Linux-Advocacy Digest #117, Volume #29 Thu, 14 Sep 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Darin Johnson)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Darin Johnson)
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Darin Johnson)
Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:43:56 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And!... important to remember...Linux is for all all intents
> >> and purposes a *INTEL* system,
> >
> >Hmmm...It hasnt been when ive run it on alphas, sparcs and macintoshes.
>
> While Linux may have started out as a 386-dependent Unix-lookalike
> operating system, it has outgrown that platform in some respects,
> much like a baby outgrows its playpen. Linus' creation (well,
> nominally, anyway; a lot of people have put in changes over the years,
> although he still oversees patches to the development kernel) is
> now a full-fledged operating system
Sorry to break it to you but LINUX is a kernel, not a "full-fledged
operating system".
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:43:41 GMT
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:11:43 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You can change the ownership to *yourself* (if you have the "take ownership"
>permission), but you can't change the ownership to a specific user.
I would think that is something an admin might want to do once in a
while.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:36:03 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> I am not saying there is no other connection. If you know of another
> one, say what it is. It's probably as small as the search form.
You stated that MieTerra sells KDE T-shirts. What becomes of the profits
from the sales of those T-shirts?
------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:52:27 GMT
Peter Koch wrote:
[...snip...]
> No. I think that the most sophisticated Unix today is Sun Solaris.
Poor, deluded child. :-(
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:45:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > > >
> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > > > >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > > >> Thus leaving entirely unsettled the question of whether TT
> > > > > > >> would sue anyone trying to clone QT, which would be based on
> > > > > > >> copyright infringement charges.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >What do you expect a company will do if they see someone
> > > > > > >infringing their copyright?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you saying the Harmony project would have infringed their
> > copyright?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am saying that if they had, TT would have sued them.
> > > >
> > > > Assuming for a moment that the Harmony project and some other
> > development
> > > > team released a library that was a drop in replacement for Qt.
Let's
> > for
> > > > sake of this message call the replacement library Ht. What I mean
by a
> > drop
> > > > in replacement is that any any software the requires Qt to compile,
> > link,
> > > > and run; could, without and change to its source code, compile
cleanly
> > > > against Ht, link against Ht, and then run. Would *you* in that case
> > > > consider Ht to be an infringement on Qt?
> > >
> > > It depends on how Ht was developed. I am not into the business of
> > > redefining what is a copyright infringement.
> >
> > Thank you, for admitting that a drop in replacement for Qt *is*
possible.
>
> Of course it is. I never said it wasn't. Had you asked, I would
> have said so. You know, it's not like you needed a corkscrew?
As I have said, thank you. Your admission of the fact that it is possible,
refutes the claims that have been made that it would not be possible.
>
> In fact, I have said a hundred times that I would have preferred
> GNOME to develop a Qt dropin replacement instead of a desktop.
Where? When?
------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:58:24 GMT
Nitin Mule wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think now I'm clear about this stuff. When I posted this question, I think
> I must have bumped into someone like Don Kool. Unfortunately there are lots
> of them and there is no way you can keep them out. But I did some search on
> Deja and found this interesting post. It's a list of things that Don has
> learnt over years of his experience in "UNIX system" (Don, that's the
> correct way YOU should refer to Unix. From opengroup.org :"Trademarks should
> be used as adjectives, not as nouns").
I'm happy to see that you are learning, my young friend from the
great white north. If you would loosen your touque and drop your
backbacon for a second, you would realize that the proper phrasing
is "...years of experience with UNIX systems".
[...snip...]
> 6. People who use non-trademarked UNIX workalike systems are idiots. They
> must immediately run to their nearest UNIX(tm) vendor and open
> their checkbooks. Pseudo-UNIX systems are for Students, tinkerers and
> script kiddies. (repeat as often as necessary)
That's "students, tinkerers and hobbyists". Do try to keep up, my
child.
Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:18:01 -0500
"Andrew Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Similar, but not the same -- KDE is not asking for third parties to
> grant permission by relicensing their code; they are moving to GPL
> themselves. This will make them currently legal, but does not alter
> their past transgressions. If the licenses were all retroactively
> altered (and again, I don't actually know for sure this is allowed) it
> would be a different situation (by changing the original conditions). I
> don't think RMS made too many friends with his statement on KDE, anyway.
No, KDE isn't seeking to have their "past transgressions" wiped clean.
