Linux-Advocacy Digest #697, Volume #28 Mon, 28 Aug 00 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:04:03 -0400
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> Glitch wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > You bring up a very good point. For those who don't believe this point
> > of view and also live in the states just watch Jay Walking on the
> > Tonight SHow (it is a segment they have on once in a while, but not
> > every show) and you will see just how dumb people are. It is sad but it
> > is hilarious the answers some people give to Jay's questions.
> >
>
> It is a funny segment, but I hope you don't take it seriously. It is
> obviously staged.
>
> Gary
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public.
--PT Barnum.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:05:44 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> I never said "he" is not real. I said "JS/PL" is not real, other than
> >> as a pseudonym.
> >
> >You said "'JS/PL' isn't a real person." That's not saying that he's
> >using a pseudonym.
>
> According to your interpretation, maybe. It is equivalent of saying
> "'John Galt' isn't a real person", in my interpretation (and since I'm
> the one that said it, I have slightly more say than you in its meaning.)
> You may note that "John Galt" has posted several times to Usenet.
>
Are you alleging that the posts signed JS/PL are actually written
by bogie-men or ghosts or demons or something?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:19:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:58:34 -0400,
> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And with that understanding, I entirely agree. Normally a large market
>>>> share *can* be considered monopolization, as there is no other way to
>>>> get large market share in a competitive market.
>>>
>>>That's most certainly not true.
>>>
>>>A large enough market share (>90% typically) can be considered a
>>>monopoly.
>>>
>>>But to say that there's no way to get that large a share in a
>>>competitive market is just plain wrong.
>>
>>Adam Smith says you're wrong.
>
>
>Where?
In The Wealth of Nations, I would suppose. It seems he argues rather
persuasively that in a free market, any monopolization of commerce will
be mitigated by competitive forces.
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:20:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Something doesn't make sense, and it certainly isn't my statement. Take
>> it to somebody who can "decode" such "high-falutin' words" and parse it
>> correctly, and perhaps they'll be able to explain it to you.
>
>The problem only occurs with your posts though.
On the contrary, I've seen both you and Joe confound other's posts with
equal amounts of miscomprehension.
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:24:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 06:56:37 GMT,
> Courageous, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>
>>> Carter has devoted his post-presidential life to public service, for
>>> which he's been widely given honors and respect, as he deserves.
>>
>>Quite true. Carter was an awful President, but seems to be
>>an outstanding humanitarian. Credit where credit is due.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>C//
>
>
>I was (and am) a vocal critic of Carter as a president, (or as a foreign
>policy ambassador for that matter) but I would be proud to stand next to
>him and help with the habitat for overbreeding hominids :)
I think I like your style, Jim.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:49:54 -0500
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
> >If you want to support a claim Win95 is poorly engineered, you either
> >have
> >to provide some examples of a "better engineered" product that
> >provides the
> >same services whilst operating under the same restrictions or, at the
> >very
> >least, give a credible explanation of how it could be done.
>
> Well you have to first at least make a guess what the design goals
> are. None of the various Windows incarnations touch unix for
> stability, security, or power of course, but for many of them it's not
> reasonable to count that against them. It is clearly not a design goal
> of Windows95 to be exceptionally stable for instance.
No, Windows 95's design goal was to provide maximum backwards compatibility
with Windows 3.x while providing maximum 32 bit API support (which includes
multitasking). Where those two contradict, Backwards compatibility has a
higher priority. Also, Win9x's design goal was to run on the same hardware
that typical Windows 3.x machines were running on in 1995 and be as fast, or
faster than Windows 3.x. All of which it achieved.
> More of a case
> in this regard could be made against NT Server - whether it was an
> explicit design goal or not to provide a robust and powerful platform
> relative to the hardware investment, given what it's marketed as, it
> should have been. Running video drivers in kernel space, and having no
> gui-less operating mode, are arguably major design flaws for any
> server OS.
Arguably. Lots of things run in kernel space on various Unix servers.
Linux now has a new kernel space web server. There are telnet servers that
run in kernel space and sockets that run in kernel space.
