Linux-Advocacy Digest #64, Volume #28 Fri, 28 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (Loren Petrich)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (Loren Petrich)
CLELL A HARMON... jealous celibate ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Does VB and SQL work under linux?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:41:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>>You misunderstand. The courts have no intention, nor power, to punish
>>MS for its crimes. Its unfortunate, but true. I mean, they could maybe
>>fine it an hour or even a day's profits, but the "Microsoft" is an
>>entity incorporated by law, not nature. It isn't a person, and can't be
>>"punished". It would be unlawful to punish its employees or
>>stockholders, either, though the courts have no responsibility or
>>authority to secure the jobs or guarantee the investment of either
>>group.
>
>Are you saying that if a US company commits crimes, there is no American
>court or law that can punish them?
I'm saying that if a US corporation commits a crime, the corporation's
employees and stockholders cannot be punished for it. An "incorporated"
entity is a "fake person", specifically brought in to being to greatly
limit the liability of those stockholders, and employees, for
potentially good and valid reasons. You can't put an imaginary entity
into jail. You can fine them; the current Sherman Act allows up a ten
million dollar fine for corporations, but a limit of $350K for an actual
person. Of course, the human is also eligible for up to three years in
prison.
Ten million dollars, of course, is bubble-gum money to MS. The focus of
the court case is the *remedy* of the crime. Chances are, the gov't
isn't going to *punish* _anyone_ for this crime. But I think the
countless private suits which are advanced by the conviction will end up
punishing Microsoft pretty well (adding insult to the injury of losing
their monopoly), if you are anxious to see someone 'pay'.
The truth is, everyone who went along with the monopoly, even out of
complete ignorance, might well share in some of the blame, if you're
looking for something that looks more like retribution than a consent
decree. Everyone (myself included) can blame themselves for looking out
for their own best interests, even when they were being fed by unethical
conduct. The machinations which were the crime are Microsoft's alone,
of course. But the "corporate think" which allowed it to remain hidden
for so long is a betrayal of everything Americans are supposed to hold
dear, and recognize as more important than money.
>The best that can be done is to prevent
>re-occurances in the future? In terms of the common criminal, after
>commiting armed robbery, all the courts can do is take away your gun?
Alas, the terms are not of the common criminal, but neither is the
crime. That the U.S. has badly out-of-balance penalties for "rich man's
crimes" versus "common man's crimes" is not something I'll argue
against. But, again, it comes down to where the flaw is. It isn't in
some arbitrary and sacrosanct power of law; it is in the lack of ethics
which undercuts our society.
What can I say? American's have a short memory and are too forgiving
when it comes to anything *except* government. Apparently even the
outrageous debacle that Microsoft has made of the OS world isn't enough
to remind them why history shows that massive congregation of power in
the hands of a small number of people is dangerous, and the very
existence of the big 16 are an abomination.
>If MS, as a company, cannot be held criminally liable, then surely the
>people that made the illegal decisions are the real criminals, and should be
>punished. At the very least, BG and his gang should be jailed for fraud.
I would like to see that, yes, and would agree that it should be
pursued. But that is even much more difficult to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt; crimes of monopolization and restraint of trade are
difficult enough to prove in terms of business strategies. In terms of
personal actions and specific decisions in a modern corporation, you'd
have as much chance randomly assigning blame to whoever didn't cover
their ass well enough, regardless of their level of blame or even
involvement.
I'd certainly love to see BG charged with fraud, but I can't see it
happening, sorry.
>In Europe, employees (be they at the top or the bottom of the heap) can be
>punished if they commit crimes. I remember a recent case where a large meat
>distributer here in Norway was found to have knowingly re-sold out-of-date
>food without remarking it as such. The company and the managing director
>(who knew about and allowed the sale) were heavily fined.
Employees can, of course, be held responsible for crimes "perpetrated"
by a corporation. But at *best* the only evidence you're going to have
of actual acts of restraint and monopoly would be based on hear-say
evidence about what was said in a particular conversation. A truly
aggressive enforcement of anti-trust law, which I think is more than
called for, would, however, pursue indictment on every single individual
instance of someone even *hinting* "Go along with us or Windows gets
real expensive." I'm afraid that's not going to happen, either. I
share your frustration on that level, certainly. But job #1 is to
remedy the situation. Punishing people for anti-competitive behavior is
too dicey in most cases, I think. Considering that anti-trust *is* a
tricky form of law, the courts have shown some wisdom in not overly
generalizing the nature of "an act" of restraint or monopolization.
[...]
>>I know its late to say this, but I am truly entirely unfamiliar with the
>>acronym "DCMA", though I've been able to get by on context to this
>>point. What the hell is it?
>
>"Digitial Copyright for the Millenium Act". Surely you must have heard of
>it?
