Linux-Advocacy Digest #917, Volume #27 Mon, 24 Jul 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: EDS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (Kai Henningsen)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Tim Kelley)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen) (Karl Knechtel)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EDS
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:34:33 -0400
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Christopher Browne wrote:
> > >
> > > Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when ostracus would say:
> > > >Everyone has heard the expression that controlling programmers is like "herding
> > > >cats". Well EDS has shown a commercial were they're doing just that (herding
> > > >cats)..
> > >
> > > ... And they pretended that this was somehow a sensible idea ...
> > >
> > > REALITY is that "herding" and "cats" are not compatible concepts.
> > >
> > > EDS may be able to pay some video producers to put together something
> > > that, for 45 seconds, makes it _appear_ that cats are being herded,
> > > but that is quite distinct from actually being able to go into
> > > business doing that sort of thing.
> > >
> > > It seems pretty consistent with their "business model," quite
> > > frankly...
> >
> > Having contracted for them on 3 different occasions, I would agree.
>
> I still have to. Every day. I depend on them to send one little DDS
> tape every month so that I can update our medicaid database, and for
> the past 6 months each *alternating* tape doesn't include proper
> data. I've called them, emailed them and faxed them about the
> problem. Every time they say they've "fixed it" (after I *finally*
> can get a hold of a live body) it still comes out wrong.
>
> No, my experience with EDS has not been posititive at all. You should
> see some of the nightmare tapes that we got before the system
> "stabilized" (a year-long process in which you exchange a couple dozen
> DDS tapes).
Have you tried escalating this higher (both on your end, AND on
their end) ??
I would suggest bringing it to the attention of YOUR management, and
make note that the EDS people are not fulfilling the contract.
If YOUR people threaten to terminate the contract (or to at least
not renew when it expires), you will find that the EDS people
suddenly discover new motivation to prepare the data properly.
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jul 2000 21:15:00 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russ Allbery) wrote on 11.07.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Quoting Russ Allbery from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 09 Jul 2000 23:10:01
>
> >> Yes, it does, because it's based on copyright law, and copyright law
> >> makes that distinction.
>
> > That would be copyright law making the distinction then, not the GPL.
> > And that is a very important distinction, I think.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > Because, unlike secret source commercial code, it is only copyright law
> > which requires that you agree to the license.
>
> For the time being at least, I believe that's true of commercial code as
> well. I don't believe there is any special statutory power given to
> shrink wrap licenses at this time, although there's an effort underway to
> do that precisely because it looks like copyright law may not be enough to
> support them. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, though, and that's very
> much a legal question.
Around here, I understand the law to be that you need to have been shown
all of the contract at buying time. Adding other bits later (unless
explicitely provided for in the part you've seen, or could have seen had
you bothered) is not legal.
Thus, shrink wrap licenses are (often, not always) in conflict with
*contract* law. And, IMO, quite reasonably so.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:39:38 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Tim Kelley wrote:
> > Think about when the last time there was a national emergency "in
> > your area".
>
> Tornadoes. Floods. Hurricanes. Earthquakes.
Certainly do not need a military to deal with weather disasters.
Next.
> There was a certain week-long riot in Seattle about a year ago.
Caused by police. Next.
> The state military are ALWAYS called up to handle these emergencies.
In part to justify their existence. Still no argument.
> > "National emergencies" of US propped up dictatorships.
>
> Tell me what dictatorship was propped up when the military was
> mobilized to Florida in the wake of Hurricane Andrew?
Bullshit. The military and its 280 billion dollar budget is not
needed for natural disasters.
> > "Economic emergencies" of multi-national corporations.
>
> And the military is utilized in exactly what way?
Desert Storm?
>
> > "Moral emergencies" against it's own population (the drug war in
> > case you were too dull to figure that out).
>
> Blame your congressman for that, dude.
Whatever, it's all the same thing.
> > Now what would you know about being a man?
>
> I've saved lives. Have you?
What does that have to do with it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:51:12 GMT
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:42:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>> Hardly. This action was brought about under a 100 year old
>>> statute. Microsoft just blew it off and suffered the fate
>>> of ANYONE that blows off a judge.
>>
>>Hmmm... the Clayton Act of 1914 is the basis for the Microsoft vs DOJ case,
>>the Sherman Act of 1890 was focused on restraint of Interstate and Foreign
>>trade. Subtle difference.
> Are you trying to seriously claim that the bulk of Microsoft
> business doesn't fall into that category?
