Linux-Advocacy Digest #9, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) ("Slava Pestov")
Re: No win situation for Linux market ("Mike")
Re: Slipping away into time. (void)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 27 Jul 2000 04:28:21 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:45:31 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>
>>Only when dealing with people who are incapable of learning new terms
>>that happen to have the same names as words already in their vocabulary.
>>Anyone who wants to understand computers has to learn a lot of very
>>specific specialized meanings for words that they already know, and they
>>have to learn how to use those terms precisely.
>
>Now if only everyone who learned different specific specialized meanings
>for the precise terms, we wouldn't have a problem.
Would you mind rereading this and telling me what it's supposed to say?
>But just as easily
>as "application" gets shredded and maimed between different specialties,
>so does the term "task". You may think of yours has having special
>merit, but those who study "human factors" such as ergonomic engineering
>or interface design have a different, no less specialized, and no less
>precise (though certainly less obscure), meaning.
Great. You want to talk about human factors, learn their definitions.
You want to talk about systems engineering, learn the definitions of the
people who do systems engineering. If you can learn separate
definitions for a term as an everyday term and as a human factors term,
you should be able to learn it as a systems term too without getting the
three definitions confused. Unless perhaps you're finding all of this a
bit much? You can always start a new career teaching gym or something
if all the difficult vocabulary is getting you down.
>Not that there is really all that pristine and perfect a set of
>nomenclature even within a specialty. One of my email correspondents
>pointed me to a question asked on a web board by someone engaged in the
>honorable pursuit of knowledge to which you specifically refer (Computer
>Science). The response was quite explicit in recognizing that the terms
>"job", "task", and "process" are not at all as absolute or precise as
>most assume or believe, even within that field, though it did give an
>example of the common usage.
You tell me of a scholar asking a question that led to acknowledgement
of ambiguity in the nomenclature of systems engineering. I see you
trying to point out such flaws all the time. The scholar is successful
where you fail -- why? Because the scholar has no contempt for the
system of thought that he criticizes. He understands that his criticism,
far from discrediting the nomenclature, actually legitimizes it; if the
system of thought weren't useful, he wouldn't be studying it, he
assumes.
But you haven't studied operating systems terminology. You have no
reason to believe that the terminology is valid -- a bunch of folks on
Usenet say so, but you don't know them from Adam, so why should you
believe them? You want to criticize the concepts, but you're too
impatient or something to learn how they fit together first. You really
appear intellectually lazy to me.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:50:41 +1000
"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:52:31 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > "void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > There is no excuse for Win9x. It is poorly engineered, period.
> >
> > No, it's quite well engineered. You have to think about the design
> > considerations and restrictions when making such a statement, not how
well
> > it might compare to a product which had an entirely *different* set of
> > design restrictions and considerations.
>
> I don't really see how Windows benefitted from lacking a sane shared
> library system for so long, for example.
What is insane about DLLs (note, how they are designed, not used) ?
And that really doesn't have anything to do with the original issue.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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 04:44:15 GMT
In article <8lo2qr$qvg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:17:53 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:12:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
> >
> > >>And most Linux distros comes with at least three browsers (kfm,
> > >>netscape, lynx).
> >
> > >That makes perfect sense to me. So why can't Windows come with even
> > >one browser?
> >
> > If it came with three I think MS would have had less trouble with the
> > DoJ. Even if two of them were installed by OEMs. Which OEMs wanted to
> > do but for some reason MS decided that doing so would demean the
> > "Windows Experience".
>
> Microsoft never stopped OEMs installing alternative browsers. Ever. It
> *specifically* says that in the FoF.
However:
159. Microsoft knew that the inability to remove Internet Explorer made
OEMs less disposed to pre-install Navigator onto Windows 95. OEMs bear
essentially all of the consumer support costs for the Windows PC systems
they sell. These include the cost of handling consumer complaints and
questions generated by Microsoft's software. Pre-installing more than
one product in a given category, such as word processors or browsers,
onto its PC systems can significantly increase an OEM's support costs,
for the redundancy can lead to confusion among novice users. In
addition, pre-installing a second product in a given software category
can increase an OEM's product testing costs. Finally, many OEMs see
pre-installing a second application in a given software category as a
questionable use of the scarce and valuable space on a PC's hard drive.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
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 14:56:51 +1000
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8lo6cp$1lr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > "Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80%
> > > marketshare and we have <20%. . . . I am convinced we have to use
> > > Windows -- this is the one thing they don't have. . . . We have to
> > > be competitive with features, but we need something more -- Windows
> > > integration."
