Linux-Advocacy Digest #872, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Richard)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (Jacques Guy)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:04:18 +1000
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It appears that on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 13:32:18 +1000, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> It appears that on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 10:58:52 +1000, in
> >> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >[chomp]
> >
> >> >> I've honestly never seen this happen. I've seen it *claimed* that it
> >> >> had happened, but in every case where I've had the opportunity to
> >> >> confirm the case myself, it was just a hung X server, and restarting
X
> >> >> solved the problem - i.e. the OS itself continued running without a
> >> >> glitch the entire time.
> >> >
> >> >Not in this case. Although X is pretty as well.
> >>
> >> "X is pretty as well?"
> >
> >Sorry, "X is pretty unstable as well".
>
> Any GUI is relatively unstable - particularly on commodity hardware.
> That said, in my experience X is far more stable than any variety of
> MSWin.
On what hardware ?
On most resonably new videocards, X is quite unstable. Given video card
vendors reluctance to hand out specifications for their cards, this is not
entirely surprising. However, that doesn't change the facts.
I've found NT to be much more stable than X. Win9x isn't, of course, but
no-one seriously interested in stability is going to be running Win9x.
> >> >To the end user the effect is the same. They lose all the data in
> >whatever
> >> >they were working in. The fact it takes 30 seconds to restart the X
> >server
> >> >instead of a minute to reboot is irrelevant - the end result is the
same.
> >>
> >> Typically one loses a lot less even in this rare event.
> >
> >I wouldn't call it rare. I have the X server crap out at least once a
> >month. That isn't rare, it's positively common.
>
> It is too common. I would take a long hard look at your setup if I
> were you.
The same hardware runs NT and FreeBSD fine. NT is notoriously fickle about
the hardware it runs on, so I sincerely doubt the problem lies there.
> >On a desktop unix box, you'll most likely be using X, even if just to
have a
> >dozen XTerms open. Kill X, and everything goes with it. The difference
> >between this and having The whole OS crash is largely semantic.
>
> I have to disagree. On a Workstation it is an inconvenience, but not
> nearly so much as having the OS go down.
Please explain why on a workstation, where almost all users typically run
everything from inside X, why it is merely an inconvenience of a lesser
scale than an OS crash.
> And as I keep repeating, I
> was talking about Servers, not Workstations. A *nix Server doesn't
> have to face any of this. An NT server does.
An NT Server sitting at the login prompt doesn't have to, either,
realistically speaking. The GUI isn't going to crash the machine if it
isn't doing anything.
> >> *nix programs
> >> generally autosave pretty frequently.
> >
> >So do Windows programs. Doesn't make much difference if you've had a fit
of
> >inspiration and written 400 words since the last autosave.
>
> By default, emacs autosaves every 300 keystrokes (not words.) That
> setting is, of course, configurable.
>
> I can't remember ever needing that backup, however. The instability
> you are describing is not characteristic at all. Again, I would urge
> you to think about your setup. It's possible for an administrator to
> make ANY system unstable.
How long have you been using Linux ? It has been getting much more stable
as of late (last year or so). I've only had two Linux crashes in the last
twelve months, due to buggy drivers.
[chomp]
> >It's happened to me about as often as NT crashing. That is, about 4
times
> >in the last 3-odd years. Linux crashes (as in the kernel) are somewhat
more
> >common - probably 3 or 4 times a year. FreeBSD is the only OS I've used
> >that's never crashed on me, but I"ve only been using a machine with it
> >running for a year or so.
>
> What on earth are you doing to your linux systems? I've seen a kernel
> crash only once, and that was a result of damaged hardware. Now if you
> are running dev kernels or something...
Using them. Mainly in X, which is probably why it's "so unstable". This is
only workstation and very basic user-mode development, I might add.
I'm willing to believe (in fact, I'm certain) the problems originate from
buggy/beta drivers, but that's not the issue.
Only ever 2.[0,2].x kernels.
> BTW, avoiding crashes by rebooting your NT machines once a day is
> cheating ;^)
My NT machine used to get rebooted every fortnight or so (to Win95) so I
could play games (much less frequent since Win2k), but the longest uptime I
ever had was around the 90-day mark. I had to shutdown to move house. It
was an emotional moment :).
> >I might add that NT has IME recovered a lot more gracefully from sudden
> >power outages (power is flaky around here) than Linux. I've never lost
an
> >NTFS filesystem, I've lost several ext2 ones.
>
> My experience has been exactly the opposite.
Funny, that :).
> >> >Mozilla is even worse, it has huge memory leaks just downloading
things
> >(M8,
> >> >at least).
> >>
> >> Well, although I am no Mozilla fan, I must point out that M8 is
> >> positively *ancient* and a LOT of problems have been fixed.
