Linux-Advocacy Digest #370, Volume #28 Sun, 13 Aug 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Hey Aaron (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (fred)
OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Gutenberg (Courageous)
Re: Microsoft MCSE (Courageous)
Why does linux only see half my ram ?? ("Colin Geeson")
Re: Gutenberg
Re: Gutenberg
Re: Windoze is physically destroying my hand! (mark)
Re: Why does linux only see half my ram ?? (Paul E. Larson)
Re: Microsoft MCSE ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey Aaron
Date: 13 Aug 2000 04:49:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >Cyor wrote:
>>
>> 8<SNIP>8
>>
>> >> Dude... I've been on usenet for over 7 years, that is unquestionably
>> >> the most annoying signature I've ever encountered.
>>
>> >Yes, and it's especially annoying to those who USED to be fond of
>> >conducting hit and run attacks on me.
>>
>> How exactly?
>>
>> This sort of tactic serves no purpose, Aaron. Honestly, it
>> paints you to be a bit paranoid. Why not a simple *PLOINK!*?
>
>Because my signature, coming BEFORE the attack... document that
>the attack from the named individuals will follow a predictable
>form.
So what? So, here we have one person pointing his finger
at a bunch of other people, saying "you're all stupid-heads,
and I'm going to make sure everyone else knows it!"
Is that really the image of yourself you wish to portray?
>> >Tiring of fending off all kinds of bullshit, I decided that the
>> >best defense is a good offense, and to include spoiling-attacks
>> >as a counter-measure in every post.
>>
>> >If you don't like it, tough shit. I have no desire to fend off
>> >100 flames/day from these assholes.
>>
>> Personally, I don't like it when people get all pedantic
>> and anal about "4 lines only, dammit!" either, but c'mon,
>> Aaron... your signature is larger than many people's average
>> posts are. :-)
>
>So what.
So, posting that junk over and over again looks silly.
You have every right to do so, of course, but I'm just
giving you my perspective.
>> BTW, that "Unit_4" wouldn't happen to be aka Jay "the uber-wanker"
>> Maynard Gelinas, would it? That whole "kook hunt" thing sounds
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> awfully familiar.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You make my point for me. That is, there are certain malicious
>individuals, who have no purpose but to post disparaging remarks
>about whoever they select as a target....and that their behavior
Again, so what? Ignore them. Who gives a flying fuck what
some idiot on the other side of the continent thinks? Aaron,
if I told you about every single flunkie on USENET who has
called me a "Microsoft whore", or has never answered my
questions or challenges it would make your head spin.
And in the end, they just end up looking like fools. I
don't need to point them out, because most everyone here
knows that they are fools.
I can't speak for other forums, but in COMNA, people are
judged by what they say, and not by what others say about
them (unless those "others" are an overwhelmingly large
chunk of people who are generally respected).
>is predictable. Documenting the form of an attack from these
>people BEFORE IT HAPPENS is the best way to discredit them, and
>thus, to remove all of their fun.
And yet, Matt Templeton still posts here... I just
blew your theory away. :-)
Anyway, I can tell that this is beginning to look like I'm
harping on this issue, so I'm gonna just let it lie. It's
just my opinion. Thought you might be able to use it. :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 04:50:39 GMT
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 06:12:25 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jen wrote:
>>
>> "Windows 2000 appears to still have severe performance limitations,
>> and reliability may actually be getting worse."
>>
>> You sir, are either blind or a flat-out liar.
>
>Prove it.
Could just be the booze.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: 13 Aug 2000 05:06:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 13 Aug 2000 02:42:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards
>II) wrote:
>
>>UNIX is not alive and well because it's on store shelves.
>>It's alive and well, because it is needed for certain
>>things. It is on store shelves, because there are myriads
>>of people out there who think that using it will make them
>>smarter, and get more large-breasted women in their bed.
>
>Actually I think they're hoping to get that kid into bed from Jurassic
>Park. You know the one, she looked a the rotating graphical image of
>the compound on the screen and said, "I know this system its UNIX."
"This is a UNIX system... I know this!"
Oh Gawd. That has to have been the _STUPIDEST_ line in a movie
I ever heard. I cannot begin to tell you how I was pining to
watch those pretentious little brats get ripped to shreds by
those velociraptors. The very notion of using such a line
is just magnanimously dorky.
----
* Stephen and his fellow secret agents run across the dark
warehouse, dodging gunfire left and right... they come to
a large steel door...
Stephen: The door is sealed!
agent01: Hang on, I'll tap into the security matrix with
my trust Apple toilet se-... erm, iBook.
* agent01's screen displays a green and grey interface...
agent02: *gasp!* This is a WindowsNT system... I know this!"
----
Did anyone else notice the cute little blurb about SGI in
"Lost In Space"? At least that was a shamelessly blatant
plug.
And of course, now every single governement agency and s00per
s3kr3t billion-dollar corporate-sponsored underground hacking
facility is running entirely off of iMacs.
