was meting out time to bg processes through UI focus.
> Once those bg processes had control, they would yield back quickly,
> dependant on their own needs, because they are not the UI focus. A
> rough method of control, granted, but while I've been provided with some
> detail on PMT implementations, the details of how Apple got CMT to work
> are still unknown to me.
But what if you want a background app to have most of the CPU?
Or if you want CPU time evenly distributed among several apps?
> The indirect method was by placing the burden
> of proper behavior of the application developers, which users are free
> to choose based on their level of cooperation with other applications,
> and can change should one prove burdensome or problematic. Ideally, of
> course, CMT users should be able to "nice" processes as easily as PMT,
> but it would require the cooperation, again, of the app developers.
>
But is this feasible? The developers have no way of knowing what
other processes will be running at the same time.
>
> --
> 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] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:38:14 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:37:39 -0500, Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have no problem with some government oversight. I think there are plenty of
>examples to show that unchecked business is as bad as unchecked government. But what
>I truly dread is a government that gets involved in business beyond strict oversight.
>The profit motive is essential for business; it is destructive for government. We
>must do what we can to keep those two groups separate.
...I just find it highly ironic when considering the new crop
of libertarians that has suddenly cropped up to come to
Microsoft's defense...
As far as profit motive in government goes: I think one of the
biggest problems with our current government is the dellusion
that politicians will somehow ignore their own best interests
and act in an altruistic manner when it comes to managing the
country.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:58:42 -0500, Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Let's have your take on it.
>> >>
>> >> The oversight of an elected body rather than the whim of a
>> >> Robber Baron that is in a position to do anything it likes
>> >> being rather out of the control of the "invisible hand" at
>> >> this point.
>> >>
>> >> Government is occasionally a necessary evil, usually to
>> >> counteract some other evil. Hopefully, all such evils
>> >> are checked in the end. This includes corporations.
>> >
>> >History has shown that there is no group consistently worse at this sort of thing
>> >than a government. Government may correctly provide some oversight to business,
>> >but when the government itself gets involved in business you can bet the bank on
>> >failure. Nobody does business worse than government.
>>
>> Without such oversight we wouldn't have to worry about this
>> entire argument as Microsoft as it is now would never have
>> had the opportunity to come into existence.
>>
>> --
>> The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
>> where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
>> component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
>> their own works.
>>
>> This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
>> in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
>> anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
>> |||
>> / | \
>
>--
>Mark Kelley
>Agriculture Information Systems
>Purdue University
>
>
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:47:08 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:37:54 -0400...
...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:13:00 -0400, Ed Cogburn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Linux is focused enough to become a treat to Microsoft! Seems focused to
> >> me!
> >
> >
> > Microsoft considers anyone writing PC software besides themselves to
> >be a threat.
>
>
> Yep, just like Ford considers anyone else making cars besides
> themselves to be a threat. Welcome to the business world.
Car analogies suck. You should have realised that by now.
Anyway, if the business world is like that, it still doesn't mean it's
good.
mawa
--
If a man is uneducated, he may steal a freight car. If he has a
college education, he can steal the whole railroad!
-- David Johnson, NPR
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:47:41 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> Not *entirely*, no. I was being rhetorical. I didn't think you'd need
> >> to double-check that I knew what I was saying, but I can understand how
> >> you would think you should.
> >>
> >> CMT without a convention for limiting a processes' maximum CPU time
> >> *would* be a stupid idea. I'm still not clear on if this is the actual
> >> problem assumed to occur on CMT systems. My post yesterday fantasizing
> >> about a "three level model" for scheduling to replace the monolithic
> >> system found in PMT should indicate that I think CMT/PMT is something of
> >> a false dichotomy. Complete lack of a quantum is certainly an
> >> unacceptable implementation for a general purpose OS, yes.
> >
> >As has been explained to you many many times, there is no way to limit the
> >cpu time that a CMT process keeps control of the system.[...]
>
> There is no way to limit the length of an Ethernet segment, either.
