Linux-Advocacy Digest #813, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Maximum Linux (John Arebir)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: look, don't talk (Cihl)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: M$: Real Capitalists? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Paul E. Larson)
Re: M$: Real Capitalists? (Jack Mehoff)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:33:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > And I'm willing to wager that, at least in the majority of cases,
> > > your local shops will toss in a copy of Windows with your box
> > > regardless of what OS is installed on it, and yes, even if it's only
> > > ten bucks, you *will* have paid for that Windows license.
> >
> > A lot of those little garage shops *don't* pay for that copy of
> > Windows they "sell" you. If someone charged you $10 for Windows 98,
> > it was almost certainly pirated.
>
> This doesn't make any sense; who cares about allegedly pirated software
> that ***isn't being used?***
Then why did you bring it up (see above)?
> That's the point, here, being forced to
> buy Windows even though you have no intention of using it. What benefit
> does the "garage shop" gain by forcing you to buy a pirated copy at ten
> bucks?
Ten bucks.
> And why would they care, especially if you are buying, say,
> FreeBSD from them for the same price?
It's just another indication that even a "garage shop" cloner will make
Windows available, even if they don't pay Microsoft for it. It shows
the kind of market power and influence MS has, even among criminals who
steal software.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:28:00 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Why are you so determined to deny that the Communist Party still has
> >any power? For what reason are you so invested in this?
>
> Just trying to set the facts straight. Present-day Russia is far
> from being under the thumb of a centralized, autocratic party. For
The Communist Party holds 80% of the seats in the Duma.
> example, some news-media executive got arrested some time ago, and there
> was a big fuss about it in Russia. What is novel there is that this fuss
> happened at all.
But, just like in old times, he published the wrong things, and got
kidnapped by the FSB (New name for the KGB).
>
> In the Brezhnev era, his counterpart would have got mysteriously
> "reassigned" or whatever.
In the old days, he would have disappeared after he was arrested
by the KGB.
Today, he disappears after being arrested by the FSB.
Please explain the difference.
>
> In the Stalin era, his counterpart would have "confessed" to
> trying to spread lying imperialist propaganda.
Today, the FSB just murders his counterpart in broad daylight.
>
> >Is it your embarrassment of having invested so many years in supporting
> >them, denying the traiterous acts of the Rosenbergs, Philby, etc.,
> >only to have all of your denials refuted when the KGB opened several
> >decades worth of files....
>
> Thank you for describing your favorite obsessions. Just more
> proof that you spend too much time in groves of (metaphorical) birch trees.
Are you so stupid as to deny that the people I listed above were not
spies for the Soviet Union? Even the KGB/FSB admits it!
Thank YOU for demonstrating that you are, as Lenin so accurately
described...a "useful idiot"...
--
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: Chad Irby <[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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:37:09 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When was the last time you heard about the Japanese government
> worrying about what people do in their bedrooms or what their
> citizens can see or not on the internet?
Continually.
Read up on some of the Japanese censorship that hoes on, and even though
they're more free in some respects than Americans, they have their own
little government sillinesses.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: John Arebir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:40:00 -0400
Maximum/Unleased/Kick-Ass
These adjectives seem to attract certain types.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:53:58 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does anyone here get the Maximum Linux magazine? I have a question for
>everyone in here, but it is especially applicable to those who read this
>magazine.
>
>I recently finished reading the previous issue and read Mae Ling's
>(spelling?) column on window managers. Now, normally I wouldn't be
>bothered by such a small issue, but this was one that I really have to
>wonder about. I've noticed the magazine leans heavily towards the
>Windows side of things (much like COLA, there is just as much about
>Windows, good and bad, as there is about Linux). Anyway, the main gist
>of the colum was about window managers, but she continously throughout
>the column wrote Windows Managers. Like I said, I nomally wouldn't have
>cared but she repeated it over and over and over and ....
>
>Now, I'm going to pose the question to those of you in here. Which is
>correct? I was always under the impression that it was window manager
>(and plural window managers), but before I write to correct her I
>thought I should see what the concesus is. I'm assuming that her bias
>towards Windows (or the editor's bias towards Windows) made every
>appearance of the window into Windows and the word manager just got
>capitalized along with it. So, what do you say? Is it 'window
>managers' or 'Windows Managers'?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:32:24 GMT
In article <8l6kc3$l8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
-- snip --
> > So you think the removal of IE and Outlook from windows would make
> > it less safe?
>
> I think it would make it less functional.
Since when have managing e-mail and web browsing been "OS"
functions?!!?!
Should we draw the logical conclusion, and consider Image Editing to be
an OS function (bye-bye photoshop et al)? Howzabout Point Of Sale? Word
Processing? Spreadsheeting? Databasing? Video editing? Streaming
media?
Where does it end?
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 16:41:30 GMT
In article <8l76ci$kdv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It wouldn't restart because of the corrupted data.
