Linux-Advocacy Digest #375, Volume #28 Sun, 13 Aug 00 10:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (mlw)
Re: Linux for Desktop, a missing app...
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Otto")
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Otto")
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Otto")
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("MH")
Re: Why does linux only see half my ram ?? ("MH")
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("sandrews")
Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here? ("sandrews")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 07:53:28 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "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.
Actually, this is incorrect. Pthreads makes no such distinction and is
implemented with kernel level scheduling and memory management on many
unixes. While I'm not sure about 4.0, but previous versions of FreeBSD
used in process pthreads, but you could install "linux threads" in it to
get kernel supported threads.
Pthreads is an interface definition for threading, not a specific
implementation. There is a GNU fibers like package, but I forget the
name.
What I don't get is why someone wants you use fibers in the first place.
Why go through all the hassle of making the program look threaded
without any of the real benefits of threading. Just seems silly. It is
like the silly stuff we did for Windows 3.1 and earlier.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux for Desktop, a missing app...
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 12:00:18 GMT
IBM's much-hyped support for Linux does seem to be almost completely
limited to the server arena. Of course, Lotus is notorious for not
suppoerting much of anything: it required an IBM buyout plus two years
arm-twisting before they were willing even to port SmartSuite to
IBM's own OS/2. The plug was pulled on a SmartSuite port to Linux (again
citing "no demand").
The primary reason I dumped SmartSuite on all platforms I formerly used it
on. :)
--Kevin
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 05:00:26 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Hanson wrote:
>>
>> Call me suspicious, but this sounds like one of those stories where we
>> keep hearing "no demand," or some other lame excuse, but years later
>> someone gives the real reason in testimony in front of some judge. The
>> reason always turns out to be some kind of Microsoft arm twisting.
>>
>
>Yep.
>
>
>> Jarmo Ahonen wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > We have been evaluating Linux and Windows 2000 as alternatives
>> > for the next desktop OS. We are going to upgrade from NT 4.0 in
>> > a year (next spring during the current timetable).
>> >
>> > It seems, surprisingly, that Linux would win if there were the required
>> > apps. Actually we lack only one application. All the desktop
>> > productivity stuff
>> > exists and is fairly usable.
>> >
>> > The lacking application is Lotus Notes R5 Client. No, the web-interface
>> > to Domino does not have the required functionality.
>> >
>> > We have been asking local Lotus and IBM people for Notes R5 Client
>> > for Linux but they say that there does is no market for such a client.
>> > I suppose that there are other organizations which would like to use
>> > Linux
>> > but require Lotus Notes R5 Client.
>> >
>> > I kindly ask others who use Lotus Domino R5 or Notes R5 Client
>> > to contact Lotus and IBM in order to tell them that there are real
>> > customers
>> > waiting for the Linux Client. We told them that we will put a standing
>> > order
>> > for quite a number of licenses it that will help. I kindly ask others to
>> > do the same.
>> > The only real reason for us to stay with the Windows -line is
>> > Notes R5 Client.
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> >
>> > Jarmo Ahonen
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> --
>> The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science
>> requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require
>> scholarship.
>> -- Robert Heinlein
>
>
>--
>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 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: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 12:24:41 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> In 1970, they said in 20 years we would be extinct.
>
> Yet, here it is, 30 years later, and....whoa, look at this...the
> human population has actually INCREASED another 1,000,000,000 people
> and we have:
> a) no famines
What planet are you from? Maybe I'd like to move there.
> b) no oil depletion (current *DISCOVERED* reserves = 50+ years)
> c) more freakin' food than we know what to do with...
I guess you haven't heard the reports from the world food organization (what's
that damned acronym?).
> > > Has anybody ever told you how small-minded you are?
> >
> > Yes; Libertarians, Fascists and Americans. But that's like a Klan member
> > accusing me of intolerance.
>
> Intellectually, I'm in 99.75th percentile, so your analogy is a false
> one.
So you're telling that not only have you never met an intelligent bigot
but that such a person cannot exist? Or are you saying anything relevant
at all?
