Linux-Advocacy Digest #782, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (R. Tang)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("ne...")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (mst)
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Tang)
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: 19 Jul 2000 17:06:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It takes more than one judge. That's the beauty of the legal system.
>MS was on the path to being railroaded by this judge from day one which was
>his first mistake. The findings of fact are the culmination of his
>railroading activity. No Microsoft evidence was looked at during his
>"finding of fact" where he merely re-wrote the DOJ's opening statements. It
>will all be thrown out.
Extremely doubtful.
Given the sloppy presentation of Microsoft evidence, the company
doesn't have grounds to overturn the Findings of Fact; there was ample
support for what the judge did.
--
-Roger Tang, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:41:41 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:19:36 GMT, Paul E. Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:45:23 GMT, Paul E. Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In article <8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>-- snip --
>>>>
>>>>> Given the only reason people are "forced" (and I use the term very
>>>>> loosely) to buy MS software is because everyone else also uses it.
>>>>
>>>>Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue. Unless you built
>>>>your own machine from parts, or went to the most obscure
>>>>hole-in-the-wall mom-n-pop computer shop in the county, there was no way
>>>>to not buy Windows bundled with your computer. This is fine for
>>>>hard-core geeks, but wrt Joe and Jane Average Consumer, this meant that
>>>>there was no choice.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmmm.... you are new to this whole computing thing aren't you!
>>
>> You've got to go back awhile before you start to see
>> multiple brands of computers/OS supported by more
>> than just the 'hole in the wall' types of stores again.
>>
>
>For Linux, at least, as early as 1994(when I started looking at it) it was
>possible to buy computers from nationally advertising companies, all you had
>to do was buy a magazine(Linux Journal)!
...kind of like how "kit electric cars" and "solar power systems"
are so widely available to consumers...
[deletia]
Would you expect a consumer to buy a fridge mail order? Or a bigscreen
TV? That's the kind of money you are expecting consumers to throw at
businesses they've never heard of and product they can't examine or
return firsthand.
Even many of us who buy computers that way on a regular basis
tend to stay away from vendors that we can't get some sort of
references on.
Actually, the only time I didn't follow that practice I ended up
with someone who defrauded me.
So, some untrusted schmuck in another state hardly consitutes
a reasonable marketplace.
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm
Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:43:03 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:21:04 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:39:56 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Said Jonadab the Unsightly One in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> Yes, that is the focus of my argument, though it applies equally well to
>> >>> the Macintosh. Neither is intuitive; the Mac is just a lot easier. (It
>> >>> also relies on the mouse far too much for my convenience,
>> >>
>> >>Heck, *Windows* relies too much on the mouse for my convenience.
>> >>I would prefer if *everything* that could be done with the
>> >>mouse also had a keyboard equivalent. It ain't so.
>> >
>> >I would actually disagree with you there. Much of it is not as easy to
>> >do as it should be, and there are obvious exceptions for "how do you
>> >drag something without a pointer" preclude certain things which frankly
>> >aren't possible with a keyboard. But in the vast majority of cases, you
>>
>> Simply control the graphics cursor without the mouse.
>>
>> The Atari ST did this quite nicely. Either Windows or X
>> should be able to do the same even with a small addon...
>>
>
>Much as I hate to admit knowing this:
>
>Early versions of Microsoft's Intellitype software (the drivers and
>software that came with the original Natural Keyboards) could be set up
>to allow you to move the cursor and even klick using nothing but the
>arrow keys (or number pad with numlock off) and the "windows" or "alt"
>and "cntrl" keys (depending on how you set it up). I'm not sure if they
>still have that functionality enabled in the newer versions.
That's not something that should be enabled only by Microsoft
brand keyboards...
This is a rather good example of Microsoft's attitude towards
it's customers if true.
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:51:50 GMT
On Jul 19, 2000 at 15:35, Donal K. Fellows eloquently wrote:
[...]
>Donal (nobody wants training wheels on a Harley-Davidson...)
Shouldn't that be Triumph or Norton?
--
Registered Linux User # 125653
Try to relax and enjoy the crisis.
