Linux-Advocacy Digest #148, Volume #28 Tue, 1 Aug 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Tim Tyler)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Tim Tyler)
Re: A funny thing about Windoze networking (if you can really call it that).
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: A funny thing about Windoze networking (if you can really call it ("Bobby D.
Bryant")
We sell software 4054 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windoze is physically destroying my hand! (was Re: Linux [..] ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Whoops ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux, easy to use? ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbough,soc.singles
Subject: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 1 Aug 2000 08:01:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>I'm sure that you'll enjoy a law that the Soviet Union had --
>>>>a law against "parasitism".
>>>If they truly believed it, then the party leaders would all be
>>>in the gulags....as they are the biggest parasites in the country.
>>How are they fundamentally worse than most other politicians and
>>business leaders in this regard?
>Hey, retard, builder of straw-man arguments....
>
>What part of "I oppose ALL wealth redistribution programs"
>do you not understand?
The part where you don't oppose Capitalism, which redistri-
butes much of the wealth produced by workers into the pockets
of their employers.
And, just to short-circuit the usual Right-wing Libertarian/
Conservative crap, the employers' "ownership" of the machines,
land, etc., that the workers use in production is invalid
because it was bought by wealth *previously* stolen from
workers.
Finally, workers do not enter freely into contracts by which
most of the value of what they produce is taken by employers,
because they are coerced by the threats of starvation,
disease, and death.
There follows the thirty-four line spam message that thug
Aaron Kulkis inflicts on the Usenet community in violation
of its Netiquette rules, in every one of his thousands of
garbage posts, in order to libel people whose arguments he
can't refute, or who decline to answer some of his idiotic
questions:
>--
>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"
>
>J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 08:40:15 GMT
In comp.lang.java.advocacy John Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In the real world we have people like Fungus who lie and spin information to
: suit themselves. His motives are 'anything but M$'. The fact that he has
: posted links to a pro M$ technology web site must be causing him great
: mental distress.
Um, have you actually looked at the site in question?
``Unfortunately, about the only thing actually proved by the recent
Microsoft/Compaq TPC-C benchmarks, and the graph Roger drew of them,
is this: Windows 2000 can stay up on 12 well-populated systems,
simultaneously, long enough to run the benchmark.''
The writer goes on to say "That's a meaningful result, and we need it."
I doubt the fact that this appears on a normally pro-COM+ web site is is
causing Fungus much mental distress.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Goodbye cool world.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 08:57:18 GMT
In comp.lang.java.advocacy 2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The market for server software completely dominates the market for desktop
: software.
: This one of the reasons for the .NET platform. It is a springboard for
: software development in the server category.
: Add to that the web explosion in software, most of which is on the server
: side.
Indeed. What a pity that Bill himself was until recently pooh-poohing
other vendors for their big brother approach for trying to keep data on
the server.
He wanted to "empower the users" and keep power on the desktops, rather
than go down the server-side computing route.
I found it bewildering. I assumed Bill has more beans than this.
He must have been wearing his marketing hat - acting up to make his
competitors underestimate him - or trying to give the impression of
driving at high speed down a cul-de-sac, in order to get credit for
executing one of those famous Microsoft turn-arounds ;-)
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Goodbye cool world.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A funny thing about Windoze networking (if you can really call it that).
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 09:27:46 GMT
In article <Zruh5.3002$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, hire stupid people that have nothing better to do all day but
create
> empty documents.
>
>
Welcome in the REAL world... You will be amazed at what people do on
computers. Education is the solution, BUT, people don't have time and
then you get Temps that rotate every three weeks and the list of
challenges goes on and on and on...
Anyway, WordPerfet (I still use Novell PerfectOffice 6 on WFW) is also
OLE and when I created an empty file the size turned out to be 0 bytes.
Interesting contrast to your observations, wouldn't you say?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 02:52:54 -0700
Christopher Browne wrote:
> There may be no _price_ put on transferring email from host to host,
> but there most certainly is _some_ cost to it. There are various
> other valid points made, but I'm not sure they overcome the poor
> start...
There is not necessarily any incremental cost. If the facilities used to
transfer the email need to be maintained for some other purpose, and if email is
only transferred when the facilities are otherwise idle, then the incremental
cost really is zero (or essentially so; this ignores factors such as computers
using more electricity when doing real work than sittle in an idle loop, etc.)
