Linux-Advocacy Digest #389, Volume #28 Mon, 14 Aug 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Courageous)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Courageous)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Courageous)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 02:04:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Well, I did: you are confusing the suid bit and the sticky bit.
>> >Of course you are confusing them because they are not the same
>> >thing, and if someone told you they were the same thing, he was
>> >wrong, too.
>>
>> I'm so glad there's so many people who can be so illuminating and so
>> useless at the same time. [oops, forgot the 'sarcasm' tags]
>
>You specifically asked (in a part you deleted) if that allegedly
>competent person who explained you the suid and sticky bits was wrong.
>I answered your question: yes he was wrong.
You did it again. I'm beginning to suspect you might be doing it on
purpose. But why would anyone pretend to be clueless? Are you under
the impression that I didn't read or understand your words because I
snipped them? Of course not, you merely find it convenient to pretend
that so you can make your stupid useless point. How boring.
>Yeah, I know, answering must bring punishment, right?
Reading this tripe is punishment, if that's what you mean. Maybe I
should just resign myself to the fact that really smart people generally
just don't post on Usenet.
[...]
>I am aware of your limits by now, I guess.
Not as much as I am, and that is your downfall.
[...]
>There's nothing wrong with stating opinion. But "the suid and sticky
>bits are the same" is not an opinion, it's just a wrong fact.
That wasn't the opinion, and I wasn't asking for your comment on the
matter. If it was wrong, it was because I was mistaken. Do you know
the difference between wrong and mistaken?
>You can debate until you turn blue, but noone who knows the subject
>will react in any way but "no, that's not so". Only a devoted
>follower of Foucault or something like that would even care about such
>an opinion.
You misrepresent the discussion entirely. I never argued with a single
person that said "no, that's not so", and I never (accept for the
singular initial post in which I mistakenly described the sticky bit as
the setuid bit, essentially) said that it was so.
The discussion started because, after making this gaff, I was confronted
with no less than half a dozen rather terse (at best) and insulting (in
general) responses, NONE OF WHICH WAS USEFUL IN BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE CONFUSION WAS, other than the on-going pedantic foot-stomping
"the setuid is... the sticky bit is..." bullshit which I've been forced
to endure. I pointed out, in my typically inquisitive and provoking
way, that this was the case, and we're now in the third generation of
these always-tiresome meta-deconstructive threadlets where I try to
learn and everyone else tries to argue.
I would hope something more like "no, that's not so, and here's why, and
here's why not, and here's the similarity, and here's why you got
confused, and here's how to avoid it in the future" or at least some
cogent and courteous subset thereof.
But, hey, this is Usenet, right? Instead I get the certifiably most
pedantic engineers available to respond in whatever way pushes their
particular and peculiar happy button.
[...]
>Yeah, that's just what a civil person would do. Max, you seem to be
>quite deluded about how you look. You act like a lunatic who is
>convinced he is civil.
No, I look like a lunatic who is trying to act like he is civil. In
fact, I'm merely a civil lunatic. My problem is I'm not deluded enough
to take myself as seriously as most other people, nor am I deluded
enough to take others as seriously as they take themselves.
[...]
>Yes. In another post I told you the s in the permission part of
>ls -l was the suid bit.
Yes, I think you mentioned it briefly. Thanks.
>yup. In another post I told you the t in there was for sticky.
I don't recall it that way. If your above description ("the s in the
permission part of ls -l") was accurate, which I'm not entirely sure of,
I'm more sure that you simply left the suggestion that there was a 't'
for sticky bit with your all-too-frequent recitations of chmod syntax.
I may be confusing you with someone else; if so I apologize.
Regardless, the fact that the t is in the world execute spot, and the
s's are in the user and group execute permissions, was certainly not
clearly described, let alone simply illustrated as I was finally forced
to do myself, having noticed nobody with a bit more practice at it would
get the idea.
[...]
>That's because s without x makes no sense.
Yes, we know that. And for the same reason, t *with* x makes no sense.
Now, do you suppose there might be what I call a "conceptual glitch"
which might be deducible from the data we have so far in explaining why
the phenomenon observed (described below) occurred?
>> Apparently, having a Master's Degree in Computer Science does not
>> guarantee that someone knows the difference between a setuid and a
>> sticky bit.
>
>Yup. Even a short course on unix admin would guarantee it, though.
Apparently only in an academic sense. Would he have read it/had it
presented to him? Sure. Are you willing to "guarantee" that he will
"know" it? Than you don't understand education and cognition very well,
I'm afraid.
>But I've heard of people getting a masters in CS without
>ever taking one.