> Other than the obvious one of "the system doesn't work unless you
> conform to that expectation." I thought I'd explained that with the
> 53.7 microsecond thing. In the case of CPU time, it would be a case of
> the convention limiting the CPU time,
And how do you expect that convention to be enforced? By a magical CPU
that knows how to put a process to sleep?
If the convention is not to be enforced by something outside of the app,
then it's CMT. If the convention is enforced somehow without the
app's cooperation, you are preempting the app, and it's PMT.
Today, with today's computers, it's either the OS that forces a task switch,
or the app that yields. If you know any other ways to do it, please say so.
> rather than an outside mechanism
> of control. But cooperative mechanisms can work, or we wouldn't be
> exchanging these thoughts as we are.
Of course they can, just not as well in some ways.
On others, they are ok. For instance, CMT allows CPU intensive tasks
to be slightly faster than on PMT systems, sometimes.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:32:05 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> MS is being broken up so the government does not have to get involved with
>the
>> design of software.
>How naive are you? This ruling automatically assigns a team of government
>employees with the task of enforcing this assinine ruling until the end of
>time. If the ruling stands (*which most feel it won't) the United States
>Government will be designing the OS in a MUCH greater sense than your idiotic
>"so they won't have to get involved" foolishness.
The government people will be there to make sure Company M$1 is not foolling
around with the boys at Company M$2. Not until the end of time, but for the
period the ruling covers. -- And this is going to happen in the end -- just
like it did with IBM, AT&T and others.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux, of course!!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:48:10 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> There is a difference between cold-heartedly "killing" something and
> the merciful act of "putting it out of its misery". Windows is old,
> crippled, obese, toothless, and snaps at its owners without provocation.
>
> If you'd do it for your pet, do it for Windows.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Now, that's funny. Rock on dude!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:52:07 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:29:24 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >KLH wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > As Microsoft is the leading competitor of Linux companies,
> >> > (leading in market share, not necessarily technical quality)
> >> > bashing Microsoft might well be Linux advocacy.
> >>
> >> If that is true, then we have already lost.
> >>
> >
> >No. Ever hear of the term "good will" in accounting? Well
> >Microsoft has been pumping out "bad will".
>
> Or perhaps "bad swill". :-)
I was speaking of its reputation, not its product :-).
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:55:37 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >The kernel has gone to autopolling the parallel ports. Check both your
> >kernel configuration and your print configuration.
>
> ...and obveeislee it doesant werk. Tippicall of CommyLie-nux.
>
Let's try printing this. Yes, it printed. So it is obvious that it does work.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:58:23 GMT
Lars Träger wrote:
> Context: So if I plug a USB mouse into a Sun box, it just works?
>
> In case you still didn't get it: Suns don't have USB, so you can't just
> plug one in.
If you don't by hardware made for the platform.. then you're just a
moron.
That's like buying an sbus card and complaining because it doesn't fit
in your PC or Mac.
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if Sun has USB on their boxes soon.. but
only if they see a benefit from it. I know many new HP unix
workstations use USB already (which kinda sucks because they changed
without warning so parts aren't interchangeable).
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"In the closed-source world, Version 1.0 means "Don't touch this if
you're prudent."; in the open-source world it reads more like "The
developers are willing to bet their reputations on this." - Eric Raymond
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:06:35 -0300
Steve Hix escribió:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Right there. It wouldn't matter if a million engineers thought the Mac
> > > was a stupid idea; they're still selling units. The market, not
> > > "experience and logic" decides what is a stupid idea and what is not.
> > >
> >
> > You have made a very basic blunder in logic. You assume that since the
> > Mac did ok in the market and the Mac uses CMT that CMT must be good. That
> > is not a logical conclusion.
>
> At worst, it says that CMT as implemented in MacOS is adequate for
> most users most of the time.