Do you claim that the "abuse of monopoly power" charge makes sense in this
context?
MK
---
There is no leftist thinking other than inherently muddleheaded thinking.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
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:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:51:26 GMT
On 21 Jul 2000 00:29:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) 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.
>>No, it's nearly egalitarian's dreamworld -- almost all starve equally.
>
> ROTFL. That's not egaltarianism but just the opposite.
Scuze me?! That's sharing _equally_ whatever is there, or whatever
is lacking. That's egalitarianism -- sharing benefits and miseries
(almost) equally.
Petrich, your brain is fried! You don't get the simplest ideas right!
MK
---
There is no leftist thinking other than inherently muddleheaded thinking.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 24 Jul 2000 15:48:49 -0500
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 21 Jul 2000 13:27:07 -0500,
> Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8l8bi7$4sk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:LlId5.36590$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > Can you be more specific? In what way is VB failing on a large scale
> >that
> >> is
> >> > not revealed to us "little scale" programmers who are having no
trouble
> >> > using VB for most anything.
> >>
> >> Can you write a an operating system kernel in BASIC. Say a replacement
> >for
> >> the Linux kernel?
> >
> >I imagine you could - I expect there would be many sections that would be
> >best server by calls to highly optimized assembly (as I often do when
using
> >BASIC).
> >
> >Can you tell me why you couldn't write an OS kernel in BASIC? Then, why
> >couldn't you in Perl or Python or Java or ...?
>
> Given that perl python and java are note compiled to machine executable
code
> until they hit the interpreter (or JVM) how in heavens name would you
write
> an OS Kernel in one?
OK, that takes care of those ... :)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 24 Jul 2000 15:50:31 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> John Hall wrote:
> >
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:LlId5.36590$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > No, I mean it's a simple language, good for simple jobs. Not for
large
> > > scale
> > > > complex jobs, or jobs with specific hardware interface requirements.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you be more specific? In what way is VB failing on a large scale
that
> > is
> > > not revealed to us "little scale" programmers who are having no
trouble
> > > using VB for most anything.
> >
> > VB has very poor error handling (well certainly the versions I've
sed) -
> > it makes it very difficult to write large-scale, robust applciations.
> >
>
> The problem is fools like DB who have a trade-school education,
> yet think they're in posession of PhD level knowledge.
>
oh give me a break - aaron you've demonstrated ZERO computer knowledge and
even less programming skills. All you've done is insult.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 24 Jul 2000 15:50:47 -0500
"John Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pZoe5.4332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l49rh$2or$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > But there are a great many tasks for
> > > which it is not really suitable.
> >
> > Outside of a few performance critical areas, these would be ?
>
> Anything reasonably large. VB lacks decent error handling and writing
larger
> projects which are robust in it is difficult IME.
what's wrong with the error handling in VB?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:51:58 GMT
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:54:35 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:40:51 -0400,
>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >But you are forgetting that without the military's
>> >receiving those tax dollars, Americans might have made
>> >such things on their own.
>> >
>>
>> Except that the private sector simply isn't willing to make huge up
>> front investments in new technologies that won't pay off till decades
>> later. Two good additional examples are the railroads and civillian
>> aviation, both of which were fisrt invested in heavily by the
>> Government and later privitized when people realized their was money
>> to make off of it.
>
>Not sure about railroads. And are you sure that government did a
>better job with the money than private citizens would have done?
This presumes that those private citizens/companies would
have shown the foresight to bother, rather than persuing
more immediate selfish goals.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 24 Jul 2000 15:53:30 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > If you knew anthing about RDBMs you would know the os makes no
> > > difference on
> > > the outcome, THe RDBM doesn`t really use the os.
> >
> > HAHAHA - excuse me? I think that you are completely misinformed. You are
> > wrong. Totally. That's like saying: RDBM doesn't use files or memory.
>
> Actually, most high end DBMS systems circumvent the file system by
> accessing the lowlevel block device directly. Also, they usually
> allocate a huge amount of RAM and manage the memory internally.
Does Oracle bypass the file system entirely? Does SQL Server?
yes, they do manage their own memory but bypassing the OS and it's file
system (and security)?? I do not believe that is true for DB2, Oracle or SQL
Server - the only three I'm interested in herein.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:06:14 GMT
Ah, a beautiful day for a relaxing round of Tholen emulation...
tinman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <SfMe5.2584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: wrote:
: > Here's today's Tinman digest:
: >
: > 1> Of course.
