Linux-Advocacy Digest #932, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: businesses are psychopaths ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: what's up with Sun? ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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: 5 Sep 2000 22:05:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> What did your quote say, 20+% of those in prison are psychopaths?
>> The vast majority of people in prison ended up there because they
>> lacked a long view.
>
> Did you miss:
>[]
> Lack of realistic long-term plans
>[]
>in the Psychopathy Checklist?
Ah sorry, I had a hard time wading through the rhetoric, in any case
many corporations fail that part of the psychopath checklist.
Same for impulsivity.
(I invite the reader to contemplate the relevance or lack thereof, of
Richard's bringing up the question of organized crime and some subset
of criminals having a long view)
Robert
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 22:12:11 GMT
Pure bull..
sparc doesnt run more than a few percent of the worlds servers
/IL
> Both Intel and AMD should stick to the home-office computers, and leave
the
> servers to the real tough computers, since they will never reach the Sun
> stability and power.
> My oppinion.
>
> Ez.
------------------------------
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: 5 Sep 2000 22:14:43 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Anthony D. Tribelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>He seems to speaks of WinNT specifically in a UNIX vs WinNT comment, but
>>as he gets closer to specific problems he becomes more vague "software
>>failures associated with NT". What does he mean by "associated"? Was it
>>WinNT that failed or a system built around WinNT? The one incident
>>described showed Win32 applications causing a failure, not the OS itself.
>
> That's the point. You can try to chase down the *billions* of failures
> that occur to almost *anyone* using NT, and figure its somebody else's
> fault, MAYBE (though generally you just give up after a while to an
> argument from ignorance, because you can't 'replace' the OS), or you can
> recognize that its just generally a crappy OS.
The one incident we have info on seems to show a naive server application
corrupting it's database and naive client applications depending on this
database to run equipment. Such a naive design is highly vulnerable
irrespective of the OS it runs on.
[ snip NT vs. UNIX, I don't think either one is a good solution for
the control/monitoring station, see older posts ]
> This makes it impossible to tell whether it is or is not any one
> component, either the whole OS, or just one DLL, without trying to
> reverse engineer the entire system at a cost of millions of dollars to
> fix a $2000 PC.
Bull, people debug Win32 applications every day.
>>When he speaks of the ship being towed to port he says "systems failures".
>>Again, a system is much more than an OS. You are making grand and self
>>serving assumptions that he should have said "operating systems" not
>>"systems".
>
> He's saying that NT is not a reliable platform on which to base
> functional software implementations, generally. Its not grand and self
> serving to avoid components of a system which are known to either fail
> or cause failure. That's called 'common sense'.
Actually he didn't say that, and you severly misrepresent what I wrote. I
am not saying WinNT was a good choice, I am saying that we don't really
know if WinNT was responsible for the undescribed incidents.
>>The above clearly shows that when he gets closer to actual problems he
>>begins using weasel words when referring to WinNT and for the more serious
>>failures he refers to the system and make no reference to an OS.
>
> That's because he was condemning the *platform*, not any particular part
> of it. They weren't planning on fixing someone else's potential flaws.
> If the ultimate solution they decide is "lets go with this other OS,
> even if it means throwing away what we've got so far", then it is NT's
> fault, whether its a Microsoft programmer's fault or not.
You may not realize it, butuyou are supporting my arguments. We don't
really know if he was referring to WinNT itself or a system built around
WinNT, and if the latter was the problem simply a naive
design/implementation that would be trouble regardless of the OS. The
specific failure described suggests it may have been.
>>Not at all. A naive server app that corrupts a database that is needed by
>>naive client apps to control equipment can happen on any OS.
>
> The question is, how likely will it be on NT versus any other OS. We
> know what your best guess is. And it doesn't speak highly of your
> technological understanding.
Actually you seem to know far less than you think, and there are a couple
of valid interpretations of this statement. :-) Naively
designed/implemented code does not magically begin to work by porting it
to another OS. For example accepting incorrect input, performing erroneous
calculations, and writting the results of such calculations to a database
is OS independent.
>>No, that is your misinterpretation. Being towed to port was blamed on
>>"systems failures". A "system" is much more than an OS.
>
> The "system" that failed was the computer running the OS. And it
> failed, apparently, because of the OS it was running; ...
Not according to the chief engineer on the ship at the time of the
incident, the software developer who admitted the error in their
application(s), or the news agency that originaly broke the story and
later distanced themselves from it by calling it early speculation.
