Linux-Advocacy Digest #491, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 20:13:06 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: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Perry Pip)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway? (Maynard Handley)
Incentives for Supporting Linux: was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Adam Shapira)
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Windtrolls
and Authentic Linvocates)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:30:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >>
>> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >> >[snip]
>> >> >
>> >> >> I had said
>> >> >> >Well, let's apply the standard you expect of others, for a change.
>> >> >> >Explain me! Tell me! What? You don't explain the way I like?
>> >> >> >Fool!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What the hell are you talking about?
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, that is the general attitude you have. Remember chmod?
>> >> >You ask people to explain, and when you fail to understand,
>> >> >you insult. Well, moron, explain again! better!
>> >>
>> >> No, I asked for an explanation of the permissions, not chmod, the
>> >> command used to modify them.
>> >
>> >I only use chmod as a reference to the discussion. It obviously
>> >worked.
>>
>> Actually, it didn't 'work' at all in the regard I take it you mean.
>
>It was meant to let you know what discussion I was referring to.
>You seem to be now referring to the same discussion. That's what I
>wanted. It worked. Stop arguing stupid stuff. Please.
It isn't stupid stuff, but I know what you mean. It is important
because it identifies how you were misrepresenting the argument by
inaccurately identifying what I had asked for an explanation about. I
didn't fail to understand anything, I pointed out that my request for an
explanation was misinterpreted. I didn't insult, I pointed out why
calling me "clueless" rather than recognizing that you misunderstood my
request for an explanation illustrates the limited perspective that
people tend to have about things. I never called anyone a moron, though
I did entreat many to "think harder". Are you right to be annoyed by
the fact that I believed that the confusion, which I recognized as it
was occurring, was a potential object lesson for people posting to
Usenet? Is that "stupid stuff"?
[...]
>You see, you still don't understand. the "T" is not a representation
>of the effects, it's a representation of the bit itself.
The affects are an abstraction; the visual presentation, while
meaningless in your perspective, is all that the person who doesn't
*already understand* has to attempt to understand the abstraction, and
therefore what the discussion was about, what my request was, and why
the explanations I was getting were less than helpful.
>A representation of the effects would be something very different,
>such as a view of the memory mapping of a running program. Which is
>something you probably will never see.
And never need to see, as I already have the abstraction of what the
sticky bit *does*; the only point of confusion which was supposedly
being discussed was why I had it confused with the setuid bit. Not why
it was different, but why it wasn't known to be different. The answer
is that either is rarely something that comes up a lot for the majority
of Unix users, and they are both represented by changes to the execute
bit in the permissions. The cogent contrast was that the 't' only shows
up in the "world" permissions, and the 's' replaces the execute
permission's display in the "owner" and "group" spots.
This is entirely restricted to the visual presentation of the
permissions, and so the functional purpose of either of these is really
irrelevant to the discussion as it occurred.
[...]
>So, you see a "t" in a directory's permissions, and you know you can
>only delete your own files, without being told that. Yeah, sure.
>So much for the uselessness of our answers.
That happens quite rarely even for people with much more experience than
I. So much of the answer was, indeed, useless. Had someone said "a t
appears in the directory's world execute permission slot", and I would
have been half way to figuring out the answer myself without even having
to go to the trouble (as I eventually did) of telnetting into a Unix box
which I have full access to in order to determine for myself what the
answer to my question was. I don't blame anyone for not providing the
answer when I didn't even "try" to find it out myself (I do much of my
reading and responding off-line), I merely pointed out that they
misunderstood what I was asking, and that caused a bunch of defensive
(and offensive) attacks in response.
>> >The main result of applying the sticky bit, as it was told to you
>> >many times, are that the executable image stays in swap, and the effect
>> >on file creation and deletion. The ls output is not important at all.
>>
>> To you, perhaps.
>
>This sums it up. You must be trolling. I can't believe you actually
>say this seriously. Let's put it this way: if the important thing
>the suid bit does is put a s in the permissions, it would be a hell
>of a lot simpler to implement.
That depends on why you're asking the question. Your perspective is so
far removed from someone who is trying to learn these things to begin
with that you may unknowingly but aggressively prevent them from being
able to learn. I didn't say what the setuid bit does is totally
unimportant in all regards but the visual display of permissions; I said
it was unimportant in the context of the discussion in most other
regards than the visual display of permissions, since that is pretty
much all most users will ever see of it. When someone asks "what is the
setuid bit", an answer that combines the visual (concrete)
representation with the functional (abstract) purpose is going to go a
lot farther in promoting understanding, and so the alternative is,
essentially, promoting ignorance.
