Linux-Advocacy Digest #866, Volume #27 Sat, 22 Jul 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard
))
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dresden's copyrights (Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?) (Jacques Guy)
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 03:59:52 GMT
In article <2q1e5.3461$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l8q4a$r3j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <5Bma5.9335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I've always maintained what is obvious:
> > > Netcraft JUST counts domains and
> > > doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain
> > > of "joesmomma.com" vs W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft,
> > > they mean the same.
> >
> > Actually, Netcraft conducts 3 surveys. One is based exclusively on
> > domain name. It counts the number of servers in each domain,
> > identifies the server used, and often, includes the operating system
> > type (this is often hard to corrolate since many Linux systems look
> > like "UNIX" - the default used in most Apache configuration files).
>
> Um, no, it simply counts domains, not the number of
> servers. And, I'm very suprised that you claim Linux
> isn't Unix and even that Netcraft can't
> identify Linux from another Unix - when I've
> seen almost no problem in doing
> this in any of my investigations.
It depends on how apache was created. If you simply install the
binaries included with a commercial distribution, they are pretty
well marked. If you build the source from an update distributed via
the Apache web site (a common practice for administrators of very
large systems who need the latest CERT alert fixes built into
the latest version. The source isn't terribly specific. Netscape
simply examines information in the HTTP header. On Apache, that
information is provided in editable text files.
> > Netcraft also conducts a survey of SSL sites, these are sights that
> > actually "Get the Money". Microsoft IIS and Netscape Enterprise
> > carry much larger shares, but are still much smaller than the Apache
> > share.
> >
> Um, oh really? Care to prove that - the SSL surveys I've seen have
> Apache in the minority.
As you pointed out there are lots of "mom and pop" shops that count
even in SSL surveys. The following are also "flavors" of apache:
The percentage of Apache specific servers, running one of
Affinity-Apache, Apache, Apache-1.2.6, Apache-1.3.4,
Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer, Apache-EUnet, Apache-NeoWebScript,
Apache-SSL, Apache-SSL-US, ApacheFP, ApacheSSL,
ApacheSSL-DWEB, DigitalFairplex(serv1)-Apache,
InfoWest.COM-Custom-Apache, Rapidsite, Red, Stronghold, WebTen is now
65.05 (from 63.22 last month).
<A href=http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/Reports/200006/platform.html>
Netcraft Web Survey - Changes by platform</A>
> > A third "pay per view" survey identifies volumes and dollars for
> > each site. It also identifies each site used by the large-cap
> > sites.
>
> Netcraft has a lot it will do for $$$.
Correct. The information is valuable, often involves quite a bit
more labor, and for many companies such as IT managers, consulting
firms, and vendors, it's important to get an accurate and up to date
picture. Of course, when you sell information, you also have a little
agreement that requires that you not resell it, give it away, or
include it in other products or advertisements. Many companies do
include summaries of "pay-per-view" information, usually using last
year's information, and paying substantial fee for the priviledge.
> <snip pure speculation>
Notice that you snipped my questions regarding how the count was done
and what was counted.
I repeat my request for 3 separate surveys:
1 - What server is used on the web home site (domain only URL)
This should be pretty simple - just use the netcraft tool
and march down the fortune 500. If we farmed it out to
net members, we could have results in about 3 hours.
Is this the figure used in Drestin's citation (indications
toward the bottom of the report indicate that this is the case).
2 - What servers are used for subsidiary web services. This could
be done with a robot or web crawler designed to record site
information as it walked the tree.
3 - How many servers of each type to each of the major companies
use? This could get more interesting, especally when you count
cages and you compare MIPs equivalents (these days BIPs equiv).
The third one would be expensive. You'd have to get CIOs to give
accurate statistics - for which they'd want "bragging rights".
IDC provides some of this type of information. Linux is moving
up in the corporate market, now sitting at around 27% (1999 data).
> > > So, all this Apache
> > > dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
> > > EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
> >
> > Nearly 75% of all jobs are provided by companies of less than 10
> > employees (revenue of less than $10 million a year).
>
> Care to prove that? I do not agree.
