Linux-Advocacy Digest #5, Volume #28 Wed, 26 Jul 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!! (lyttlec)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! ("James Stutts")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! ("James Stutts")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Slipping away into time. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future? ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:46:22 GMT
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Sun makes its money from the hardware, not the software. So they can
> >afford to give away Solaris ( and charge lots for the hardware and the
> >software they do sell). Linux has helped Sun by introducing lots of
> >people to the Unix paradigm and letting them know that there is an
> >alternative to Windows. But Sun has always hedged its bets, by not
> >supporting Linux too much.
>
> Linux also has the nice feature of being a good development
> platform for Solaris, since it is heavily source-compatible, something
> that cannot be said of Windows.
>
> I've seen the claim that x86 Solaris is mainly supported to
> provide a development platform for Sparc Solaris; the rise of Linux makes
> x86 Solaris less necessary for that task, and also creates a larger
> developer and user base for Unix-compatible software, which only helps Sun.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
That is correct. The last couple of CS classes I took, I did my homework
at home on a Linux machine, uploaded it to the University Sun machines
and had it compile first time everytime. It was also fairly easy to port
the homework over to Windows. However, those who did the work first on
Windows had a much more difficult time porting to the Sun or Iris
machines.
Usually they couldn't port.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:43:05 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was not directed at you, or anyone specific in this forum so you
> will see no apology from me.
What you called geek code would by definition be created and used by geeks.
You already knew that I work with the configuration files, scripts, and
program code; any or all of which could be what you meant by geek code. So,
that was an indirect means to libel me.
If you are at all an honorable man or woman, you would appologize for your
offensive and libellous comment. And don't hide behind the indirect method
that you used to deliver it.
In the end of the port scan attack, I was willing to accept your innocense
on the assumption on your word of honor rather than the evidence that all
pointed to you as the culprit. If you don't appologize then it is clear
that you are not honorable and so your word of honor is worthless. That
would cause me to reconsider your complicity based on the strength of the
evidence against the re-evalulated value of your honor.
> As to your lawsuits?
I did not say, I was going to sue you, I was just warning you that if you
continue making libellous statement like that you could find yourself in
court.
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait!
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:48:32 -0500
Wouter Coene wrote in message ...
>According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> I hear Slackware is a favorite of relatively knowledgeable Linux users.
Is
>> it really any better documentation-wise?
>
>Not really. As for the Linux'es, Debian has the best documentation. But it
>doesn't even get _near_ the quality of the OpenBSD documentation.
>
>The major advantage of Slackware (and the reason I use it) is because it's
>much more UNIX-like than Debian/Redhat/Suse etc etc..
Slack also doesn't keep their code base right at the bleeding edge. Fewer
trinkets=fewer problems.
I've got the latest Slack running on my old 486 laptop. Runs well.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:49:21 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lnjae$ngh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:22:30 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you are able, or willing to read geek code blocks all day.
> >
> >
> > >So, I do question your motives for startng this thread.
> >
> > And what does that have to do with the FACT's.
> >
> > Try the 2 distributions for yourself and see.
> >
> > Typical Linvocate.
> >
> > You guys are really starting to become a sad lot.
> >
> > I point out some facts, which nobody has been able to dis-prove, and
> > don't bother because I really did install both those distributions,
> > and you start playing semantic games.
> >
> > Pretty desperate.
> >
>
> Yes, I do see you are becoming pretty desperate.
>
> WATCH YOUR MOUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I find the use of the word "geek" to describe an intelligent and skilled
> person to be offensive. I will tolerate it somewhat but with ittitation
> when it is used in general. However, I will not tollerate it when
directed
> toward me as you have in your message.
>
> Geek is American slang which means: 1. a freak in a carnival troupe whose
> act consists of eating live animals. 2. any freak or pervert. 3. a
> degenerate.
>
Where did you find your definition?
http://www.m-w.com/home.htm Merriam-Webster website
Main Entry: geek
Pronunciation: 'gEk
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from English dialect geek, geck fool, from Low German
geck, from Middle Low German
Date: 1914
1 : a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually
includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
2 : a person often of an intellectual bent who is disapproved of
- geeky /'gE-kE/ adjective
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait!
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:49:03 -0500
Richard Steiner wrote in message ...
>Here in alt.os.linux, Dana Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake unto us, saying:
>
>>Windows 2000 is the best Linux distribution.
