Linux-Advocacy Digest #463, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Star Trek Voyager (was: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's) (Michael
Vester)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Trek Voyager (was: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:10:34 -0700
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Voyager is just like any other form of entertainment (and any other
> form of Star Trek), there are some good episodes and some bad ones.
> Personally, I enjoyed DS9 the most of all the series; it actually
> became somewhat of a soap opera, but it also allowed for much more
> character development than the status-quo series (tos, tng, voy) where
> most every episode had to leave the envoronment in the same condition
> that it started with.
>
> Voyager is kinda cool in that they can totally screw up the delta
> quadrant and not be responsible for messing up the other trek
> timelines; but they don't take advantage of that very often. I'm
> looking forward the the season premeire; I've heard that they get home
> this year...
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
I gave up on the Star Trek formula after the end of TNG.
Babylon 5 is unconditionally the greatest television show
ever. 110, one hour episodes and 5 television movies to tell
an epic story. Many well developed characters and all sorts of
real life parables. In many respects, Babylon 5 was much like
the original Star Trek when it came to making a statement
about who and what we are.
It was remarkable that a science fiction show of Babylon 5
quality could ever be produced. It is way beyond the
understanding of a television producer's brain. The %95 crap
on the airwaves is evidence that a television producer has a
very low functioning mind capable of such works as Hercules,
Xena, BeastMaster, Ali McBeal, E.R., Survivor, Big Brother,
and the list goes on.
Babylon 5 was much more realistic in the science department
than Star Trek. The only real stretch were the jump gates and
hyperspace. It would have made a very slow story if it took
decades or centuries to travel between the stars. But no
transporters, replicators, holi-decks or other Star Trek
magical devices.
In the Star Trek universe, they seem able enough to control
the conversion of mass like a human being into energy and back
again but they can't build an instrument panel that does not
blow up (the biggest cause of Star Trek casualties). Star Trek
writers obviously have no knowledge of science. In the 20th
century, man could build instrument panels that do not blow
up, why not in the 24th century? Are the writers so desperate
that they have to kill characters with that same old, stupid
senerio?
I used to be a big Star Trek (original) fan but Babylon 5 has
taken that place. Babylon 5 will be the benchmark for a long
time. Farscape is turning out to be pretty good series too. It
has interesting characters, good writing and reasonable
science. Season 2 starts here on September 12. Starship
Troopers is a great half hour CGA effort. Very likable
characters and a real nasty enemy. It is great to see the good
guys in trouble not because of their incompetence but because
the bad guys are really bad. The series is much better than
the movie. The science is much more plausible than Star Trek.
The gadgets they use in Starship Troopers are quite
fascinating and represent good "science" fiction.
On the other hand, in Battlestar Galactica, the Cylons simply
had to set up a "free liquor" planet in front of the fleet.
Good-bye Colonial Warriors, since they would be drinking and
womanizing instead of defending the fleet. The Colonial
Warriors had only one responsible adult and it was not Lorne
Greene. Colonel Tigh (Terry Carter) was the only one that put
honor and duty before getting drunk and screwing around. The
enemy, the Cylons, were pretty pathetic too. Hollywood extra's
stumbling around in cardboard boxes wrapped in aluminum foil.
How far have we come since 1980. Never let Glen Larson produce
a science fiction show again.
Michael Vester
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: 18 Aug 2000 01:21:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Truckasaurus) wrote in
<8ng3jn$vif$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>So, to all you Windows advocates, who have claimed that the Linux/Open
>Source communities will fragment and drown in quarrelling:
>
>http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO48629,00.html:
>
>"Unix vendors adopt Gnome desktop
GNOME != Linux
GNOME is merley an environment, and it cannot be
assumed that just because GNOME is headed for
heavy industry support and standardization, that
the Linux kernel will as well.
BTW, you did realize that the mess that is UNIX
in general was because of "industry support" in
the first place, didn't you?
>By DOMINIQUE DECKMYN
>(August 16, 2000) Desktop Linux gained momentum on the first day of
>LinuxWorld in San Jose, as vendors including Red Hat Inc., Hewlett-
>Packard Co., IBM, Compaq Computer Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc. and VA
>Linux Systems Inc. joined to form the Gnome Foundation."
