Linux-Advocacy Digest #446, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: news article (Tim Hanson)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (fred)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (fred)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating (fred)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Marty)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE (Tim Hanson)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: news article
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:04:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The difference is, with Linux, no one is trying to hide the known
> > problems. Would someone please tell David about the "Windows has
> > <insert-huge-number-here> 'defects' story"? I can't remember the
> > details of it anymore.
>
> Are you referring to the 63,000 known bugs in Windows 2000 that Microsoft
> solved by reclassifing them as issues?
Ashton-Tate used to call them "anomolies."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:05:09 GMT
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:20:47 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe for them that *was* advanced technology. After all, those who make
>the Television programs of Hercules and Xenia can't keep the program
>accurate or even cllose to the history or mythology to the period they are
>supposed to be covering.
What kind of dork would even argue about the historical inaccuracy of
Xena and Hercules?
>Here they have to heroes of the pictures involved in the trojan war, with
>the argonauts, and fighting against imperial Rome. Xenia was supposed to
>have learned her warrior ways as a student of Julius Caesar?!? Aphroditie
>appears in a clams shell that she uses as a sailboard. Hercules has taken
>time off, surfing? The have hotdog stands?
You don't find that funny?
I especially liked when Hercules picked up the guitar thing and
started playing like a rock star.
>The only thing here that was accurate with history or myth was that Hercules
>was one of the Argonauts.
He was also like really strong!
>The worst part is that schools are recommending these programs as being
>educational.
Are they really?
Well, they are certainly entertaining, although they won't teach you
how to get babes like playing with Linux.
------------------------------
From: [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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:06:06 GMT
Nawwww...
He's just a wacko that thinks he sees spacemen and then when he sobers
up posts a flurry of subsequent post's claiming he was only kidding
and it was a GoodYear blimp after all...
A true nut....
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 02:57:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred) wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:43:43 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I agree that there seems some motivating factor beyond just advocacy of an
>>OS they use and appriciate. I don't claim to know what the motivating
>>factor is, but it does seem to exist.
>
>Perhaps there is. But why is it that you keep frequenting the NT
>advocacy group?
>
>>Some could be:
>>
>>Being employed to be winvocate/wintroll.
>
>Are you employed by RedHat? Seems likely.
>
>>Employees of the firm perform the action on their own.
>
>Wouldn't that automatically imply you are employed by RedHat?
>
>>Having a position in the ownership of the manufacturer of the OS.
>
>So you own stock in Redhat, I take it?
>
>>Having a fear that they can not adapt to another OS if theirs fades away.
>
>Well the general lack of knowledge of NT displayed on the part of
>Authentic Linvocates would definately support this conclusion.
>
>>Wanting revenge on the OS that caused their employment to be terminated when
>>they were found to not be able to adapt to it.
>
>Hmm, maybe you are on to something.
>
>>Fear that their investment in becoming a MCSE won't be recovered.
>
>I spent more money on my 17" monitor than I spent on an MCSE.
>
>>and many other possibilities.
>
>What, like it's kind of fun watching Linux zealots foam at the mouth?
>:)
>
>>Don't dismiss the possibility of being paid to be a winvocate or a wintroll.
>>I would not be too supprised of that possibility since Microsoft has already
>>done worse than that and through use of thier resources, they have been able
>>to avoid paying the price for their actions.
>
>I love this!
>
>>Sometimes one of the best ways to avoid being implicated in an action is by
>>making it appear that it would be against your best interest to take the
>>action. I am not saying it is the case, but that it could be the case that
>>Microsoft is paying the some of the winvocates/wintrolls to post, and the
>>over-the-top styles on purpose to deflect suspicion away from Microsoft's
>>complicity.
>
>Come on, keep the foam coming...
>
>This is great! :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:09:11 GMT
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:53:29 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>More so is that there were no French in existance yet. What also got me is
>how in Hercules and company became the "three wise men" at the nativity. As
>well as the constant allusions to our current society. Like Aphroditie
>using phrases like "fer sure", and "duh!". Athena appearing wearing
>eyeglasses with her hair up to appear like a 1800's school teacher.
Ok, I think it's obvious now.
You seriously need to get laid.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:10:38 GMT
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:05:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred) wrote:
>
>What kind of dork would even argue about the historical inaccuracy of
>Xena and Hercules?