> ... similar systems
> running other OSes and other application do not fail as often as this
> OS. You're asking for core dumps; we're talking statistics.
Nope, I'm not asking for core dumps, and you haven't offered statistics.
There was only one incident actually described.
>>General purpose computers for non-essential tasks are fine, with rare
>>exceptions for things like a database or server. Defintely not for the
>>primary control or monitoring of equipment, local or remote.
>
> PCs work great, for that as well as many other tasks, when they're not
> running Microsoft software. If they are, even the general purpose
> non-essential tasks are notably and conclusively less reliable.
No, PCs don't work great for these applications, even ruggedized ones.
Custom designs can be made much more reliable, repairable, etc.
>>I only advocate the more embedded approach for the primary control and
>>monitoring of equipment, both at the equipment's location and remotely. I
>>think this is the wrong area to cut costs.
>
> I'd agree, but you have to admit, the parts that run on Unix seem pretty
> useful and productive. There's a lot to be said for using flexible
> interchangeable component computers in a networked system instead of
> custom-engineering and building the hardware at a great deal of expense.
I disagree, I'm leaning towards the more survivably and repairable at the
expense of more economical.
>>A consumer device managing a GUI does suggest that the Navy might be able
>>to come up with one also.
>
> Specialized GUI design for special purpose tasks are counter-productive
> in a complex system. Using a GUI front end is certainly part of their
> development plans.
I don't want a complex system, that it why I'm staying away from PCs. I
think the primary control/monitoring stations needed to be simpler, more
rugged, and more repairable than PCs can offer. More complex systems are
fine for secondary high level analysis and other needs.
>>Again, my argument is that developer convenience is a secondary
>>consideration. A control/monitoring station implemented with VxWorks can
>>have a capable GUI.
>
> You mean, whether its technically feasible with current technologies or
> might simply be an expensive development from scratch isn't really
> important in the decision not to build a special-purpose box just to do
> what NT is supposed to be able to do, but can't?
No I mean the special purpose box would be a simpler, more rugged, more
repairable solution than a PC running either WinNT or UNIX.
Your numerous exaggerations of WinNT are irrelevant to my point.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[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] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:12:12 -0400
"Joe R." wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Joe R." wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Joe R." wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is the HIGHT OF ARROGANCE to consider that man has even a
> > > > > > noticable
> > > > > > impact on climate,
> > > > >
> > > > > And the height of lunacy to refuse to consider it.
> > > >
> > > > I've considered. Then I've looked at the numbers.
> > > >
> > > > Take ALL CO2-producing human activity on the face of the planet, and
> > > > it amounts to a mere fraction OF JUST THE TERMITES (1/20th, to be
> > > > exact).
> > >
> > > First of all, I doubt your numbers. Please feel free to provide them.
> > >
> > > Second, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. In fact, it's one of the
> > > weakest. There are materials which have many orders of magnitude higher
> > > greenhouse effect.
> >
> > Yes. Water Vapor is the biggest. Of which the primary sources are
> > evaporation from the oceans, and animal respiration.
>
> Water vapor has only a very tiny greenhouse effect, although its high
> concentration does make the total impact significant.
>
> HOWEVER, water vapor is often an anti-greenhouse gas since clouds tend
> to _reduce_ temperature.
>
> But as I said, you're ignoring the impact of chemicals which have orders
> of magnitude higher greenhouse impact than CO2. Fluorocarbons.
> Bromocarbons. And so on.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Third, you're assuming that greenhouse gases are the only impact humans
> > > have had on the environment. They're not.
> >
> > The forces of nature are FAR stronger than those of man.
> > Leave a building unheated in Michigan for 5 years, and it will most
> > likely be in very sorry shape, if not a pile of rubble.
>
> That may be true. But that doesn't make your statement (that man can
> have no impact on the climate) any less stupid.
I didn't say "no" impact...I said "insignificant" when compared to all
other processes.
--
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: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: 5 Sep 2000 22:17:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
:> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)) wrote:
:>
:> >If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an existing OS
:> >(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download for
:> >RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is sucked
:> >in later. :-)
:> >
:> Emphasis on "UN-metered" connection.
:> You should see what I have to pay for my Internet connection.
: That is why Linux is available through so many channels. On-line, in
: stores, free with books, etc. You can pick the method that best fits your
: situation.