"Screw you, Cray! PeeSeez r00L!"
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 05:32:04 GMT
> In 500 years time the human species will be extinct.
Don't wait! Start now! (you first)
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 05:38:15 GMT
> Actually I think they're hoping to get that kid into bed from Jurassic
> Park. You know the one, she looked a the rotating graphical image of
> the compound on the screen and said, "I know this system its UNIX."
Please spare us your adolescent pedophillic fantasies.
C//
------------------------------
From: "Colin Geeson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why does linux only see half my ram ??
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 07:16:20 +0100
i have 128 Mb ram on my pc
win 98 se can see this
but linux 2.2.14 from suse 6.4 can not.
Linux only reports 64 Mbytes.
why ?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:45:23 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Richard wrote:
> >
> Actually, the bible is quite a good text even for non-Christians.
> For example, it has GREAT lessons in mass manipulation and mind control.
> And no, I'm not going to explain them to you, other than to tell you
> that the earliest of these is in Exodus.
Reading it, really READING the Bible can be a real eye opening experience.
For example: how many people who have seen the movie "The Ten Commandments"
oh so many times, think that it was Pharaoh's wife that was the villian who
caused Pharaoh to be obstinate and refuse to release the slaves, which is
why through Moses and Aron, God cause the suffering in Egypt to force
Pharaoh to cooperate. When according to the Bible it was God that caused
Pharaoh to be obstinate inorder to give God the excuse to cause the
suffering as a demonstration of his power.
There are many other similar incidents throughout the Bible, both the old
and new testaments.
> The most IMPORTANT books are non-literary REFERENCE BOOKS. Books of
> mathematical, chemical, engineering and astronomical tables are far more
> important than "Gone with the Wind"... the reason being is that you need
> those REFERENCE tables if you are to ever advance technologically.
Imagine a world a few generations after all non-literary books an other
recording media have been burned (as a limited version of the future
presented in "F. 451") What would we have? Another repeat of the dark
ages.
> Technologically-oriented works are always of the higher importance.
On this point, I would differ with your view somewhat. It is a combination
of all books that serves as the best communial memory for our species.
History texts teach us what was. Science books help us to consider what is.
Works of fiction help us image what could be or what could have been. Tech.
books teach of how thing work and how to make thing work. Reference books
remember facts for us when we forget them. All other classifications of
book also have value. All taken together, they provide us with wisdom and
our society its soul. All books are important and the destruction of any of
them harms everybody.
A number of years ago, there was a massive fire in this area that totaly
wiped quite a few neighborhoods. At it nearest point to me the fire was
about a dozen miles away. But the fragments of burning materials lifted up
by the updraft of the fire settled to the ground up to about 100 miles away.
The day after the fire you could not walk outside without stepping on partly
burned "fall out" from the fire with every step.
In my backyard, I found many things that arrived as fallout from the fire.
Some coud still be identified. Such as, partly burned photos, fragments of
certificates, even fragments of wall paper. One item was a fragment from a
page of a family bible, it had birth, death, and marriage notations that
appeared to go back six generations. There was small fragment of a page
from a book, It had a holographic notation, "This book is all I ... left in
... world, it is my legacy to yo... love". There was a fragment of another
page that showed the printing date of the book it came from. The book was
printed in 1824.
The first item I found was a fragment of a page from a book on Roman
history. One side of the fragment was blackened but the other side was as
clean as if it was still in the book. There was a very small piece of
illumination on the fragment and I could tell that the pages of the book
were gold edged. I read the little text that survived on the fragment in a
still readable condition and found that I would have so dearly loved to have
read the entire book, it was facinating. That fragement crumbled to dust
even as I was reading it and it blew away on the breeze.
I never knew the owners of these items, I would have never seen the books
and other sources of the items in the fallout; they would never have
directly effected one way or the other. But seeing the contents of the
fallout in my backyard, falling off the roof tops like blackened snowflakes,
blowing down the streets and forming small drifts, I felt so diminished by
the loss.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 23:22:58 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Arthur Frain wrote:
> > But for someone arguing that Gutenberg was not
> > an innovator, it would be more interesting to
> > explain why no books were printed *before*
> > Gutenberg.
> >
> > You're effectively asking why Shockley, Brattain
> > and Bardeen never built cellular phones - after
> > all, they even worked for AT&T.
>
> No, I'm asking why Alexander Graham Bell should get the credit
> for the ESS-7 generation of electronic switches made by Nortel.
> After all, the decades of difference between the invention of
> the phone and the invention of the digital phone network don't
> matter at all, do they?
>
> (Unless I misunderstood your reference.)
You sure have missunderstood, the reference was to the team who while
working at Bell Labs did experimental work on a class of materials that
could not be classified as either conductors or insulators. They discovered
that these materials under certain conditions exhibit a property know as
transfer resistance or tranferable resistance. From this dicovery a new
electronic component was developed known at first as the tranfer-resistor
and is now known as the transistor. That class a materials of course was
what are now know as semiconductors. Side note: semicontuctors could just
as easily have been called semiinsulators.