> >
> >Indeed, it's been a while. I see no reason to bother with Netscape or
> >Mozilla when IE is so good.
>
> IE GOOD? *ROFL* IE is the only thing capable of making Netscape look
> good ;^)
IE is better than Netscape in almost any way you can measure. It's faster,
stabler and more standards compliant. It uses less memory and is more
configurable. Most importantly, it doesn't come with AOL Instant Messenger.
As I said, the only thing Netscape has going for it is the fact it's
available on other platforms. I wouldn't use Netscape on Windows with
someone else's computer - it's just _crap_. The last decent version of
Netscape was 3.0.
You are rapidly coming across as an anti-Microsoft bigot.
> >> Ok, you do understand the difference between running a program and not
> >> running a program, no? You can run a program and just let it sit
> >> there, and it still takes resources (memory and cpu) while it runs,
> >> even if from the user point of view it's doing nothing, it IS doing
> >> something - if only running an idle loop waiting for input.
> >
> >If the login box is using enough resources on your machien to be even
> >noticable, they it's simply underpowered for anything you're going to be
> >using it for. I doubt you could even measure the amount of CPU time it
> >would be taking and the amount of meory would not only be small, but
almost
> >all paged out in any event.
>
> It's not the resources that are worrisome generally, but the
> instability. It's using the CPU, it's running a loop, accessing
> hardware, and it is doing so as a kernel process. When you hit the
> buggy bit of code it can take the whole box down without warning.
I'd feel more than confident in saying the piece of code that loops the
login box is bug free, after about 10 years of QA.
> As to the resources, that may not be a big concern in one case, but it
> may be in another. It all depends on what your system load is. If that
> extra memory requirement causes disk access that could have otherwise
> been avoided, it's a problem. And no, you can't swap the routine out
> either - remember it's drawing the screen and looking for input,
> whether you have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse hooked up or not.
And as I said, if the few hundred kilobytes of memory that it uses is of
concern to you, then your machine is too underpowered to be doing anything
with NT in the first place.
> I know people that are constantly working to get more out of their
> companies web server, reprogramming, optimising, figuring out ways to
> shift some of the processing to the client and so on. And you airily
> dismiss any concern over wasting resources on some silly thing that
> shouldn't even be installed to begin?
No, I dismiss concern over wasting such a small amount of system resources.
We are long past the days of "every kilobyte counts". Now it's more like
"every 10 MB counts".
> It's very easy to say "if
> wasting that small amount of resources bothers you, you need a bigger
> machine" (this seems to be the MS mantra - any complaint about the
> software simply means you need to buy more hardware) but in the real
> world the advantage goes to the one that can do more with less.
"Less" in the case of removing the GUI from NT would be, at most, a couple
of MB of RAM "less".
If a couple of MB of RAM is going to have any worthwhile benefit/impact on
performance then your machine _is_ underpowered for anything remotely
"mission critical".
> Linux clearly delivers that in server space. Just try to do anything
> with NT on a 386 with no hard drive! Or a 386 period for that matter.
Why are you mentioning "mission critical" in one post and 386s in another ?
I'm more than willing to admit Linux (and FreeBSD, and others) do a fine job
of resurrecting old machines to sue as things like firewalls, and to keep
some old machines running as file/print servers. However, this does *not*
automatically mean they will be able to use higher end machines more
efficiently.
Btw, NT 3.51 would probably work fairly well on a 386 with fast SCSI disks
and enough RAM, if you really wanted to.
> >> When the program in question is a GUI, and the video drivers are
> >> running in kernel space, that's just more potential trouble. Taking a
> >> risk like that may make sense in some cases, but not having the choice
> >> of whether to do it or not is just poor design.
> >
> >Not if that design lowers development and production costs, especially
when
> >the risk is almost entirely theoretical.
>
> Well, the risk isn't theoretical, it's been acknowledged publically
> that a large portion of NT crashes/locks originate from the video
> driver.
On Workstations, maybe. If this is true for servers then those servers are
being poorly administrated, in which case a counter-argument is as simple as
poorly administrated Linux machines.
An NT *Server* should have only the vanilla VGA driver loaded, and sit at
the login screen all the time. At least, if you hold stability paramount.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 22:44:09 -0400
Dave Livesay wrote:
>
> fungus wrote:
> >
> > Just how screwed up would a file system design have to be
> > to do this?
>
> I've noticed similar things. I used to have an NT server that I used for
> development and testing, and once in a while when I went to move a
> subdirectory from one directory to another on the same drive I'd get
> these warnings asking me if I was sure I wanted to delete some file
> because it was a system file. This scared the crap out of me, so of
> course I said no, but eventually I got duplicate folders all over the
> place and things stopped working right and I had to reinstall and start over.