I don't know if he had, but he never worked on anything much but Unix,
IIRC. Some other stuff, I guess, but I would expect that this was
covered in some course somewhere, I would hope. It would seem cogent to
a curriculum which culminated in a Master's Thesis describing a novel
router protocol (very quick to converge, but 'outrageously expensive',
in the graduate's own words).
But I wouldn't guarantee that, either.
[...]
>So, he was ignorant. And you didn't learn. We are not ignorant (in this,
>at least). Why do you bother explaining to us, who already know?
>
>BTW: I would consider someone who admin'd a real production unix
>box with this level of ignorance, dangerously incompentent.
I would say that depends on how often it comes up, honestly. But I
suggest that your definition of competence is more academic than mine.
I live in a world where most people still think Windows and NT are good
operating systems.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 02:06:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 21:11:27 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>
>>>What, you're too good to read the copious manual references I provided?
>>
>>I'm too bored to read copious manual references, regardless of who
>>supplied them.
>
>I understand, I often snooze off while trying to understand a difficult
>passage in a book. I have several technical books which I read in pieces,
>over long periods of time.
>
>This would explain why you don't understand permissions, even though
>you've typed "man chmod" at least seven dozen times.[...]
I understand them just fine. I merely didn't have them all memorized.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 02:07:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: I'm too bored to read copious manual references, regardless of who
>: supplied them. Try to be more concise in pointing to the information
>: you wish to provide. Better yet, just provide it. I realize this opens
>: you to potential problems should you be unable to figure out what
>: information is useful in clearing up the confusion, but I suggest you
>: need to take your chances, or move on to a discussion which you find
>: worth the effort to *contribute* to.
>
>Dipping into this thread again ... and I con't believe T-Max is still at
>it. Is this some plot to drain everybody's time? Move on guys, do
>something productive, there is no way T-Max is on the level.
;-) If only that were so.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 14 Aug 2000 06:12:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> * Communist countries have acted like the exact opposite of Marx's
>> Communist Utopia,
>True. Someone who understands Marx would argue that the countries that
>have called themselves Marxist had not achieved the necessary
>pre-conditions under capitalism to bring about a "communist revolution"
>which is best thought of as a long, slow process that goes hand in hand
>with the increase in productive forces under capitalism.
I don't see how that is supposed to work.
>> in which everybody is unselfishly helpful to everybody
>> else, if I understand it correctly.
>Not exactly. Marx argued that the creation of wealth and the growth of
>productive forces under capitalism would lessen competition born of
>scarcity, and reduce the number of hours that workers need to spend on
>mere subsistence. As the work week decreases, people can spend their
>labor on more self-affirming modes of production. These are
>preconditions to human freedom under Marx.
Nice thought, but that does not seem to have happened :-(
--
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] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: 14 Aug 2000 06:16:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8n7tf6$7ls$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
8<SNIP>8
>> So the difference is by a margin of about 2MB. That is rather small,
>> and EXPLORER.EXE does arguably offer more "switches, lights and knobs"
>> than X + a typical wm does.
>
>Point of confusion:
>
>Are you suggesting that ( <16MB RAM + 2MB Swap ) == 40MB RAM, give
>or take 2MB?
No, I'm saying that (16MB RAM + 2MB swap) ~= 18MB RAM,
give or take 2MB. Remember, more than half of that 40MB
is file cache, which varies, depending upon how much RAM
you have physically installed on your system. It doesn't
really count in the example I gave... I just pointed it
out in order to clarify why some claim that WindowsNT
uses gobs of RAM for no reason.
>> BTW, you're not running twm, are you? If you are, that's cheating.
>> ;-)
>
>No, I am not running twm.
Just as a point of curiousity, what are you running?
--
.-----.
|[_] | 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 02:22:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >It was the commonly accepted position at the time that such was the
>> >church's job. Since it was divine right that validated secular
>> >authority, it was all pretty coherent.
>>
>> Nobody ever suggested it wasn't coherent, Roberto. Are you suggesting
>> it wasn't wrong?
>
>From our point of view? Sure, it was wrong. From theirs? I am not sure.
>
>Are you a moral absolutist, by chance?
Hardly. Do you think you could find some common ground between "it can
be right and wrong simultaneously depending on who's opinion is
considered absolute" and "there is only one absolute"?
In point of fact, I don't believe that any *one* is ever wrong, merely
mistaken. But that doesn't indicate (or even necessarily have a
bearing) whether what they *do* is "wrong". In that regard (the action,
not the person) you must decide if you are speaking from moral
(subjective) or ethical (objective) principles.