That's a figure I got from the department of commerce. It may be less
than 25 employees, but I do know that "small business" accounts for
most of the jobs in the U.S. This does include franchises, consulting
firms, self-employed incorporated companies, and others. Can someone
fish up a referencable URL on this? (I hate citing television and
radio newscasts). I've heard this number used several times on
Bloomberg, CNBC, MSNBC, CNNfn, CSPAN, and CNN. It's also appeared
in USA today several times, and in the Wall Street Journal.
These are my primary non-web sources of information, but perhaps
you have something else - even an almanac. I tried www.bls.gov
and found this one:
http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html
I was wrong - There are 668 companies with over 10,000 employees
(I think I've worked for about 60 of them).
It's 50% of all jobs are provided by companies under 500 employees,
and 33% of all jobs are provided by companies under 100 employees.
And 33% of the payroll is paid by corporations with under
100 employees.
As is about 33.5 percent of the receipts. This is actually
more than all of the companies with over 10,000 employees.
There are 4.3 million establishements/companies under 100 employees.
Now, let's go back and look at Netcraft. We have about 17 million
web sites over there. Sure, there are probably 5-6 million of those
that are international sites. Only 9 million are .com, and we also
have a number of large corporations that use multiple domain names
(they're so cheap - register a few dozen) and multiple servers within
a domain - that wouldn't be counted by the survey cited by
Drestin.
> <snip some stuff>
>
> > > Companies that are concerned about their image,
> >
> > Companies or departments who are strictly concerned about image
> > use NT. They load that sucker with front-page extensions, activeX
> > controls, vbscript and jscript in 30 flavors, and ASPs that generate
> > every variable on every page from a SQL server database. Of course
> > they need to create a rather large cluster because otherwise they
> > will loose customers when all that "glitz" crashes and burns.
>
> wow - I guess it's impossible for anything
> that looks good or is easy to work...
Generally the strategy is to put the "Glitz" on a few dedicated
servers. In many cases, if your browser doesn't support ActiveX,
VBScript, or Jscript, you immediately get handed of to UNIX server.
Typically, users who really care about that stuff will go to any
lengths to get it, and will be impressed by flaming rotating animations
loaded with special effects and multimedia.
Most corporate users have these features disabled (ever heard funny
sound effects coming out of someone's cubicle?). Going to a big
corporate sight and playing their AVI files is a great way to get
noticed (and not in the way you want).
You can generally get a pretty good presentation using pretty simple
systems. There are many "Web Artists" who forget that what they really
want is for the customer to get to the right information at the right
time, and in a format that allows him to make a purchase decision.
The goal for the customer is to get to the right page on the right
site, and place the order in a manner that gets it delivered as quickly
as possible. The purchaser still has 200 more items to buy, the seller
still has 40,000 more customers to serve. Put the cartoons out where
the kiddies can watch, put it on the Microsoft NT server so that if
the hackers try to kill it no real harm will be done, and put the
stuff that impacts the bottom line into machines that don't need
to be rebooted until next year.
> > Meanwhile, many customers arrive at that site with ActiveX disabled,
> > JScript disabled, trusted java applets disabled, vbscript disabled,
> > and end up getting a not-so-polite message indicating that they are
> > using the wrong browser. Essentially they are saying
> > "Get outta here
> > ya bum, only dope dealers and hookers allowed into this party". The
> > user politely takes his business elsewhere.
>
> That is total crap and we know it. MOST surfers
> arrive with EVERYTHING turned on.
> And every web browsing stat tracker
> out there will prove that point.
Again, which eyeballs are you trying to catch? The home machines
connected via AOL under very low user/ip address ratios are
loaded with everything. The corporate machines hiding as many
as 10,000 employees behind a single IP address will have all of
these features disabled before the user gets his machine, with
no way to enable them.
Most of your surveys count IP addresses, not cookies. Furthermore,
they lump daytime statistics with night-time statistics in all
time zones.