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
1:49pm up 9 days, 17:01, 9 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:48:13 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The fact is Windows is still unstable. If that hurts your feelings
> > that's your problem.
> >
>
> No, you see, the FACT is that Windows 2000 IS stable. Very stable. As stable
> as any other OS you could care to name. NT4 and W9x and before were not
> models in stability (NT4 post-SP4 was very good and at SP6 levels almost as
> good as W2K) - but W2K is a different beast. It's rewriting was FOCUSED on
> reliability and stability BEFORE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. They've
> accomplished that goal. How do I know? I do not see W2K boxes crashing. I
> see W2K servers with uptimes of: "how long has it had power." There are test
> boxes running RC1 still up and running at MS today running the same 100% cpu
> load as they were back in November. There are two Final version copies of
> W2K Pro and Server running at ZDLabs that haven't been rebooted or crashed
> since December. Up and still running. That's how I know.
>
I'm just curious on this one. Since we heard this same song and dance
about every new revision of Windows NT -> 2000 (This one is stable as
can be, but that last version wasn't), how long will it take you to say
that Win2000 wasn't stable when the next revision comes out? This is
the thing that kills Unix people when they hear MS or the Windows
advocates talk. They change the story every time there is a new product
out. I don't think there are many (beyond the truly zealous religious
freaks) that would say there is absolutely no problem whatsoever with
(current kernel version). And no one that I have ever seen says that a
previous stable kernel is crap when the next revision comes out. And
about your RC1 comment, I take it these didn't have the 3 month limit on
them like every other copy of RC1? I know my copy of RC1 (which I got
through my previous job) will just poop out at three months no matter
what it is doing and say something to the effect that it is time for an
upgrade.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:49:38 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The fact is Windows is still unstable. If that hurts your feelings
> > that's your problem.
> >
>
> No, you see, the FACT is that Windows 2000 IS stable. Very stable. As stable
> as any other OS you could care to name. NT4 and W9x and before were not
> models in stability (NT4 post-SP4 was very good and at SP6 levels almost as
> good as W2K) - but W2K is a different beast. It's rewriting was FOCUSED on
> reliability and stability BEFORE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. They've
> accomplished that goal. How do I know? I do not see W2K boxes crashing. I
> see W2K servers with uptimes of: "how long has it had power." There are test
> boxes running RC1 still up and running at MS today running the same 100% cpu
> load as they were back in November. There are two Final version copies of
> W2K Pro and Server running at ZDLabs that haven't been rebooted or crashed
> since December. Up and still running. That's how I know.
>
Scratch my previous comment about RC1. I didn't see that "at MS" part
when I posted the first response. But I am curious about how long it
will take you to say Win2000 wasn't stable when the next version comes
out.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:03:19 -0500
I realize this isn't my "fight", but I had some questions for you.
Drestin Black wrote:
> >That's (barely) tolerable for the
> > workstation/desktop environment, but insane on the server side. And
> > how can I turn off the GUI so it's not sucking down extra resources
> > when it's running as a server?
>
> is your server so pitifully weak that it can't give up a couple of megs for
> the gui so you can increase your productivity and make your job easier?
>
> Answer: you can't, and that's not the
> > only thing you can't turn off.
>
> Answer: you can. Don't log into the server. Telnet in and mange it that way.
> Or log into one server with the full GUI and manage all the others, which
> aren't logged in, remotely. Think past the typical *nix FUD, answers are
> there.
>
How does logging in remotely "turn off" the GUI? It is still up, and
this is still a valid complaint for someone coming from the *nix world.
It isn't FUD as you say, but a fact that you cannot have NT come up
without a GUI. I have three *nix servers in my server room, one has a
monitor on it, none have a GUI running. How would I do this with NT?
Oh yeah, and no keyboards or mouse either (except for the one with the
monitor). I realize you can now log in remotely through terminal server
(or whatever it's called now), but how do I actually "turn off" the
GUI? I don't believe this is possible.