Btw, nowadays only morons believe that intelligence is unitary.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 07:17:13 -0400
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/13/00
at 03:25 AM, "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> You are the one living in the myth. Go away. You're a complete idiot.
>That's brilliant, do you have any more gems like this? The second sentence in
>particular strengthens my resolve to stay. Get used to me :-)
Then make it super idiot. How long did you have to work at getting you head
stuck up your ass?
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 07:16:01 -0400
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/13/00
at 03:30 AM, "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:399490b8$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Said JS/PL in
>> >comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> [...quoting from the Finding of Fact...]
>> >> >
>> >> >These are hearsay claims which won't stand up to appeal. But since
>we're
>> >> >pasting documents to Usenet here's my contribution, it's showing
>Microsoft's
>> >> >court position and indicates the many reasons the whole case will be
>thrown
>> >> >out.
>> >>
>> >> You don't seem to understand. These aren't "hearsay claims". They are
>> >> the _findings_ of _fact_ in the case.
>>
>> >That is why it is called "findings of fact".. as opposed to simply
>"facts" or
>> >"facts about reality". In reality, it is only the opinion of the judge as
>to
>> >what is, and what is not actual reality.
>>
>> Are you bright enough to understand that findings of fact are developed
>from
>> the evidence presented by both sides -- or do you prefer to play pretend
>and
>> wish the judge made it all up -- because you and the other trolls here
>have a
>> psycho attachment to billy boy?
>>
>>
>> >Our current judicial system is not charged with determining reality first
>and
>> >foremost. And unfortunately, truth is not the ultimate appeal.
>>
>> Do you really think that the DOJ and 19 states made it all up -- That M$
>has
>> done nothing wrong? That the EUC and Japan made it all up? ... And you
>talk
>> about reality!
>Haven't read much about the arguments for appeal have you?
>Go read about it and get back with me when your prepared.
>Oh...and I didn't go away in spite of your recommendation :-)
>Guess you'll either have to:
>A.) Killfile me.
>B.) Learn.
Are you just psychotic or does M$ pay you to be here with your nonsense?
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 12:57:49 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > : Forcing contracts onto the stadium owners preventing the other teams
: > : from even being allowed into the arena is not "beating" your
opponent...
: > : it's running from competition, and then merely POSTURING as a winner.
: >
: > That's a question of opinion. Is it "running from competition", or
running
: > away from competition?
:
: Sophistry is not victory, you pea-brained moron.
Claiming that my opinion is plausible but fallacious argumentation does not
change the fact; Microsoft did run away from the competition. Furthermore,
supporting your claim by name calling shows your limited capabilities rather
clearly.
: > Forcing other teams in to an arena, where they don't belong isn't what
: > the fans want to see either.
:
: That is for the fans to decide.
In case you didn't notice the fans already decided.
: Judge Jackson has recognized in his
: findings of FACT that Microsoft has specifically cooked up schemes
: to exclude products from the marketplace that were ALREADY POPULAR..
: and then died sudden, catastrophic deaths when MS *INSISTED* that
: the MS version be bundled in with OEM sales.
:
: The buying public never had a choice in this.
And you'd be able to support your claim how? Go ahead and claim, there is no
alternatives available on the market.
:
: This is not opinion. This is from the Findings of FACT.
:
: FACT
:
: FACT
:
: FACT
:
:
: Does that word mean anything to you?
Yes, it DOES.
DOES
DOES
DOES
The meaning of the "Finding of FACT" on the other hand isn't equal to the
word "FACT". A little fact what you seem to overlook.
Otto
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 13:00:52 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Leonardo wrote:
: >
: > Aaron Kulkis, a "Unix System Engineer". WOW!
: >
: > What a joke you are. You haven't done much with your life as you have
ended
: > up being a pathetic unix systems engineer who speds his whole life on
: > c.o.l.a.
: >
: > Have a nice life!
:
: My life is a perpetual vacation....
Sounds like a perpetual trip to the unemployment office.....
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 13:13:21 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Otto
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote
: on Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:19:35 GMT
: <bS%k5.17057$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
: >
: >"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >: On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:37:31 +0100, Robert Moir wrote:
: >:
: >: >> It is competitive. MS isn't. They squash everyone they can...