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A funny thing about Windoze networking (if you can really call it
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 04:32:48 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anyway, WordPerfet (I still use Novell PerfectOffice 6 on WFW) is also
> OLE and when I created an empty file the size turned out to be 0 bytes.
> Interesting contrast to your observations, wouldn't you say?
I usually don't have much truck with Word docs, but by chance someone
mailed me one today, so I thought I'd have a peak.
% strings *.doc > temp.txt
% ls -la *.doc temp.txt
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ... 15872 Aug 1 04:18 temp.doc
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ... 2467 Aug 1 04:18 temp.txt
All it is is a homework assignment with lots of white space in it. I
called it up in the editor, and you'd think they stored a bit to
graphically represent each pixel of white space. Most of it is a single
non-printing character repeated over and over. Maybe the do this so they
can brag about how effective their disk compression is?
%gzip temp.txt *.doc
ls -la *.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ... 3065 Aug 1 temp.doc.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ... 717 Aug 1 04:18 temp.txt.gz
Wow! 5:1 compression ratio, vs a mere 3:1 for the crappy old ASCII file!
I'm going to covert *all* my files to .doc format!
I wonder if the 10.5 Kb cited earlier in the thread is a flat overhead for
*every* document? Subtract it out of this one, and the remaining bloat is
only about 2x the ASCII size.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux
Subject: We sell software 4054
Date: 1 Aug 2000 09:17:05 GMT
We sell software for very low price.
Go and look at http://www.cdnow2000.com
ufsckrqglduu
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbough,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 06:59:57 -0400
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>>>I'm sure that you'll enjoy a law that the Soviet Union had --
> >>>>a law against "parasitism".
>
> >>>If they truly believed it, then the party leaders would all be
> >>>in the gulags....as they are the biggest parasites in the country.
>
> >>How are they fundamentally worse than most other politicians and
> >>business leaders in this regard?
>
> >Hey, retard, builder of straw-man arguments....
> >
> >What part of "I oppose ALL wealth redistribution programs"
> >do you not understand?
>
> The part where you don't oppose Capitalism, which redistri-
> butes much of the wealth produced by workers into the pockets
> of their employers.
Oh please. Nobody robs your pocket, and comes back from the store
with items that you don't want at prices you didn't want to pay.
You, and everyone else are free to pay the shopkeeper's price,
or to walk out the door and take your business elsewhere.
Likewise for work. If you don't like what you're getting paid,
then go someplace else. If nobody is willing to pay you what
you want, then get off your lazy ass and make yourself more
valuable.
> And, just to short-circuit the usual Right-wing Libertarian/
> Conservative crap, the employers' "ownership" of the machines,
> land, etc., that the workers use in production is invalid
> because it was bought by wealth *previously* stolen from
> workers.
Did you know that over 95% of the corporations in the United
States didn't even exist 50 years ago?
> Finally, workers do not enter freely into contracts by which
> most of the value of what they produce is taken by employers,
> because they are coerced by the threats of starvation,
> disease, and death.
Oh God. Everybody should be able to sit at home on their ass
and pick up a big fat check from the government.
And then, since nobody in the whole damn country is working...
exactly how long do you expect it to be before the entire
food supply is eaten?
I'd give it about 2 weeks..
>
> There follows the thirty-four line spam message that thug
> Aaron Kulkis inflicts on the Usenet community in violation
> of its Netiquette rules, in every one of his thousands of
> garbage posts, in order to libel people whose arguments he
> can't refute, or who decline to answer some of his idiotic
> questions:
Arrest me, netcop!
>
> >--
> >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"
> >
> >J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> > challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> > between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> > Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
> >
> >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.
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 07:13:34 -0400
Mats Olsson wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:04:05 GMT, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Chad Myers wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Win2K can take the heat too. www.tpc.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_27.htm
> >
> >"We are particularly interested in Microsoft's COMWare architecture,
> >centered around COM+, because we believe it offers companies the
> >opportunity to build high throughput (100,000,000+ transaction per
> >day) web based commerce systems with extremely low cost per
> >transactions."
>
> For those that wonders where on the world this comes from, it's
> from http://www.objectwatch.com, ie the home page for ObjectWatch.