>
>Well, W2K certainly excels at resource consumption, be it memory, disk,
>or cash from your pocketbook. :-)
He should have said that W2k is the best version of Red Hat! ;)
JCS
>
>--
> -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
> OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
> + VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
> I intend to live forever - so far, so good.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:54:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Anyway, you're misunderstanding the person you're responding to. The
>point wasn't that the system would work for one particular application;
>the point was that the system would work for one particular load on the
>system (in this case, one particular combination of running apps), but
>that any new program introduced (or in fact any component) could upset
>that delicate balance. The argument to which you're responding rests on
>recognition that modern computing *is* multiprocessing: this is
>an ability that users expect and depend on, even if you think *you*
>don't.
Yes, I see what you mean. That was what I was trying to describe, in
fact. There's seems some potential for efficiency in establishing a
certain "profile" of scheduling so that a new program introduced can
*adapt*, rather than *upset*, this 'delicate balance'. I have never
argued that modern computing isn't multiprocessing. I've pointed out
that its not necessarily as multi*tasking* as the more advanced users
would automatically assume. It takes a *lot* more to 'get' switching
between active applications then those who are years beyond that point
in their learning curve can really comprehend. The "default" method,
often returned to even after "task-switching" is mastered in theory, is
to use an app until you're done, then close it, and open another app.
Sometimes it is a response to previous problems (users are pretty
selve-motivating when it comes to figuring out what *not* to do, because
last time the computer crashed when you tried that), sometimes it is
simply because its "less confusing". Often, I've noticed, Windows users
have the habit of always "re-starting" an application from the Start
menu, even when its already started and minimized. The average person
takes several *years* before they can automatically recognize and
identify whether they want to restore a running app, or start a new
instance. And with Windows, of course, they're still never really sure
what an "instance". The issue is a problem in any GUI. But with MS's
encouragement of cluelessness, the situation is compounded, of course.
>Please don't respond to this post.
Fat chance.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Slipping away into time.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:58:40 GMT
I've been making some more observations and learning yet another Linux
OS.
It's been pretty well known, for the last couple of years, that FreeBSD
is probably the fastest
server OS there is. Linux is significantly slower than FreeBSD. NT
was just about tied
with Linux 2.2 kernels, falling behind only a slight measure. Then
slightly trailing or leading
were the other OS's. Mostly trailing.
The problem with FreeBSD is they have the fast kernel but, they rely on
GNU licensed software for
just about everything else. It's practically Linux with a FreeBSD
kernel and a slightly different install
mechanism.
The problem with Microsoft OS is the cost, the poor performance, poor
reliability, the fact the
government will break them up,,,, it goes on,,, total lack of security
in design,,, on and on and on....
To design a corporate system using Microsoft as the centerpiece in this
day and age is foolish.
It's so foolish a notion that even some corporate executives are
beginning to see the light in switching.
Imagine how bright a light that must be.
In the last month, I've switched to Debian 2.2 [Potato]. Potato isn't
out yet. It's still a beta.
It's rumored to be out sometime in mid August. Yet, I found the Dselect
packaging system superior
to the RPM based system found in Red Hat and the others. I found the
quality of the distribution much
higher than say Suse 6.4. I found all the tools readily available to me
without encumbrances.
And the cost of installing this OS over my Suse distribution was only 1
hour of my time.
Then I loaded the new HELIX GNOME desktop. What a shining light it is.
In this desktop I have
all the functionality of Windows 2000 for free. And best of all,
Dselect knows to go to the Helix
FTP site to perform any upgrades Helix offers. It's all automatic. I
don't have to do anything.
One final note on Dselect. I merely have to run it once a week to allow
it to upgrade all the packages
on my system. Dselect log's into FTP sites and retrieves information
about specific packages I have
installed which newer software versions are available for. Dselect also
alerts me to the presence of
new software never before offered. Then Dselect automatically
install's/upgrades what I tell it to do.
I don't have to personally download anything first then install it
myself. Dselect performs all this
for me automatically. Dselect even runs the scripted configuration
setup's for me on those packages
which require options. I merely answer the package setup options and
I'm free of editing files.
It makes system upgrades and maintenance very easy.
Finally, we come to the Kernel. I've put the new 2.4 test kernel on.
The 2.4 test kernel is hardly anything
like the 2.2 in performance. It's much faster. Linux is knocking at
FreeBSD's door.
There will probably never be another showdown between Microsoft and
Linux in the OS department.
Windows 2000 was a factor slower than NT. And the NEW Linux is
significantly faster than the OLD Linux. The two OS's are headed in
opposite directions of the performance spectrum as time goes on.
Linux just keeps getting faster while Microsoft just keeps edging it's
way slower.
Microsoft is still locked in software problems, software not working
right. Linux on the other hand
is infinitely more secure and stable and getting better as time goes
on. Blue Screens do not exist on Linux.
Applications on Linux do not become so encumbered by memory situations
they die and leave the mix.
The Linux operating system has true multi tasking. This is the
difference.