> Every single one without exception will back my claim. The VAST
> majority of users come flying in the front door,
> IE4-5 running with java,
Java isn't so bad (other than waiting for the VM to load), as long
as you keep everybody in the sandbox. The key is that you need to
disable "Trusted" applications. 99% of the sites are honest and
won't do anything but give you a good show. But if any of that
1% decides that "market research" include collecting as many credit
card numbers as possible by searching the history log for the browser,
you have a little problem.
> activex all turned on and begging for content.
Actually, IE 5.0 has some great features. One of the best features
is the ability to disable most of the options at a very fine grain.
Consumer machines are enabled with everything, but after a few viruses,
they tend to be more cautious.
The best firewalls in the world are pointless if you allow users
to download executable code that can be used to make outbound
HTTP PUT or GET requests that allow it to access any local or shared
drive. Since many companies make the workstation C: drive shared,
going shopping through 10,000 computers for interesting information
is just too easy.
> The only people that dont' do
> this are those stuck with NN under Linux, perhaps...
NN under Linux supports Java and Javascript (not Jscript).
> > > product, availability, uptime, performance and all that
> > > matters cause their name/image on-line
> > > matters - they are NOT using apache
> >
> > Actually, most of them are. They back Apache with Websphere,
> > WebLogic, or other clustering and servlet logic, but Apache
> > is a trusted workhorse that can be dismantled on the battlefield
> > (very useful when you are under a denial of service attack).
> >
> > > and MOST DEFINATLEY not using Linux!
> >
> > Linux is still not likely to be running primary revenue generating
> > sites for the Fortune 500, the S&P 500, or the Nasdaq.
>
> damn right.
> >Those will
> > be running under very large, powerful UNIX engines.
>
> Oh really? ANd you say this despite the fact that
> it's proven and can be
> reproven that in fact they do not?
> The NASDAQ is flying NT, not Unix - and
> you even dared name it by name?
The NASDAQ exchange uses NT for it's public access quotes site.
They you a LOT of NTs to provide this service, and it wasn't a
particularly pretty sight getting them up.
The actual trades are executed between UNIX servers and
cleared by OS/390 or MVS machines. I'm acutely aware of this
because I've worked for a clearing company and at least two
companies with brokerage divisions.
The only company that really sticks it's neck out for NT is
Merril Lynch. They put very strange things on NT, and they
get burned, sometimes to extra crispy. I get this information
through contacts within the company so don't ask me to cite it.
At one point they DID try to put NT on critical path, and it
was very expensive ($10 million in fines alone).
Many companies are frantic to upgrade to Windows 2000 simply because
it IS more reliable (than NT) and some of the stuff can't be migrated
to UNIX. Windows 2000 seems to be good for up to about 500 concurrent
connections (running threads under 2-3 primary processes) on a 30
second "look-time" between queries. NT 4.0 was only good for about
100 concurrent. Linux was doing 100 concurrent connections on 485/50
machines running telnet (1000 mandatory context switches per second).
Many Linux servers run 1000 or more concurrent connections. But
compared to E10K and S80 or SP/2 machines Linux is a wimp. These
boxes can run 20-30 major services, 10,000 connections, and still
be running at 10% utilization with 5ppm downtime.
> <snip>
>
> > Drestin, you are correct.
> > Most of the big companies don't run Linux,
> > but many of their sights and new services START on Linux.
> >
> <snip>
>
> > Drestin, did you ever take the time to get a fully configured Linux
> > system up and running and use it for at least 20 hours a week for
> > at least 3 months? Do I need to send you that $20 check?
> > If so, please e-mail me your business mailing address?
> >
> > If not, could you at LEAST stop posting your drivel as the opinions
> > of an informed expert!
>
> I have had linux up and running 24/7 for over 4 months.
That isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you had been USING it
(as a desktop system) at least 20 hours/week for 3 months. If
you still hate Linux after all that, I promised this newsgroup
I'd give the first three people who did this $20 - that was 4
years ago.
It appears that you have been using Linux, have really given it a
thorough use, and have decided that you really dislike it (enough
to post several articles a day). If you've actually spent 180
hours running Linux applications, learning Linux commands and
utilities, creating some tools and toys, and doing what Linux
does, and you still feel that you didn't get value for what you
paid - then I owe you $20.
> So, if you feel you
> owe me $20, e-mail me for the address.
