Linux-Advocacy Digest #988, Volume #28 Fri, 8 Sep 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Computer and memory (Grega Bremec)
Re: How low can they go...? (Tim Smith)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (Tim Smith)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Computer and memory (Grega Bremec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:37:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>Make up your mind. First you ask why I aren't using it, then you ask why I
>am using it?
If you'd given reasonable answers to either question, we wouldn't have
to keep going back and forth. Stop squirming around. If you know you
can't keep up the argument, just take your lumps and say goodbye.
[...]
>Feeling schizophrenic today Max? We? Have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Thanks for the chuckle.
[...]
>> It is apparent that the use of the underscore as a leading character, or
>> any character, does not break DNS itself at all, as DNS is a 'general
>> database', not just a hostname resolution system.
>
>It is apparent that the use of the underscore is not permitted in *any*
>place in a hostname.
>Which is the point of the updated RFC, to permit *any* character to be used
>as part of a service locator record.
This is precisely the discombobulation I was expecting you to get hung
up on. The various RFCs state that you can use any character in a DNS
entry. But this is not the same as the restriction on hostnames, in DNS
or anywhere else. Read the appropriate sections of the RFC's again (not
just the DNS ones, but the 'Host Requirements' ones) and you'll see what
I mean.
>"Occasionally it is assumed that the Domain Name System serves only
> the purpose of mapping Internet host names to data, and mapping
> Internet addresses to host names. This is not correct, the DNS is a
> general (if somewhat limited) hierarchical database, and can store
> almost any kind of data, for almost any purpose."
>
>i.e no longer just hostnames.
You mistake, just as they were trying to forestall in this very
paragraph, the use of DNS as a host resolution mechanism, and DNS as a
hierarchical database.
> " The DNS itself places only one restriction on the particular labels
> that can be used to identify resource records. That one restriction
> relates to the length of the label and the full name. The length of
> any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets. A full domain
> name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators). The zero
> length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree,
> and is typically written and displayed as ".". Those restrictions
> aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any
> resource record."
Did you get further down, where they said that an application (client,
they call it) of the DNS hierarchical database might place additional
restrictions? You probably also misunderstand the concept of 'proposed'
standard. This just means it was looked at seriously; it doesn't
necessarily mean that any one is even considering it for 'real' standard
status. I don't know whether this RFC has any support behind it,
perhaps it does, even outside of Microsoft. But there's absolutely
nothing in there that changes the standard for the definition of *host*
resource records in DNS, because it doesn't mention or impact the
standard which defines what a legal *host* name is. At least not as far
as I can tell. Check RFC 2600 if you want; from my reading, an
underscore is not an allowed character at all, and numbers and letters
are the only valid initial character.
>A locator system - which is exactly what DNS is designed for yes?
No. DNS is designed as a general hierarchical database. Its primary
(and, really, only major) implementation is the Internet DNS system used
for host resolution. This isn't quite the same as the 'locator
service', WINS, that Microsoft is pretending to replace DNS with, but
its close enough that they've been trying to confuse the two since 1995.
But if you're going to use that DNS system, the Internet DNS system, one
of the rules is that you follow the standard for hostnames in host
resource records. Another is that you don't play games with
interoperability to decrease the autonomous authority of any implementor
of your product.
>>
>> A) Microsoft is practicing purposeful interoperability, again
>
>Debatable. Why they chose to use _ldap_ instead of just ldap (or even
>msldap) is a bit of a mystery to me, perhaps to ensure that there would be
>no possible conflict with valid hostnames, who knows.
Oh, yea, that could be it, sure. Then again, maybe they just
gratuitously ignore every rule they can to enhance interoperability
problems on their monopoly product, to encourage everyone to do things
their way or no way. Then they can start changing the rules more often,
to kill the competition.
>> B) Stuart Fox is making assumptions about Internet standards
>
>I haven't assumed anything.
You have assumed that DNS is DNS. Its a typical assumption, I'll give
you that. It was still an assumption. And considering you posted the
very text which should have clued you in to this issue, I'd say it was
quite a bad assumption to make.