Actually, it says that CMT as implemented in MacOS is adequate for most
Mac users most of the time.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:59:00 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > In article <DvSb5.316617$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Data processing is oftentimes best represented in the mind as
> > >> 3+ dimensional processes. On the average, men's brains are MUCH
> > >> more adept at this sort of thinking (in the same way as on the
> > >> average, women's brain's are much more adept at acquiring and
> > >> using linquistic skills)
> > >
> > >Personally, I find the differences between the thinking of men and woman
> > >similar to the differences between KDE and GNOME; not very interesting and
> > >far too slight to really matter.
> >
> > Maybe you aren't paying attention. Do you really understand why
> > anyone would want more than 2 colors of shoes? Or how they
> > could spend time shopping for them without being bored senseless?
> >
> > Les Mikesell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Whoah there pard.
>
> Seriously, while *some* women do this, not all do. And I've known a few
> men that do that (shopping for clothes and shoes for hours or even days,
> having a full closet and saying, "I don't have a thing to wear"). I
> think that's more about how you are raised then something internal
> between men and women. A guy raised in a house that's all women (dad
> left when young, left with sisters and mom) is going to display some of
> this same behavior. Same goes the other way around. I would say most
> of this is about the way you are raised, environment around you, and
> personality. That is not a fundamental difference in thinking style.
>
> And, BTW how many women would go to a car lot and look at cars for three
> or more hours, talk to salesmen, talk about prices and such knowing full
> well that they can't even think about affording a car? I know a number
> of men that would. A difference in preference of what they are looking
> at, not a fundamental difference in behavior.
>
> Now, more than likely you were joking, but I thought I'd throw in my
> $.02 (+tax). :)
Perhaps he wasn't comparing men and women, but simply saying
that just as there isn't one or two colors of shoes or cars, so there
should be a choice of desktop environments.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:01:27 -0400
Otto wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : This is all well and good, however, you are missing some very important
> : facts when dealing with Microsoft.
> :
> : The "support" you get as a fortune 500 company is hell and away far
> : better than anything one could hope for in a mere regular sized company,
> : and using Windows NT as a solution, you WILL need that tech support.
>
> Versus Linux, which doesn't need tech support? Get real....
Linux does need tech support, all complex systems will, however, the
APIs are all public, the knowledge is freely available. With Microsoft
one has to pay for everything and sign a whole bunch of non-disclosure
forms.
>
> :
> : Fortune 500 companies make "strategic partnerships" for technology, i.e.
> : they do not pay full price Microsoft for technology and support, and
> : Microsoft gets to claim the fortune 500 company as a "customer." There
> : is usually a stock exchange involved as well.
>
> Care to substanciate this claim with actual data?
I can, just do a web search on a good engine you'll find lots of
"Strategic Marketing" agreements between MS and whom ever.
>
> :
> : There is a HUGE and important gray area between someplace like dell.com
> : where MS and Dell have strategic business dealings, and someplace like
> : valinux which does not. It is also arguable that between "joes web site"
> : and the fortune 500, exists a vast area of the economy which employs 99
> : percent of the working people in the USA.
>
> I just disagree with the 99% share....
OK, maybe 98% The number is not completely important, it is an estimate,
the bulk of the economy is outside of the fortune 500. Small companies
are the largest segment of employers and the fastest growing segment as
well.
>
> :
> : To simply say that the fortune 500 use NT, so it's good, is false. The
> : fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses that an NT
> : environment will incur in exchange for the "strategic" business
> : opportunities which the monopoly Microsoft provides. For the merely
> : normal sized companies that do not have the clout to grab Microsoft's
> : attention and good graces, NT is a disaster of unreliability and poor
> : cost/performance.
>
> You are contradicting yourself. In one hand you claim that "Fortune 500
> companies make "strategic partnerships" for technology, i.e. they do not pay
> full price Microsoft for technology and support", in another you claim that
> "The fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses". Make up your
> mind....