I generally prefer to buy an off-the-shelf copy at a store, for two
reasons: 1 - $50 or so is worth the savings in time (downloading
an entire CD's worth onto hard disk, then burning my own CD from
that is an annoyingly tedious task, and takes up lots of disk space
in the meantime.) 2 - I like to fund the companies, to help keep
them in business.
The only exception to this is emergency bugfixes - those I'll download.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:15:44 -0400
2:1 wrote:
>
> > Britain is behind in technlogoy because THEY CHOOSE TO BE BEHIND in
> > technology.
>
> That is utter bullshit. And you have an annoying, crap sig. What is
> more, you seem unable to snip.
Are you claiming that Britain has a more robust VLSI industry?
What British company is currently designing and manufacturing
servers of comparable quality to Sun Enterprise series or
HP servers?
What British company is currently manufacturing 32-bit and/or 64-bit
CPUs?
>
> We are not behind in technology. Granted, most stuff in the US is
> cheaper, but higher tech?
Who's designing it?
Who's manufacturing it?
Who owns the factories that are doing the manufacturing?
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> BBC Computer 32K
> Acorn DFS
> Basic
> >*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 22:23:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, D. Spider
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:59:27 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It appears that on Mon, 07 Aug 2000 17:03:37 GMT, in
>comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In
>The Machine) wrote:
>
>>In a similar vein, the logic copied above doesn't work, either.
>>DOS has a number of capabilities, but multitasking is not one of them.
>>Therefore, DOS and Linux are not equivalent. (DOS is also lacking
>>in a lot of other stuff, but multitasking is arguably the most
>>obvious.)
>>
>>This doesn't mean that DOS is better than Linux, it just means
>>that they are quite different. (I would contend that Linux is
>>better than DOS, but that's merely my opinion, backed up by a
>>few issues such as memory usage and ease of development and
>>deployment.)
>
>Actually DOS systems could multitask quite well if set up properly.
>Quarterdeck did a great job of making that work (with Desqview/X you
>even got an X server in the deal,) and NovellDOS (DRDOS) supported
>multitasking as well. DRDOS is still available from Caldera, and I
>believe it's seeing some use still, but primarily in embedded systems.
I'll admit, it looked tempting at the time, but for whatever reason
I never got around to acquiring a copy. I wonder, however, whether
it had sockets of some sort? (When not using X, that is; X has
to use sockets, although the sockets might actually be implemented
using shared memory, if I'm not mistaken. [I'm not sure that DOS
knew shared memory either, mind you.])
I should also point out DOS's relative crudity of piping
(creating a file calls something.$$$ doesn't quite cut it);
it's possible, however, that COMMAND.COM does the right thing now.
There are also issues with conventional vs. extended/expanded
memory usage (I never can remember which is which; there's also
DPMI memory, too).
So, I'll agree that DOS can multitask -- I probably should
have dragged inter-process communication into this dialogue. :-)
>
>
>
>>>>unix/Linux provides a unix/Linux in a window solution through xterms. That
>>>>would mean the Linux is inferior to Linux.
>>>>
>>>>Linux also provides a Windows in a window solution through wine.
>>>
>>>Windos can run Lienux thru VMWARE.
>>
>>I wouldn't doubt it, actually, since VmWare simulates a PC.
>>Why anyone would want to do so is an interesting question, admittedly. :-)
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Linux also provides a just about anything that can run on a PC (including
>>>>Linux) in a window solution through VMware. Meaning that just about
>>>>anything that can run on a PC (including Linux) is inferior to Linux.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Conslusions of these expansions of Tim's position:
>>>>
>>>>Windows can be viewed as an application that runs under Linux.
>>>>
>>>>Windows is so bad that it is inferior to the undesireable Linux which is
>>>>inferior to even itself and is the equivlent of Dos.
>>>>
>>>>Windows is inferior to Dos.
>>>
>>>No Windo's is better than DOS.
>>
>>I have to agree with you on that one. Windows is superior to DOS.
>
>Perhaps you'll be surprised that some of us don't agree? ;^)
Mildly, although it may depend on the value system. DOS was dumb,
but very reliable if one didn't try to do tricky things in
drivers installed via CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT.
