Linux-Advocacy Digest #872, Volume #27 Sat, 22 Jul 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is just plain awful (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Mrs Drestin Black is a HYPOCRITE -- Web pages on UNIX. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Oh, this is a good one (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: windows annoyances (again) (abraxas)
Re: Mrs Drestin Black (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:59:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:05:31 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Patrik Arvhult wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes a few GOTO statements is the most efficient/optimal coding in C
>> code. But too many of them isn't nice to read.
>
>
>On rare occasions, yes.
>
>abort();
>exit();
>and break;
>
>are usually superior.
You forgot 'return'. :-)
I will also note that abort() and exit() aren't, strictly
speaking, part of the language, but of the operating system
and/or library support.
Still, a "breakout GOTO" is a useful tool, if carefully done.
Sometimes there's just no other way, as in the very contrived
example below:
extern bool testthestring(char * teststring, char * arraystring);
char * searchArray[10][10][10];
char * silly(char * teststring)
{
char * foundString;
int i, j, k;
for(i=0;i<10;i++)
for(j=0;j<10;j++)
for(k=0;k<10;k++)
if(testthestring(teststring,searchArray[i][j][k])==0)
{
foundString = searchArray[i][j][k];
goto endit;
}
printf("I did not find it.\n");
return 0;
endit:
printf("I found it: %s\n", foundString);
return foundString;
}
Now, in this particular example, one could move the printf into
the inner clause and use a return instead. But this, IMO, is a
proper use for a GOTO -- and it was a contrived example anyway. :-)
(In other languages, breaks have either count levels ('break 3')
or can break to an outside label; these replace the 'goto'
usage above.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:55:30 -0400
Cihl wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Charles Razzell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I received this in the mail today...
> > > > >
> > > > > MontaVista is proud to invite you to participate in a free
> > > > > TechOnLine Seminar titled "Linux: The Internet Appliance Platform"
> > > > > Register for the seminar now:
> > > > > http://seminar.techonline.com/montavista1/
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > *****************************************************************
> > > > > Prerequisites for Seminar include:
> > > > > Internet Explorer 4.0 (or higher) or Netscape Communicator
> > > > > MS Windows 3.1, 9x, or NT
> > > > > Audio capabilities: (sound card + speakers + RealAudio 5.0 or
> > > > > higher)
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > I am a happy user of Linux (as you can perhaps see
> > > > > from the headers of this message) but the unintended
> > > > > irony was probably noted by quite a few recipients
> > > > > of the above bulk e-mail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quite frankly, it should be possible to receive the seminar on
> > > > > suitably equipped Linux boxes. RealAudio 5.0 is certainly available.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rgds,
> > > > >
> > > > > Charles.
> > > >
> > > > You think that's bad, I've actually seen Linux for sale in catalogs and
> > > > on-line stores where the requirements for it are "Must have Windows 95
> > > > or NT" and similary non-sense. And this was not for some of the Linux
> > > > on Windows type of distributions, but for SuSE, Red Hat, Slackware,
> > > > etc....
> > > >
> > > > I believe the entire of idea of any bit of software not requiring
> > > > Windows in some form or another is completely foriegn to some people.
> > > > And when the see Linux OS on a box, they just assume that means it's
> > > > software and all software requires Windows. Unfortunately, this is the
> > > > type of logic that reigns in the world about computers in general.
> > > > Windows=computers and computers=Windows. Some people even have troubles
> > > > believing that a Mac doesn't use Windows. I've heard a few stories of
> > > > people being upset when the buy a Windows upgrade and then can't install
> > > > it on their iMac.
> > > >
> > > > Cars require a bit of education to drive, but with a computer, everyone
> > > > expects it to be a toaster. I just don't understand. (I realize I have
> > > > opened myself up to the flammers that proclaim a computer should be a
> > > > toaster. But why, oh why, should something this complicated be
> > > > considered on the same level as any kitchen appliance?)
> > >
> > > [unnamed] customer support: Hello?
> > > Cluless Customer: Hello, my computer doesn't work.
> > > Support: What doesn't work?
> > > Customer: Nothing works.
> > > S: What does the screen show
> > > C: Nothing, it won't turn on
> > > S: Is your system plugged in?
> > > C: I don't know
> > > S: Can you check to see if the system is plugged in
> > > C: OK
> > > [fumbling sounds]
> > > C: Um, I can't tell, it's too dark
> > > S: What's too dark?
> > > C: The room, it's too dark. The power is out.
> > > S: OK...here's what you do. Pack up all of the parts of your
> > > computer in the boxes they came in.
> > > C: OK
> > > S:..and then, send the entire system back to [us], attention
> > > [some name]
> > > C: And you'll send me a new computer?
> > > S: No sir, we will send you a refund.
> > > C: Why won't you send me a new computer?