: >: >
: >: >Isn't that competition? The idea is to *beat* your opponent after all,
: >: >doesn't matter if its to the sale, the launch date, the football...
: >:
: >: Sure, you have to beat them. But there are rules that you have to play
: >: by. If you break them, the umpire will blow the
: >: whistle on you. Guess what ? The whistle has been blown on Microsoft.
: >
: >To stay with football, the empire is watching the replay since the ruling
: >has been challenged. Furthermore, no team ever won anything by relying on
: >the empire. Good offense and defense on the other hand can win, even if
the
: >whistle is blown frequently.
: >Interpret the above the way you like....
:
: Um...dude...I think you mean 'umpire'.... :-)
:
That would be correct, thanks....
Otto
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 13:16:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
Imagine a world where the memories and skills of those who create, maintain
and apply technology were all wiped out. Even if the technology still ran
adequately all by itself for five years time, our entire civilization would
collapse immediately after. Most of the working knowledge that is necessary
to maintain our civilization is never recorded in books or any other media
and could never be recovered from that media.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:19:00 -0400
> >Nobody takes advocacy groups seriously anyhow. Only a true idiot would
> >believe what is written in these groups. Most likely the same person
> >who believes the magician really saws the lady in half.
Of course.
> How many people know what an advocacy group is or is for? What is a
> true Idiot? Sadly, large numbers of the populous do believe what the
> marketing folk tell them; this is just another medium, so any company
> which has lived and died by marketing will ensure that their spin is
> fully and regularly exposed in this channel.
>
> I have no doubt that Microsoft pay lots of people to inhabit various
> advocacy newsgroups, check some of the others, eg., the 'sun' groups
> have regulars who explain how much better NT is than Solaris or
> whatever, it's a bit harder there 'cos they have to argue the hard
> platforms as well, but they still try - anything for money, I guess.
Shhh... listen..is that a black helicopter flying above your house?
shh..someone's at the door, someone's at the door.......
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does linux only see half my ram ??
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:25:54 -0400
> > i have 128 Mb ram on my pc
> > win 98 se can see this
> Bad BIOS. Lose98 goes back and tests how much mem you have.
> Wouldn't be surprised if M$ made a deal with the BIOS companies.
Please. Does this red tide of BS ever quit?
I used to wonder this myself. Can't one of these distributors figure out a
way to determine the amount of ram during install? Or on every boot of the
machine? Seems most of them have now. Red hat 6.2 detected 96 on a box with
an Award bios dated 1995. And Mandrake 7 detected 128 on an AMI bios dated
97. Every other install I have done with red hat < 5.2 never got anything
over 64.
Bad-windoze-bought-and-paid-for-bios-conspiracy? Please, get a clue.
I think those helicopters are flying over your house now.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 13:29:14 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > And of course, willingness to pay for something is a reliable indicator
> > of its usefulness.
>
> Putting food on the table is the most important thing.
It didn't work out too well, did it? Or did you miss the post mentioning
that Gutenberg went bankrupt?
> WHO are you to say that Gutenberg should have bypassed profitable
> uses of his machinery for the benefit of people who were unwilling
> to give him equivalent financial support?
>
> > This is why crack cocaine is so *extremely* useful to its users.
>
> False premise.
WHO are you to say that crack dealers should bypass profitable uses
of their machinery for the benefit of people who are unwilling to
give them equivalent financial support?
> Did it ever occur to you that Gutenberg was poor, and Aldus had
> great financial resources, and thus, had the LUXURY of printing
> materials on which he was taking a loss?
How do you know he was taking a loss???
> Actually, the bible is quite a good text even for non-Christians.
> For example, it has GREAT lessons in mass manipulation and mind control.
Hardly! It /reports/ on mass manipulation but I've never seen any
instructions.
> And no, I'm not going to explain them to you, other than to tell you
> that the earliest of these is in Exodus.
> Because if you wanted to run a large business, then you needed an
> indulgence from the church.
>
> This is similar to asking the usefulness of a business's
> incorporation papers. YOU might not consider them useful, but
> I can guarantee you that the OWNERS of said business will say
> that their entire business DEPENDS on those papers.