>
>Not only is Gnome manifesting itself as a popular Desktop environment
>in Linux - Gnome seems to bind different UNIX vendors together, where
>we all know that the (commercial) UNIX commuity is traditionally a
>fragmented one.
>
>In your face, Windows advocates! Linux fragmentation my butt!
Which WindowsNT advocates were claiming that Linux was going
to fragment. IIRC, a couple of Linux users merely mentioned
the possibility.
I use WindowsNT, but I for one like the idea that OSS is
getting taken more seriously with time. You have nothing
to shove in my face, sonny.
--
.-----.
|[_] | 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] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: 18 Aug 2000 01:27:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote in
<8ngmu2$sv7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <tTMm5.6288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The KDE people do not seem to be taking this lying down. There is
>>probably going to be an all-out war soon. The days of peaceful
>>cooperation between KDE and GNOME are probably over.
>
>Erik Funkenbusch has a long history as a pro-Microsoft
>anti-Linux propagandist.
>
>A KDE programmer at the LinuxWorld Expo told me that the
>two groups certainly are cooperating, e.g., to insure that
>the apps of each desktop system will run on the other.
>This even includes writing wrappers for each other's
>component facilities (that allow, for example, a live
>spreadsheet to be embedded in a wordprocessor document).
>So a Gnome spreadsheet can be part of a KDE document, or
>vice versa.
Ah, it's COMNA's favorite conspiracy theorist.
Tell me Mark, is Erik getting paid more than me?
Because if he is, then that's the last straw!
I'm not inviting him to the next Black Helicopter
Expo in Vegas.
Sorry Erik, but you should have thought twice
about assuming dictatorship of the secret Mars
colony before I could. Bastard. :-P
Also Mark, could you please hack into Microsoft's
secret alien artifacts database for me... I need
to verify that we are in fact going to institute
plan alpha-gamma-prime-bata-woogie-boogie-shoobop.
Oh, and Mark... ... ... they're on to you. RUN!@#
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:28:59 GMT
Josiah Fizer wrote:
>
> Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "Josiah" == Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Chris Wenham wrote:
> > >> I must be missing something, or you are. I thought Everblue was the
> > >> effort to port the X window toolkit to OS/2's Presentation Manager to
> > >> make it easier to port X applications and run them seamlessly.
> > >>
> > >> Someone could do the same with Windows - making it easier to port X
> > >> applications and run them without an X server.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Chris Wenham
> >
> > > If thats all it is there are already several X Window (no s) sytems
> > > out for MSWindows. I use Excead and have had no problem porting X
> > > applications over to NT/98.
> >
> > Exceed is an X server.
> >
> > Everblue is about porting X applications to the native windowing system.
>
> With the Excead system (inc. Interex) I have a CSH, GCC and the XLibs. I
> just run Make and end up with an application that runs under MSWindows in
> Excead X-Window. However it sounds like your talking about a software
> adstraction layer that would run applications under MSWindows transparently.
It's not so much abstraction as it is translation, but yes, you've got the
general idea. We've got Exceed and a full blown port of XFree86 (which can
run concurrently with the normal GUI shell) in OS/2 already, but Everblue is
something different. It's more akin to project Odin if you're familiar with
that.
In any case, Everblue itself can't really be ported to another platform
because it was written specifically to translate to the OS/2 API, but similar
projects could be developed for other platforms.
------------------------------
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: 18 Aug 2000 01:32:55 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
8<SNIP>8
>> >So, from that statement, one can ONLY conclude that M$ already tried
>> >to "take aim on Unix" and thus far, has failed miserably.
>>
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> - Every argument he makes never has any facts in it.
>> - Has a smug and condesceding attitude.
>> - He has a very long and annoying .signature.
>>
>> I dunno about you Christopher, but I've run out of
>> reasons to keep this guy viewable any longer.
>>
>> *PLOINK!*
>
>Whoah, it's starting to look like one a day. Pretty soon the only
>people reading Aaron's posts are going to be me and the trolls (unless I
>decide to finally get off my lazy ass (figuratively) and get a different
>news reader).