> > > S: Because you're too stupid to figure out that a computer
> > > doesnt work in the middle of a black out.
> > >
> > > Reminds me one time when I was at my grandma's house, and the
> > > TV went off when the power failed...and she went over to the
> > > radio and said, "let's listen to the radio and find out what's
> > > happening," forgetting that the radio also relied on wall-socket
> > > current.
> > >
> > > I think that about sums it up.
> > >
> >
> > How about a web site dedicated to similar stories:
> >
> > http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid
> >
> > They have a BUNCH of stupid tech support stories. Of course, in the
> > case I described above it was more about the fact that even the
> > "sellers" of software don't have a clue, I think a lot of the stupidity
> > can be seen as a result of the same flaw in human nature. "If I don't
> > know it, it must not exist." Reminds me of some other people I've seen
> > in here....
And of course, in MICROSOFT LAND, the only valid fix is:
Format c: and re-install.
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee
>
> I just read some of the stories in there. Really funny! :-))
>
> --
> 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]
--
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: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:59:24 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Make a tape dump, or tar the filesystem onto another disk, and then
> >reformat the partition with reiserfs. This will give you a clean
> >filesystem AND give you the added bonus of doing the equivalent
> >of a defragment/pack operation.
>
> Except that in my case, that is *exactly* what I did. Well, I used
> "cp" rather than "tar" (and kicked myself after a while ;-), but except
> from that...
cp is the WRONG way to go.
If a file has large expanses of ZEROS, when it's originally made, any
block that is ZEROES ONLY is referred to by a null-pointer in the
block references, and thus, don't take up any space on disk.
cp isn't smart enough to do fseek() when encountering zeros, so it will
almost always produce a copy that takes up more disk space than the
original, if that original is an executable, or less-than-full database.
tar handles this correctly.
>
> Made a new reiserfs, copied everything back, and *during the copy*, the
> first reiserfs messages started showing up.
>
> >Following this procedure will give you EXTREME peace of mind.
>
> For the moment, keeping backups of everything on the filesystem gives me
> peace of mind.
>
> Bernie
> --
> It is easier to make war than to make peace
> Georges Clemenceau
> French Prime Minister 1906-09
> Verdun, 20 July 1919
--
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: Mrs Drestin Black is a HYPOCRITE -- Web pages on UNIX.
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 11:01:30 -0400
Bob Tennent wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:18:27 +0000, Jacques Guy wrote:
> >Copied and pasted from Mr Drestin Black's URL:
> >
> >http://drestinb.ic.net/private.htm
> >
> >Not bad-looking at all, Osin, and... dressed in black!
> >
> >I am a bit disappointed by that particular URL, though.
> >Although it was produced with Microsoft Frontpage 4.0,
> >it lacks Dresden's dreaded profession of faith:
> >
> ><!-- Linux SUX -->
> >
> >which you can see at
> >
> >http://drestinb.ic.net/hideout.htm
> >
>
> There must be some mistake: according to www.netcraft.com,
> drestib.ic.net is running Apache on FreeBSD. But then, so is
> Microsoft's own www.hotmail.com.
Hey Dress, what's the deal? I thought you preferred NT.
HYPOCRITE!
--
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: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 11:11:45 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > First Multi-processing kernal 1970 1995
> > >
> > > NT was released in 93, not 95.
> >
> > Oooooooooh, 23 years behind, not 25.
>
> Considering that MS didn't even exist when Unix was born, it would be hard
> for them to have done it first. Even so, MS was a PC equipment company,
> multiprocessor PC's were not even invented until the mid-80's, and weren't
> common enough to warrant a consumer OS until the 90's.
So, then, what's their excuse for not having implemented these things
ASAP.
DR-DOS implemented true Multi-processing in 1985, yet Microsoft
didn't accomplish the same task for another 8 years.
AND DR-DOS WAS ONLY 2 YEAR OLD!!!!!
>
> > > > Full networking support 1984 1995
> > >
> > > Windows for Workgroups was released in 93.
> >
> > 9 years AFTER Unix.
>
> MS was doing networking in the 80's with OS/2. It made no sense to include
Microsoft did no such thing.
OS/2 is an IBM product, you ninny!
> it with DOS at the time, and it was generally an add-on package because most
> users didn't have a need for it.
>
> > > > No differentiation between remote 1984 never implemented
> > > > users and console users
> > >
> > > There was no such thing as a console user in Unix until the 80's. Even
> the
> > > "console" was a serial terminal in the old days.
> >
> > You confirm my point!
>
> That can also be a drawback as well.
>
> > > Likewise, we could add:
> > >
> > > When did Unix start getting direct video support for local users instead
> of
> > > forcing all UI data to go through sockets?
> >
> > 1984, Sun Windows (Sun Microsystems)
>
> I don't think X had local framebuffers in 84.