> The article of interrest is in issue_27, written by a clustering
> gury by the name of Greg Pfister, and he tries to explain why things
> are not as simple as they are.
>
> Of course, I'm sure that noone is really surprised that the article
> in question isn't discussed by Jen.
>
> >Strange to see Fungus posting references to a pro COM+ site.
>
> Well, in the real world, there are in fact some people who are
> interrested in how things really work, rather than spouting contentless
> nonsense on newsgroups all days. Thus, ObjectWatch may well be pro-COM+,
> but they obviously feel that their integrity is strengthened by people
> with different opinions.
>
> Weird, I know.
>
> /Mats
Here's the COMPLETE text of the message.
Basically, it implies chicanery on the part of whoever came up
with the M$ numbers...
Greg writes...
Unfortunately, about the only thing actually proved by the
recent Microsoft/Compaq TPC-C benchmarks, and the graph
Roger drew of them, is this: Windows 2000 can stay up on 12
well-populated systems, simultaneously, long enough to run
the benchmark.
Hey! Stop sniggering! Or swearing at me. That's a meaningful
result, and we need it. (He says, dodging more brickbats.)
It is an outrageous statement, though. Hopefully by the end
of this article I'll convince you it's nevertheless true, and that
Roger fell into a benchmarking trap resulting in an
apples-to-oranges comparison. To begin, we need to explain
an anomaly in some of the data presented in Issue 26.
To show this, I've taken Roger's graph of IBM RS/6000
systems, since I happen to know them, and added annotations
showing the system model, database version, and benchmark
publication date (Figure 1). All this data is available on the
TPC web site (http://www.tpc.org).
If you stare at the annotations a bit, you'll probably notice
that the differences in the results are rather easy to explain.
Anybody would expect Oracle v8.0.6 or v8.1.6 to be faster
than Oracle v8.0; a new dot release of anything is always
better than the X.0 release. You would also expect the
RS/6000 model S80 to be better than the S70 if you know
those models: The S80 has much more powerful processors,
completely redesigned memory and I/O, etc. The dates are
totally consistent with the introduction over time of ever
better software and hardware.
No wonder this graph shows no simple line for scalability. At
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
any given time a product line may have straightforward
scalability, but there aren't enough same-time benchmark data
points to establish this. Yes, as Roger said, it's unpredictable
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
– it's unpredictable how much better it's going to get! But it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
always gets better, like nearly everything else in this industry.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No mystery there.
So what's the anomaly? This:
Why doesn't Roger's Compaq graph show the same effects?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[I.e, why is the Compaq graph perfectly, *UNNATURALLY*, linear????--ARK]
Well, there's one really good reason: Look at the annotations
on Figure 2, and you'll see that Compaq did several
benchmarks at the same time, with the same equipment, to
show off their new 8-processor Proliant 8500s. So, as noted
above, it's possible for a straightforward scalability
relationship to emerge.
Beyond that, as anybody who's had any experience in parallel
processing knows, the extreme flatness of the relationship in
Figure 2 is very suspicious. Things are seldom that good in
real life. In fact, there's something deeper going on here. Two
different workloads are being measured, one on the IBM (and
probably Sun) graph, and another on the Compaq graph.
But both graphs of TPC-C? Yes. Isn't TPC-C an industry
standard? Sure is. With every published result audited by a
third party? Yup. Then how can there be different
workloads?!!?
This arises from deep in the bowels of the detailed
benchmark definition. As anybody should know who got
through my book's chapter titled "Why We Need the Concept
of Cluster," even in the first edition back in 1995, the TPC-C
workload is, in the jargon, "highly partitionable": It can be
split into separate "parts" that have little to do with one
another. So you can run part on one system, part on another,
and so on, and basically add up what all the systems do to get
a total performance result. This is a simplification; you
actually get only 85%-90% of the simple sum, which is quite
good enough. (See the book for more detail.)
Naturally, the overall cost/performance of a system running
that kind of workload doesn't change much from the
cost/performance of each individual part, no matter how
many parts you stack up. All you need do is keep all the
systems, including all their disks, running through the
benchmark. This is often no mean feat, but if you do it your
reward is scalability by the stringent definition Roger used,
and performance limited by little more than how deep the
benchmarketers' pockets are – how big a pile of hardware
they can afford for the benchmarking exercise.