>
> I'm used to using Macs, where you can move folders wherever you want
> (except the special folders in the System folder), and aliases don't
> break when you do it, but on NT, it seems like the system doesn't really
> move things so much as copy and delete them, so all these warnings go
> off, and then the "shortcuts" in the moved folder and shortcuts that
> point to the moved folder all stop working.
>
> Anyway, that server ended up in a very sorry state where I'd hear the
> hard drive running almost constantly for no apparent reason, and it
> would spontaneously blue screen a couple times a day even when no one
> was hitting the server or anything. I thought for sure it must have a
> virus, but I never was able to detect one. I finally concluded it was
> haunted, and reformatted the drive and installed Red Hat Linux on it.
Not haunted....merely possessed by M$ demons.
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:05:41 +1000
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 20:34:55 -0700,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8oprjt$dab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> On a desktop unix box, you'll most likely be using X, even if just to
have
> >a
> >> dozen XTerms open. Kill X, and everything goes with it. The
difference
> >> between this and having The whole OS crash is largely semantic.
> >
>
>
> For a standalone workstation, maybe, not for a system that is either a
> server, or is doing distributed processing.
I was speaking in the context of a workstation, since for either platform
that is only where video/GUI usage should even have a chance of affecting
stability.
> >If all you want is a number of xterm running, all you need to do is don't
> >run X and take advantage of your box's VC's. -- Less overhead, faster
> >response, and perhaps better security.
> >
> >> I might add that NT has IME recovered a lot more gracefully from sudden
> >> power outages (power is flaky around here) than Linux. I've never lost
an
> >> NTFS filesystem, I've lost several ext2 ones.
> >
> >Are you using UPS with you host monitoring and auto shutdown when the
power
> >is off too long? I the environment that you describe it is mandatory
> >reguardless of the OS.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Or you could switch to ReiserFS or another journaling fs and get the
benefits
> of linux stability and a real journaling FS.
I switched to ReiserFS some time ago and am happy to report no lost
filesystems since.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 02:52:54 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>If people did all become like Spock and remained self-interested
> >then civilization would collapse. But I don't think that would
> >happen, I think people would just admit that they aren't motivated
> >by self-interest once their fundamental needs are met.
>
> People are motivated by a desire for physical well-being and social
> comfort, in that order, generally. It isn't really possible to be
> motivated by anything but self-interest, really. You simply can't
> necessarily determine what might or might not be in yours or anybody
> else's self-interest, ultimately. You just have to hope, and try, and
> believe in your goal as an ultimate good.
There is something quite bizarre about this picture. Most people
try to behave in a selfless manner and, failing that, rationalize
their selfish actions as selfless. Take Libertarians for example,
who argue that depriving people of their liberties, human rights
and even possessions is actually good for them (the "even the poor
end up benefiting from the free market" arguement) or Jingoist
propaganda where we will massacre people For Their Own Good.
So when normal, selfless, people start rationalizing their selfless
actions as selfish, there is something pretty fucked up with that
picture. If I needed any more proof that our societies worship and
promote psychopathic traits then this would do it. The suggestion
(by Dale) that psychopaths might be okay only adds another ton of
evidence for this same thesis.
Instead of saying "Everyone's a psychopath at heart if you just
take away their irrational emotions ..." why don't you just say
"Most people are NOT AT ALL psychopaths ..."?
Note: humans are programmed by selfish genes to act in a selfless
manner (that this takes the form of emotions that compel us to
act in this manner is irrelevant) and thus we could not possibly
be anything but selfless.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 22:44:39 -0400
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> Well... NT is a piece of crap!!
>
> (altough i cant say i've ever experienced the things you guys are
> describing)
>
> Change to Windows 2000 ;-)
Why trade one set of crap-ware for another set of crapware.
>
> /IL
>
> "Dave Livesay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > fungus wrote:
> > >
> > > Just how screwed up would a file system design have to be
> > > to do this?
> >
> > I've noticed similar things. I used to have an NT server that I used for
> > development and testing, and once in a while when I went to move a
> > subdirectory from one directory to another on the same drive I'd get
> > these warnings asking me if I was sure I wanted to delete some file
> > because it was a system file. This scared the crap out of me, so of
> > course I said no, but eventually I got duplicate folders all over the
> > place and things stopped working right and I had to reinstall and start
> over.
> >
> > I'm used to using Macs, where you can move folders wherever you want
> > (except the special folders in the System folder), and aliases don't
> > break when you do it, but on NT, it seems like the system doesn't really
> > move things so much as copy and delete them, so all these warnings go
> > off, and then the "shortcuts" in the moved folder and shortcuts that
> > point to the moved folder all stop working.