> But another area is not so debateable. Ease-of-learning and ease of
> use are clearly design goals of any general purpose GUI. All Win32
> implementations have done fairly poorly in that field. All recent
> versions of Mac OS (prior to 10, which I haven't worked with yet, and
> seems to have some major issues from what I have read) have been
> greatly superior in terms of GUI design. The NeXT boxes were clearly
> superior as well. Windows 3.1 was in many ways superior in terms of
> GUI design for that matter, although it's technical limitations
> (particularly in terms of heap space) crippled it.
This is highly debateable. "ease of use" is a subjective measurement.
You're reading apples propoganda. Lots of people seem to think that OS/2's
WPS is easy to use. My experience has been opposite.
> Examples of these problems are not hard to find. Start with the
> placement of the window control widgets -
> minimise-maximise/restore-close clustered together is a poor design.
> The Mac OS9 and prior layout, placing close on the opposite corner
> from the others is a better design.
Again, this is subjective. I don't find them to be a poor design at all.
Anywhere you put them, people will accidentally hit them.
> The placement of the menus - the Windows design where they are placed
> below the top window border is clearly an inferior design to the Mac
> placement of the menus along the top edge of the desktop.
You say this without explaining why this is "clearly superior".
Actually, I believe the Mac design is clearly inferior. The apple design
forces you to move the mouse to the top of the screen everytime you want to
use a menu. With the Windows design, if your window is not maximized, you
must only move the mouse to the top of the window.
Why is this "clearly inferior"?
> The windows task-bar/start-menu" is another bundle of joy for the UI
> critic. The MS Interface guidelines even explicitly not that cascading
> menus quickly become unwieldy, and should be limited to 2 layers when
> used at all - yet a cascading menu with far more layers is the
> centerpiece of their desktop! To edit this menu, an inconsistent
> version of explorer is used, and good luck finding it.
No "inconsistent version of explorer" is used. Explorer is used. The start
menu is just another directory in your file system, and explorer is opened
up in that directory.
I don't see what's so hard about right clicking on the start menu and
choosing "open" to find where to edit it. Although with IE4 and 5 you need
only drag icons onto your menu to add or remove them.
> Ever try to drag and drop to an app running on the taskbar? Again,
> they went to the trouble to describe how drag and drop should work in
> their own guidelines, then disregard those guidelines entirely
> themselves.
And what part of the guideline does this violate? I notice your arguments
are getting to be more hand waving than substance as your argument rolls on.
> The taskbar tray doesn't even pretend to have any guidelines for use -
> some objects there are manipulable one way, some another, there is no
> way to access them from the keyboard, and no visual clues as to their
> use are required - although some choose to display "tooltips" at
> least.
That's entirely application defined. The taskbar tray might not be used for
interaction at all. It might just be a visual notification.
> Consistency - MS tools are hideously inconsistent in dozens of areas.
> In most apps, for instance, alt-e f (menu-edit find) activates the
> find function. But in notepad, it's alt-s f (menu-find search.)
This is a legacy application left over from the 3.x days. They can't change
it because many applications rely on it being there, and having the same
menu items. Screen readers, for instance.
> You close (alt-f c) a window, you exit (alt-f x) an application. Well,
> at least in Win3.1 you did. In 95 and later, that's still usually
> true, but not always - another consistency problem detracting from
> useability, and very typical.
There is a certain amount of inconsistency here. But I've seen lots of Mac
apps that use inconsistent interfaces in the past as well.
> The Win95 common dialogs are bad enough (an inexplicable step back
> from the Win3.1 common dialogs in terms of UI design) but then MS puts
> out the Office package, which contains it's own unique and different
> implementations instead of using the common dialogues.
Which end up in the next version of the OS. Windows 2000 has the Office
style common dialogs.
What exactly is so bad about them? More hand waving?
> More on the common dialogues, a major usability nightmare even in
> comparison with the 3.1 version, can be found at
> http://www.iarchitect.com/file95.htm - in fact anyone interested in UI
> design should probably take some time to take note of the UI mistakes
> documented here. Most concern MSWindows, but Apple and *nix get some
> time too... *nix mostly gets let off easy for the fact that no one
> expects it to have a good UI, but with recent developments,
> particularly the hype regarding things like GNOME and KDE that is
> changing.