[...]
>Explain to me exactly how you can monopolize without, um, being a monopoly?
You can't, but that's because the way you ask it is a word-game, not a
serious question. You can attempt to monopolize without being a
monopoly, obviously, and that's a violation of the same law that makes
monopolization illegal (but still doesn't make 'a monopoly' illegal).
You figure it out.
--
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: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:54:53 -0500
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'd guess it was done at least in part to avoid a lawsuit from Apple.
>
> Many of Microsoft's interface decisions over the years look like they
> were made on this basis, which is part of the reason Windows gets so
> much wrong; Apple got things right, Microsoft insisted on stealing
> things, but had to settle for a less-than-optimal solution to avoid
> harassment by Apple lawyers.
Actually, it's worse than that. Microsoft was contractually obligated NOT
to create software with certain features by Apple. MS was not allowed to
create a trashcan, or have desktop that files could be placed on (the
program manager could only have "links" to files or icons.) Microsoft
couldn't use memory backed store in it's window design (where the OS holds
the bits that occur behind the window) because of patent infringement issues
and many other technicalities.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 21:33:08 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8p92ng$c3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:4%Ht5.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Spoken like someone that has never written a line of code in his
life.
> > > You
> > > > can't just "take out" fundamental architectural changes to software.
> > This
> > > > is similar to a judge ordering that the basement be removed from 100
> > story
> > > > skyscraper.
> > > >
> > > > It's easy to just say "The architects and construction company put
in in
> > > > there, they can easily take it out".
> > >
> > > Have you considered RCS, SCCS, CVS, et al?
> >
> > Have you considered that rolling back to a previous version was not
allowed?
> >
> > The judge specifically forbade MS from offering previous versions,
claiming
> > them obsolete. MS would have had to completely rewrite existing
components
> > to remove any trace of IE while maintaining the new features they
offered
> > (many of which were provided by IE, such as HTML Help).
> >
> > That's not something you can just roll back.
>
> A position which they placed themselves in.
Actually, no. Bee-Ess Corp. of Atlanta forced them by contractual obligation
to do that.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:36:56 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8p92ng$c3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:4%Ht5.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Spoken like someone that has never written a line of code in his
life.
> > > You
> > > > can't just "take out" fundamental architectural changes to software.
> > This
> > > > is similar to a judge ordering that the basement be removed from 100
> > story
> > > > skyscraper.
> > > >
> > > > It's easy to just say "The architects and construction company put
in in
> > > > there, they can easily take it out".
> > >
> > > Have you considered RCS, SCCS, CVS, et al?
> >
> > Have you considered that rolling back to a previous version was not
allowed?
> >
> > The judge specifically forbade MS from offering previous versions,
claiming
> > them obsolete. MS would have had to completely rewrite existing
components
> > to remove any trace of IE while maintaining the new features they
offered
> > (many of which were provided by IE, such as HTML Help).
> >
> > That's not something you can just roll back.
>
> A position which they placed themselves in.
Lawfully
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:51:45 GMT
...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
<snip>
>... Do you not remember how the world was falling under Hitler's
>control? Had Hitler decided not to attack Russia, and decided to
>heed the warnings of the upcoming D-Day, ...
<snip>
This thread is now officially dead.
Ironically, it was killed by a person who seemed to have the most
interest in making the debate persistant by not even attempting to
comprehend the most of the points outspoken here.
Too bad for you, Chad.
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
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: 7 Sep 2000 21:36:23 -0700
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 16:53:09 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Are the Win9x upgrade media even capable of starting with
>> bare media. The Win95 upgrade didn't seem to be capable of
>> it. One would have to build an OS of some sort on the system
>> disk or the install media in addition to the upgrade files
>> themselves.
>
>*cough* bullshit *cough*
>
>I've FDISK'd enough systems to know. It works on a bare system. There's this
>thing called a <""> Boot Disk <"">. You insert it into your <""> Death Star
><"">. I call this the <""> Alan Parsons Project <"">.