SunWindows is not X, dork.
>
> > > > First Multi-user kernal 1970 never implemented
> > >
> > > For what it's worth, Windows 2000 has full multi-user capabilities, and
> NT
> > > had basic multi-user support since it's creation.
> >
> > 2+ simultaneous users, each able to run any arbitrary command through
> > either a CLI or a GUI interface???
> >
> > Nope, uh-uh, try again.
>
> Yes. Terminal services provides complete multi-user capability. And it
> ships with Win2000 server and advanced server.
So, finally, after 20 years, Microsoft accomplishes the same
thing that their predessorcs accomplished in the 1960's on puny
little 16k machines.
Forgive me if my applause is silent.
>
> > > > Configuration changes w/o rebooting 1970 never implemented
> > >
> > > Really? Modify your kernel and see changes get updated without
> rebooting.
> >
> > Hardware configuration changes under Unix do NOT force a kernal change.
>
> Really? In every single Unix that has existed since 1970?
Yup.
>
> > The only time you need to modify the kernal is to:
> > a) fine tune the kernal (buffer or shared mem allotment).
> > One CAN do this by running a debugger in /dev/kmem.
> > b) upgrade the O/S.
>
> Really? Let's see you do that on SCO Unix from 1985.
So, you want to compare M$ -2000 products with 1985 Unix.
That's an admission of defeat if I've ever seen one.
>
> > > > First non-fragmenting filesystem 1983 never implemented
> > >
> > > There's no such thing as a non-fragmented filesystem. All filesystems
> > > fragment, some more so than others.
> >
> > Wrong. Sun first came out with non-fragmenting filesystem. When
> > a file is about to be fragmented, it is moved to a larger block of
> > open diskspace. Only when the a file occupies the LARGEST block of
> > contigous disk space does the file become fragmented.
>
> Wait a minute... You just said "Only when...does the file become
> fragmented". So how does that dispute the fact that I said all filesystems
> fragement? Clearly this does fragment under the right conditions.
>
> > On the large majority of installations, this works good enough so that
> > NO file is ever fragmented.
>
> Funny, my redhat box claims a 2.7% fragmentation.
>
> > > > full remote administration possible, 1970 never implemented
> > > > including O/S install
> > >
> > > NT has always had remote administration.
> >
> > For *some* tasks.
>
> Never used SMS?
I keep my hands clean of such abominations.
> > > > GUI's available 10 1
> > >
> > > X is the GUI, that severely limits the number of non-X interfaces. A
> window
> > > manager is not a GUI.
> >
> > By your definition, Windows doesn't have a gui.
>
> No, the GUI is simply part of the OS, not a seperate app.
spin spin spin...
>
> > > > Notice a pattern yet, spell-check boy?
> > >
> > > Yes, I noticed how you didn't get a single thing right.
> >
> > So my dates are off on M$ implementation dates.
>
> In some cases, off by over a decade.
but not about who implemented what first....which is the fundamental
point...M$ is a "market leader" in absolutely NOTHING...because
M$ is a follower...and usually can't even do that right...so they
just buy the competition after they figure out that not only do
they not know how to develop a competing product, but that they
can't.
>
> > You still haven't pointed out a single technology where Microsoft
> > has implemented a *modern* technology in even the same year as
> > Unix...let alone before.
>
> Well, consider that MS was doing things like DirectX first.\
And what is so special about DirectX other than the fact that it's
a big freaking security hole? DirectX accomplishes NOTHING of
benefit which can't be accomplished by other, MUCH more secure means.
>
> > And how come some things that Unix had implemented since DAY ONE
> > still have not been implemented in Windows (for example, true
> > multi-user functionality...something which has been industry
> > standard since the late 1950's).
>
> I already proved that wrong.
introducing multi-user ability in the year 2000 is nothing to brag
about.
If anything, it's something to be ASHAMED of.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Oh, this is a good one
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:25:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 21 Jul 2000 03:11:47 GMT
<8l8f1j$3b1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on 19 Jul 2000 22:32:16 GMT
>> <8l5a9g$2uu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>http://www.msnbc.com/msn/432208.asp
>>>
>>>This may very well be the funniest one yet...Dresden? Any
>>>comments?
>>
>> Hm...404'd on me. Mind you, I'm using Lynx.
>>
>
>Ah, it seems to be gone now. Go figure.
>
>Heres more:
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2285401.html
>
>And more:
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS00-043.asp
>
>The problem appears to be the possible induction into memory of malicious
>code and its subsequent execution...In other words, all you need to do is
>READ your mail. Opening attachments is not nessesary.
>
>Apparantly W2K SP1 fixes this, though that has not been confirmed.
>
>What was that about a bugless operating system, dresden?
Ah, yes, the old "buffer overflow" exploit. Figures.