The two operating systems are no longer in the same ball park as they
once were. You couldn't do a
side by side test between them today.. What would you test if you did?
Linux would easily outrun
Windows 2000. Microsoft wouldn't have a remote chance in a security
showdown. Microsoft wouldn't
win in the COST of ownership department. If it were ease of use on the
desktop, they are currently
tied. There's nothing I can do on a Windows 2000 desktop I can't do on
a Gnome desktop.
I don't even need to point out the fact that the government is going to
break Microsoft into pieces.
I don't need to remind you that Linux is immune to financial
considerations Microsoft must face.
Truly, RED HAT, MANDRAKE, SUSE, CALDERA, while they won't go bankrupt,
even if they did,
Linux would continue on. Debian is proof of that. Microsoft on the
other hand is a very cash conscious
company. Financial losses could harm Microsoft and thus cause their
operating system to cease to
exist and thus your corporate infrastructure with it.
What I do want to point out is that Microsoft has an inferior operating
system from this point in time
forward. The amount of money they will be required to spend on their
system in an effort to catch up
with Linux will be enormous. Chasing Linux down the software trail is
similar to your family dog
attempting to retrieve a semi truck cruising through your neighborhood.
It's an impossible task.
Truly the efforts of 100,000 some odd volunteers working across the
entire Linux spectrum simply
dwarf the efforts of the total population of Microsoft employee's world
wide.
At this particular point in time, Microsoft is staying in business on
it's past reputation solely as
Microsoft has no future. Microsoft has had 0% growth in the market
place in the last year. That's
the first year we've been able to measure this accurately since the
inception of the company.
AND, while I'll probably be reading the usual brain dead comments from
the so-called in-the-know
future fast food employee's association, I just wanted to let the rest
of the user base know how things stand.
Maybe it's time you made a change in your life and forgot what it might
do FFFEA folks and
their paychecks.
After all, aren't you sick and tired of spending $2,000 a year on
Microsoft software and computers to
keep up with the Gates of this world after you'd been told all this time
there were noting but Windows.
I encourage everyone I know to try Linux. I want you to be on a winning
team and be happy.
Charlie Ebert
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:06:46 +1000
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:...
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot
in
> the
> > > > > consumer world.
> > > >
> > > > That's absolutely, totally wrong. . . like saying the chemical
> > > > properties of iron are moot in the consumer world, such a statement
> > > > defies reality. Reality includes things like paint, undercoating
and
> > > > specialized additives to motor oil.
> > >
> > > No, it's like saying the chemical *composition* of paint is irrelvant
in
> the
> > > consumer world. Which it is.
> >
> > Nope. The chemical composition of paint is *VERY* relative to consumers
> > . . . hence the advertising based on precisely that.
>
> I think you'll find it is the attributes that chemical composition
exhibits,
> rather than the composition itself, that matters to consumers.
>
> IOW "resists harsh sunlight for 20 years" is more relevant than "contains
> <some obscue chemical compound".
>
> > > > Yep. But the difference between an operating system, and a
> distribution
> > > > built up around that OS very meaningful to the consumer world. They
> > > > just don't understand proper terminology, is all.
> > >
> > > Very true, but if you're going to talk to such people you need to talk
> in
> > > language *they* understand.
> >
> > And so the first step is: consumer education.
>
> "Educating" people about the technical details of an OS is not something
you
> can do with a 10 word advertisement.
>
> What you are proposing is akin to requiring people know how an engine
works
> before they purchase a car.
>
> > > > Continuing to use the term "OS" improperly is not a good answer.
> > >
> > > Well, when you've come up with a practicaly way to re-educate the vast
> > > majority of the computing world as to the technical definitions of
"OS"
> and
> > > "distribution", let me know.
> >
> > I'm already giving an example here: use the terms properly, define them
> > for those who use them improperly.
>
> Explaining the difference between "an OS" and "a distribution" in terms of
> CS is not something that can be done without the other party having a
> certain amount of knowledge about CS in general.
>
> Most people do not have, do not need and do not want to spend time gaining
> that knowledge. They have other, better things to do like gossiping at
the
> coffe shop over a latte.
>
> > > Until then, I fear, only stress and
> > > frustration await you in any discussions with non-CS participants.
> >
> > I don't get stressed out or frustrated by teaching . . . it's part of
> > what I do for a living.
>
> If you teach for a living, you're teaching people who actually want to
learn
> (something). That's a big difference from people who don't.
>
> > > > Yes. Distros . . . short for Linux distributions, not short for
"The
> > > > Linux Operating System".
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should tell that to most of the commercial distro vendors
?
> >
> > They are well aware of that fact already, and it shows in their new
> > product announements, in that line where they tell the customer which
> > version of the Linux kernel they are basing their distribution on.
