Linux-Advocacy Digest #717, Volume #28 Mon, 28 Aug 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Cool Idea (lilo)
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: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but...
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:01:12 GMT
Sorry, this is probably geared more towards the programmers in this
newsgroup, but I have a question:
They're making me take VB 6 as part of my studies at school. Me and one
of the instructors were a little bored so we downloaded some sample VB
code that sets up a server and client chat program.
Took us about 15 minutes to get it working, and there was probably less
than 100 lines of code (error handling included), and after a few
minutes, we were already playing around with the data we were sending
back and worth (not just text messages but modifications and function
outputs using the text messages as input, etc.). Real easy stuff. The
basis for the chat program is the use of the Microsoft Winsock control,
which probably has its limitations etc. etc. but I had to say I was
impressed with how quickly we could have started something big based on
this one control.
In my spare time I'm trying to learn GTK+ programming, and I was
wondering if there was anything comparable to this sort of control
available for Linux programmers? A bonobo component, maybe?
Methods were: Accept, Bind, Close, Connect, GetData, Listen, PeekData,
SendData
Properties were: BytesReceived, Index, LocalHostName, LocalIP,
LocalPort, Name, Object, Parent, Protocol, RemoteHostName, RemoteIP,
RemotePort, SocketHandle, State, Tag
Don't know if it inherits from a different class or anything like that.
(ps: I know some of those properties wouldn't be present in a linux
implementation, I just included them for the hell of it...)
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 29 Aug 2000 00:20:51 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> Three *consective* paragraphs directly quoted from the article:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
>>>>> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been
>>>>> numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better
>>>>> system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better
>>>>> system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been
>>>>> fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that
>>>>> resulted from NT."
>>>>>
>>>>> The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the
>>>>> systems failures, he said.
>>>>>
The ship's systems comprise more than an operating system. The part or
parts of the system that failed were not identified. We don't know if he
is talking about the WinNT operating system itself or a WinNT based system
that consists of the WinNT OS and assorted Win32 applications. There is no
specific information here, unlike the specific incident where a database
corruption cascaded. We have no idea if this is an engineer who has seen
detailed analysis of specific failures or upper manager using words
loosely, where are the comments from the chief engineer aboard the ship
during these incidents? Or the comments from the software developers? Or
the press reports of these failures? WinNT itself may or may not have
failed during one or all of thee incidents, I don't know. What I do know
is that the one incident that was described seems to have involved blaming
WinNT prematurely.
> I am not going to debate this with you. Redman's words are in plain
> English for people here to read. I am not adding any conjecture. We
> don't need your conjecture either. Let people read for themselves and
> interpret it via their own conjecture.
My points and questions are in plain English for people to read as well.
If you choose to not address these, fine with me. People can make up their
own mind. Your interpretation of conjecture is self serving and wrong, you
have a double standard with information in terms of it agreeing or
disagreeing with you.
>>But not required, that is one possible implementation I consider inferior.
>>With a more embedded approach specific application software can be
>>downloaded to such units as needed, just like information from the data
>>base is downloaded. A default application can reside in ROM as a backup
>>and be tailored to the physical location of the terminal. If the server is
>>unavailable on powerup the terminal can control equipment in it's vicinty,
>>if the server is available it can download apps and control remote
>>equipment.
>
> As I said before, that's fine for systems in the engine room and other
> specific locations. But for 'central control' areas like the ship's
> bridge, damage control, engineering areas you need access to all the
> equipment control applictions, ...
Reread the above, you would have access to all applications and equipment
if the LAN is up, just like a general purpose computer based
implementation. Where I see a different between the two approaches is that
the custom design has a more survivable and more easily repaired
implementation.