Actually, I am not contradicting myself at all. Windows NT (W2k) is a
buggy, unstable OS. Fortune five hundred company have to pay for
support, people to run the computers, and lots of consultants. NT is
expensive, and fortune 500 companies can afford it BECAUSE MS will make
deals with them for support, referrals, stock swaps, and other such
stuff that non-fortune 500 companies could only wish for.
> Disregarding unsubstantiated claims about NT.
Unsubstantiated? Perhaps in this particular post, but through the last
couple of years, I have made quite a few substantiated statements about
NT and instability.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open letter to T. Max Devlin
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:03:25 -0500
You have brought a tear to my eye. Any time that I tried to write a
basic summary like this (of T. Max's most annoying and arrogant habits)
I end up too angry to continue. The only thing I would add is that he
has to total inability to accept that his version of what is right is
not a foregone conclusion in everyone else's mind. He works forward
from his version of right as if it was already proven. He doesn't do
what the rest of us try to do which is prove (or at least back up) what
we are expressing as our opinions. Again, arrogance+willful ignorance
of others+insults+baseless accusations is not the way to prove a point,
but it is a good way to piss off a lot of people.
Thank you mjcr. I know some will call this flamebait, but it's about
damn time.
--entire message left unchanged for those that don't see the original--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> There are some basic facts that you have to realize and acknowledge.
>
> You are not the most intelligent and educated person posting in the usenet
> newsgroups and the internet mailing lists. You are not the person with the
> most expericence in computers in the on-line world. You are not most
> skilled computerist on-line. Everyone who has ever tried to claim those
> acknolwdgements from their peers have been exposed to the be the arrogant
> fools that they infact were. In many cases they were hoisted on their own
> petards. If you are even average you would be lucky.
>
> The field electrical/eectronic computers history that spans more that a
> century and extends even further back through the use of programmable
> mechanical computers. The electronic computer field has inherited the core
> if its jargon from those of its parent fields that include mathematics,
> electronics, mechanical computing, engineering, etc. In addition it has
> developed a large and rich sublanguage of its own. You have to accept to
> learn and use the jargon of any field you enter, if you want to be able to
> communicate with those who are in the field. For you to want someone to
> WANT to say things using your words, phrases, and idioms, is the
> personification of arrogance.
>
> For you to determine what is acceptable language for others to use ignores
> the jargon of the field is an insult to the pioneers who have created the
> field and all those who have made readily available computing platforms a
> reality, is the height of hubris. WIth appologies to the great scientist,
> if you hav a computer that is better and can compute faster and better that
> those of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 years ago, this is only because you
> computer was built on the foundations built of those older computing
> platforms. Their users, operators, programmers and creators were those who
> blazed the trail to permit you to have access to your current computing
> platform. What makes you think you know better than all of them?
>
> You can not teach anyone on the in this newsgroups anything, in that you can
> not make any one learn short of brain washing. You can present your
> applicable knowledge and opinions in these news groups and someone may learn
> something from your comments but you can not teach them anything. I know
> that many members of the on-line community have learned from me, based on
> the thanks I have recieved, but I would never have the attitude that I could
> make them learn as you seem to believe you can.
>
> Beside the issue of jargon, English is a large and rich and evolving
> language with multiple ways to say the same thing--all with equal validity.
> The English language has an inheritance from the Picts, Celts, Vikings,
> Romans, Normans, Angelo, Saxons, Jutes, Francs, and many other peoples.
> These sources provides us a large pallete of words, phrases, and idioms to
> select from. Many meanings have multiple ways of being stated and many
> words also have multiple meanings--all valid.
>
> I find your messages to date and the attitude they present to be insulting
> and indictive of a pompus fool.
>
> Good day.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:06:36 -0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:13:00 -0400, Ed Cogburn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Linux is focused enough to become a treat to Microsoft! Seems focused to
> >> me!
> >
> >
> > Microsoft considers anyone writing PC software besides themselves to
> >be a threat.
>
> Yep, just like Ford considers anyone else making cars besides
> themselves to be a threat. Welcome to the business world.
But does Ford clutter the automotive industry with NDA's?
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