There is no consideration of "who's perspective" in the ethical question
of whether the church persecution of free thinkers was wrong, IMHO. It
was, and that mirrors the consensus of the most authentic opinions, I
think, and is hardly debatable (and you are indeed debating it, by
suggesting the consideration of 'their perspective'). From "their"
view, the moral question has no meaning; the church gets to "redefine
the standard", as it were, of what is right or wrong. That you can
'reverse engineer' it into some noble social responsibility is rather
unnerving. Although it is certainly not inappropriate as a line of
reasoning, it doesn't seem like much of an issue.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: 14 Aug 2000 06:23:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
8<SNIP>8
>> With that said, I think UNIX itself should never have a GUI
>> placed into kernel mode. It's just not suited for it, IMHO.
>
>The thing is, Neither is windows.
Could you clarify why you contend this to be the case?
If you're pointing to Windows9x, then I tend to agree
with you.
However, WindowsNT was designed with a GUI in mind.
UNIX was not. Mind you, this is not a "therefore,
WindowsNT is better" argument. I'm just stating my
viewpoint on which environment is better suited for
GUIfied applications.
For example:
Which would you find more acceptable for road travel?
A boat with wheels, or an automobile? Which would you
find more acceptable for GUI applications? UNIX, or
WindowsNT?
That's all that I'm trying to point out.
--
.-----.
|[_] | 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] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 14 Aug 2000 06:33:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> * Marxist dialectics is absolute gibberish, devoid of meaningful content
>> or predictive value.
>I'm not sure what you mean here. The dialectical method simply involves
>the affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, the
>recognition of its negation of state, and the inevitability of change. ...
I don't see how that follows. I've read the writings of Russian
scientists during the Soviet era, and they work just like scientists
elsewhere, as if Marxist dialectics is useless to them.
>> * Communists have been big on rewriting history.
>*Everyone* with a political interest puts a spin on history.
True, but writing some big leaders out of the history books and
retouching pictures to erase the visual record of their existence is
another story entirely. Imagine a history of the US in which Franklin
Delano Roosevelt had been omitted, and refers to his decrees as the
decrees of the US government. I have a Soviet history book that takes
*exactly* that approach to Joseph Stalin.
>> * Marxist theories of historical inevitability I do not find very convincing.
>Even some Marxists reject Marx's positivity regarding the future of
>humanity. ...
They _admit_ it?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 06:37:45 GMT
> > "Shure" is a misspelling, because it *is* -- by
> > definition. But if you want a system that makes
> > sense, switch to a purely phonetic system which
> > makes use of natural dipthongs. All you would need
> > is some mechanism of distinguishing long vowels
> > from short ones.
>
> Using a phonetic alphabet that makes all the words that sound the same
> *look* exactly the same, too, would reduce the information content of
> the text. Not a good idea.
Yes, but you are quoting me out of context. In the paragraph
you cut out, which should have been horrifically painful to
any native speaker of the English language, I communicated
something other than what you attributed to me.
Dammit.
C//
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[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: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 06:26:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
> In article <8mqmqb$l17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Smith
wrote:
> >
> >"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8mq92n$olc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >You give no signature, no web site, no verifiable information,
> >> > >and then assume there's nothing there. At least I provide the
> >> > >following:
> >> > >(originally, my signature).
> >>
> >> > --
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
> >>
> >> Notice that the Linuvocates (T.Max Devlin, Tracy Reed, Loren
Petrich,
> >> Chris Browne, and others) generally tend to include generous links
> >> to very informative and useful websites which provide valuable and
> >> interesting information.
> >
> >Since you rarely include links to back up your claims, and Max never
does,
> >the irony there is rather amusing.
> >
> >> Meanwhile, we have the WinTrolls, who seem to offer pseudonyms,
> >> hide behind 5 layers of anonymous e-mail, and provide links
> >> to the Microsoft websites as their primary source of information.
> >
> >Examples being ?
> >
> >> How much does Microsoft pay these guys? Dresting Black has posted
> >> over 1559 articles to COLA, and an additional 892 articles to
COMNA.
> >>
> >> He's busier than I am. I've slowed to 963 in COLA and 100 in
COMNA.
> >> (accidental following of a crossposted redirected thread).
> >
> >As I always say, you know you've got em when they say "you must be
getting
> >paid to do this".
> >
> >
>
> My assumption is that nobody would willingly lie so profusely as a
> typical wintroll unless they were being paid to do so.
Not only that, they seem to find microsoft web links even before
they are posted. I've actually been to one or two links that
weren't available until AFTER the usenet post was posted.