> >There are all kinds of unneeded things
> > running like Explorer. It's always running; why? Does a server really
> > need this stuff? And does a server really need to have browser
> > functionality "integrated" into it to install some of the server
> > components that M$ sells?
>
> because the GUI is integrating the desktop with a HTML engine - it's called
> advancing technology> new ideas, new functionality. You don't think it's
> cool you can plop an HTML or activex object right into your desktop
> background and interact with it while you work in other windows? Just to
> name the first thing that comes to mind.
And this helps on a server exactly how? I don't think there are many
administrators that will spend the entire day working productivity apps
off the desktop (my previous boss would, but he also loaded Red Alert on
two servers so he and a friend could play over the high speed network).
This comes back again to the question posed above of "turning off" the
GUI. On a server that shouldn't really even need logged into on a
regular basis, how does it help that you have a full GUI with HTML
and/or activex capability in the desktop? And if you want to turn these
features off, why can't you? And please, save us the "you should buy
hardware that can handle it anyway" line. Some of us have hardware that
could handle it, but why not put that hardware to use for what you
"want" it to do?
I'm just curious why MS thinks we need a full GUI, and a full web
browser (Internet Explorer) on every server, no matter what it's purpose
is. It seems a waste of resources. Yes, there is hardware that can
handle it, but when all you need is a file server, or a database server,
why do you need the capabilities to use that machine as a web
browser/email viewer/news reader/productivity desktop/etc. Maybe for
you it makes sense, but to me a server should be a server (for whatever
purposes) and not a superset of a desktop. And I know that I am not
alone in this feeling. This is not an attack, it is a simple question.
Why can't we "choose" what runs on our servers with Windows?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:10:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christopher Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:27:28 +1000
<8l2vpv$kui$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ZnU wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > > I was under the impression that this is what I had, by way of
>> > > these advocacy groups, yes. Imagine my surprise when I get
>> > > ridiculed, not for being so clueless as to ask questions, but
>> > > for knowing enough to ask them in ways that contradict the
>> > > easy answers.
>> >
>> > You are getting ridiculed for asking questions, receiving answers,
>> > dismissing the answers on no solid grounds, and then asking the
>> > questions again.
>> >
>> > It also doesn't help that you continually insist everyone who disagrees
>> > with you is some kind of narrow-minded specialist who refuses to
>> > question assumptions. PMT's superiority for general purpose multitasking
>> > desktop operating systems is not an assumption, it is a logical
>> > conclusion that anyone who understands the issues will come to, and it
>> > is one that holds up very well in the real world.
>>
>> . . . because, after all, CMT is a proper sub set of PMT.
>
>Eh ? How can a user space app in a PMT system grab the CPU to the exclusion
>of all other processes ?
Depends on the PMT scheduler.
My guess is that the system would only require exclusive use of the CPU
for such things as servicing an interrupt, and then only for very
short periods of time.
One could of course have a timer interrupt -- in fact, IINM, most PMT
systems have just such an interrupt, to enforce quantum switches, and
to implement virtual timers which may be of use to programming types.
But there are a lot of issues here -- not the least of which being
interrupt latency, the time it takes to switch from user mode running
a process to kernel mode servicing the interrupt. (NT is notoriously
bad in that respect, for some reason.) Of course, if someone does
a mouse click and the GUI is paged out, all bets are off; might as well
ask whether one can read a page in a given book which happens to be
packed away in a shipping crate in the basement -- as opposed to stored
in an open cardboard box in the closet, on a shelf in the library,
or sitting on an endtable, propped open to that very page.
I suspect that's a bigger problem than the PMT/CMT thing. (Note that
VMS had the concept of "page locking", which means that a page in
the working set could never be swapped out. Properly used, this
could in theory increase responsiveness; improperly used, of course,
it could gum up things horribly.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: mst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:16:00 -0400
Spud wrote:
(deletia)
> Where Linux will be in 2-3 years
> depends on a lot of things, not least of which is whether it can
> sustain the effort to provide a truly competitive solution for the
> home-user and office-user desktops - which means, among other things,
> compatability with existing document formats, (..)