: >
: > You just admitted to pontificating, Tinman.
: Not at all.
Prove it, if you think you can.
: > 1> Don't you know, Davie?
: Don't you know, Davie?
Argument by repetition, tinman? Ineffective.
: > 1> Don't you know, Davie?
: Don't you know, Davie?
Argument by repetition, tinman? Ineffective.
: > 1> The one just above.
: >
: > Classic circular reasoning.
: Of course, oh might turntable.
Typical invective.
: > 1> There, you did it again. ("
: >
: > How ironic, considering your persistence, Tinman.
: I learned from the master.
Irrelevant.
: > 1> That which is self-evident provides it own evidence.
: >
: > Which presupposes the existence of evidence, TInman.
: Indeed. And your mispelling's getting worse.
Non sequitur.
: > 1> Don't you understand the term, Davie?
: >
: > Who is that, Tinman?
: "term" is a what, not a who, Davie.
"Davie" is a who, neither a what nor a "term", tinman.
: > 1> That is self-evident.
: >
: > On what basis do you make that claim, Tinman?
: That which is self-evident provides it own evidence.
Typical circular reasoning.
: > 1> Experience shows otherwise.
: >
: > Whose alleged experience, Tinman?
: Mine, of course.
Your experience is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
: > 1> ('
: >
: > What is that supposed to mean, Tinman?
: Don't you know?
Obviously not, tinman.
: > 1> It's a search engine, Davie.
: >
: > Who is that, Tinman?
: A search engine is a what, not a who, Davie.
"Davie" is a who, neither a "what" nor a "search engine", tinman.
: > 1> On the contrary.
: >
: > Even more pontification.
: Illogical, Davie.
Who is that, tinman?
: > 1> ('
: >
: > What is that supposed to mean, Tinman?
: Don't you know?
Obviously not, tinman.
: > 1> Obviously you agree, or you wouldn't answer.
: >
: > Illogical, Tinman. I was asking, not answering.
: Asking what, Davie?
Don't you know?
: > 1> Incorrect.
: >
: > Even more pontification.
: Incorrect.
Even more pontification.
: > 1> Incorrect
: >
: > Even more pontification.
: >
: > 1> Incorrect.
: >
: > Even more pontification.
: The turntable, Davie, keep hitting it.
Balderdash.
: > 1> Hit the turntable, Davie,
: >
: > Who is that, Tinman?
: A turntable is a what, not a who, Davie.
"Davie" is a who, neither a "what" nor a "turntable", tinman.
: > 1> you're stuck.
: >
: > Even more pontification.
: Incorrect.
Even more pontification.
: > 1> Illogical.
: >
: > On what basis do you make that claim, Tinman?
: Knowledge of logic, Davie.
What alleged "Knowledge of logic", tinman?
: > 1> Hit the turntable, Davie.
: >
: > Who is that, Tinman?
: For the last time in this post,
Incorrect. See below.
: a turntable is a what, not a who, Davie.
A turntable is a what, not a who, Davie.
')
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
... Actually, tinman emulation seems to have its benefits as well...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 24 Jul 2000 16:00:40 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lebdr$66h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> Great. Did you *read* that white paper? Did you notice what was missing
> >> from it?
>
> >So, you are calling me a liar eh?
>
> No, I am pointing out to you that the white paper you so gleefully pointed
> at does not ever mention any uptime percentages.
>
> >And when proven dead wrong you will do what?
>
> Admit it.
>
> >Allow me go go way way past 99.999% - let's go right for 100% - yep, 100%
> >hardware and software availablity and I'll point you here:
>
> >http://www.stratus.com/products/nt/dhbrown.htm#_Toc464017357
>
> Oh, great --- you *do* know what this *is*, don't you? It's a *summary*
> of a *report* by D.H. Brown Associates, Inc.
>
> Come back when you can point out that Stratus actually says anything about
> 99.999% or more system availability for "NT solutions".
>
> >Now - there it is in black and white. 100% availability for both
hardware
> >and the OS. I'll await your apology.
>
> Here is another thing, in white on black:
>
> Drestin owes Bernie $10,000,000
>
> Does that make it true?