Yes, but not by name. Most of what I've heard of it is hogwash. You
know how the Congress determines how to revise copyright law when
technology makes review necessary? They get all the people who stand to
make money on it in a room, and say "What should the law be?" Its
pathetic, TBH.
>There are many features of it, but one of the most debated is that if a
>copyright owner puts some encryption on some data to protect their
>copyright, then they have lots more rights to the data.
I wasn't familiar with that part. It makes sense to me, actually. But
you might not realize how truly extremist I am in comparison to modern
thinking on terms of intellectual property. To me, if your work is
placed by you or with your permission on any publicly accessible
Internet sight, then it stands to reason (avoiding the fatal flaws and
attempts at profiteering which drove the DCMA itself) that *all* uses of
that work *anywhere* on the Internet is free of any copyright
restrictions for direct use. Derivative work, I think, should be much
more heavily protected from actual copying of electronic communications.
We need to go back to the "common wisdom" the way it was before the DCMA
and similar stuff, before the Berne Convention stuff. In most cases,
use of someone's work in a non-commercial fashion should generally be
considered fair use. American's when I was a kid said "if you don't
charge for it, its not infringement." As a per se test, it stinks, of
course. But as a principle of rights, I think it is important and
inalienable. We are, after all, thinking creatures, and "intellectual"
property is only protected so that it can be shared with the rest of the
monkeys.
>They suddenly not
>only own the data, but have a free reign to restrict your use of that data
>in any way they want.
I'm apparently not tracking you right. You can't really have "more
rights" than copyright. No, I'm quite sure that using someone else's
intellectual property to encrypt your intellectual property gives the
owner of the encryption IP no rights whatsoever to your data. In the
modern market, it may be that they gain some *control* of your data, but
that might literally be considered simply a part of the encryption
mechanism. Not in truth, but for practical purposes.
>The big case at the moment is with DVDs, which are
>encrypted. The encryption is designed with two purposes - it allows the
>huge media companies to control the regions in which discs are played to
>ensure that they can charge as much as the market will bear (most DVD
>players can be adapted to get round these restrictions), and it allows the
>media companies to control the DVD players (software and hardware) and
>charge royalties for them. The claim is that it is to hinder pirating, but
>pirates simply copy the whole disk, encryption and all.
It is a boondoggle. I'm not going to argue that it is only some
peculiar construct of U.S. Copyright law which allows this kind of crap.
Yes, it is an attempt to profiteer, and nothing more. I fully expect
the heroes who cracked DVD encoding will be exonerated in the end.
>Since there was no player available for Linux, a Norwegian guy broke the
>encryption and wrote a player for Linux, which was then widely distributed.
>The mediaocracy went bananas, because they were no longer in control. All
>the guy wanted to do was play DVDs which he had legally bought, on the OS of
>his choice.
>
>Look it up on some news sites - it is something you should know about (more
>monopolising mega-corps to feed your paranoia).
I am aware of it, yes. Sooner or later, people are going to wake up and
notice that Disney isn't a warm and fuzzy entertainment company any
more, but one of the big 16. I may sound paranoid now when I point out
that the suppression of freedom by the mediaocracy is a clear and
present danger. But I'm hoping that won't be true very long.
[...]
>The trouble is, you can't give everybody full freedom. There always has to
>be a balance somewhere. But yes, our tastes are different - I am willing to
>let the government have a little more control, in return for a little more
>protection.
We haven't been able to figure out how to give everybody full freedom
yet, but I don't believe its not possible. Having full freedom is an
illusion, of course; as long as you aren't prevented from doing anything
you *want* to do, then who's to say you can't do anything you want?
This is, of course, implementable by either changing what you want to
match what you're free to do, or by arranging things so that your doing
of what you want doesn't conflict with anyone else doing the same.
Yes, man is a social creature, and there has to be a balance between
individual liberties and the responsibilities of citizenship. And there
isn't anything *wrong*, I think, with the European perspective, which is
indeed far more tolerant of government protection and control. What can
I say? Yes, American's worship the image of the "rugged individualist".
It is that, not the patient cooperation of conscientious individuals
over hundreds and even thousands of years, which made our country what
it is today. I love to see American's tromped ever once in a while for
taking this ideal too seriously. But I wouldn't want to have it any
other way. Because, of course, that is the way I've been taught to want
it. ;-)
[...]
>In this case, he was right in his claim (he wrote the software before coming
>to the company - the company had rights to use it while he was employed
>there, but they thought that once he was there, they could just fire him to
>save expenses and keep his software).
Crap. Sad story. I'm sorry it was a pyrrhic victory, in the end.
>I don't know who to blame, or how to solve such a problem. All I know is
>that the US legal system was not able to protect the rights of this
>individual against a rich opponent. I am not even claiming that other
>systems would necessarily have treated him better - I am just poking a
>little doubt in your confidence in the American system of freedom über
>alles.