> >
> > This is to *beat* Netscape. You should be acutely aware of the power
> > of an entrenched market, being a Mac user and all.
> >
> > Not only that, but Windows integration does offer added features that
> > Netscape didn't and thus did make it a better product. I presume
> > there's a lot more to that particular quote ?
>
> Read the document. There isn't much more to that quote, but it fits in
> with quite a bit of other stuff. I don't feel like pasting 20 pages into
> this post.
A URL would be nice. I don't keep a repository of bookmarks to these sort
of things.
Certainly there would need to be more to that quote to be able to take it in
the singular context of killing netscape. Their talk of Windows
integration, for exmaple, could easily be construed to be for the benefit of
the consumers (and developers).
[chomp]
> > > > Internal documentation continuously taken out of context.
> > >
> > > Please give an example of a context in which...
> > >
> > > "If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly
> > > that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE
> > > and Windows together. This must come from you. . . . Memphis
> > > [Microsoft's code-name for Windows 98] must be a simple upgrade,
> > > but most importantly it must be killer on OEM shipments so that
> > > Netscape never gets a chance on these systems."
> > >
> > > would be an innocent statement.
> >
> > If it was immediately followed by a reply saying "No". If it was one
> > in a number of paragraphs offering alternative methods for beating
> > Netscape.
>
> The response was more like "I agree. Let's delay the release date of
> Windows 98 until we can bolt IE on."
>
> Read the document.
URL, please.
> > If all Microsoft wanted to do was tie IE and Windows to exclude
> > Netscape, then they woulnd't have bothered redesigning the entire
> > product form the ground up to be modular and compentised
>
> =========
> 168. Once Maritz had decided that Allchin was right, he needed to
> instruct the relevant Microsoft employees to delay the release of
> Windows 98 long enough so that it could be shipped with Internet
> Explorer 4.0 tightly bound to it. When one executive asked on January 7,
> 1997 for confirmation that "memphis is going to hold for IE4, even if it
> puts memphis out of the xmas oem window," Maritz responded affirmatively
> and explained,
>
> "The major reason for this is . . . to combat Nscp, we have to []
> position the browser as "going away" and do deeper integration on
> Windows. The stronger way to communicate this is to have a 'new release'
> of Windows and make a big deal out of it. . . . IE integration will be
> [the] most compelling feature of Memphis."
> =========
>
> In other words, anything other than killing Netscape was just
> incidental, according you Microsoft.
That paragraph does nothing to support the position that IE was integrated
primarily to kill netscape.
All it is saying is that IE's integration should be the most compelling
feature of Win98.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 27 Jul 2000 00:04:18 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>> If the sticky bit is set on a regular file and no execute
>> bits are set, the system's page cache will not be used to
>> hold the file's data. This bit is normally set on swap
>> files of diskless clients so that accesses to these files do
>> not flush more valuable data from the system's cache. More-
>> over, by default such files are treated as swap files, whose
>> inode modification times may not necessarily be correctly
>> recorded on permanent storage.
>>
>>The page says nothing about what happens if the execute bits are set.
>
>*Ahem*.
>
>AFAIK...
>
>The actual purpose of the sticky bit (I thought, for this was all I knew
>of it) was for when the execute bits are set. An executable file with
>the sticky bit set runs with the access permissions of the *owner* of
>the file, rather than the account which executed it.
Good grief... That's the setuid bit, not the sticky bit!
>It seems obvious
>why this information seems to have been lost in the mists of time: its a
>horrendous security problem if not watched extremely carefully.
Errr, no. The setuid/setgid bits are as important to set correctly
as any other access control mechanism, but this has nothing to
do with the sticky bit.
Back when processes actually swapped to disk instead of being
demand paged it was slower to start the first instance of a program
and the sticky bit was used as a hint to the VM system not to
discard that loaded copy immediately. Subsequent runs of the
same program would then find and re-use the in-core/swap copy just
like a second instance of a program started before the first one
exited would. An administrator that knew which programs were
started frequently (like vi) but not kept running continuously
(like sh) could make their system run better by setting the
appropriate sticky bits. These days the VM system is more
efficient and may just ignore this hint.
On directories, the sticky bit is overloaded to indicate that only
the owner of a file should be able to delete it (or perhaps that
you must have write access to the file itself, I've forgotten).