A true, natural bonafide idiot....
>>Here they have to heroes of the pictures involved in the trojan war, with
>>the argonauts, and fighting against imperial Rome. Xenia was supposed to
>>have learned her warrior ways as a student of Julius Caesar?!? Aphroditie
>>appears in a clams shell that she uses as a sailboard. Hercules has taken
>>time off, surfing? The have hotdog stands?
>
>You don't find that funny?
I'll bet he finds a coding anamoly in a tcp/ip stack funny....
>
>>The worst part is that schools are recommending these programs as being
>>educational.
>
>Are they really?
In his mind maybe, which doesn't say much...
You are trying to reply to someone who thinks we have little green men
from Mars walking on our planet....
>Well, they are certainly entertaining, although they won't teach you
>how to get babes like playing with Linux.
I'll bet he wouldn't know what a babe was if it fell into his lap....
Sounds like he is 450lbs and still living at home with mom...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:16:59 GMT
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:24:52 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>fred wrote:
>> Come on Aaron, out with it. When did you first install Linux, and how
>> many upgrades have you done since?
>
>first install: 1996.
>two upgrades at home.
>
>At work: All of Kmart corporation's Linux experimentations at the
>corporate headquarters were done off of one set of RedHat CD-ROM's
>(as of my departure in June 1999).
Hmm, so does this Linux experiment explain the sudden dip in K-Mart
stock price in June of 1999?
:-)
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:15:09 GMT
Lars Träger wrote:
>
> Apple? Joseph is a Linux user.
Try again:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/profile.xp?ST=PS&URN=657574059
Number of Messages Forum
81 comp.os.os2.advocacy
21 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
20 comp.os.linux.advocacy
10 comp.sys.mac.advocacy
2 comp.os.os2.apps
2 comp.os.os2.misc
1 comp.os.os2.programmer.porting
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:21:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>I don't attach any more meaning to 117's "utilization" than
>>"utilization". Running is certainly one form of utilization.
>>Decompiling is another.
>
> Section 117 does not purport to protect a user who disassembles object
> code, converts it from assembly into source code, and makes printouts
> and photocopies of the refined source code version.
>_Sega v. Accolade_, 24 USPQ2d 1561, 977 F2d 1510 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
>
>(TMax claims to have read this case, but I guess he rejected the court's
>comment because it wasn't "cogent", or fit within his unique theory of
>copyright.)
Well, Mr. "I'm a legal expert", perhaps you missed the fact that "making
printouts and photocopies" is a violation of copyright law. Are you
trying to say (or merely assuming) that disassembly and conversion to
source code is not "utilization"?
Well, you are right that you are at first glance in agreement with the
9th Circuit Court in that regard, though honestly I don't know where
that idea came from. Perhaps it has something to do with vagaries of
jurisprudence and precedent which I'm not familiar with. Rather than
deciding that decompiling code was allowed because it was utilization,
the court found that it is allowed because it is fair use.
"Where there is good reason for studying or examining the unprotected
aspects of a copyrighted computer program, disassembly for purposes of
such study or examination constitutes a fair use."
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/2/977/1510.html
_Sega v. Accolade_, 24 USPQ2d 1561, 977 F2d 1510 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
On whether or not "utilization" includes decompiling, they said:
"We need not decide whether section 117 protects only the use intended
by the copyright owner, as Sega argues. See Vault Corp. v. Quaid
Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 261 (5th Cir. 1988) (authorization of
section 117(1) not limited to use intended by copyright owner)."
Curiously enough, of course, this prevents them (as if they cared) from
fitting within my putatively unique theory of copyright (actually just a
direct and unwavering interpretation, but interpretation is, after all,
subjective), and it does seem "cogent" (what's with the quotes; am I to
understand that, like Pat McCann, you are unfamiliar with the term as
used?). It appears to me that one of the questions I've been hung up on
simply doesn't have an answer. It may very well be that decompiling
might very well be a right of someone legally in possession of object
code. While section 117 certainly doesn't "purport" to allow making
multiple photocopies, the court hasn't even said it didn't, for that
matter.
Like all good judges, this ruling examined only the issues *essential*
for making a determination. Since Accolade's actions were deemed "fair
use", the court specifically didn't address whether decompiling is
'utilization' under section 117. And while it might simply be a matter
of buying a copy of the object code for each photocopy of the source you
wish to utilize, I don't see any reason why a hard copy is necessary.