You seem to think I don't applaud the EU legal actions just as strongly,
and without any hint of a dual standard or even necessarily a preference
(just a difference in perspective and justification) for either court's
approach. But thanks for the poke, anyway. I can always use it.
I must say, in all honesty, that I think the EU's approach may be more
effective at preventing *acts* of monopolization, but is in fact
entirely impotent in preventing MS from innovating more new ways to
monopolize than there are crimes against statute.
[...]
>>You haven't given any concrete reason to believe that the guy actually
>>owned the work.
>
>I haven't given the reasons, because I don't know them - the guy in question
>told me he owned the work, and the courts upheld that.
You didn't even mention, IIRC, that he wrote the program before joining
the company. Your wording "his program" is ambiguous in this regard, I
think.
[...]
>The software in question is for industrial control systems, which have a
>much longer life-span than desktop PC software. The guy in question now
>works for a new company, which has got the rights to the software, and is
>improving and expanding the software. Through this other company, he has
>got a second chance at his market.
Good for him. Glad it might work out after all.
[...]
>I know that, in general, your employer owns the software you write, even if
>you do so in your own time. But in this case, the software was written long
>before he joined the company.
I did not go so far as to even suggest that software written on your own
time is actually your employers, even by default. If you are developing
similar code, or using information you have access to only through work
for your product, there certainly could be some debate. But if you're a
typical code jockey, your home projects most definitely are *NOT*
automatically available to your employer, for profit *or* profiteering.
[...]
>>A lot of trust us 'mericans place in the "invisible hand", I'll agree.
>>But we've been trained since infancy to trust almost anything more than
>>the government. Unfortunately, I think the lesson took a little too
>>much for some folks, and they're convinced that someone trying to sell
>>them something is more trustworthy than a public official. Neither line
>>of work is necessarily a character reference, of course, but unethical
>>behavior shouldn't be tolerated any more in one than the other, either.
>
>That is such a wierd attitude for a democratic country. The government is
>supposed to represent the people's interest. You might as well live in a
>dictatorship - at least then you have the excuse that you can't do anything
>about it.
The government is supposed to represent the people's interest, of
course. There are greedy and mean people in this democracy, as well as
good upstanding citizens. Sometimes their interests might be
represented a bit more strongly than is appropriate; circumstances have
allowed it to happen in both democracies and dictatorships before. It
is democracy, alas, which seems to provide the excuse that we can't do
anything about it. There will always be greedy and mean people. In a
dictatorship, at least you can take the dictator out without sacrificing
the very ideals which you espouse.
This being Usenet, I simply can't resist asking the question, "You mean
in Europe you tolerate unethical behavior in your public officials, just
because the government represent's the people's interest?"
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: 28 Jul 2000 18:42:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MH wrote:
>> Another one of the new "compassionate conservatives".
>Exactly how is it "compassionate" to steal from someone who is
>productive to pay the lazy to sit around and do nothing?
I don't see how welfare recipients are that much lazier than
housewives. Especially housewives when their children are at school.
>> Which to honest, I
>> can't figure out for the life of me. Same logic here says no abortion, no
>> food stamps, no soup for you. But once the kid is born, the hell with 'em.
>> Only the strong survive here. If you develop an illness and lose your job,
>> you're SOL. If you're raped and become pregnant you're SOL. If you develop
>> any sort of problem that impedes your ability to provide for yourself,
>> that's right, you're SOL.
>Ever hear of this concept called "personal responsibility"
So if Mr. Kulkis becomes a crime victim, he will accept
responsibility for allowing that crime to happen?
>> This guy may truly believe what he says above, but all he is actually
>> supporting is stripping money from these programs to line the pockets of
>> others who already have their pockets full. This is the type of voter the
>Oh, you mean the corporate welfare bullshit that the Democrats
>have enacted for the last 50 years....
With the full cooperation of your beloved Republicans?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: 28 Jul 2000 13:43:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>>Look at the intellectual property that Microsoft has expropriated
>>and taken as their own. The entire Internet was build by UNIX people
>>for UNIX people, with UNIX people creating an inteface that gave
>>Windows users access - now Microsoft is claiming that they had
>>something to do with it.
>
>Now you're playing into their hands. Yes, everybody used Unix. But it
>wasn't UNIX that built the Internet, and it wasn't for UNIX people,
>either.
It wasn't all unix, hence the clearly cross-platform design of
the protocols, but there was nothing at all from Microsoft
that came close to being useful over the internet until they
bought up the already-developed mosaic code.
>Rather than go on with the refutation on basic principle, as those most
>interested in your words generally understand them, and don't need the
>massive review, are you familiar with the licensing, and of which
>software, you might specifically being referring to here? I don't know
>what the early code base of TCP/IP was, or how it was licensed. I'd
>appreciate learning more about it.