The Windows 95 upgrade did not come with a boot disk, and the CD-ROM
disc was not bootable. It could not be installed on a bare machine.
BTW, just booting from a boot floppy and running setup from the Win95
upgrade CD-ROM would not work. It would mostly install fine, but when
it would get to the first reboot, it would fail after the reboot,
because it could not access the CD-ROM. To install the Win95 upgrade
from CD-ROM, you had to at least have MSCDEX and an appropriate CD
driver installed on the hard disk.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: 7 Sep 2000 21:43:15 -0700
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 21:02:14 -0500, TechnoJoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2000/0807/news-navy-08-07-00.asp). Two
>years earlier, a divide by zero error on a Microsoft Windows NT machine left
>the USS Yorktown dead in the water for over two hours
Since the *EXACT* same thing would have happened if they had been using
Linux, what's your point? (Hint: Linux and Windows NT behave exactly the
same way when an application divides by zero: they terminate the
application. If that application is critical to the functioning of your
ship, your ship is screwed).
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:49:32 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Now you are changing defintions again. You didn't mention
> > application embedding before. Although even that is of
> > dubious value.
>
> Dubious value? You're kidding. Tell that to AOL who uses the embedded IE
> in their application. Tell that to Intuit that uses the embedded IE as the
> basis for their entire interface. Tell that to Neoplanet, that have made an
> entire commercial product based on IE's rendering engine ebedded into their
> product (and before you say it, yes that includes rendering into a surface
> in the app). Dubious value indeed. There is literally billions of dollars
> being made by companies using IE embedded in their applications.
This is called: Making the most of a bad situation.
Why? Because if you remove IE, the system is destroyed...so, might
as well build a symbiotic relationship.
Of course...just like every other software maker that depends on
Microsoft DLLs, when M$ decided to target a new company to victimize,
watch how quickly IE suddenly BREAKS, but *only* in those applications.
>
> > If one app can't control the windows of another in Win32
> > without some unecessarily low level hack, that sounds
> > more like a Microsoft problem than a Netscape one.
>
> Hack? What are you talking about? IE is provided via COM. COM is not a
> hack, nor is it "low level"
See above.
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:50:15 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Now you are changing defintions again. You didn't mention
> > application embedding before. Although even that is of
> > dubious value.
>
> Dubious value? You're kidding. Tell that to AOL who uses the embedded IE
> in their application. Tell that to Intuit that uses the embedded IE as the
> basis for their entire interface. Tell that to Neoplanet, that have made an
> entire commercial product based on IE's rendering engine ebedded into their
> product (and before you say it, yes that includes rendering into a surface
> in the app). Dubious value indeed. There is literally billions of dollars
> being made by companies using IE embedded in their applications.
Ask Netscape and WordPerfect what happens when you rely on M$ DLLs....
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:58:32 GMT
"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
>
> <snip>
>
> >... Do you not remember how the world was falling under Hitler's
> >control? Had Hitler decided not to attack Russia, and decided to
> >heed the warnings of the upcoming D-Day, ...
>
> <snip>
>
> This thread is now officially dead.
Hmm.. somehow I don't think Godwin's law applies here.
I believe this is a corallary
The thread had evolved to the point where USA's usefulness in the world.
A reasonable and topic-worthy reply would most certainly include
the USA's influence in helping to defeat the Nazis.
Godwin's law applies, IMHO, when a topic which has nothing to do
about world affairs (such as Computers) degenerates into people calling
each other Nazis.
> Ironically, it was killed by a person who seemed to have the most
> interest in making the debate persistant by not even attempting to
> comprehend the most of the points outspoken here.
Geez, you know, you'd think I'd said the same thing about 100 times
and no one (including you) seemed to get a point that was so obviously
clear.
Yet, somehow, I'm the one that gets blamed for not comprehending.
What does it take for YOU, Mr.Bremec to understand the same post?
10 times? 20?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:53:47 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The system that fell over on the Yorktown was a bridge navigation
> control system. There is no requirement for processing sensitive data
> on such a system, and in all probability the box was properly stickered
> with a label stating such.