I don't consider incorporation papers to be useful because they're give
out too freely to any asshole who wants them and never, EVER revoked
even when companies radically violate their charters or criminal law!
Do you consider guns useful because robbers can use them to steal from
people at gunpoint and assassins have an easier time of killing their victims?
Talk about relativism!
I'm sure a license to own slaves is useful to a slave-owner, but does that
make it /useful/? But since you're being deliberately stupid, I'll have to
explain that I'm asking how the practice of selling indulgences (surely
necessary in order for their publication) was ever socially useful. So I
ask again: how the fuck were indulgences useful??
Note that interpreting "how is something useful" as "how is it beneficial
to society" is the ONLY possible option for me. But then, I'm not a selfish
asshole used to looking out only for myself.
> Big fucking deal. In medieval times, if you wanted to run a large
> business, operate a bank, or do any of a myriad other things, then
> you needed an indulgence.
>
> In that respect, an indulgence was LIBERATION from the theocracy.
And by that argument, so were paying tribute and tithes.
> > And I've never considered them books. I've always thought of dictionaries
> > and encyclopedias as entirely different categories of printed text.
>
> This is why you fail.
This is why you're an idiot.
> > If you ask someone to point to a book, then to point to an encyclopedia
> > and then to point to a book again, I'll give you 100:1 odds that they
> > will move their hand away from the encyclopedia.
> > And would you consider a mainframe to not be a "real" personal computer
> > just because it won't fit in a small room?
>
> You're the one making the argument that the early books weren't "real"
> books because they fail to meet modern standards of miniaturization
> through better materials.
I guess you don't understand sarcasm, do you?
> > Factories have always been about division of labour to me, but I've
> > never been a capitalist or manager so the power source has never been
> > relevant to me. I *am* a book reader so the details of their use *are*
> > relevant to me.
>
> So, your gripe is that nobody was printing LITERATURE...which is a
> distinct SUBCLASS of books.
No, shithead. Philosophy is an academic field, right along with
mathematics and physics.
> Look here, idiot.
>
> 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.
Thank you, you've made my point for me!
Philosophy is necessary both for social and technological progress. It
allows people to consider new ideas; like that children are not born evil
and thus newborns shouldn't be brutally beaten, to give just one example.
And since beating newborns causes brain damage, social progress leads
directly to technological progress.
[snip irrelevant stuff about literature]
> > Innovation can be either discovering a new process to do something, or
> > discovering a process to do something new. It's safe to bet that most
> > people on COLA have an engineering mindset, one which devalues the
> > second form of innovation as trivial while simultaneously elevating
> > the first form of innovation to the status of hero worship.
>
> Technologically-oriented works are always of the higher importance.
Which explains why you defend the publication of indulgences so strenuously.
> A society which fails at the basic technologies of agriculture and
> metal-working is nothing more than a mob of stone-aged hunter-gatherers.
Boy are you completely wrong.
Contrary to your opinion, the story of civilization is NOT the history
of technology. The single greatest contributor to civilization is actually
psychological progress, which determines such things as the rate of
pedophilia and incest, the rate of child prostitution and pederasty,
the rate of child abuse and spousal violence, the rate of schizophrenia
and other mental disease, et cetera.
An agrarian society where children are valued is vastly preferable to
the more technologically advanced Victorian society where children were
chattel, nobody raised an eyebrow if you walked down main street with
a catamite on your arm, and dead babies in gutters were a common sight.
But then this is about the *reality* of the past and not the fairy tale
propaganda that's spewed out like so much vomit.
> For proof, just look at sub-Saharan Africa. There is no technological
> development...all technology flows in from points outside....the
> average person in those parts has no time for literature.
Yeah, *let* us look at sub-Saharan Africa where children are servants
for their parents, where women are slaves and girls are mutilated.
THAT is the story of sub-Saharan Africa.
Social progress causes technological progress, NOT the other way around!
The reason some paleolithic tribes never seem to "master" agriculture
is precisely because they are incestuous and cannibalistic monsters.