XNews is outstanding. I'm using the WindowsNT port.
I'd highly recommend it under any platform.
Does Mozilla have a message center, like Netscape, or do
you view and post from within the browser itself?
Does it not have filtering capabilities? I thought that
it was more or less Netscape Communicator, no?
--
.-----.
|[_] | 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: 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: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:30:58 GMT
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Lars Träger wrote:
> > >Bob B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >You guys RUINED the NT Brand by over promising and giving it a bad
> > >> >reputation as it was evaluated by standards to which it could not
> > >> >achieve. NT was a good PC OS but boy was it over sold and MS had to
> > >> >dump
> > >> >the NT Brand to be taken seriously --
> > >>
> > >> Yes, NT was a failure in the marketplace and they had to change
> > >> the name. Just like Apple OS 9 is a failure and they had to
> > >> introduce OS X.
> > >
> > >Apple changed the name because it is a completely different OS.
> >
> > OS X is "OS ten" It's a minor change in name relative to the BSD roots
> > of the
> > OS.
>
> I've wondered about that. They basically did three things by choosing OS
> X:
>
> 1. Created a nomenclature which is going to be mispronounced. Regularly.
>
> 2. Made it look like OS X is only a one step change from Mac OS 9.x.
>
> 3. Made it effectively impossible to continue to improve Mac OS 9.x if
> they choose to do so.
Here's one you might not have thought of...
DirectX...
ActiveX...
X-Box...
Or more likely, they did it to reflect its more Unix-like qualities.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:34:30 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:53:28 Chris Wenham
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ˙ > 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?
> >
> > Full of what?
>
> Needless profanity. It seems to be an OS/2 advocate characteristic.
Please don't generalize. Friedman is generally perceived as a lunatic who
occasionally says something of interest around here. An old adage about a
million monkies and a million typewriters comes to mind.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:52:19 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nhokh$v4f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You do realize that AT&T and the bells have always used redundancy.
> > switches fail, but they've always had extensive cutovers and the
> > ability to re-route around failures.
>
> Yes. I was a developer on one of the first computerized Directory
> Assistance systems to go nationwide.
Then why did you insinuate that Unix stability was the reason phone systems
genearlly have zero to little downtime?
>We had developed the original
> using PDP-11s and a hacked up version of RT-11, with one of the
> very first clustered systems. We ran 8 PDP-11/44 processors per
> cluster, connected to up to 32 group controllers, each group
> controller supported up to 24 8085/8088 processors and up 20 terminal
> cluster controllers.
With that kind of redundancy, you could run a 24/7/365 shop on Dos 4 (the
most unstable version ever released). What OS you're using is irrelevant to
the overall reliability in this case.
> Keep in mind that this in 1983, about 7 years before the first SQL
> databases appeared for UNIX.
Hmmm.. Strange that Oracle was founded in 1977. And I certainly remember
using Informix on DG/UX in the late 80's.
> > Although these systems were primarily
> > mainframe based until recent years.
>
> Mainframe - as in OS/370?
>
> Most of the tactical and strategic systems were implemented on
> supercomputers using either ADA or a combination of ADA and UNIX.
ADA is a programming language. Unix is an OS. ADA was designed to be OS
independant, and was (I think) first developed on CDC Cyber systems. I was
using ADA in 1985 when I was in the army.
> > > Linux did have certain advantages over traditional UNIX. It was
> > > modular, but not a "microkernel". This made it much easier to add
> > > and debug driver software. Many hardware vendors even test their
> > > Microsoft Windows drivers on Linux before switching from the Linux
> > > wrapper to the Microsoft wrappers.
> >
> > Many? Name one.
>
> I remember reading in some of the howtos that a few vendors were
> implementing Linux drivers and simply changing the wrappers for
> Microsoft. I believe this included 3Com, LinkSys, DLink, TI (TIGA),
> S3, and Adaptec. I think this was mentioned in one of the howtos.
Whether or not that's true (and I have my doubts) it doesn't prove your
statement, that these vendors test their Windows drivers with Linux.