>
> The DoD can purchase anything it wants under a waiver system that is
> part of the purchasing criteria you mention. If Navy feels that Linux
> provides a better solution for a navigation control system than any
> other OS, they will apply for and be granted a waiver and the TCSEC and
> all its rainbow books can go to hell.
>
> You really want Linux on an aircraft carrier? Then how much money will
> Redhat contribute to election campaigns this year? How many political
> action committees do they finance? How many executive retreats for
> military top echelon have they sponsored? How many country club
> memberships, junkets to Hawaii, hookers, dinners, and luxury cars have
> they bought and paid for? That's what makes for a successful contract
> award, not some stupid nonsensical security classification.
Actually, there's an EASIER way...
Show the congressmen how much money they can save to spend on OTHER
goodies.
Hehehehehehe...
And since it's a Republican congress....things look good in that
respect.
>
> 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: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:59:19 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39b86379$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:39b771b7$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>
> >> >Gary Hallock wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kennedy wanted to get us out (and there are tapes to prove THAT,
> >too),
> >> >> > but LBJ decided to insert 500,000 men instead.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Johnson also wanted to get us out - it was part of his 1964
campaign.
> >Goldwater
> >> >> wanted to extend to war into China and use nuclear weapons.
> >> >> The fact is that every president since Eisenhower promised to get us
> >out of
> >> >> Vietnam and each ended up actually getting us in deeper. That
> >includes Nixon.
> >> >> Viewing Vietnam as Johnson's war is very simplistic.
> >>
> >> >Who sent over the first combat unit larger than a company?
> >> >Who sent the first squadron of Air Force ground support craft?
> >>
> >> >Who slided our troops from the position of tag-along ADVISORS into
> >> >full-fledged direct combatants.
> >>
> >> >Before LBJ, yes, Advisors took part in fighting...this is routine...
> >Anybody
> >> >who goes out in the bush carries a firearm, and shoots when it gets
> >hairy.
> >>
> >> >But before LBJ, it was always a couple of Americans giving advice and
> >> >assistance to a much larger body of Viet Namese.
> >>
> >>
> >> Plug in to how Ike sent aircraft carriers into the Gulf and offered to
> >drop
> >> nukes on the Vietmin (sp) in 1954 to support the French -- then think
of
> >the
> >> CIA running lose in SEA, and you will begin to understand who started
the
> >> Vietnam war.
>
> >Who gives a FUCK! I've heard of off topic but this should be illegal. Get
> >this shit out of here!
>
>
> Listen you jackass troll, what is off-topic is you thinking you have
anything
> worth listening too. Get out of the OS2 ng moron.
>
> BTW, I do understand that your real problem is that you are such a
complete
> idiot that you can't stand anyone who points out that you don't have
anything
> worth saying. -- Which is the only reason for your off-topic comments to
me.
Well...this jackass made you instantly stop talking about the bullshit
above....what's that make you? :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 05:04:41 GMT
...and Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
<snip>
>>>
>>> And BTW Chad, I'm not a whiny Brit. I'm a whiny American,
>>> sick of seeing other Americans act like assholes just
>>> because they are part of the 'Great United States'.
>>
>>I'm affraid you're talking to a brick wall
>>
>>BTW, i'm not a brit neighter :)
>>
>>Amon_Re
While speaking of it, neither am I. I am European though, I live in a
former communist country (nine years since, which you'll all admit is
not a long period for a country to grow up), and I _DO_ _HAVE_ a fast
cable connection, where transfer speeds rarely fall under 30Kbps on
trans-continental links, not to mention local ones (150+).
So, there, Chad.
>Well, actually, I killfiled him already. That's why it
>was attached to your post (which quoted him). But I had
>to say something.
Your instinct had proven to be correct. Chad killed this thread a few
articles above by starting a debate on how the US proved their
superiority over Europeans in WW2 by kicking you-know-whos ass.
This thread can hence be officially considered dead according to the
Godwin's Law and Chad is, ironically, the official winner.
Only, not. :-)
Cheers,
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