But then why was that affecting unrelated systems? The only
reasonable explanation I can think of is that it was all One Big
Database. But if that is the case, why would a divide by zero error
due to a mistake in one of the fields of a table crash it? Surely the
software should just page the operator to say that has a possible
consistency error and then continue to serve up all the valid data.
Hmm. The Windows Registry is another example of the OBD design, and
that has similar flaws; if one minor part goes south, the whole system
is up the creek without a paddle, so to speak...
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:51:41 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]
> >Deleting something (twice) and then asking what that something was is,
> >let's say, weird.
>
> I'm not sure why you say that.
Well, let's just say that you deleted something (twice) and asked what
was in the piece you deleted. And that I consider that weird.
I don't think I wrote in too cryptic a manner.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:54:04 -0300
Lee Hollaar escribió:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac) writes:
> >I'm beginning to think that you are a stalking horse created by
> >Lee Hollaar to get the rest of us to do our homework.
>
> Not even I, in my most perverse momemts, could dream up somebody as
> confused and confusing as T. Max.
>
> The problem seems to be that he things there should be some universal
> truths that govern the rules for intellectual property.
Maybe he believes in natural law or some of those abstractions that were
so fashionable in the 18th century?
Perhaps he is a platonist? (I don't believe platonist is the right
english word, sorry)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:44:32 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 18 Jul 2000 22:31:40 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:44:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >I can do the exact same thing on any modern flavor of unix, so, like
> >> >do you have a point?
> >> >
> >>
> >> "Moddern UNIX", now thear's an oxymorron.
> >
> >
> > Unix Microsoft products
> >
> >First Multi-processing kernal 1970 1995
> >
> >tape backup utilities 1970 1998
> >
> >First GUI 1984 1990
> >
> >Cut and Past support in GUI 1984 1993
> >
> >Full networking support 1984 1995
> >
> >No differentiation between remote 1984 never implemented
> > users and console users
> >First Multi-user kernal 1970 never implemented
> >
> >Configuration changes w/o rebooting 1970 never implemented
>
> 1998 or 1999; NT 4 no longer requires a reboot for simple
> TCP/IP configuration changes. For what it's worth.
>
> >
> >First non-fragmenting filesystem 1983 never implemented
>
> Note that 'fsdext2' allows readonly access to an ext2 volume
> from a Win95 box. If Microsoft really cared, they probably
> could hook in a replacement to NTFS or FAT.
>
> I don't know how much a bugaboo fragmentation is at this time
> (it's clearly better for single files to be non-fragmented, but
> how about file sets?) and I'd say a lot of the problem may be
> related to usage patterns in some fashion.
>
> It gets complicated if one throws "lying" disks and "lying" boards
> into the mix -- the CPU thinks most modern disks have 255 heads.
> (Uh huh. Pull the other one. :-) ) And most disks are
> variable-geometry anyway; more sectors on the outer cylinder.
>
> >
> >RAID support (Redundant Array 1991 never implemented
> > of Inexpensive Disks)
> >full remote administration possible, 1970 never implemented
> > including O/S install
>
> Hm...how did Unix have remote administration prior to Woolongong?
Simple... dialin to a modem on a serial port.
> Still, that only pushes it forward to the early 80's. (I have
> an AT&T 7300 with Woolongong sockets, manufactured circa 1984 or
> so, still operational AFAIK although I haven't fired it up lately,
> with a whole 80 megs of disk space. Woohoo!)
Nope... modems on serial ports were available LONG before the
advent of Unix.
>
> >
> >GUI's available 10 1
>
> Shared library support ? since Win 3.1
1988(?)
>
> Loadable driver modules ? unknown
early 1990's.
>
> Virtual memory <-> file association ? 1995?
> (mmap(), CreateFileMapping()) [*]
1970
/dev/kmem
>
> SSH-type remote login capability ? ?
> (i.e., zero-knowledge session
> encryption coupled with some
> sort of login program or widget)
over-the-network remote login 1984 Still not implemented
encrypted " -" - " " " mid 1990's Still not implemented
>
> Remote GUI 1984? 1998?
1984 ^
Pass that crack pipe you're smokin'
>
> Remote login w/o password ? ?
> from a trusted local site
1984 Still not implemented
/etc/hosts.equiv
$HOME/.rhosts
> (i.e., using Kerberos)
Kerberos is not necessary, it
is merely a refinement of the idea.
>
> First multi-processOR kernel ? ?
> (note that VMS had this ca 1986 or so;
> presumably, Unix did, too)
1981.
Local modifications to 4.2BSD
George Goble, Electrical Engineering,
Engineering Computer Network
Purdue University.
Host ec.ecn.purdue.edu
First wide distribution outside of Purdue and
Berkely campuses: 4.3BSD (1983)
There used to be a file in /usr/jokes on ec machine
"The VAX had a blow-out" to the tune of London
Bridge is Falling Down, describing the atmosphere
in the terminal rooms when George was debugging the
4.2BS
>
> First full journaling filesystem ? NTFS has meta only
> (AIX claims its file system journals;
> I don't know the details. Reiserfs
> is available now for Linux.)