>
Gee then, I guess we an believe NOTHING written on the web ... We can print
summaries of reports but that's meaningless cause, well, cause it's just
some letters on a screen... means nothing according to bernie. it's
worthless unless it supports his point of view. I can only tell you that
Stratus tells me that they sell server with 99.999% uptime guarentees,
including the OS. That's what they claim and I repeated it. That's it. I
guess they even have clients who've experience no down time but I suppose
you'll reply: "yet" - to which I'd say: "is true for every single claim"
sigh...
what's the point of this - is it this hard for you to admit that Windows
2000, something you obviously have very little exprience with, can be as
stable and reliable as another OS. OSes are written by people, some better
some worse - your automatic assumtion that since the evil MS empire and it's
minions created this beast and in the past your experiences with W9x are
less than 100% in your liking that it's impossible to admit that they could
have got it right with W2K. That ALL the people reporting perfect uptime
records must be lying or paid off? I just don't get it... until you can show
me stacks of W2K servers crashing with blue splattered on every screen, I
don't see where you get off denying something you obviously have no problem
accepting from smaller vendors of various custom version of *nix who are
under almost no press scrutiny and who's names, if tarnished by a failure,
would mean nothing in the bigger picture.
So, unless you can prove that Stratus is lying - why should we not believe
they and their customer testimonials are telling the truth?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:04:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 22 Jul 2000 19:50:04 -0500
<5ire5.8307$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
><snip>
>> Ye gods; strings to do endianity flips? Try this one:
>
>> I'm not sure which one would be faster or is cleaner, but both would
>> beat your string handler.
>
>Ghost and everyone else - HONESTLY! I wasn't trying to win an award or make
>the singular most efficient function. I looked at it, and hammered out the
>quickest way I could think of. brute force and ugly, yep. Works, yep. Just
>had to prove the point that it could be done. THAT'S ALL! As I wrote
>elsewhere, these kind things I hate doing because of precisely this. it
>would not have matter WHAT code I wrote, someone can always comment: "oh,
>you are stupid, you could have done it this way instead." :)
One could do it the following way in BASIC. Granted, my syntax may be
a wee bit rusty:
INL = whatever
OUTL = ((INL / 16777216)&255) | (INL / 256)&65280)|(INL * 256)&16711680
|(INL*16777216)&(-16777216)
It also has the nasty problem of being highly machine-specific;
it assumes 32-bit words. (Classical BASIC also doesn't have a shift
operator.)
Note that 65280 = 0xFF00, and 16711680 = 0xFF0000. I don't remember
whether Microsoft VB supports hex constants, or not.
>
>Anyway, yes, string for math - lame to be sure, but, I never do endian
>operations, ever. So, I just did the quickest thing I could think of. That's
>all...
There is one advantage of programming exclusively on Wondows; endianity
is never a problem. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 24 Jul 2000 16:09:33 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Drestin Black in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Now - there it is in black and white. 100% availability for both
hardware
> >and the OS. I'll await your apology.
>
> I'm notoriously bad at following silly, pedantic refutations, so I have
> to be honest with you. I didn't even read your post; I skimmed it, and
> found some sort of "oh yeah, well..." followed by an url. You seem to
> have set up some explicit argument, which I surmise was by act of
> trolling, and then hit your "you said I lied and that means exactly
> this, and here's the proof" bullshit square-center and splattered it all
> over our newsgroups.
>
> I don't even *care* what "100% availability for both hardware and the
> OS" is supposed to mean. You are either an insane astroturfer or a
> neurotic and misguided individual, Mr. "Drestin Black". I'd just as
> soon have done with you, but kill-filing you wouldn't actually remove
> you from these groups, so its not good enough for me. You're going to
> have to go away.
Um, Mr. Devlin - what are you on?
Why direct this at me? Trolling? I was not trolling. Someone said I lied so
I thought it appropriate that I reply with proof I wasn't. Wouldn't you feel
the same obligation or do you just ignore such things?
You've called me an insane astroturfer or neurotic and misguided
individual - why? I mean, really - WHY?! Are you so afraid of anything that
does not mirror your own opinions that your only defense is to viciously
attack the character of the messenger? Don't agree with me? Fine, say so,
explain yourself, that's what these forums are for. To attack me personally
with insults is ignorance on maximum. It's entirely counterproductive and
demonstrates that you've obviously nothing factual to refute with and only
venomous disregard for how things are done and no consideration for others
feelings or even for the consideration of fellow readers who would like to
find the answers instead of reading unsolicited spueing of unappropriate
insults.
Max Devlin - you have offended me without any justification and if I could,
I would remove you ... first. I wonder if you handle your real life in the
same fashion... scary thought....
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