These magnificent results depend heavily on the workload
having that magic "partitionability." If you have, it, you're
golden. But what happens if you don't? For example, what if
you have one big inventory and other accounting tables,
single tables which every one of your paying web transactions
has to update? Note that here we're not talking about the
front-end web serving, or middle-tier application code, just
about the back-end database, the part that does the
transactions –where the money is, as Roger points out.
TPC-C only addresses that back end, and in many cases that
back end is one thing, not easily split into "parts."
If your back-end workload doesn't partition, and you used
partitioned benchmark results to configure that processing,
you're in deep euphemism. The system will not have the
expected performance. I know this for a fact, from painful
experience with real systems, ordered by real customers,
deployed in the field. And returned. Ouch. That still smarts.
To scale up performance on an unpartitioned workload, you
need a more tightly coupled system whose performance
degrades much less when pieces of work talk to each other a
lot. That kind of swimming-in-communication result, relying
heavily on hardware and well-tuned software, is what appears
in the IBM results Roger quoted. For reasons that would take
too long to explain here (hint: the book), nobody uses the
partitioning available in TPC-C when benchmarking a single
system. Those unpartitioned results are more robust in this
sense: You cannot encounter, in your system, worse
partitioning than those systems are using. No Ouch.
The TPC does annotates multi-system, partitioned,
benchmark runs with the word "cluster," meaning: "This
system ran a workload that's much easier to scale than the
non-cluster versions." Unfortunately, both versions are
measured in tpmC and $/tpmC, so there's a trap there waiting
for anyone who uses the measurements without checking for
the annotation and knowing what it means.
So all of that is why the non-cluster systems have worse
price/ performance, and show significant improvement over
time: The non-clusters are solving a much harder problem,
one where there's far more room for improvement. That, plus
the issue of dates, resolves the anomaly.
So the real issue isn't hardware vs. software approaches to
scaling of the kind Roger implied. It's the two workloads. It's
easy to scale one, but not the other. And don't expect
anybody to prove the bad scaling case by deliberately
publishing a rotten benchmark result. You only find it out
yourself. As in: Ouch.
This doesn't mean partitioned results are bad, wrong, or
fattening (they're clearly legal by TPC-C rules). They're just
different from unpartitioned results. Many important
workloads are easily partitionable in practice: front-end web
serving of read-only data, much of the middle tier of
multi-tier applications, decision support, etc.
However, for e-business back end processing of real orders
involving real money, you may very well need a single larger
system that muscles its way through by brute force. What
Roger said about the need for scalability there, and the utility
of transactions in measuring it, is indisputable. You might be
able to finesse some cases by adroit software organization of
the workload; if so, more power to you.
But beware the difference, and plan your back end
transaction processing accordingly. Unknowingly comparing
partitioned oranges with unpartitionable apples will ultimately
result in Ouch.
- Greg Pfister
Austin, Texas
April 5, 2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze is physically destroying my hand! (was Re: Linux [..]
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 07:16:35 -0400
Ian Pulsford wrote:
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> > Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > : Fscking mouse!
> >
> > I have the solution to your problem: stop fscking your mouse.
> > --
>
> But I love it so. I'll give M$ 1 point out of 1,000,000 they make
> half-decent mice. Maybe the DOJ should have ruled them out of software
> completely, they must make a little money out of peripherals after all.
>
I'll give you 100 to 1 that MS contracts it out.
> IanP
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Whoops
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 07:31:34 -0400
That last message shouldn't have gone to this group.
Hope I can cancel it.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 21:48:18 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim (little boy) Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Or you can get Windo's and not half to ty[e annything at all.
>
I don't have to ty[e anything on Linux, either. In fact, I can't
remember the last time I ty[ed anything, on any OS.
Slava
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 11:46:44 GMT
In article <krth5.3587$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jun Nolasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, what's new? I personally know that Oracle does the
> > > same thing in the RDBMS arena.
> >
> > And why should anyone believe you? Provide a link.
>
> Is that all you got nix loser?
Excellent defense of your point. You are really showing folks here your
mastery of wit and debate. Perhaps someone can respond by insulting
your mother, or asking if you still beat your wife.
Jim S.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