> I only removed it from the VMWare
> partition a little while ago.
Confirm this last item (publicly) and I'll e-mail you privately.
> > --
> > Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> > I/T Architect, MIS Director
> > http://www.open4success.com
> > Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
> > and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
>
> 2,000,000 more every month? <using Dr. Evil's voice>
> Riiiiggghhhhtttt</voice>
Did you go to the New York PC Expo show? It looks like
there will be LOTS of little Linux boxes running around
on everything from PDAs to full blown workstations. The
most exciting is the little TIVO boxes. People don't KNOW
they're running Linux, but that's what's under the hood.
We'll also be seeing Linux boxes from Sega, Sony, Nintendo,
Gateway, Dell, IBM, and Compaq.
This should be bumping up the count - to about 2 million a week.
Sleep well Drestin (it's midnight as I finish this).
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:09:46 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2000 00:36:44 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >you. Therefore eliminating gotos should only be done if the language
> >has *every* important flow construct in it. For example, if your
> >language doesn't have a try/catch exception handling technique, then
> >people shouldn't anti-goto bigots and turn their noses up at all gotos.
>
> Exactly. This is precisely the one legit use of goto I've seen in high
> level code. For example, you use on error goto in basic as a way of
> handling exceptions.
>
> Another point -- exceptions themselves are somewhat dangerous, for the
> same reason that gotos are dangerous -- they make it easy to break out of
> things that you shouldn't be breaking out of. Using exceptions for anything
> other than exceptional circumstances is widely frowned upon and considered
> an abuse ( at least in C++ programming, this is true ).
Same for C.
When I took C at Purdue, we spent exactly 2 minutes on it.
The lecturer (a grad student) covered the syntax of the goto statement,
and the syntax of a label, and then said, "and of course, because we
all follow good, structured programming technique, we have no need
for this statement"
>
> Perhaps one could view goto in the same way -- its use should be the
> exception and not the rule.
>
> BTW, I still maintain that the use of GOTO in a high level language for
> anything besides exception handling is pretty questionable.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jul 2000 04:29:06 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:41:16 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Then by the computer science definition, anything that isn't a kernel
>>constitutes tying.
>
> Pretty much.
>
> Although, some of it is tolerated more than others. This is
> typically the sort of stuff that tends not to wipe out
> aftermarket products or is necessary to be able to use that
> kernel at all (shells, text editors, core APIs).
Tying isn't determined by technology definitions but by product marketing and
by intentions of the defendent.
Since MS makes IE as a stand alone product and there is a consumer
market for browsers there is tying. There is also tying due to the
court determined INTENT of MS managers. The court reviewed the
e-mails of MS managers and concluded they INTENTED to leverage
the OS monopoly to control the browser market.
Take away the evidence that it was intentional and also propose that MS
never made IE as a browser and there is scant reason to say there is product
tying. No stand alone product IE was made and no intention to leverage the
OS monopoly chnages the case but does not alter the current technical aspects.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:27:20 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dresden's copyrights (Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?)
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
> > A real programmer doesn't have to prove it to anyone...
>
> POSER!
You seem to be more on the spot than even you think.
Here's another one:
http://webcategory.ihnet.it/sesso.html
>From which I quote:
81.http://www.cys.it/red/menu.htm
Donne di tutte le eta' nere bianche e super sexy
82.http://drestinb.ic.net
Drestin Black's Girls - The hideout
83.http://www.penthousemag.com/magazine/p04apr/04edpick.html
Editor's picks
Items 82 and 83 need no translation. 81 is Italian:
"Ladies of all ages, black, white, and super sexy"
------------------------------
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: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:23:03 -0400
USEFUL IDIOT wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >1. Communists hold 80% of the seats in the Duma.
> >2. They merely RESTRUCTURED Communism. Defectors in the late 1980's
> > advised that this would occur.
>
> From a grove of birch trees it came...