Restating the paragraph that was above your head, based on my interpretation
of what Arthur is saying, so that you might better understand it:
You're effectively asking why the developers of transisitors never built
cellular phones- after all, they even worked for *the* phone company.
Cellular phone need an infrastructure that was not available in 1940's and
using individual transistors they would have been too large for *you* to
call them cellular phone.
Arthur, if I have mangled your statement incorreclt to your intended
meaning, I am sorry.
> Note that I'm not arguing that Gutenberg wasn't an innovator.
> All I'm arguing is that he wasn't the innovator responsible
> for the things that people on this thread worship him for.
> Is it too much to ask to dispense with the religious icons?
I don't see any icons of Gutenberg any where around here. Have you seen
any? You are familiar with what a "religious icon" really is? I guess not,
since it would invalidate the above quoted paragraph written by you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze is physically destroying my hand!
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 07:43:54 +0100
In article <NoQi5.20528$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Spud wrote:
>
>"OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Spud wrote:
>>
>> > I spend most of the day on Windows, and use the mouse for maybe 5% of
>> > my time at the machine.
>>
>> So, you'd have me believe that you navigate the windows desktop with the
>> ALT-Key/Arrow Key series using the mouse only 5% of the time?
>
>ALT-arrow? Bah. Windows has this neat little concept called
>"Accelerators" - keyboard shortcuts which allow you to do virtually all your
>functions without a mouse.
>
>> It must
>> take you an awfully long time to launch those apps that don't need the
>> mouse (especially the graphical ones).
>
>Nope, takes almost no time at all. Comes from actually knowing something
>about the system.
>
>> Why do I suspect that you spend
>> 95% of your time in a MSDOS shell with DOS programs and you must not be
>> running NT since NT doesn't run many DOS apps at all? I don't think W2K
>> is any more compatible to DOS apps than NT is.
>
>MS DOS Shell? Hmm, haven't actually used DOS proper in a couple of years.
>I do occasionally (actually, fairly frequently) use a Windows console, but
>not DOS.
>
>However, let's see what we've got. First, let's ALT-TAB over to explorer.
>I want to go down to the "Utils" folder, so I press 'U' - voila,. there I
>am. Enter, I'm in it. Press 'W' and I jump down to WinRar. Okay, 5
>keystrokes, big deal. If it was a program I needed frequently, I'd set up
>my own keystroke combination to launch it directly. Example; I just set
>CTRL-SHIFT-R to launch RealPlayer. Voila, 3 keystrokes and I'm in - even
>from a command-line session.
>
>So why use the mouse at all? Two reasons. First, some applications really
>do work best with a mouse; vector drawing programs are a good example of
>this. Second, some applications don't provide proper keyboard handling;
>they're not overly common, though; I can only think offhand of one serious
>application I use fairly frequently which has truly abysmal keyboard
>support.
>
>All in all, the mouse is at best a convenience, only rarely a necessity.
>
>
>
Personally I've only ever found a mouse useful for 2 kinds of app, a
drawing app and DOOM (at least eg., later Legacy port, anyway).
This is one of the major reasons why I'm not especially excited about
GUIs.
Of course, there are some things in Windows where I think there is no
alternative, which is a real pain.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Why does linux only see half my ram ??
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 06:58:39 GMT
In article <r%ql5.6500$Sc.253880@stones>, "Colin Geeson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>i have 128 Mb ram on my pc
>win 98 se can see this
>but linux 2.2.14 from suse 6.4 can not.
>Linux only reports 64 Mbytes.
>
>
>why ?
>
Wrong forum, but. comp.os.linux.setup would be better.
"linux RAM=128mb
Another possbility is editing the /etc/lilo.conf file, but I'm not
sure if you'd put it in the same way as I just showed or if you'd put
the RAM=128mb in between the "" where it says append.
Hope this helps."
http://w3.one.net/~jweirich/clug/tech-list/msg00336.html
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:21:21 -0500
Do you know what an MCSE is? An MCSE has nothing to do with software
development.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Microsoft Certified Professional Systems Engineer, eh?
>
> Tell me...Mr. Professional System Engineer.
>
> Can you explain the concepts of re-entrant code?
> How about exclusive locks? Can you discuss garbage collection and
> page replacement algorithms?
>
>
> Or are you merely a phony who has been trained to spit out
> Microsoft's marketing buzzwords and to point-and-click with
> slightly less confusion than your hapless lusers.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:23:44 -0500
"Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > By the way, none of this was lost to Windows 2000. Microsoft's
> > > "fabrics" ....
>
> Are you thinking of "fibers"? This is a cooperative multitasking
> interface, and nothing more.
Actually, it's not cooperative multitasking so much as it is process
controlled multitasking. The process itself (much like pthreads) is in
charge of scheduling fibers.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