> >
> > Anyway, that server ended up in a very sorry state where I'd hear the
> > hard drive running almost constantly for no apparent reason, and it
> > would spontaneously blue screen a couple times a day even when no one
> > was hitting the server or anything. I thought for sure it must have a
> > virus, but I never was able to detect one. I finally concluded it was
> > haunted, and reformatted the drive and installed Red Hat Linux on it.
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 02:55:30 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.anarchy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet,alt.flame.niggers
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Tim Palmer wrote:
[snip]
Whale cum bak, Tym! Eye half bean miszyng ewe (*smoooootch*)
Hand own olt.aytheesm hand ault.kryesnett two (*)! Wwouww,
zouwwye! (geyzz, hit woz diphikult miss-spaylling thowz
too wurdz!) Wee orl luv ewe Tym! *smoooooooooooooochch*
(*) knot two fergett alt.flayme.knickers eether
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 22:48:21 -0400
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> No, im not a MS employee.
>
> And second..*any* new version *is* more stable than the previous coming from
> MS.
And this new midget is taller than the previous midget.
>
> FreeBSD -style stability? that vill simply never happen as regard to a MS
> OS..why?
> 'cause (and lets face the hard truth)
> *nix system stability is *mainly* due to only a very low-level generic
> support for ide-based hardware *and* a minimum multi-media support.
No... it's due to the fact that
1) it ALWAYS uses re-entrant code.
2) it has been truly object-oriented from the beginning
(15 years before the term "object oriented" was even invented)
3) it matured in a university environment, where freshmen and sophomores
used to get their jollies trying to exploit any weakness into a machine
crash....leading to the virtually bullet-proof kernal of today.
>
> Shure enough if MS would only support scsi and cut down the multimedia
> support to a very minimum (as in *nix systems) *and* not having *any*
> vendor-specific hardware support (again...as in *nix systems) they would
> match *nix system stability for sure.
You are not only delusional, but you're also a lying bitch.
>
> /IL
>
> PS do take note that it is the intel platform i am talking about DS
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > David Steinberg wrote:
> > >
> > > Ingemar Lundin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > : Well... NT is a piece of crap!!
> > > : Change to Windows 2000 ;-)
> > >
> > > Wow. What a brilliant solution: declare that what was Microsoft's very
> > > best, top-of-the-line, enterprise-ready solution just a few months ago
> is
> > > crap, and then hand over another $300 to the makers of that "crap" for
> > > their newest, best, top-of-the-line, enterprise-ready solution.
> > >
> > > Say, you don't work in Microsoft's marketing department, do you?
> >
> > This is so Microsoft.
> >
> > They always tout that this current version of (pick your product) is:
> > stable, fast, etc. unlike that previous bug ridden version. And then,
> > with the next service pack or version, they say the same things about
> > the previous version.
> >
> > That is one of my real hard reasons for not trusting Microsoft. You can
> > not believe anything they say about their products.
> >
> > They also have the money to shut the press up as well. Security bugs in
> > competitors are announced the minute they are discovered by an
> > organization. When security bugs are found in Microsoft products, the
> > press waits for Microsoft to have a patch. It is evil.
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 22:49:34 -0400
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> None of that you say contradicts what i have posted before except for one
> thing...wich *ide* cd-rw:s do Linux support and *how*? (not counting
> cheating like scsi-emulation)
SCSI-emulation works perfectly, so why mandate a 2nd solution
when the first solution fulfills ALL of the essential requirements.
--
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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 02:57:53 GMT
"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Besides, the whole post was intended to be a kind of a "parrot mode"
> speak, simply revealing to Chad what stupid remark he really made.
It was not I who made the first remarks this subject.
It was Nigel who made the comment:
"Not everyone can afford the internet call cost to download
a 50mb service pack every few months as most countries don't
have free internet calls and ISDN or above connection speeds"
As to imply that I am somehow ignorant to the plight of the rest of the
world and that America is somehow trying to put-down the rest of the
world and exclude them from its technology.
To which I replied:
"It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind in technology."
Which is, for the most part, a fair and accurate statement.
Should America grind to a halt simply to please our neighbors across
the pond who can't seem to get their telcom business in order?
What is it, exactly that you expect us to do? You guys are being
completely irrational here. You seem to be blaming all of Britain's
and other country's telco problems on America.
Next comes the typical condescending British attitude:
(Grega)
"American attitude at its best!"
Which attitude is this? Do you really expect the U.S. to sanction
its technology industry simply because BT doesn't want to seem to
allow its "customers" (aka slaves) to participate in the rest of
the free Internet world?
Well, I'm sorry, but that's simply not going to happen. You've
dug yourself a hole and now you're expecting us to dig one with
you to share your plight. Get real.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