> ... plus many complex displays and high
> level applications that an embedded OS is not suited for. What
> database integration tools are their for Tornado? Does Tornado have
> any specialized tools for writing UI forms. How about COTS graphical
> data analysis and trending tools for Vxworks? How much would it cost
> to custom develop all that shit on an OS without the necessary
> libraries for sophisticated UI's. VxWorks is great for realtime
> embedded functions and for simplistic consoles but is much less proven
> for some things a general purpose OS is used for that are needed for
> SmartShip.
Again, I see developer convenience as a secondary consideration. Also, I
think you understate the graphical and database interface capabilities of
the more embedded custom approach. I'll just stress that embedded apps are
for a backup mode, and that a full range of applications could be
downloaded and database interface protocols implemented. I am not saying
that general purpose computers have no place on ship. I am saying that
using general pupose computers everywhere is a mistake, that it is taking
things too far, and that even your scenario uses them a little too
liberaly. The bridge and other centralized locations would be appropriate
locations for the custom solutions. Supplementing these with machines that
do more complex analysis is fine.
> It is quite clear that at least two platforms are need for the
> Yorktown SmartShip, and embedded platform for realtime controls and
> local equipment consoles, and a reliable general purpose OS for higher
> level SmartShip applications. And since when can't you run a general
> purpose OS on rugged hardware? You can buy rugged hardware for both NT
> and Unix. The 27 dual 200-MHz Pentium Pro Windows NT miniature remote
> terminal units (you know...the ones that crashed) were in fact rugged
> consoles built by Intergraph.
Rugged compared to a PC, but not compared to the the type of custom
solution I am referring to. I've seen both.
>>> Sure, but when you deprive developers of decent tools you are either
>>> 1) going to spend more man hours on devopment ...
>>
>>A quite acceptible tradeoff if the embedded orientation provides sailors
>>with a simpler, more rugged, more reliable system than the general purpose
>>computer approach. And of course, I believe it can do so.
>
> You are again fogging the distinction between the need for reliable
> embedded control at specific locations and the need for a fully
> capable central control and management interface and failing to
> recognize the importance of both ...
Actually I am thinking that local control and centralized control should
be the same type of equipment, that centralized control should be no less
reliable than local control. I do not agree with your "specific locations"
qualification, a sailor in a centraized area should not have to move or
communicate with someone locally unless something is damaged. I also
think you overstate the relative capability of general purpose computers
compared to the custom solutions, I commented on this a above.
> ... You are also forgetting that
> multiple platforms can be used for various purposes on board the
> ship ...
No, we disagree on where to draw the line. I draw it between essential
and non-essential. Non-essential still being useful and helpful.
> ... You are also forgetting this is supposed to be a "smart ship"
> not a "simple ship" ...
No, I am arguing for different implementation details not capabilities.
> ... You are forgetting the sailors need user freindly
> interfaces, something most developers have a hard time with even with
> the right tools, god forbid on an embedded OS with tools geared
> towards real-time embedded development and not UI development ...
Again, you merely address the convenience of developing an interface. Use
whatever you want to mockup and prototype, design, test, gather feedback,
etc. I only speak of final implementation. Also note I'm not referring to
non-essential equipment that may be used for supplemental analysis.
> ... You are
> also presuming that a general purpose OS cannot run on rugged
> hardware.
Not at all, I merely argue againat general purpose computers, ruggedized or
otherwise.
>>I don't think there should be a preference choice. I think for on-ship
>>applications the developer should always lose to the sailors.
>
> You are also forgetting applications need to be maintained and
> upgraded, and that development costs, like anything else, are limited
> to finite budgets.
The applications are useless if a sailor doesn't have access to them when
and where he/she needs them. That is why I don't think there is a
preference choice to make.
>>I meant absolute reliability. You are wrong, absolute reliability is
>>required for such consoles. See next paragraph.
>
> No, you are wrong. Any hardware can fail ...
Of course, but I want the chances minimizd. I believe the custom solution
can be more rugged and more repairable.
> ... The only way you can have
> absolute reliability is with redundancy. You are also overlooking that
> they do have multiple consoles in areas where they are most needed.