Then we get into the "copy to RAM is a copy, so only one person can view
it at a time" issue. But if this is true, why do EULA licenses [sic]
explicitly say you can't use it from a network drive? If copyright law
already prevents this, wouldn't it weaken the contract to include it?
You are right, Lee, that there was much I missed concerning the
disassembly bit in the Sega v. Accolade case. I was concentrating on
the relevance of the decision to libraries at the time. It seems that
the court stated that decompiling is not broadly protected by fair use,
and the decision states that most computer programs can provide access
to the ideas and functions within it without decompiling, and thus in
such cases would not be allowed. This does, however, IMHO, merely
indicate the court's unfamiliarity with software in practice, and is not
of great importance. It does provide a ready defense, if not a per se
exemption, for decompiling a software program.
Further, in considering whether the previous court, which did not
consider disassembly to be fair use, had erred, it was noted that they
had "ignored [the fact that the work was software] entirely". This
indicates to me that whether the work is software is "cogent", not
merely "relevant". [;-)]
The issue as I see it is that the district court recognized the
relevancy of the fact that the work was software to be weighty enough to
overturn the previous decision. It wasn't fair use only because of how
it was used or the amount which was copied; it saw it as fair use
explicitly (though not entirely; both purpose and amount were also
factors) because it was software. I think the possibility certainly
exists that some future decision may clarify this point, and recognize
that since "utilization" is not necessarily limited to the intended use
of the copyright holder, and only software has this special exemption,
and the fact that software does have unique characteristics not shared
by other works, that copyrighted software cannot legally be covered by
what is considered today to be typical end user licensing agreements.
Given the current state of affairs, I figure if Sega had forced every
person purchasing a console to agree not to try to figure out how it
works, they could have avoided this problem. Why didn't they? I can
only think of two possible reasons. One, they didn't think of it. (A
large and successful company with lots of lawyers didn't think to
protect their work? Doubtful.) Two, it would have impeded the market
for their console, despite the fact that it wouldn't have impeded
consumers from using and benefitting from it in just the way they
already have.
Perhaps sooner, rather than later, people will wake up to the fact that
end user licensing of software is an affront and should be considered
unenforceable. Copyright law already provides software developers with
all the protections they require and deserve, and any software developer
who thinks they need a more restrictive arrangement is looking to
profiteer, not profit, on their work. If indeed some code must be dealt
with differently in order to be profitable at all (and assuming that
this doesn't simply mean it isn't worth enough in its own right) then
copyright is not the appropriate protection to begin with, and it should
be kept as truly proprietary information.
On that topic, I found this interesting site while researching these
issues.
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html#fn2
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:19:05 GMT
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> >>>>> "rj" == rj friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:04:02 "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ˙...since I disgree with the law in principle and consider
> > ˙most of the evidence to be irrelevant, it's hardly surprising I have a
> > ˙different opinion to you, no ?
>
> > Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
> > being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
> > and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
> > to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
>
> And why are you so full of coprolalia?
Either you're talking *way* over his head or you just misspelled "crapola".
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:22:26 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nfes0$9ck$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Upon doing a little digging, it quickly surfaced that Microsoft was
> quoting an article that was purely theoretical, and had assumed the
> use of a Solaris midrange server, 2 NetWare servers, and compared it
> to 4 NT servers for 1000 concurrent users. Since that prognostication
> had been written, SAMBA was available for UNIX (eliminating the need
> for NetWare on seperate servers), also IPX/SPX was available for
> Linux and UNIX. In addition, real production environments showed
> that although the estimate for UNIX servers was pretty accurate
> (actually a bit lower, and MUCH lower if you consider Linux), the
> number of NT servers was off by a factor of at least 5. When you
> compare the TCO of 4 Linux servers running on 4 processor servers
> (which DOES support 1000 users), and 20 NT 4 processor servers
> (more required due to lack of reentrancy, memory protection, and
> risk of DLL conflicts), the numbers fall in favor of UNIX -
> especially Linux or FreeBSD.
Explain your purported "lack of reentrancy" and "memory protection" and how
they affect the number of Windows NT servers required to service a given
number of clients. I just don't see the correlation.
> Actually, the COLA newsgroup as a whole is very effective at
> "reading the fine print". Furthermore, they are very good
> at brining these flaws to the forground of the conversation.