Normally the ability to delete a file is controlled only by
the permissions of the containing directory, but the sticky
bit makes it possible to have directories where anyone can
create files (like /tmp) but they can't delete files owned
by others.
>Why do they call it a sticky bit? Is it because, as I first figured
>when I learned about this feature, it is through some analogy of the
>owners permissions "sticking" to the file, available to the person who
>executes it? Or is there some even more bizarre part of this somewhat
>idiosyncratic and certainly not widely implemented tidbit?
The original use was to make an executable 'stick' in core even
though no one was using it for a while. The name doesn't make
much sense for the directory usage, but it's the same bit and
already had the name.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:10:47 +1000
(merging the two threads to save bandwidth)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <Hnwf5.59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> >> >> >> tholenbot wrote, quoting Timan and Slava Pestov time and
>> >> >> >> >> >> again:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> [never mind what he wrote, shouldn't we pass the
>> >> >> >> >> >> hat around to buy him a long-sleeved pajama top,
>> >> >> >> >> >> though?]
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Leave those two young people to their budding tryst, you
>> >> >> >> >> >> miserable bot with a thpeech impediment!
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Typical invective.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I see no invective here.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Predictable, given your reading comprehension problems.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The only thing that is predictable is your continued
>> >> >> >> unsubstantiated claims.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Illogical.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your unsubstantiated claims are indeed illogical.
>> >> >
>> >> > You erroneously presuppose that my claims are "unsubstantiated".
>> >>
>> >> What is so erronous about my presupposition, Eric?
>> >
>> > Self-evident.
>>
>> Impossible. Of course, if you had used the scientific method, you
>> would've recognized that fact.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who failed to use the scientific method.
How ironic, coming from someone who once claimed that radio waves
don't exist.
>> >> >> >> >> > How predictable, coming from one of the antagonists.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I see no antagonist here.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > See above.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Proof by irrelevant reference, eh Eric?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Obviously not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Proof by proclamation, eh Eric?
>> >> >
>> >> > Obviously not.
>> >>
>> >> Evidence, please.
>> >
>> > Self-evident.
>>
>> The only thing that is self-evident is your repeated use of proof by
>> proclamation and proof by irrelevant reference, Eric.
>
> What alleged "irrelevant reference"?
"See above" -- Eric Bennett
> Typical unsubstantiated and erroenous claim.
On the contrary, my claim was both substantitated and correct.
>> >> >> >> >> Gearing up to lose another argument, eh Eric? How
>> >> >> >> >> predictable.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You erroneously presuppose that I could lose "another"
>> >> >> >> > argument.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Are you implying that you have already lost all possible
>> >> >> >> arguments?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Obviously not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Proof by proclamation, eh Eric?
>> >> >
>> >> > Obviously not.
>> >>
>> >> Evidence, please.
>> >
>> > Self-evident.
>>
>> See above.
>
> See above.
Classical circular reasoning. I have already seen the above, and it
contains nothing of relevence to the current argument.
>> >> >> > Meanwhile, where is you logical argument? Why, nowhere to be
>> >> >> > seen!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How ironic you attempted to answer your own question, but failed
>> >> >> to do so correctly.
>> >> >
>> >> > Incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, quite correct. Of course, anyone with decent
>> >> reading comprehension skills would recognize that fact.
>> >
>> > Evidence, please.
>>
>> The evidence is that the answer you gave to your own question is
>> incorrect.
>
> I see you failed to comprehend the answer.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> No surprise there.
Still posting for entertainment purposes, Eric?
>> >> > Meanwhile, you still fail to present a logical argument.
>> >>
>> >> How ironic.
>> >
>> > Evidence, please.
>>
>> You accuse me of not providing a logical argument, when you are in fact
>> the one who has not provided one. Hence the irony.
>
> You are basing your claim on an incorrect premise.
What alleged "incorrect premise"?
> Still taking
> argument lessons from Eric "Master of Erroneous Presupposition" Bennett,
> Slava?
How ironic.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <Rwwf5.61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Another unsubstantiated claim.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Check the archive, Slava.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> The burden of archive checking is yours, tinman. You
>> >> >> >> >> >> made the unsubstantiated claim.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > How ironic, coming from someone who makes unsubstantiated
>> >> >> >> >> > claims without
>> >> >> >> >> > checking archives.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> How ironic you allege that my claims are 'unsubstantiated'
>> >> >> >> >> when you have just made one yourself.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Illogical.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Balderdash.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Typical pontification.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How ironic.