Why do you feel it necessary to engage in a smear campaign
Are you afraid that people might realize that my observations are
accurate
>
> The breakup of the USSR can hardly be called a simple
> restructuring. And the same is true of the breakup of the USSR's Eastern
> European empire. In fact, one might expect Russian nationalist demagogues
> to start making a big issue out of "who lost Germany?" But the Russian
> military can barely triumph over some pesky Chechens... And nationalist
> demagogues might prefer making an issue out of the millions of ethnic
> Great Russians who reside outside of Russia proper.
It was all PLANNED OUT IN THE 1980's, you fool.
If you purposely take the body panels off of a car, that is hardly
comparable to suffering damage from a crash.
>
> This makes Mikhail Gorbachev's achievements especially remarkable
> -- he was willing to sacrifice control over eastern Europe, even if that
> meant totally "losing" Germany. And after what Russia had suffered at
> Germany's hands some decades ago, that is truly a remarkable achievement.
You really have no understanding of people who put the goals of
"The Party" above all else, do you?
By the way, where do you think PhoneyFuck Gorbechev is getting all
of his money from??? Considering that the man doesn't work, how is
he able to afford a midtown Manhatten apartment??????
It's obvious that the Communist Party in Moscow is funnelling money
to him, so that he can sell his bullshit to slurping feebs like
yourself who lap it all up and beg for more.
You are truly one of Lenin's USEFUL IDIOT'S
>
> > The place is just as much of a police state as 20 years ago,
> >except that families can travel outside the country without leaving
> >behind a family member as "hostage", and visitors are no longer under
> >24-hour control of Intourist "guides"/KGB agents.
>
> ROTFL. This "police state" has been *very* ineffective in
> suppressing criminal gangsters.
I talk in person with Russian immigrants who have family in Russian
and/or talk by telephone to Russian citizens in Russia several times
per month.
Did it ever occur to you that those "gangsters" are working with the
approval, if not cooperation of the government.
Many Russian citizens themselves suspect that the apartment bombings
in Moscow were the work of the FSB (KGB), not Chechyans. And there
is evidence to support this theory (unexploded bombs of similar size
found in the posession of local FSB agents by the Moscow Police).
And why would the communists WANT gangster activity? Because they
are calling this "capitalism", and thus, building an association
between "capitalism" and a period of gangsterism and highwaymen,
so as to get the people to beg for the return of the old, iron-
fisted police state....and they'll all think it's their own idea,
when, in fact, that was the Communist Party's plan all along.
Only a USEFUL IDIOT such as yourself can fail to comprehend such
a simple strategy.
> --
> USEFUL IDIOT 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.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:28:06 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >I would argue that if not for M$'s criminal behavior, then today it
> >would be a marginal company with less influence than Apple.
>
> I'll go further; if not for criminal behavior, or at least unethical
> behavior with only lip service to legality, at best, MS wouldn't exist
> at all today, and wouldn't have since the BASIC scam failed. (If only
> it would have; god, people are stupid.) Bill would be a programmer
> somewhere, with very little talent, who whined a lot.
>
> >Digital Research had surpassed M$ and was offering a superior O/S
> >for significantly less money, while providing full compatability with
> >all legacy MS products.
> >
> >DR had better programmers, and unlike M$, didn't have a contractual
> >agreement with SCO which would prevent them from developing a Unix
> >product.
> >
> >Running DOS as a Unix process is fairly trivial.
>
> Oh, what might have been...
>
> [...]
> >The simplest way to rein in Microsoft is the forced divestiture of
> >all M$ stocks by BG, Steve Baaaaawwwwwlmer, and other cretins, and
> >removal of these people from the Board of Directors.
> >
> >Alternatively, just put the whole lot of them in jail, and the
> >stock holders will replace them, and fire the assholes.
>
> Screw it. The simplest way to reign in Microsoft would be to make it go
> "poof". The stock is worthless paper; the facilities are auctioned off,
> the code becomes public domain. Think of the boon to the economy, when
> the billions of dollars which was supposedly locked up in Microsoft's
> "capital value" reverts to real money.
>
> [...]
> >Gates and his crew are pathalogical criminals, and should be locked
> >up, hanging by their toenails.
>
> You are *not* good for my attitude, Aaron.
Can I interest you in a sniper-grade AR-15....accurate to 1,000 yards...
--
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
******************************