I believe I was arguing that control equipment located in a centralized
location should be no less reliable than control equipment local to the
equipment. That the control equipment in both locations should be the
same. That you can not predetermine where "most needed" is.
>>> A ROM based console can fail to, in hardware or software. All systems
>>> can fail. That's why you need redundancy. And in a situation where a
>>> general purpose OS is needed, and reliabity of a single console is
>>> important, one would certainly choose Unix over NT.
>>
>>The hot pluggable single board solution I describe is more rugged and more
>>easily repaired.
>
> Again you are overlooking that a general purpose OS can run on a hot
> pluggable single board, and can be made as nearly reliable as an
> embedded OS. But either way you still need at least two consoles in
> critical location because it of the time it takes to stick in a new
> board.
I think the use of the phrase "general purpose" has evolved quite a bit
here. What I initially objected to was the use of general purpose WinNT or
Unix boxes, ruggedized or not. Yes, a WinNT or Unix kernel could be used.
Whether we still have a general purpose OS is debatable and not very
interesting. I still lean towards VxWorks.
>>My point is that with such an implementation a sailor
>>will have less need to go find an alternate console. Also I'll refer to
>>the default applicaiton in ROM I mentioned earlier. This can be the
>>application that controls equipment in the proximity of the console.
>
> You are overlooking that SmartShip is to provide high level UI
> centralized access to all subsystems that are needed needed in the
> bridge, engineering, and damage control rooms ...
No, I am arguing an implementation detail of the above.
> ... Embedded OS's like Lynx
> and VxWorks simply can't support high level GUI's to well ...
No, for example:
http://www.wrs.com/html/esec.html
The Sharp Ipmera is a VxWorks-powered device, implements PIM,
E-mail, and Web-browsing features, and includes personality
modules for the whole family. Furthermore, it has a built-in
printer, making it truly a standalone appliance device.
> ... As I stated
> above a more dedicated VxWorks conoles could be used in specific
> subsystems areas. I would also recommend parallel fualt tolerance for
> embedded systems of the highest criticality. More importantly,
> redundant communication networks as well, and some additional back up
> communications. Basically redundant everything.
>
>>The local consoles should have connections to local
>>equipment independent of a LAN and be able to operate independently if
>>required to do so.
>
> Of course. But I am not talking about local consoles dedicated to
> equipment. I'm talking abount central consoles used to access the
> entire ship and to manage and run the smart system as a whole. For
> that you need more than an embedded OS. Not a flakey OS like Windows
> though. Solaris on rugged hardware would have been good solid choice,
> with VxWorks as the choice for the embedded components.
Again, I see control consoles regardless of being local or centralized as
being the same, having access to all equipment, LAN permitting.
Supplemental machines doing useful but non-essential things being
implmented differently.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 20:27:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>That's true.
>
>But you are the one who claimed that the producer couldn't get a large
>market share in the first place. And then you relied on your hazy memory
>of Adam Smith (whose work you haven't read) to try to support your
>position.
No, I didn't claim any such silly point in any such imaginary argument
to address your unstated and unclearly thought-out lack of
consideration.
With the customary ad hominem out of the way, let me try to help you.
One of the useful concepts to understand is a "thought experiment".
Similar to (and often confused with, though there is no conflict in this
context) a "hypothetical case", or simply an abstract description, these
types of explanations are often used to present market mechanisms (and
similar organized systems) as a series of cause-and-effect actions. As
in "once this happens, then this will happen". Often, the idea that
something will not necessarily immediately follow, but will inevitably
result, the word "eventually" is used.
So the 'popular wisdom' idea of how monopolies are prevented from
occurring in a free market system is presented as a series of occurrence
and results, which 'eventually' follow one another.