> I'd read it about 3 years ago, and it correlated to an article in a
> print publication (Info-World?) where vendors who were frustrated
> with Microsoft for not supporting their Windows 3.51 and Windows 95
> porting attempts, resorted to testing with Linux systems using
> interchangable wrapper APIs. Many early winsock implementations
> were based on the adapter software written by the same person who
> wrote net3 and many of the packet drivers for interface cards.
Really? 3 years ago vendors were not providing Linux drivers. They were
all written by Linux enthusiests. Drivers being supplied by vendors is a
very recent thing.
> > > Unfortunately, the very nature of the Windows APIs and OLE/COM
> > > environment dictates that processes pass blocks of memory around
> > > and to the event queues of thet main interpreter. If there is a
> > > 1 microsecond window between when a process checks a variable and
> > > when it attempts to modify that variable, and you do this 1 million
> > > times a day, you will corrupt the system about once a day.
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about?
> > OLE/COM uses memory copies between
> > processes, not direct writes. This is done by LRPC on NT.
> >
> > What "main interpreter" are you talking about?
>
> Sorry, event handler. Most Windows NT programs are based on passing
> messages to an event handler which then calls the appropriate actions
> and methods for the classes recieving the event.
Yes? This still makes no sense. How does this "corrupt the system about
once a day"?
> In windows, interprocess communication wasn't really formalized until
> MSMQ. Prior to that, NT provided DCOM, but with a 95% loss of
> performance (20 times slower) when switching from COM (in-process)
> to DCOM (out of process), it was avoided like the plague.
More Rex-no-babble. DCOM is a remoting architecture. It has nothing to do
with out of process IPC (which occurs on the same machine). IPC has been
"formalized" since NT in 1993, when it provided such things as pipes, named
pipes, mail slots, shared memory, and message passing.
DCOM is much slower because it's used between machines, over a network. Not
between processes on the same machine.
> As a result, a number of abstractions were used. A classic in Win3.1
> was to create a DLL with a shared global. With Win95 you created
> a VXD. With WinNT you created an OCX. Each allowed two programs
> to pass messages between each other via shared memory - with all
> the problems of race conditions, deadlocks, and gridlocks that
> reduce uptime and decrease performance.
More BS. Win95 and NT had shared memory from day one. OCX's didn't even
exist until 2 years after NT's introduction, and OCX's are in-process. They
don't share memory between processes.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
> Again, Microsoft is aware of these problems in NT, and has made a
> number of changes to Windows 2000 to eliminate them. In some cases,
> they preserved the windows APIs while cleaning up the back-end. In
> other cases, they introduced new APIs like COM+, MTS, and MSMQ.
Again, you have no idea what COM+, MTS, or MSMQ are, do you? They're
transactioning technologies for use in large scale database applications.
They have nothing to do with IPC in general.
> Of course, these are proprietary interfaces, incompatible with any
> other platform, which assures that you will have to do a major rewrite
> to port to other platforms, depend on very expensive software for
> Windows2000->UNIX migration, and because you are depending on 3rd
> party software, you risk instability resulting from Service Packs that
> may accidentally or deliberately render these 3rd party products
> disfunctional.
Incompatible with any other platoform? I guess that's why COM and DCOM
exist for Solaris and HP/UX. You should know that almost nothing is
incompatible with another platform, it just takes someone to write it.
> In UNIX, the equivalent of an apartment thread is the fork(),
> which kicks off a new process, but the new "child" process
> (actually only a process table entry) share all of it's
> memory with the parent process.
Do you have any idea what an apartment thread is? You don't do you? An
apartment thread is a thread that has an event queue. It's no different
from any other kind of thread except for this. Apartment threads are not
MMU protected (except, of course from other processes).
> In UNIX a much higher percentage of the executable and static memory
> is shared by all processes. Futhermore, a larger percentage of
> the buffer memory is also shared.
And how do you quantify this statement?
> > MS has had pipes for years.
>
> Yes they did. From 1982 to 1995, you could pipe output from one
> command into another command. Of course the implementation left
> something to be desired. You ran the first program and stored
> all of the output into a huge hidden file, when the first program
> completed, the second program would read the hidden file. When
> the receiver program was finished, it erased the file. Disk space
> was critical.