>> >> >
>> >> > See what I mean?
>> >>
>> >> Not unless you mean to dig yourself deeper into that hole, Eric.
>> >
>> > Impossible.
>>
>> Comprehend context, Eric.
>
> The context is your entertainment, Slava.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> I comprehend it perfectly, as
> my above comment demonstrates.
On the contrary. Your illogical comment demostrates otherwise.
>> >> >> >> > I have not made one of your claims.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Correct, but irrelevant, given that I never claimed you did.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Incorrect, Slava.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >> >
>> >> > You already proved it, by making the claim.
>> >>
>> >> What alleged "claim"?
>> >
>> > Don't you know?
>>
>> Illogical. If I knew, I wouldn't ask.
>
> You admit that you don't know?
Correct.
> The claim whose existence you question
> was part of this discussion.
Incorrect.
> Haven't you been paying attention?
On the contrary. Meanwhile, you still haven't provided evidence of this
alleged "claim".
>> > It's your claim.
>>
>> What alleged "claim"?
>
> Haven't you been paying attention?
Expecting people to read your mind, Eric?
>> Prove that this fact exists, if you think you can.
>
> What alleged "fact" am I allegedly suppose to prove, Slava?
It was a typo, Eric. At least I admit my mistakes when I make them.
>> Don't forget to use the scientific method.
>
> Of what relevance is this remark?
See below.
>> >> >> Remember to use the scientific method.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of what relevance is this remark?
>> >>
>> >> Don't you know?
>> >
>> > Why do you think I asked?
>>
>> I have no idea why you asked.
>
> Obviously you are not using the scientific method.
How ironic, coming from someone who routinely fails to use the
scientific method.
> How predictable.
Your continuing illogic is indeed predictable, Eric.
>> Expecting people to read your mind again, Eric?
>
> See what I mean?
No. Expecting people to read your mind again, Eric?
>> >> >> >> > Still having reading comprehension problems, Slava?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> See what I mean?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Illogical.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On the contrary, you simply failed to recognize the logic.
>> >> >
>> >> > There was no logic to recognize, Slava.
>> >>
>> >> How typical, coming from someone who routinely fails to recognize
>> >> logic.
>> >
>> > Evidence, please.
>>
>> It's throughout your posts, Eric.
>
> Then you will have no problem providing a concrete example?
See above for a perfect example of your continuing inability to
recognize logic.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> What alleged "Tholen emissions"?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > The ones that result from digestion,
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> I see no evidence of "digestion" here.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Incorrect, given that neither I nor tinman are currently
>> >> >> >> >> being digested.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > See what I mean?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes, but your meaning is incorrect, thus it is irrelevant.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > See what I mean?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> See above.
>> >> >
>> >> > Typical circular reasoning.
>> >>
>> >> Incorrect.
>> >
>> > On the contrary.
>>
>> Typical pontification.
>
> I see you didn't address the point.
What alleged "point" didn't I "address"?
> No surprise there.
I wasn't trying to surprise you, Eric.
>> >> > Ineffective.
>> >>
>> >> Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Trying to set a record for
>> >> unsubstantiated claims in a single post, eh Eric?
>> >
>> > How ironic.
>>
>> Still unable to answer a simple question logically, Eric?
>
> On what premise do you base this question?
On the premise that, predictably enough, you once again failed to
answer a question logically.
>> >> > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>> >>
>> >> "Meanwhile"? How rich!
>> >
>> > Non sequitur.
>>
>> What is this? "Latin 101"?
>
> Don't you know?
It was a rhetorical question, Eric.
>> >> > Why, nowhere to be seen!
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary. Of course, anyone with open eyes would recognize
>> >> that fact.
>> >
>> > How ironic.
>>
>> How ironic.
>
> Your comments are indeed ironic.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >> >> > Gearing up to lose another argument, Slava?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How ironic, coming from someone who has already lost the
>> >> >> argument.
>> >> >
>> >> > Illogical.
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, my logical argument is quite logical.
>> >
>> > You presuppose that you have a logical argument.
>>
>> Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
>
> Do you usually base your arguments on unproven presuppositions, Slava?
On the contrary. I base my arguments on proven facts.
>> >> > Why do you continue to argue, Slava?
>> >>
>> >> Don't you know?
>> >
>> > Why do you think I asked?
>>
>> I have no idea why you asked. Expecting people to read your mind again,
>> Eric?