The code base that had the most impact was the BSD work that was
grafted into unix systems. It wasn't the first implementation
but it was available for free and used as the starting point
for a lot of commercial systems (including routers, etc.) as
well as continuing to be developed in the freely available source.
There were no free unix versions at the time, so the BSD code
base grew into an add-on that would be grafted onto a system
that had an AT&T source license which originally could only
be used by research institutions. Later, this was available
commercially and commerical unix versions were developed that
had licensed the AT&T base and included the networking and
other BSD extensions. If the core network system, including
the worldwide DNS setup had not grown this way out of research
funded by the defense dept and expanded by access to the free
code, we would probably all be using ISO protocols developed
by a phone company and paying for the right to access directory
information through the massive X.500 protocol instead.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:43:34 -0400
Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:35:02 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >get over me.
>
> Easy for you to say. You have always seemed a highly intelligent,
> rational, person (in my book, anyway!) so I do sometimes wonder,
> idly, exactly what you are trying to prove with that 29-line sig.
>
> It doesn't even make sense to me, but that could be just me, since
> I'm sure I can find some newsgroups where, if I lurked long
> enough, I'd figure your sig out.
>
> Meanwhile, it's kind of sad to see someone whose posts have
> technically always been sound, behave like a petulant child who
> will not let go of a loud noisemaker. Long after the party has
> ended and the other kids have gone home :-)
Have you considered that my .sig is constructed the way it is
for equally sound reasons?
>
> It's not even the length of the thing that bothers me ("that's
> what *she* said" :-), but I wish you'd at least change it using
> some .sig-mangling program or something. Get a little variation
> in it, man!
That would undermine it's purpose.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:46:17 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:01:25 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Steve wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The robber barons want H1-B visa employees at slave wages...
> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >Spot the contradiction.
> >>
> >> >You cannot get an H1-B sponsorship approved UNLESS you demonstrate that
> >> >you are going to pay the new hire a salary GREATER THAN the
> >> >50th Percentile of other workers in that job classification.
> >>
> >> All the employers have to do is create some new job
> >> classification for the purpose of evading that regulation.
> >
> >Please explain how one invents a new job classification for
> >Database Administrator or Systems Administrator...
> >
> >Come on, this should be interesting.
I note that Boren has failed to answer the question...
>
> And then one has to clarify as to why the government couldn't
> simply include the just-created job classification in
> the H1-B regulation. (Is this an Executive Order, or
> a Congressional Act?)
H1-B ("guest worker") covers ALL job classifications.
>
> End of loop, upward spiral, more and more and more paperwork!
> (Just the thing for a 21st-century economy....)
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- wondering if "Thorougly Modern Millie" is getting dated
--
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] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: 28 Jul 2000 18:47:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> However, given that he believes that the loss of the Soviet
>> Union's Eastern European empire was some devious plot, I suspect that he
>> will continue to be ideologically dogmatic on this issue.
>Considering that SEVERAL Soviet defectors in the MID-1980's
>all said the same thing, what does that tell you...
Which ones? And did they have direct access to the Protocols of
the Elders of the Kremlin?
Moscow's sovereignty has retreated to the Brest-Litovsk line and
it's supposed to be one big deception? Complete with totally *losing*
Germany? And with NATO creeping toward their borders?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: CLELL A HARMON... jealous celibate
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:47:13 -0400
"Clell A. Harmon" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:09:07 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Wrong fucking wrong. THE MAJORITY of women do not have brains
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's NOT what I said, and you know it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> No wonder you can't get laid.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >my gf says otherwise.
> >> >> >hehehehehehe
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, she says 'No'.
> >> >
> >> >To YOU...
> >>
> >> Is THAT what she told you? Tsk, tsk. Why do women lie like
> >> that? Didn't you wonder why she was so relaxed the next day? You
> >> haven't been doing the job boy.
> >
> >Question: What country are we in?
>
> The one where...
Translation: he doesn't know
--
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] ()
Subject: Re: Does VB and SQL work under linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:53:37 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:29:01 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>YAWN wrote:
>>
>> hi all:
>>
>> i am thinking of putting Linux on my laptop (32MB RAM, P200, 2.0GB),
>> and i am wondering if i can run Visual Basics and SQL in Linux. the
>> reason being that i have classes in school that require the usage of
>> these softwares. i am aware of that i can run VMWare, but i don't
>> think my hardware can handle it.
>>
>> please direct answers to my email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> TIA
>
>When you have a "real" computer science course, Linux will be welcome.
>Any computer course that requires Windows, is like a chemistry course
>that requires knowledge of alchemy.
Or a cooking class that requires an "easy-bake" toy oven.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