> I wasn't even the one who pointed out that the Mindcraft survey
> was conducted under settings requested by Microsoft, which were
> substantially different from their standard tests (intended to
> more accurately show real-world performance). I dug far enough
> to see HOW the test had been manipulated, and subsequent tests,
> even under Microsoft's conditions (ideally tuned to NT 4K clusters,
> NT isolated spinlocks on quad ethernet cards to quad processors...),
That level of OS optimization was allowed the linux team as well as I
recall. Perhaps the wrong folks were tuning the linux server?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:28:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>When I first encountered the kernel httpd I through WHAT THE HECK are they
>doing that for? I have not yet found a valid answer to that question. I
>have not used it because running such a server in the kernel is too
>dangerious and Apache is more flexible. Imagine the reputation that Linux
>would have once all the unix servers are implemented as a part of the
>kernel. Imagine what damage could be caused if an security hole is
>exploited in a network server that is running in kernel space.
I agree with the general idea; I don't think kernel servers make sense,
either. But even if the whole array of standard Internet servers went
into the kernel, while the stability and security would be a major
problem, it still wouldn't be as bad as NT, eh?
And it is open source, what? I can understand wanting the major Linux
houses to provide options for user server processes, but why does there
seem to be such a strong "they" involved here? If "they" provide only
kernel server versions, but there is a large number of people who want
more flexible/sane design, then there should be an "us" that provides
such an operating system, shouldn't there?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:30:56 GMT
Microsoft Crash Screen Explainer
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:21:21 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Do you know what an MCSE is? An MCSE has nothing to do with software
> >development.
>
> And it has even less to do with Engineering.
>
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >>Can you discuss garbage collection and
>
> The MCSE approach to garbage collection is to reboot. I would expect a
> Sanitary Engineer have more to discuss about garbage collection than a
> Mircosoft Engineer.
>
> Perry
--
If God didn't mean for us to juggle, tennis balls wouldn't come three
to a can.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:32:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I've heard these 'real people need to get their investments back from
>Linux' arguments and it just pisses me off. Who made the system? Us
>people that everyone so affectionlessly call geeks. Who saw a get rich
>quick scheme? Some of those morons that are now being called 'normal
>people'. Who has a right to claim 'ownership' of Linux? Oh, I know, I
>know, it should be those morons that saw Linux as a get rich quick
>scheme. Yeah, OK, whatever.
>
>Anybody else for a 'geek' revolt?
I'm in, if you'll have me. At least the geeks know the value of open
source, so at least there's the question of being able to question these
things. I'd rather kick the droids out of Windows than kick the geeks
out of Linux.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:44:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I concur with all of this. If Linux does fragment it will because of
>outside influences. The problem is that the fragmentation may already be
>starting. I have already seen some signs of it with Mandrake and Linux PPC.
I think fragmentation is not only inevitable, it is optimal. As much as
you may *want* true and complete 'modularization', I can't see end-user
software not requiring a certain "assumed configuration'. The
applications will, despite anyone's best efforts, require specific
implementations (though hopefully not kernel-level). The greater the
amount of "functional tying" between applications and middleware of all
stripes (classic, interface, components, what have you), the more each
distro may support different applications and different user bases.
Is it really a bad thing, as long as they're all 'Linux'? If you're
referring to some signs in Mandrake and PPC of *kernel* fragmentation, I
guess that's a different issue.
Pardon me for jumping in, either way.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:46:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Yes, it's a generalization. But the popular computer press is a
>generalized bunch of morons anyway. They all pretty much spout the same
>garbage over and over, it's like a mantra with them.
I'm with you on that one, Nate.
"A generalized bunch of morons." LOL! Great line.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:43:12 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> An interesting nit to pick, I'd guess. Still, the point is that BASIC
> >> is much closer to human languages than most other programming languages
> >> are, by design.
> >
> >Have you seen a COBOL program?
>
> Yes, and I mentioned COBOL as well in another post. But the topic of
> discussion is BASIC, and I am not familiar enough with the details of
> any COBOL or most BASIC to compare and contrast the two.
BASIC only *LOOKS* easier.
In fact, it's more difficult. Proof of this is the fact that you will
not find ANY large applications written in BASIC, even though
compilers for the language have existed for 20 years.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