>
> See above.
More evidence of your continued use of proof by irrelevant reference.
>> >> >> > 0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What alleged "0"?
>> >> >
>> >> > Ask your mentor, grasshopper.
>> >>
>> >> Illogical, as I have no mentor, and I am not a grasshopper.
>> >
>> > Comprehend context, Slava.
>>
>> How ironic, coming from someone who has serious context comprehension
>> deficencies.
>
> Illogical,
On the contrary, quite logical. Of course, if you had used the scientific
method, you would have recognized that fact.
> given that the text came from me.
Irrelevant.
>> >> Gearing up to lose another argument, Eric?
>> >
>> > Obviously not.
>>
>> The evidence indicates otherwise, Eric.
>
> What alleged "evidence"?
The evidence that you are gearing up to lose another argument.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I wonder how Dave Tholen would react to your
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> claims that he's
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "back on CSMA".
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Ask him, I'm sure he'll answer to your
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > satisfaction.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not here for "satisfaction", tinman.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Then why are you here?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Don't you know?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > I see you didn't answer the question.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The answer was self-evident, Eric.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On what basis do you make this claim?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On the basis that the answer was self-evident, Eric.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Incorrect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How ironic, coming from someone who claims I engage in
>> >> >> "pontification".
>> >> >
>> >> > See what I mean?
>> >>
>> >> Not unless you mean to dig yourself deeper into that hole, Eric.
>> >
>> > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>>
>> Incorrect. My logical arguments are not evidence of my "reading
>> comprehension problems".
>
> I never made such a claim, Slava.
Incorrect. Here is the proof of your claim:
SP] Not unless you mean to dig yourself deeper into that hole, Eric.
EB] More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> How predictable that you would resort
> to making up "facts".
What alleged "facts" did I "resort" to "making up"?
>> >> >> >> >> > Gearing up to lose another argument, Slava?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Obviously not, Eric.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > See what I mean?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes, but your meaning is incorrect, thus it is irrelevant.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Argument by repetition, Slava?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How ironic, coming from someone who has already employed argument
>> >> >> by repetition several times in their post.
>> >> >
>> >> > "their" post?
>> >>
>> >> Correct.
>> >
>> > Illogical.
>>
>> Still taking logic lessons from Pascal "master of illogic" Wang? How
>> typical.
>
> What alleged Pascal Wang?
Still taking posting lessons from Tin "master of allegations" man, Eric?
>> >> > Who are "they", Slava?
>> >>
>> >> I was referring to you, given that you have more than one identity I
>> >> used the pural form.
>> >
>> > tholenbot only has one identity, Slava.
>>
>> Incorrect, Eric.
>
> Prove it.
Identity #1 - tholenbot
Identity #2 - Eric Bennett
>> >> >> > Ineffective.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Typical unsubstantiated claim.
>> >> >
>> >> > Incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> How ironic you view your claim as 'incorrect' now that you've
>> >> realised you can't substantiate it.
>> >
>> > Taking posting lessons from Joe Malloy again, eh Slava?
>>
>> Illogical, as I have never taken lessons of any kind of this alleged
>> "Joe Malloy", hence I could not possibly be taking them "again". Of
>> course, anyone with decent logic and relevancy skills would recognize
>> that fact.
>
> Evidence, please.
Illogical. The burden of proof is yours, since you made the unsubstantiated
claim. I wonder how Joe Malloy would react to the news that you've been
making allegations about him giving "posting lessons", Eric.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No win situation for Linux market
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 05:16:36 GMT
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> My original reply on this thread has been posted on Linux.com.
> Apparently someone up there liked my response that day.
>
> I know it's not Hollywood, but I think I just got my fifteen minutes of
> fame (in Linux-land anyway). Does that mean I have to cash it in now?
> :(
Cash it in? In Linux-land? Sorry, it's been GPL'd - everyone's getting it
for free. Now all you have to do is find someone to pay you to support it...
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: 27 Jul 2000 05:17:51 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:34:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Not losing documents, not crashing, not rebooting
>regularly, that's weird. Its uncomfortable for them. Its alien. It
>may take a generation to bury the attitudes of the current crop of
>consumers before Linux and other alternative OSen can gain significant
>ground.
Sort of like the forty years the Hebrews spent wandering in the desert
so they could lose the mindset of slavery before entering the land of
milk and honey? I like that. Not that I give it a shred of credence,
but it's amusing.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