Ahh yes. The user interface hall of shame. Some of it I can agree with,
other things are simply stupid. The author is himself rather arrogant,
proclaiming that things like buttons are intended to be shortcuts to menu
items and that they don't belong in a dialog (I guess he doesn't expect the
user to be able to exit or cancel). Buttons are shortcuts to functionality
which may or may not be present in the menu (not everything should be a menu
item, otherwise you end up with thousands of menu entries).
He also makes the proclamation that seperate windows for folders and files
is the correct way of doing things. I disagree. A single, unified
interface is much easier to learn and use than seperate ones. Apple
understands this, which is why their finder has a unified interface.
> If the actual shipping products don't match the hype there will be a
> backlash. I believe that's already starting to happen. An incomplete
> and inconsistent clone of a bad GUI is inevitably going to be a worse
> GUI, and a GUI that is any worse than Windows simply will not make Joe
> User happy - it's just going to convince him that "linux sucks."
Nothing will ever be perfect. Rules or not.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:35:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >
>> >Just as your telling him that you are going to kill him might well be
>> >considered a threat.
>>
>> I never told anyone that I was going to kill anyone. Check your quotes.
>> To save others the bother, I'll point out that said "I want to kill
>> JS/PL."
>>
>> >He was justified in his action. If you feel that you've been harrassed,
>> >feel free to take action.
>>
>> He was not justified in his actions, and whether or not I plan to take
>> action, I've always been aware that I am free to do so. I've pointed
>> out that if I do choose to do so, I won't be wasting time posting to
>> Usenet about it. I'll go further to remind you (and readers) that you
>> aren't a lawyer, and your assessment of whether anyone is justified in
>> his actions is not only irrelevant but is dubious in terms of guiding
>> wisdom.
>
>
>Let me point out for you then, that in ALL states
>of this country, your statement can be used as
>grounds for (1) legal proceedings as "want" can be
>construed as either (a) intent or (b) desire,
>(2) a restraining order under the same grounds,
>(3) a civil suit based on JS/PL's ability to
>claim fear for her/his life or well being.
>
>And in some states, it is grounds for criminal
>charges and arrest.
>
>Just figured I would let you know. Your defense
>of your statement would tend to indicate either
>that you are a very young person (child, thus
>indicating the next), or a high level of
>immaturity.
>
>Just my 50 cents worth,
>
>Dolly
I wouldn't pay a nickle for it, Dolly. You presume that a hypothetical
fact that the text of my words 'can' be grounds for some sort of legal
reaction on 'JS/PL's part ignores the fact that such pathetically
ludicrous claims he might make that I made a threat on his life, whoever
he is, would be laughed out of court with extreme prejudice in *every*
court in this land. Perhaps you are unaware of the lengthy interaction
which this anonymous poster and I have had, and thus the full context of
the exchange. My legal advisors and thus any cognizant court are under
no such restriction. Your amateurish attempts at prognostication are
failing you, as well. I'm quite mature and secure in my legal and
ethical foundation on this issue.
When I predicted dramatic rhetoric and outrageous posturing based on my
"speak into the mike" bit, I had no idea people would so tenaciously
defend ignorance and cluelessness.
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: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 04:35:10 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o9s06$c3b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:%pTp5.18774$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Oh, so all those hours I spent installing stuff on Solaris was really
> > Windows?
>
> Does Solaris use Microsoft Windows terminology that you have used in this
> thread? If any of us have made a error as the the platforms you are used
to
> using, it is as a result of the terminology that you have selected to use
to
> present your ideas.
>
> > The point is that we need to get over the idea that installing is part
of
> > the abstractions that the OS provides. That mindset prevents us from
> > developing technologies (such as those I am describing here) that can
> > install across platforms.
>
> Technologies that already exist, assuming that the latest permutation of
> your position is what you are really proposing.
>
> The are many things that don't map well or at all from one OS to another.
> How would you handle those details?
>
> Consider file and directory attributes and permission settings. They
don't
> map from one OS to another very well. The installation process needs to
be
> OS specific in this and in many other areas.
Yes, we have developed a number of great tools for describing in abstract
information, and rendering specifically to different targets. TeX, SGML,
XML, and PostScript to name a few.
Assume that I (as a developer) have two OS targets.
One is a Forth based OS that still uses block addresses and has no file
system at all. (The old Forth arguements against file systems: "File
systems are bad, cause performance problems, and real programmers don't need
them. Just give us the blocks off the disk when we ask for them!")