>> In distinguishing the sticky bit from the setuid bit,
>> and in clarifying that they are not at all related, it seemed rather
>> definitive. They could, after all, have been in the same position, just
>> as either shares a place with the executive bit.
>
>Notice that although they share the position with the x bit, you can
>still say if the x bit is set or not. They are not the same as the x
>bit, either. So, if they can share a position with a bit and be
>differnt, they could also share (or not) a postion with each other and be
>different.
>
>The position they use makes no difference one way or the other.
Which only makes the issue more confusing for those not already familiar
with it.
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:28:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> >> If we use pre-existing values to choose values, where did the
>> >> pre-existing values come from?
>> >
>> >Education, mostly.
>>
>> Well, that would be "other people's values", then, eh?
>
>Not after you are educated. But yeah, at first you do what your
>dad tells you is good, and don't do what he tells you is bad.
>
>> And where did> they come from?
>
>Their education, mostly.
Well, aside from trying to make this exchange move as slowly as possible
while you catch up to the full philosophical ramifications of your
presumptions, is there a point to your failing to recognize the tenuous
nature of this recursive argument?
There are three possibilities (as always; all dichotomies are false
ones)
a) People choose their values
b) People learn their values from others
c) People may or may not choose to learn, or learn to choose, but the
situation is more complicated than can be understood if you accept
either a blanket assumption of an absolute moral code OR a
post-modernist relativity in which everyone determines their own ethics
through pure free will.
So how would you like to proceed? A discussion of whether free will
exists, or a discussion of whether ethics are determined by 'putatively
universal social consensus', not personal morality? I'm flexible, take
your pick.
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:32:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Coming from the man that believes the effect of the sticky bit
>> >is a "t" that appears on his screen every once in a while.
>>
>> Indeed, that is the only effect which the sticky bit has ever had for
>> me, and for many others who have posted on this matter, by their own
>> declaration.
>
>Nonsense. Have you never created or deleted a file in /tmp?
>Have you never printed on a unix queue?
>Have you never sent or received email on a unix server?
>
>It may be the only one you NOTICED, though.
A good point. Abstract, and outside the scope of the discussion we've
been having, but a good point nevertheless.
[...]
>> Yes, its quite cogent in itself in many regards, eh?
>
>I must confess cogent is a funny word for a argentinian.
Why is that? It just sounds weird, or does it mean something else in
your native tongue? I'm not trying to bait you, but it occurred to me
that "a argentinian" sounds weird in English, though I'm not sure if
that's a lingual or a typographical error.
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: 18 Aug 2000 23:34:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:03:13 GMT,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Another example of your reading what you want others to have written??
Here is exactly what you wrote:
http://x63.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=657425298
In response to:
-->However, it is not uncommon at all
--> for a business to release code (all the work having been done already)
--> under GPL as a loss leader. For that matter, an individual may write
--> GPL'd code in order to be able put it on his resume.
You wrote:
->The correct characterization of most businesses is 'psychopath'
->so what is "not uncommon at all" for a business is rare for a
->human being.
And You wrote
->Society can /tolerate/ a certain portion of psychopaths before it
->starts to completely break down
And You wrote.
->A neurotic's need for approval from others is vastly preferable to a
->psychopath's decision to 'just put this on his resume'.
And in this post
http://x63.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=658236735
In response to:
-->Let others decide for themselves what is harmful to their spirit.
You wrote:
->What is and is not harmful to people is the domain of psychology
->and social science.
>What I *said* was deeply harmful was people constantly being forced
>to justify everything they do as "in the business' interest".
Well alot of people don't find it harmful, because they have a broader
understanding than you, and they don't always see self interest (or the
interest of the business) as conflicting with the interest of the
whole. There are more than a few businesses out there that do benefit
society as a whole.
>
>And you're a nitwit.
Again you result to insults because of your inability to make a
rational argument.
>> >What the fuck is this "spirituality" you've brought up now?
>> ^^^^^
>>
>> First of all, if you were reading, you would see the difference
>> between "spiritually" and "spirituality".
>
>And if YOU were reading, you might have noticed the difference
>between "spirit" and "spiritually", a much greater difference
>than the difference YOU are complaining about (especially when
>in the context of HUMAN spirit), but everything's fair when it's
>to your advantage, right?
Oh..bullshit. You use an vague word and then I use another form of the
same word and you get all upsetand whine like a baby for my using that
word. More evidence you can't put on a rational debate.
>> Secondly, it was *you* who
>> introduced the word "spirit" in this dialog. What the fuck is *that*??
>
>"mental health and well-being"
>
>> It means alot of different things to different people, doesn't it? I
>> suppose your meaning is the right meaning, and everyone else is wrong.
>
>I deeply regret ever using that vague a word when dealing with an
>asshole who won't cut me any slack, let alone try to understand
>what I mean in favour of what he wants it to mean.