> > Gutenberg did the first, Aldus did the second. And it's Aldus whom
> > I respect as the crucial innovator because he did something much harder
> > (even if it took less time) and because his kind are much rarer than
> > Gutenberg's.
>
> Einstein said: "If I can see farther than other men, it is only because
> I am standing on the shoulders of giants".
Since Einstein *never* said any such thing ...
It was Isaac Newton who said "If I have seen further than others [...]" and
Newton was a fucking asshole. If you knew anything about his personality you
would /never/ have used that quote since Newton made a practice of hogging
all the credit.
> The man VERY RIGHTLY acknowledged that he benefitted from information
> handed to him on a silver platter that which took DECADES of work by
> Maxwell, Faraday, Hertz, etc.
And we benefit from whoever invented fire, and pottery, and the wheel,
and the list goes on ad infinitum. Do you have a point to make?
> In the same way, Aldus was a midget standing upon the shoulders of
> a giant in the form of Gutenberg.
<shake> Only to an engineer.
> > In order to do what Gutenberg did, you only have to be
> > able to think rationally about physical objects. In order to do what
> > Aldus did, you have to think rationally about human desires. The
> > latter is MUCH more difficult to do, even if the only people who
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Speak for yourself.
Psychology 101, kiddo.
For every person who can think rationally about the needs of users and
developers to create a completely new operating system design, there are
hundreds or thousands of morons who can't think past making an obsolete
OS design work a tiny bit faster or more efficiently. Needless to say,
I'm in the first category.
> You're still nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual Monday-morning
> quarterback, quick to belittle the accomplishments of others while
> having no accomplishments of your own to show to anyone.
Not only do you know absolutely nothing about me, but I seriously
doubt you're in any position to judge.
------------------------------
From: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:40:01 -0500
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(fred) wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 17:05:11 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, I'm not a Anonymous Wintroll, but I play one on usenet.
>
>> You may want to consider reading in cola (comp.os.linux.advocacy) to
>>see why some of 'us' don't 'get it' as you put it. There are enough
>
> Perhaps you don't get it?
>
>>trollish Windows advocates coming in here daily to tell us how moronic
>>we are for thinking we should actually have a system we enjoy using,
>
> Have you considered that there is a vast number of people who also have
> a system they enjoy using, and it's called Windows.
>
> Why must the Authentic Linvocate's keep posting to the Windows groups
> bashing it in favor of Linux?
>
>>that I can understand why even someone that 'gets it' wouldn't appear to
>>get it in the 'cross-posted flamebait' that we often see (and apparently
>>where you are reading this). Read some of Boris's more flagrant COLA
>>posts, or an individual with multiple personality disorder of the
>>highest magnitude (steve/simon/deadpenguin/claire/etc). Personally, I
>>try not to resort to that, but there are those that feel retaliation is
>>the only way 'out' of the situation.
>
> So you send to use R.E. Ballard, information misrepresenter
> extraordinaire?
>
> Couldn't you have just left him under the toad stool instead of leashing
> him upon usenet?
>
>>There are a few of us sane people left. Not many, but a few.
>
> I think we can all agree to this!
>
>>BTW, I use Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, BeOS, and about any other OS I can
>>get my hands on for experimental purposes. But for the most part I
>>stick to Linux as it is what my business currently uses.
>
> I like Windows. Why can't you just accept that this Anonymous wintroll
> likes Windows?
>
> Can't we all just get along?
>
We could if the wintrolls wouldn`t always pick a fight. You see it`s always
the dick size wars started by the wintrolls that is the problem. Even m$
starts
dick size wars as in their "can your palm do that" add campain (no
mis-spelling)
it really is a PAIN to look at that crap.
------------------------------
From: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here?
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:59:16 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12266.html
>
> Quoth Mr. Ballmer:
>
> "Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had
> [sic],
> you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very,
> very much about it. That is, it's free."
>
> "Communism," the man says. And Timmy-boy calls Linux advocates "Commy."
>
> Ballmer... Palmer...
>
> Coincidence? (ominous music)
>
>
why yes he indeed does post here, haven`t you read any of the posts from
Steve,deadpeguin etc.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