Windows, by contrast ... well ... :-)
So I guess I'll have to withdraw that statement; DOS and Windows
are quite different (although Windows sits astride DOS in
a very real sense, and also talks directly to the hardware
as well). But it's not clear whether Windows is in fact better,
at least not without proper qualification. (For example, DOS is
much faster at printing out text, when running without Windows,
if memory serves.)
But please....don't remind me how ugly network stacks were in DOS.
I already know. :-)
>
>DOS for PCs is pretty well dead, admittedly, but that's because MS got
>all the development shifted to their GUI API.
Actually, it's very alive and kicking -- just well hidden. At least,
as of Win95, but I doubt the low-level design has changed much.
At most, IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS have been replaced with WINBOOT.SYS
(and MSDOS.SYS is now a text config file!), and there might have
been a few other tweaks. I don't have a Win98SE or a WinMe machine.
("WinMe"? Is MS planning some sort of promo campaign that has
users wanting to buy raffle tickets or something? :-) )
>If the programs were
>still available, I'd much rather have a DOS PC with Desqview/X than
>any version of Windows. Might well even prefer it to my Linux box, not
>as stable, but still a lot more stable than windows, and a bit of
>instability can be tolerated in a workstation.
Which may explain why Windows is such a popular desktop.
(Ugh.)
>
>>It's also more complicated, graphically aware (anyone else remember
>>Borland's BCI? :-) ), and doesn't have some of the other issues
>>that used to bedevil DOS, mostly the issue of conventional memory
>>versus extended/expanded, which was worked around in a number of ways.
>>With Win32, it ceases to be much of a worry at all; one just allocates
>>memory in a flat 32-bit address space -- a major convenience.
>
>But, as you reference in passing, there were quite workable ways to do
>that with DOS as well.
True.
I still prefer Linux, though; at least I can port from Linux => Solaris
more easily than DOS => Solaris, conceptually. (There are still
issues, of course; Solaris in particular may not support all of the
neat sound card stuff such as /dev/sequencer. :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:16:54 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > abraxas wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > abraxas wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > Perhaps you should be writing your government then.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind
> >> >> > in technology.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> There goes chad again, talking out of his ass. This actually has nothing
> >> >> to do with being 'behind in technology', it has to do with there being no
> >> >> one common communications tariff methodology.
> >> >>
> >> >> To all: Chad actually knows next to nothing about computers, and exactly
> >> >> nothing about the way countries other than the united states work. Hes
> >> >> probably best ignored.
> >> >
> >> > Wrong. Britain COULD have just as vibrant a memory-production industry
> >> > as the US....IF THEY DESIRED to do so.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ummm...how exactly does that make me wrong? We're agreeing, tard.
> >>
> >
> > Britain is behind in technlogoy because THEY CHOOSE TO BE BEHIND in
> > technology.
> >
>
> The satellite-telecom industry would disagree.
Most of the components are coming from the US, or US subsidiaries,
because
Britain's VLSI industry is almost nonexistant.
>
> -----yttrx
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:17:59 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS/PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > >
> > > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >> Its a nightmare, to be sure. I'm afraid its worse than anyone's
> even
> > > > >> begun to realize. (Well, anyone that still supports Microsoft in
> any
> > > > >> large degree.)
> > > > >
> > > > >You support them to a large degree. You use their operating system by
> > > > >choice.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hahahahahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahaa.
> > > >
> > > > "By choice?" Hahahahaha.
> > > >
> > > > You are insane. I use it, yes. But not by choice, no. I use it
> > > > because they've succeeded in making it too inconvenient for me to
> > > > feasibly and economically avoid. They've monopolized. Of course I
> use
> > > > it. Of course its not by choice.
> > > >
> > > > My company pays for it; I certainly wouldn't. The *only* reason I use
> > > > Windows, or any Microsoft software, at this point (years ago I would
> > > > have voluntarily used Word and Excel, but they've gone seriously
> > > > down-hill, and weren't really all that good to begin with) is because
> of
> > > > the monopoly.
> > >
> > > How come the monopoly forces you to use it but not the other millions of
> > > users who get by without it? Is there a guy from MS standing next to you
> > > with a gun to your head? Or are you lying again.
> > >
> > > No one is FORCING you to use any operating system. Shit or get off the
> pot,
> >
> > 4 years ago, you basically had NO choice, as most vendors were
> > specifically
> > held hostage by Microsoft
>
> Now mention something with truth or relevance.
All viable commercial competitors were destroyed by the illegal
use of Obstruction of Trade techniques.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