Regardless of what it means, your point is completely fucked up. It is
not for elitist psychologists and social scientists to tell people how
to live their lives as you seem to suggest.
>Wrong, cretin. I said that all LARGE BUSINESSES and most small ones
>are psychopaths. And this is obvious from observation.
Provide a reference backing up your claim then.
>Yet another example of you reading what you want to read.
>I said that people who write free software for the sole purpose
>of putting it on their resume *can be* psychopaths. Of course, it
>may not have been as obvious what I said to someone who doesn't
>understand the simplest conventions of natural human language.
>
Well excuse me. I made the point that someone might write free
software to put it on their resume and you responded to that a big
rant about psychopaths.
>Of course, what's inconvenient to you is irrelevant.
No, your playing semantics to get out of what you said, and I'm not
falling for it.
>But we weren't discussing separation from one's species or from
>physical reality. We *were* discussing separation from (small)
>social groups called FAMILIES. But of course, divorce doesn't
>exist since the largest of possible social groups is completely
>equivalent to the smallest of social groups.
Sure divorce exists in families. But your said your model was true
99.999% of the time. 99.999% of marriages do not end in divorce. In a
healthy family, self interset, the interest of the family as a whole,
morality, and rationality are very often harmoneous. And there are
many healthy families out there.
>[Snip anything that would take me more than 5 minutes to respond,
>and even that much is a complete waste of breath]
Oh..snip all the bullshit claims you know you can't prove.
>> >> I inhabit a reality where self interest, the interest of others,
>> >> rationality and morality need not necessarily be in conflict with one
>> >> another.
>> >
>> >A common delusion.
>>
>> Most psychologists I have met share that "delusion".
>
>That's typical of your line of arguments; psychology has NOTHING to
>do with self-interest, interest of others, rationality OR morality!
>The closest that psychology has to do with rationality is that it
>*uses* rationality as an ideal; psychology has no say in what is and
>isn't rational. It's PHILOSOPHY that defines *ALL* of those things!
Really?? In your previous post (referenced above) while your were
trying to support your claim the rationality always conflicts with
self-interest you insisted that I must know psychology. Now you say
it's philosophy. I guess you choose whatever is the best for your
argument at the time.
And since when did philosophy have an implicit monopoly on defining
morality and rationality? Religions like to claim they have a monopoly
on it too. And it's all fine and dandy untill someone tries to force
thier ideas on someone else. And that's exactly what you are doing
with me. This was a thread between open minded people untill you
jumped in. You are as narrow minded as a religious fundamentalist, only
in another way.
>And *NO* philosopher I've met has thought that there is a large
>overlap between any of these things.
Actually, the are many. But quite frankly, I could care less. I don't
need a formal philisophy to tell me how to see the world any more than
I need an organized religion to do so.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:34:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:38:34 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>for application macros. BASIC, as a language, doesn't either. But
>>BASIC is a more accessible syntax, and more broadly familiar to those
>>who approach the PC as a large microcomputer,
>
>You keep repeating this assertion without supporting it. Suffice it to
>say that not everyone agrees with you.
The entire reason BASIC was developed was to provide rudimentary
programming constructs which were familiar to those unfamiliar with
programming languages. It is hardly an assertion of mine that this is
so. As for supporting whether it is cogent, I haven't seen any
refutation in that regards, other than somebody's brushing mention of
something called "M4". If not everyone agrees with this judgement, I'm
more than happy to engage in some discussion to try to determine what I
might be missing. But these will require detailed examination of
specific syntax and some general framework for judging the relative
familiarity and accessability of the concepts and structures involved.
I don't have those resources, and presume you don't. You may wish to
insist that, lacking them, I am "unsupported" in my assertion, but that
smacks more of an argument from ignorance than a coherent presentation
of an opposing opinion.
Thanks for your time. Suffice it to say I hope that 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: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:37:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:38:34 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>Mr. Korn was not specifically designing a syntax intended for those not
>>yet familiar with 'real' programming.
>
>This is completely false. Shells are designed to be used by ( and are used
>by ) non programmers.
Well, its certainly debatable, but hardly "completely false". In the
days when ksh was developed (late 70s, early 80s?) the Unix world was
primarily mini-computer/terminal oriented. Yes, the people using the
ksh were potentially non-programmers. The people who were using the ksh
scripting facility, however, were understood to be "familiar with 'real'
programming", I feel sure. Any specific evidence that Korn intended the
ksh scripting syntax to be an optimal introduction to algorithmic
processing for beginners would be greatly appreciated, though.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maynard Handley)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.os.windows.advocacy,comp.os.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:36:05 -0700
In article <8nc83h$89259$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nigel Feltham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Another problem is that most countries don't have unmetered internet access.