I've also had fun with style & diction analysis (the unix predecessors
to Microsoft's style checker). You find a great deal of similarity
between the writing style of Drestin Black and the person who writes
Microsoft's formal press releases for PR NewsWire. In one case,
he even quoted a large section and I didn't realize that it was
a quote until I started the reply.
> Supporting M$oft in these debates must be an awful task to be asked
> to accomplish by any line management chain; I think I'd rather
consider
> selling double-glazing. At least for glazing, there are some
verifiable
> benefits to the consumer with little downside other than price.
As mentioned below, some of these people are stock manipulators. What
they are doing is actually illegal. I am very careful about NOT posting
too heavily or differently after I've purchased a stock. This is
something I learned when I was working at Dow Jones & McGraw-Hill where
every stock-purchase was scrutinized for signs of insider trading or
stock manipulation. There were many times when I had to stay out
of the market because I DID know - even MONTHS in advance, about
events that were going to happen. I would have had the possibility
of being very wealthy, or spending lots of time in Federal Prison.
It's just not worth the risk.
> Basically, no sane person would take the wintroll view for free, it
> must have to be paid for.
Also notice the posting times for the WinTrolls. Many start posting
Monday morning in Austrailia/Japan (Sunday night in U.S.) and then
around 9:00 A.M. EST, the postings start flooding in.
Then look at the posting times for LinVocates. They're posting at
2:00 A.M. with maybe a "lunch-time" posting, and maybe even a
"breakfast" posting.
> What's so fascinating about the linux advocates is that they will, in
> their own time, advocate. This suggests to me that there are at least
> 2 drivers for them, firstly, they genuinely do appreciate the virtues
> of Linux as well as understand the vices of Windows.
I'm always fascinated by the results of a little research on the
WinTrolls. I look at their back-postings and often discover that
their entire experience of Linux was a botched install in which
they didn't even bother to read the installation manual. The latest
SNAFU was a guy who tried to install an S3 Virge card as an SVGA
with Frame Buffer.
I'm running an S3 Virge right now, on a P200, with no frame-buffer,
and I get great response.
About the only real complaint I can respect is the memory leak
in Netscape Navigator - especially when posting to DejaNews.
That sucker grows like a weed.
The work-around is pretty simple. I use the "simple text editor"
under KDE and then paste the respons into the text-buffer.
If I forget, I can watch the memory usage on ld-linux.so.2 grow
by whatever the message size is with each keystroke. It looks
like the garbage collector isn't cleaning up.
Has Netscape EVER fixed this?
> One of the posters I find hard to comprehend is the guy who tries
> to imply he can't spell. I can't really see how that will benefit
> microsoft, since incorrectly spelled (eg., linsux or whatever) will
> not show in search engines, so I would have thought he's violated
> his employment contract with Microsoft; presumably his paymasters
> at Redmond will spot this and either the spelling will improve, or
> more probably he'll adopt a different pseudonym and spell properly
> in the hope that his style is not noticed. Unless it's just another
> of Steve/Heather/etc's alter egos, of course.
Actually, there are several of these personae who are
stock manipulators. Appearantly "S" and "Sponge" have
discussed their holdings in other groups, and have given
clues (names of girl-friends, dogs, cars, and names of
close friends) that indicate that they are day-trading
Microsoft based on Usenet activity.
You'll notice that the WinTrolls are very quiet when Microsoft
is climbing, and the get very noisy when it's falling. In some
cases, they are also playing similar swings in other stocks.
I tend to be a long-term investor and do a lot of buy-and-hold.
I don't think the SEC could accuse me of exploiting the net.
(I bought 30 shares of Red-Hat at 120 and I'm still holding it :-).
> So, yeah mate, I think you're paid, and no mate, I don't think that
> you've 'got me' - it'll take a lot more than that to 'get me'. Most
> importantly, I think it unlikely that any Microsoft product is likely
> to 'get me', since not only do I find the OS offering appalling in
> its value for money compared to the various alternatives, but I find
> Microsoft's business tactics offensive in such a way that I will not
> put any of my hard-earned cash in Microsoft's direction. On the other
> hand, Linux related businesses have received some of my hard-earned,
> and will continue to do so.
>
> I hope your paymasters make it all worth your while.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 06:40:14 GMT
> NT Server takes at least 10-20 minutes on a large system.
>
> NT Workstation takes 7-10.
>
> Win2K takes even longer (more memory for the eye candy)
You are on crack.
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 06:42:08 GMT
> > That's the reason why the discussions about introducing phonetic
> > spelling for French never went for long...
>
> They're trying it in the US schools with this "invented spelling"
> bullshit.
I don't know anything about that, but if this is true,
it's ridiculous. Business writing simply won't allow it.
Encouraging misspelling is stupid.
C//
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