...precisely the ones that are unnecessarily a moving target, courtesy
of MicroShit.
MST
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:19:47 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > I know I'll get booed, but what the hell:
> >
> > Cause the whore is a pro, and probably knows how to do things that
> your
> > friend providing free sex doesn't. Of course, these are the things
> that
> > cause heart-attacks and strokes (hmmm, I drew the analogy to Windows
> > even better than I thought I could). And let's not forget the great
> > array of diseases provided by the whore.
>
> You neglected to mention that this particular whore is also old,
> overweight, has had more facelifts than one of the Gabor sisters, can
> only do one thing at a time, demands that you use only the most
> expensive hotel rooms, and then routinely loses consciousness while
> servicing you.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Well, I don't know. I think I like my analogy better. After all,
Windows may look pretty (subjective, some don't agree), but in the end
you will walk away feeling diseased (if you walk away at all). Nice
free-form analogy on your part though.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:28:31 -0400
KLH wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > KLH wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > mlw wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Iko wrote:
> > > > > > A linux server is made in about 3 hours...even my girlfriend can
> > > > > > do the job..
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn. Either you think poorly of your
> > > > > girlfriend or women generally. Either way, someone's sex has no
> bearing
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Evidently, you are not well-read on the subject.
> >
> > Catch up, and get back to me.
>
> I *do* know there are many authors of books, editorials, and magazine
> articles who love to dwell on the subject about the differences between men
> and women. Often this content is on the subject of dating, marriage, and
> divorce. As interesting as this may be for some, it does not make it
> significant. Men are *not* from Mars and Women are *not* from Venus, rather
> we are both from Earth; but the title of such a book shows how the
And John Gray is an idiot.
That's NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about peer-reviewed
studies about the differences between male and female brains
> differences are so exagerated. But a statistic I heard in class once was
> that Men and Women are greater than 90% alike (sorry, I do not recall the
> exact percentage) .
>
> So attempting to classify a person's ability at linguistics or math based
> upon gender seems to be an act of futillity---or segregation.
>
> My feeling is that the trend of women not taking up occupations in computers
> is because of enviroment rather than any sort of inherent capacity.
>
Keep believing the politically correct line, and you'll never learn the
truth.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:31:56 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > on their ability to do anything. I know some women software
> engineers
> > > > > that will put anyone to shame. (And yes, they can install Linux)
> > > >
> > > > the exception does not make the rule.
> > >
> > > But, the exception does invalidate the rule.
> >
> > No...an exception is an exception.
>
> Tautologic, and it implies that all rules are valid. Interesting.
No.. it merely says that the presence of an exception doesn't invalidate
the rule (unless the rule clearly says "no exceptions").
to invalidate the rule, you must demonstrate that the rule is incorrect
in the MAJORITY of cases....that, in fact, the exceptions *ARE* the
rule.
>
> Exceptions do invalidate rules.
Only for rules which stipulate "no exceptions"
For example, does nuclear fission violate the "Conservation of Matter"
???
No... because energy matter transformation is an exception, which
is covered under the "conservation of energy-matter"
> If they didn't, the movement
> of Mercury's perihelium wouldn't invalidate Newtonian physics.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:33:01 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > As I recall, the Picts also had a predilection towards painting
> > themselves with blue clay before going into battle...
>
> That is true.
>
> > Help! Help! We're being attacked by smurfs!
>
> Now I have an image of an army of mutant killer smurfs lead by old Papa
> Braveheart Smurf charging the Roman Legions! ;-)
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
(whoops, wrong movie!)
>
> > > From what I understand of the process that was actually used: As many
> books
> > > and other documents written in English were gathered, wordlist were
> > > generated from them. The word lists were merged alternate spelling of
> the
> > > same words were folded together and one spelling was selected. From
> this
> > > master word list, the final product was created.
> >
> >
> > When did all of this occur?
>
> It was around the time of the introduction of the moveable type printing
> press to England. While Gutenburg first big commision for the moveable type
> press was his Bibles. The first big commision for the press in England was
> for the Dictionary.
Cool.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