>
> From http://www.redhat.com/products/:
>
> "
> Introducing Red Hat Linux 6.2--the newest addition to Red Hat's line of
> award-winning operating systems.
> Red Hat Linux 6.2 features improved high-availability clustering, powerful
> installation, and a host of advanced support options. We've also included
> some of the world's most popular Internet applications: Apache, Sendmail,
> and Samba.
>
> Red Hat Linux is the most trusted open source operating system in the
world.
> Our services and support programs complete an Internet business computing
> solution that commands the full power and control of Red Hat Linux.
>
> New features of Red Hat Linux 6.2:
>
> Improved high-availability clustering support with our new Web-based
> configuration tool
> Enhanced software RAID
> Improved X configuration
> New comprehensive Documentation CD
> More support options, including installation support
> Included support
>
>
> Red Hat Linux Standard Edition
> 30 days Priority Online Access to software updates
> 90 days Web- or email-based installation support
>
> Red Hat Linux Deluxe Edition
> 90 days Priority Online Access for software updates
> 30 days telephone installation support
> 90 days Web- or email-based installation support
>
> Red Hat Linux Professional Edition
> 180 days Priority Online Access for software updates
> 30 days telephone installation support
> 90 days Web- or email-based installation support
> "
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:01:25 -0400
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > In alt.destroy.microsoft Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :
> > : "I this WERE to happen". "Were" is the subjunctive, expressing a
> > : contrary-to-fact
> > : condition. Understood is: "but it will not happen". An example in
> > : plainer English
> > : "If I were a rich man" implying: "I am not".
> > :
> >
> > This is a ridiculous play with words. You take 'were' here to imply
> > 'that is not currently the case'. Then you make the ridiculously HUGE
> > inference from that that it will NOT BE THE CASE. Max Devlin is talking
> > about the future, you are talking about the present/past.
>
> Firstly, I am not quoting Max Devlin, I am quoting the article to
> which he refers.
>
> Secondly, the subjunctive in a conditional proposition does serve
> to express a contrary-to-fact condition. "If this was to happen"
> leaves open the possibility that it may happen. "If this were" rules
> it out.
Not where I come from. Either form would be correct in normal usage
to set the condition. After all, was is the singular past indicative (1st &
3rd person)
and were is the second person singular and plural and first and third person
plural past indicative of be.
ie, I was reading this, he was reading this, we were reading this. but then
we got bored and gave up.
>
> Thirdly, I will freely admit that many native English speakers have
> no idea of what the subjunctive conveys, as I have sometimes been
> corrected for using it (saying "if I were" when I was not).
>
> However... "usurp" now.
>
> In fact your
> > first interpretation of 'were' is wrong. 'If this WERE to happen' is
> > merely speculating about the future, and says NOTHING about the present
> > situation.
> >
>
> > : "USURP". I'll just copy the definition out of the Collins Cobuild,
> > : about the best
> > : dictionary of modern English there is: "If you usurp a job, role,
> > : title, or
> > : position, you take it from someone, especially when you have no right
> > : to
> > : do this."
> >
> > Do you mean here that Microsoft has NO right to OS dominance?
>
> You got *this* right (oh, a pun!).
>
> > The 'right' is probably meant to mean: 'given Microsoft's financial
> > size and historical dominance' as supposed to 'given Microsoft's fine
> > workmanship'.
>
> I am quoting the Cobuild, and its authors certainly did not construct
> that definition for the benefit of Microsoft. All right, I'll quote
> the 22-volume Oxford: "usurp... to appropriate wrongfully". Is that
> clear enough?
>
> The gist of the article to which Max Devlin referred is clear:
>
> 1. Linux will not "gain measurable market share in the desktop
> audience"
>
> 2. The share it may gain is "usurped," i.e. wrongfully appropriated.
>
> That is called (*snicker*) unbiased reporting.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:07:12 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> However, in practice, such "ownership" might as well be the
> >> ownership of Pokemon cards. I notice that Mr. Kulkis is not bragging
> >> about how he and some of his stockholder friends have forced significant
> >> policy changes in the companies that they own stock in.
>
> >Maybe I'm perfectly HAPPY with the current policies of those
> >corporations.
>
> And I'm sure you'd keep on being "happy" even if they tried to
> get some money to Al Gore's Presidential campaign.
Considering Algore's current beliefs viz a viz public policy, I
would say that an executive of any corporation that doesn't have a
direct AND SUBSTANTIAL interest in electric cars (regardless of
efficiency) would be idiotic to contribute to Algore's campaign.
This INCLUDES both the print media and the electronic media.
Since Algore's part of the "nations are obsolete" party, and will do
everything in his power to undermine the constitution INCLUDING
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
> --
> 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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