At least I can read these URLs; wonder why the original
one 404'd. I hope it's not because MSNBC didn't like
the news item. :-)
(Linux is not immune to this problem, BTW. It just seems
to happen much more frequently on NT nowadays, because Linux
code has now been beaten to death. :-) But they do occur.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Buffer overflow? What buffer overfl.238&#@&*@(^!@..."
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 22 Jul 2000 15:58:29 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: > Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > : Drestin Black wrote:
: >
: > : >
: > : > why is it that VB being windows specific is a problem?
: > : >
: > : > how many people write applications with portability as their first concern?
: >
: > : Any decent programmer. You never know when a program may have to be moved to
: > : another platform.
: >
: > Traditionally, most UNIX programmers do take up a project with
: > portability/POSIX compliance in mind. But most Windows programmers
: > do not concern themselves with anything outside of Win32, because
: > in most cases, they do not need to.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: You misspelled:
: "because in most cases, they are unaware of other platforms, let alone
: the concept of porting."
Making sweeping generalizations is not usually a very accurate
way to portray a group. I think it depends upon the person.
Some people that I know who tend to prefer Win32 programming also know a
great deal (read: they've forgotten more than I'll ever know) about POSIX
compliant coding. And then I know some people who have found themselves
in the programming circle, by mere circumstance (ie: political science
majors who ended up coding in Visual C++ because it looked interesting to
them). Often, yes, those people tend to be rather "in the dark" about
other platforms, but by no means would I imply that they're intellectually
inferior, based on that premise. As I said, it depends upon the person.
With that said, yes, there are a lot of idiots out there. Some of them
use Windows. Some of them use UNIX environments. And idiot is an idiot,
no matter what platform they are using.
At my University (when me and my bretheren came in on covered wagons
(okay, I'm only 29, but in the realm of electronics, anything that is 29
years old is an antique)), programmers learned not only Windows
programming (at that time, Windows v3.1 was the standard, and Win32 was
far off on the horizon), but there was a huge amount of requirements for
learning POSIX-compliant coding as well.
I had some courses which gave me programming experience on platforms such
as on SunOS, Xenix, Windows v3.1, and even DOS (ick!), and I wasn't even a
Computer Science major (although, I might as well had been :-).
Perhaps things are different in academentia these days. But with freely
available OSen such as FreeBSD, and Linux, it's very doubtful. In fact,
I'd venture to guess that UNIX environments have a much greater prescence
in academia these days, thanks to OpenSource/GNU/FSF projects.
--
.-----.
|[ ] | Stephen Edwards | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "I'm too polite to use that word, so I'll just say,
| | 'bite me, you baboon-faced ass-scratcher.'"
|_..._| --SEGA's Seaman on the "F" word.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: 22 Jul 2000 16:05:36 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Slava Pestov) wrote in <iF8e5.64$9l1.6249
> @news0.optus.net.au>:
>
>>Because you post the same crap all the time, and instead of bothering
>>to RTFM, or contribute fixes, or actually read people's responses,
>>you insult Linux and Open Source. Linux isn't owned by one company,
>>after all; no-one is obliged to make things work for you. If something
>>breaks, fix it and contribute back to the community; then the next
>>guy won't experience the problem.
>
> I fixed it myself, thank you very much.
You did not, you liar.
> Yes I did do some reading (despite
> your comments above).
>
No you didnt, liar. You have been caught in your lies around these
parts half a dozen times. No one takes you seriously at all.
> As for insulting Linux and Open Source, I've not done that.
Lie.
> If no-one is obliged to make things work for me, why should I feel any
> obligation to contribute?
>
Go back to windows and stay there. You do not have the intellect for
linux, quite clearly.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Mrs Drestin Black
Date: 22 Jul 2000 16:08:54 GMT
Bob Tennent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:18:27 +0000, Jacques Guy wrote:
> >Copied and pasted from Mr Drestin Black's URL:
> >
> >http://drestinb.ic.net/private.htm
> >
> >Not bad-looking at all, Osin, and... dressed in black!
> >
> >I am a bit disappointed by that particular URL, though.
> >Although it was produced with Microsoft Frontpage 4.0,
> >it lacks Dresden's dreaded profession of faith:
> >
> ><!-- Linux SUX -->
> >
> >which you can see at
> >
> >http://drestinb.ic.net/hideout.htm
> >
>
> There must be some mistake: according to www.netcraft.com,
> drestib.ic.net is running Apache on FreeBSD.
All of this came up a few months ago actually, check dejanews.
And yes, much to dresden's shagrin, his porn site is running on
freebsd.
Dresden is a pornographer. Theres nothing wrong with that.
But he certianly is not a programmer of any sort, and very probably
not even an 'IT' professional.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAa
Sorry, I typed 'IT' again.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