>How many users are going to want to pay up to $5 per hour on top of any
>software rental to use a computer. In quite a few countries within a few
>days the rental would be starting to cost more than the purchase price of a
>multi-cd distribution of linux and this is only a one-off payment. Also, how
>quickly will the bloat of windows be able to load through a 56k modem (and
>how will you still use those winmodems).
Why is this of importance?
(a) MS' primary concern is businesses which are in a somewhat different
space wrt internet access.
(b) Not to put too fine a point on it, MS is not interested in lame
countries that can't get their internet act together, since there's less
money to bleed out those countries. MS has an adequate story for these
places---essentially more of the same---along with a "better" story (more
predictable revenue stream for MS---not necessarily larger, quite possibly
better customer experience for users) for the US/Canada RSN, Britain and
Europe in the nearish future, and Japan who knows when.
Maynard
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:55:17 -0400
From: Adam Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Incentives for Supporting Linux: was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
"Gilbert W. Pilz Jr." wrote:
---- [snip]
>
> And other things . . . For instance, Microsoft realized (earlier than
> most), that the key to mass acceptance of any OS was the availability
> of applications. After all, most people don't care what OS they are
> using, as long as the 3 or 4 core applications they care about run on
> that OS.
And that's what the Linux community must realize
if the proprietary MS Windows is to be unseated.
And the way to get more applications developed for
Linux is to make that *irresistably easy*.
I believe in what I call the "Free Systems Philosophy"
instead of the Free Software Philosophy. The primary
conflict between the two philosophies would be over
the following question: "Which is better? One more
Free Open-Source application to run on MS Windows,
or one more proprietary application to run on
GNU/Linux?" Of course, both parties would agree that
the *ideal* would be to have a Free Open-Source app
for GNU/Linux ... but the two would *disagree* on
whether it's more important that the app *it's self*
be Free (as in "Open-Source") or that the system
which the app *runs* on be licensed this way.
I'd like to see more apps running on GNU/Linux.
Yes, I'd like to see more Free-Software type apps
... but I'd also like it if more of the *proprietary*
apps ran on GNU/Linux as well.
Also, Independedn Software Vendors also have
an incentive to support the Free Systems
Philosophy. An ISV may not want all of it's
software to be released as GPL-ware ... yet
such an ISV *may* be willing to release
*some* GPL-type shared-libraries to improve
an OS on which it's proprietary system is
to run ... or even contribute a GPL-type
device-driver for a piece of hardware that
their software can work with. Also, Hardware
Vendors could improve the value of their
merchandise by contributing device drivers
as well.
And why should they all want to support Linux?
Because they know that MS Windows will always
be Microsoft's turf, where only Microsoft has
full access to integrate their apps with the
system. And any other *proprietary* OS would be
just the same, only that instead of Microsoft
being the turf-master, it will be someone else
just *like* Microsoft.
Therefore, whatever spare time I have left for
writing Free Software, I intend to spend on
writing more and more shared libraries for the
GNU/Linux Operating System. This will mean
higher-level and higher-level APIs. The more
advanced the APIs of the OS, the easier it will
be to write software for the free OS ... and my
goal is to make it (as I said) irresistably easy.
For more on the Free Systems Philosophy, join me
at:
http://www.vic.com/~vorlon/freeos/
Seeya,
Adam
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:21:31 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:jEin5.13752$Sc.403825@stones...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8nkau3$vab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:3ngn5.13710$Sc.397765@stones...
> >
> > > How about Scrappy Do? He dragged those around him down too.
> >
> > Scrappy Do? Was he a Scooby Do Jr. wanabe? I have heard the name, but
> it
> > was a little after my Saturday morning cartoon days.
>
> Yes. He was Scooby Do's nephew or some such thing.
>
>
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Windtrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:38:56 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Which brings us to about where we are now. So I again ask: next?
>
> I would be interested in seeing you support your claim that explorer is
> a window manager.
As I have said before, Windows people keep talking about Windows Explorer as
though it were an analog for the X Windowing Systems' windows managers. I
agree that is not accurate, but, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt
for the sake of this discussion.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:28:29 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Keep your eyes open for the next great personality coming your way at
> an advocacy group near you...
Already happened, with two different identities: "Me" and "milton"
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:01:55 GMT
Marty writes:
>> Here's today's Amodeo digest. Starting around item #6,
> "Frankly, I don't care."
> - Dave Tholen
"You believe the ego of this guy?"
--Marty Amodeo
"What an ego! He never ceases to astound me with his bloated sense
of self-worth."
--Marty Amodeo
Of course you don't care to admit to your illogic, Marty.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