First I saw on commercial Unix systems
was in the mid 1990's. But these weren't
cutting-edge installations, so I don't know.
>
> >
> >Notice a pattern yet, spell-check boy?
> >
>
> *smirk*
>
> Mind you, we have to be careful, as it is possible the Winvocates
> will claim that "we did it better because we did it second".
> (This is very debatable in its own right.)
Usually the IEEE or equivalent standards are VERY well thought out
(because of the nature by which these standards are developed).
Microsoft tends to glance at these standards, then crumple them
up and throw them into the fireplace, then claim that their
high-school programmers' half-assed attempts at re-implementation
constitute a "superior" solution.
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> [*] this is a neat hack, but has to be applied with some care;
> mmap() can put a region anywhere in the address space if
> one is not careful, and that invalidates every pointer!
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
--
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: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:47:44 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>
> Or, you can blindly delete them:
>
> find . -name core -type f -size +0 -print0 | xargs -0 rm
find . -name core -type f -size +0 -print0 -exec rm \{\} \;
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: look, don't talk
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:57:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Stewart Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
> > intelligent, until you hear them speak."
>
> Is that a variation of the saying "It is better to remain silent and have
> people wonder if you are an idiot, than to open you mouth and eliminate all
> doubt."?
No, it's just one of the fortune cookies. :-)
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 20 Jul 2000 16:56:51 GMT
In article <8l75dc$tdk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any half-decent Basic has enough control structures (while-do,
> repeat-until, procedures, functions) to teach reasonable programming
> habits. I always feel that the key thing when teaching programming,
> it is vitally important to limit the scope of the language you are
> working with so that you do not overwhelm the student. That is why
> something like VB is useless for learning programming. With an OOP
> language, you can always use it like a procedural language but I
> think it is often better if the language simply does not have these
> features.
The trouble with that is that when it comes to introducing the student
to OO, they must learn a different language as well. Mind you, I'm
actually a supporter of using a functional language as a first lang,
since it is probably going to be new to everyone, and yet the results
are comprehensible in terms of mathematics/logic, which most people
have at least some intuitive feeling for.
> Although I have said Basic is suitable as a teaching language, there
> are others that are often more suitable. Pascal is always a
> favourite - it is simple enough to learn as a first language, yet
> powerful enough to use as a main development language.
I liked Pascal (it was the first proper language I used, where proper
is defined as not being line-number dependent, and being able to
handle a program of practical size.) It made learning C much easier
too, since all I had to do was understand the analogues for each of
the constructs that I had already seen. My experience with assembler
also helped when it came to figuring out pointers and memory
allocation...
> I also think you can come a long way working with much smaller
> systems. I have heard people recommending Lego Mindstorms as a
> teaching tool for programming. You have a limited programming
> environment, and have very direct feedback of the results. It is
> also very easy to motivate the student. Any opinions on this?
It reminds me a bit of Logo. I can remember seeing that used to
control a turtle robot. In fact, I was building my own robots out of
Lego (and paper clips, tin foil, rubber bands, and a ZX Spectrum with
robot controller) over ten years ago. My favourite was when I built a
robotic tarantula... >:^)
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: M$: Real Capitalists?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:55:07 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Microsoft's business practicess are the complete opposite of capitalism.
>
> Only if one uses some idealized conception of capitalism.
Microsoft's business practice is to exclude others from even having a
chance of compete, by such practices as financially punishing OEMS
and retailers who dare to sell even one computer without selling
a copy of Windows.
Now, they are allowing the installation of other Operating systems, but
demanding "full control of the boot process, from power on until the
appearance of the first splash screen". Of course, this is meant to
PROHIBIT the installation of O/S selection software such as System
Commander or LILO (which also allows you to boot Windows, or even make
Windows the default...the point is...M$ doesn't want the general public
to even be ALLOWED TO MAKE A CHOICE of a non-M$ product.
That is not capitalism...that is monopolism.
Anybody who mistakes monopolism for capitalism is a fucking idiot.
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:55:55 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You wanna see poverty, and HUGE disparities between the rich and the
> >poor? Then go to a communist country and look around.
>
> Thus making it an inegalitarian's dream world.
Must be why you promote communism, eh Loren?
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:01:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Arthur L. Rubin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> --
>> Microsoft Windows: Now complete with a built-in BOFH!
>
>BOFH?
>
>
http://members.iinet.net.au/~bofh/
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Mehoff)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: M$: Real Capitalists?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:04:34 GMT
Microsoft is a textbook example of capitalism. Create a product that
is adopted by millions of people. Create enormous wealth for the
company, thus putting tens of thousands of people on the payroll.
Create 3 billionaires and thousands of millionaires including many
women and minorities before getting sued by the government. Several
of these newly financially independent people leave the company to
start their own businesses and employee more people. I can't think of
a single government program with that kind of success.
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Microsoft's business practicess are the complete opposite of capitalism.
>
> Only if one uses some idealized conception of capitalism.
>
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