The other is Linux.
Can we get any more different than that? So in my application's XML, it has
a <Forth> section that lays out each <Block number="1075"> and its contents,
and continues for every block it needs. My application also has a <Linux>
section that details the directories, files, etc. that the Linux
implementation requires.
If it is so easy to see how I can describe these two installations, why is
it so hard to believe we can cover Linux, Windows, Solaris, etc.?
This thread isn't about auto-magically constructing valid represenations of
applications for any OS. This is about being able to describe a valid
representation on any OS.
Given a technology like XML that can be used to describe structured data
(and variations of that structured data), use that to describe the set of
software components for a computer system. Then render those components as
described, by managing in context their needs as defined as how they should
be expressed in storage.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:47:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:28:25 -0400,
> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> [...]
>>>> >You're making so many absurd assumptions that it's hard to know where to
>>>> >start:
>>>>
>>>> Am I?
>>>>
>>>> >1. You assume that a temporary monopoly can't be harmful. It can.
>>>>
>>>> Adam Smith say's you're wrong.
>>>
>>>Adam Smith also says antitrust laws are not viable. Do you believe him?
>>
>>Do you have a quote?
>>
>>>> >4. You assume that a temporary monopoly can be overcome by a free
>>>> >market. It may not.
>>>>
>>>> Adam Smith say's you're wrong.
>>>
>>>Adam Smith also says antitrust laws are not viable. Do you believe him?
>>
>>I don't believe you when you say that he says that, if that's what
>>you're asking. Adam Smith might be thought, in some ingenuous theory,
>>to say that anti-trust laws are not necessary. In that, alas, he was
>>idealistic, if it is indeed the case.
>
>So when *you* say Adam Smith said something (without, I might add, any quote
>to back you up.) We are to believe whole heartedly that he did in fact say it,
>and that he was right. But if someone else claims Mr Smith said something,
>you first demand a quote (reasonable. If only you would follow your own
>requirements) and then wave Smiths words off as idealistic?
No, see, you're supposed to pay attention to what it is that the other
person said, and who they are, as much as to what I say, and who I am.
I'm defending that Adam Smith described monopolies as naturally
prevented in a free market; others are making various less supportable
claims.
You are familiar with Adam Smith's work, aren't you? I've never read
the entirety of The Wealth of Nations, myself, but it seems obvious from
the references that I've seen that what I say about his meaning and its
refutation of Joe Ragosta is valid.
> So, just to recap, when you quote someone it's gospel, but when someone
>else does, it's either made up or idealistic?
No, its simpler than that. When anyone quotes anyone, its no more
authoritative than their own words and reason, because context is what
provides meaning in natural language. My statement that Adam Smith
disagreed in particular with Joe Ragosta is something you're supposed to
analyze, not take at face value. And you should do the same to anyone
else who attempts to base their statements on a referral to authority.
--
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]
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 04:46:01 GMT
What a dork...........................
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:23:38 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello Steve||Simon||deadpenguin||Claire,
>
>You still have not posted and apology and retration of your dishonet and
>malicious assult on my credibility. Until you have, your credibility is
>zero.
>
>This your second phony identity in just one day. Who do you think you are
>fooling?
>
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Use Linux?
>>
>> Yea sure, and I would love to drive that 1975 Chrysler you have sitting in
>your
>> garage.
>>
>> Linux is like a visit back in time... It takes operations that are simple
>under
>> Windows, and turns them into a mess of reading, programming and general
>wasting
>> of time.....It's all about applications and one quick look at
>freshmeat.net
>> shows a collection of fragmented and useless applications only a true
>idiot
>> could love.
>>
>> Try Netscape some time (Windows version will do) and see what you
>think...Oh
>> yea, "several" browsers are in the works for Linux...Think they will ever
>see
>> the light of day?
>>
>> Doubtful....
>>
>>
>> My advice?
>>
>> If you are interested, try Linux and see for yourself...
>>
>> http://www.cheapbytes.com
>>
>> You will soon become another dis-satisifed customer...
>>
>> Linux is even worse than a piece of shit, it is more like a septic tank
>filled
>> with fresh sewerage....
>>
>> Shit, what do you expect for $1.99?
>>
>> Billy
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