But in real life, you see, these cause and effects are not discrete
steps in a single chain of transactions, but complex *forces* which act
upon buyers and sellers. Some companies will accumulate more market
power, some less, and most will fluctuate as their business activities
and the market demand and supply change. But the theory is that a
company in a free market *cannot* monopolize, because it is not
possible, in the thought experiment purity of the abstract case, *gain
monopoly power* willfully, nor to maintain it in like manner. Companies
will indeed tend to amass huge amounts of *market power*, due to the
various competitive benefits they might enjoy, including better value
for the money, good salesmanship, and luck.
So in truth, Joe, producers can't get *monopoly* power to begin with, at
least not willfully, and that is what I said. Its also what Adam Smith
said, though its not a direct quote.
Unfortunately, Adam Smith didn't have to grapple with the cumulative
effects caused by the industrial revolution. We are indeed fortunate
that he was mistaken in his argument that anti-trust laws could never
get implemented due to the power of "monopolist lobbies".
--
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: lilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cool Idea
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:27:42 GMT
Joe Kiser wrote:
>
> X Windows should support moving the mouse awound with the arrow keys on
> the keyboard and clicking with the Ctrl/Win/Alt keys. Then I wouldn't
> have to leave the keyboard.
Ah, but it already does. Look into the XKB Extension. Cont-Shift-Numlock to
enable or disable. Arrow keys for movement. Movement acceleration arrow and 5.
/ for left mouse. * for middle mouse. - for right mouse. 5 for a click. + for
a double click. You get the idea.
------------------------------
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 20:36:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> That would depend on who made that call, and what the content of the
>> conversation was. If it was me calling 'JS/PL's local police
>> department, I would be right, as I'd have a claim of the sort you speak
>> of (I have evidence he has attempted and possibly succeeded in
>> determining where I live). If its 'JS/PL' making the call, he's going
>> to have to explain why he doesn't post with his real name, and yet is
>> worried I'm out to get him when I have no idea who he is.
>
>Of course I know where you live, it not a spectacular leap when you post
>with your real name and your sh^tty news server posts your fricking IP
>address. Come on.... that's equal to posting a driving map to your house!
You obviously have a child's sensibilities about these things. It took
a conscious and determined effort on your part to determine my street
address, if indeed you have, and nobody is ignorant on that fact. No, I
didn't give you a road map. In point of fact, I still don't even have a
clue who registered the domain you use in that 'admin' account you use
for your pseudonym. I've never bothered to look, and never will.
>Do you think I *wouldn't* try and find out where your posting from after you
>send a death threat to me?
I didn't send a death threat to you, that is the point. You are making
an untruthful statement when you say that, knowingly, and the fact that
you might have used it as a pretense to investigate and harass me, in
light of the fact that you solicited just such a statement for just such
a reason, obviously, is not going to sound good in court, kid.
You seem to forget that your protests of ignorance are only effective on
Usenet. In real life, people don't assume you're allowed to act the way
you are acting under the pretense of paranoia.
I was going to try to provide you with a serious request to desist. On
first reading your "you might be driving to my house" bullshit I started
to get really worried. You are, obviously, of dubious mental fitness.
Your at least stupid enough to think that I'm going to buy into your
posturing. But on second reading, I realized how ludicrous you are.
Watching your game became, at least for a brief moment, entertaining
again.
Now I'm just bored, as you're just another Usenet flake troll, and I
have better things to do.
--
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 20:39:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Courageous wrote:
>>
>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>> >
>> > Oooh, big words, but I hate to break it to
>> > you, ...
>>
>> I hate to break it to you, but you're not playing
>> by usenet posting ettiquette. To wit: your own addition
>> to an article should be at the end and not the beginning
>> of your post.
>>
>> C//
>Oh, I am sooo sorry. At least it cant be construed as
>illegal actions. And while you are nitpicking, as your
>response was off topic, and not marked as such (which
>I now no longer have to do since this portion of
>the thread's topic has been changed by you), you also
>are not following usenet posting ettiquette.
Yes, it was rude, not illegal. The balance of your response indicates
that you might be getting in over your head posting to Usenet to begin
with. Maybe you should just lurk for a while.