>
> Windows 95 improved things a bit, using memory between the processes.
> Eventually, NT did it the "UNIX way" - filling a very small block of
> memory, passing the small block to the receiver, and the receiver
> would pass control back to the sender when the block was drained.
NT had "Unix way" pipes from day one. It didn't "eventually" do it that
way. My first edition "Inside Windows NT" by Helen Custer (1992) describes
them in detail. You're confusing DOS and Win32. Windows 95 was not the
first Win32 architecture.
> Actually, the "UNIX way" is to have two blocks of memory. This way,
> the sender can fill blocks WHILE the receiver is draining them.
>
> Unfortunately, unless you have the NT resource kit, most Windows
> programs are still written to a paradigm based on huge monolithic
> objects that must be read into memory in their entirity before the
> methods of the object can be invoked to modify the object. If you
> have a large object such as a BMP file, or a Word document, this
> can involve megabytes between the processes.
What the hell are you talking about? What does the NT resource kit have to
do with anything?
> > > Finally, Microsoft depends on proprietary file formats that can't
> > > be parsed by either stream parsers or by human beings. This is
> > > because Microsoft wants it's content to be managed as objects
> > > created exclusively for and by Microsoft Applets rather than as
> > > information created by and used by the end-user.
> >
> > Anything can be parsed.
>
> Yes, but if you must know the length of the entire object before
> you can send the first bytes of the header, which contain the
> size of the rest of the entire object, parsing takes quite a bit
> more memory. Furthermore, if you have to allocate memory for the
> entire object and read the contents of the entire object into memory
> before you can execute methods against the object, you have additional
> latency as well as memory.
>
> By using streams of smaller objects, such as words, lines, paragraphs,
> and similarly delimited tokens, whether the objects are sent via
> XML or unix strings, you can parse smaller tokens using very little
> memory and pass information to the next stage of the chain while
> you work on the chunk coming from the previous stage of the chain.
> If you have enough processors, you can even put the machine into
> a trivial multiproccessing mode that speeds the chain considerably.
Please, pray tell, let us know how Unix changes all this.
> > If text based file formats are so cool, why does
> > the Red Hat packaging system use binary fiiles for it's file format?
> > Check out the files in /var/lib/rpm.
>
> Look at the details more closely. They use a combination of compressed
> tar files, along with a series of scripts and dependency databases
> (similar to make-files) that help the package manager identify which
> dependencies have already been satisfied, which ones need to be
> satisfied, and how to satisfy them.
>
> Sure, some of the files are actually compressed binary executables.
> More building blocks. Most of the packages however are essentially
> a combination of simple components combined with some PYTHON, PERL,
> or TCL scripts along with some BASH scripts.
I'm not talking about the packages. I'm talking about the database files
used by RPM.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
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: 18 Aug 2000 01:37:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
8<SNIP>8
>- Xena
>- (to be continued)
Actually, I do still rather enjoy Xena, due to the
large volume of scantily-clad women in it. Except
that I mute the TV, so that I don't have to worry
about any of the silly storylines, or dialogue.
>I can safely say that this is some of the worst garbage running on
>German TV. I've sampled all of those shows by watching half an episode
>or maybe an entire one.
>
>I can't imagine anything that would bore me sufficiently to watch
>several episodes.
If you're looking for substantial, and non-moronic
material, PBS (do they have that sort of thing in
Germany?) is your best bet.
As for TV in general... it was meant to be mindless. :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] | 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] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 18 Aug 2000 01:42:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Byrns) wrote in
<8nhbiv$ll6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ng13p$l8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Byrns) wrote in
>> <_CLm5.4380$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> 8<SNIP>8
>>
>> >> How would an experiment with no business impact affect the price of
>> >> stock?
>> >
>> >Don't worry, Aaron will threaten your life soon too. He does that with
>> >everyone that proves him wrong. After all he *IS* RAMBO.
>>
>> Hey, back off Byrns! He's 'leet!
>
>I feel that you might have omitted a smiley there somewhere :-)
But of course. Sometimes, the delivery of
humor screams out for the deadpan style.
I suppose deadpan is a tad difficult to
acertain on USENET sometimes, however. :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] | 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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