>First, the whole REAL point of the post (which
>totally escaped the person it was directed at)
>was grow up... debate whatever the hell you want,
>even fiercely... but do it in a more mature
>manner. Second, thanks for your invaluable input
>into the conversation.
Perhaps you should head your own advice, Dolly. One doesn't debate
"fiercely" and "in a mature manner" both at the same time, generally.
And you certainly need to work on your attitude before trying to lambast
anyone for needing to 'grow up'.
--
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 20:46:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
>> >> >Are you alleging that the posts signed JS/PL are actually written
>> >> >by bogie-men or ghosts or demons or something?
>> >>
>> >> I'm stating, quite plainly, that I have no idea who wrote them, and have
>> >> no interest in finding out. Frankly, I don't care.
>> >
>> >
>> >That's not what you stated.
>> >
>> >You stated over and over that JS/PL is not a real person.
>> >
>> >Please answer Aaron's question. Just who or what is posting to Usenet
>> >under that name if not a real person?
>>
>> Please read my answer. I don't care.
>
>But we care, that's why we ask. You see, if you believe there are
>non-real
>persons, or real non-persons posting on usenet, we would like to know...
I believe what you mean to say is that you would like to believe I do.
It would, after all, make it far easier to dismiss all those annoying
questions I've been asking and opinions I've been stating which so well
illustrate the general idiocy of many posters here.
You see, all you're doing is refusing to comprehend the thread. Like
'JS/PL', you seem desperate for an excuse to avoid responsibility for
your lack of support for the various and far reaching (and generally
meta) arguments which we engage in.
First, look up the word "amphiboly" in several dictionaries or other
references. Then read the following sentence: JS/PL is not a real
person.
--
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 20:48:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> >Please answer Aaron's question. Just who or what is posting to Usenet
>> >under that name if not a real person?
>>
>> Please read my answer. I don't care.
>
>That's not an answer--that's an evasion.
No, it is an answer, and the only answer I can give because it is the
only statement which answers the question in context. I'm not evading
the question; I've discussed it further on several occasions. But I'm
not going to care if it isn't the answer you want to hear any more than
I care if you still beat your wife.
--
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but...
Date: 29 Aug 2000 00:47:37 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:01:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In my spare time I'm trying to learn GTK+ programming, and I was
>wondering if there was anything comparable to this sort of control
>available for Linux programmers? A bonobo component, maybe?
I don't think GTK has that much in terms of these network functions
( though I don't know ). One traditionally uses standard C UNIX calls
for this stuff.
>Methods were: Accept,
> Bind, Close, Connect, GetData, Listen, PeekData,
>SendData
accept, bind, close, connect and listen are all provided by glibc.
Also see read, write, fread, fwrite.
I think if you want socket objects, you'll probably have to do them
yourself, though It's possible ( indeed probable ) that someone's done
this before.
I'd guess that there's a socket object library somewhere. Anyone know of
such a thing ? ( I'd be interested too ).
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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 20:48:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>True. I spend a lot of time trying to educate ignorant people like you.
>Unfortunately, you're looking less and less trainable every day.
LOL
--
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 20:50:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"Jason McNorton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > True. I spend a lot of time trying to educate ignorant people like you.
>> > Unfortunately, you're looking less and less trainable every day.
>>
>> More like reneducation.. (simpsons reference).
>>
>> You'd probably get a LOT further in your quest to make everyone think and
>> act just like you do if you were less heavy handed and insulting.
>>
>> I realize all this independent non-Joe thought irks you to death, but if
>> you were nicer you might win a few converts.
>
>Max doesn't understand "nice", therefore he always gets treated like that.
>He sets himself up to be the laughing stock and whipping boy on purpose for
>some reason.
>
"I lick's ya cause I can, and cause I likes, and cause you're the kind
that licken's good fer!" - Horatio Hornblower
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