Stallman, OTOH seems to think they should.
> > Yes, guarnatee certain rights while removing others. I disagree that
this
> > was the "only way" to guarantee that your own IP remains free.
>
> What alternatives do you propose?
Any number of alternatives exist. A license which requires you to ship or
make available the free software portions you use without requiring you to
ship your own code (Similar to LGPL, but LGPL requires changes you make to
the library to be published as well) would be perfectly acceptable.
> > > Total freedom includes, paradoxically, the ability to unilaterally
take
> > > away the freedom of future users.
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> Can you not take BSD-licensed software, and sell it (withholding
> source)?
> (honest question; haven't read the BSD license entirely yet)
Yes. The BSD liscense used to require you publish a copyright notice for the
regents of berkely, but even that's been removed in the last year or so.
> > If someone else re-uses my code in their closed source application, that
> > doesn't change the fact that *I* still offer that code for free, and
that
> > *I* still offer that code in any way I see fit. This doesn't change the
> > fact that the code is already out there.
>
> You've made alterations and additional enhancements to that person's
> code, without providing those changes to others. Part of the Free
> Software movement is that everyone benefits from access to the source.
> If you come up with an enhancement based on someone else's code, your
> obligation is to give them the same courtesy with yours.
> The GPL sets up a system of mutual obligation.
Not necessarily. Simply linking to a GPL'd library (not LGPL) is not
altering the code. If I distribute the code in it's original form, without
modification along with the original unmodified source, it's still free.
If I do make changes based on said code, well, there is such a thing as
"fair use" and there are legal definitions of this. And simply looking at
the code, doesn't mean that my code is based on it. Heck, I might start
with your code, modify it so completely that there isn't a single line of
original code, yet I still must distribute my own code now because of this?
That's rather stupid.
> > And how does not distributing *MY* source code stop others from
distributing
> > theirs?
>
> The primary motivation with GPL was to ensure that if you make changes
> to the code, those changes go back into the source pool so others can
> benefit. (The viral nature of GPL is secondary, I think, in keeping with
> RMS's philosophy.)
>
> If you want the benefit of freedom of use (without changes), minus the
> obligation of sharing your code, use LGPL software. This is a more
> pragmatic license, and allows linking.
I think that modifications to source is a plausible point. I don't fully
agree with it, but I'll grant that there are things to consider there. Not
modifying the code in any way and simply linking to it, however, is not the
same thing.
> > > I wouldn't agree with claims that the GPL offers more personal freedom
> > > than BSD licensing. It does, however, *guarantee* certain freedoms to
> > > *all* users.
> >
> > No, It doesn't. It says it does, but those freedoms are still
guaranteed
> > without the GPL.
>
> In what ways?
By simply making your own code freely available however you wish to.
> > No, actually, it makes GPL'd code a "Walled City" with me on the outside
if
> > I don't want to distribute my own source. That's why the LGPL was
invented.
>
> That's right, it was effectively an admission that the GPL can't coexist
> with the existing market. (The GPL effectively creates an independent
> market.)
And the LGPL is now officially discouraged. Even from libraries.
> I don't disagree with some of your points. You're right, the GPL does
> *not* provide absolute freedom. By trying to promote an ideal, it has
> also twisted the meaning of the word somewhat.
> And I'm certainly not trying to convert you or anything! It's just a
> very interesting discussion.
The GPL doesn't PROMOTE and ideal, it enforces it. That's not freedom in
any stretch of the imagination.
> > I think you need to show how not distributing my code takes away someone
> > elses rights.
>
> By opening up the code to all and sundry, the author has allowed anyone
> else to become additional developers of his software. He also wants to
> ensure free access to that source, now and in the future.
Free access can be assured simply by the author providing access to it. If
he wants to make sure it's free long after he's dead, write a will and
provide the funds to keep it free.
> If one of those developers comes up with a wonderful new enhancement,
> and does not share it with others, then he is not honouring the original
> author's wishes -- a part of the source tree is not freely available any
> more.
But the original source still is. What you're effectively saying is "I not
only want to control my own code, but someone elses code as well". Whether
their code is based on my code or not, it's still *THEIR* code. They wrote
it. I did not. I'm forcing them to bend to my will.
Again, I have no problem with the GPL doing that. I have no problem with
the GPL's politics. What I have a problem with, is the GPL's politics being
used and calling it "freedom".
> With regards to linking without alteration to source, that *is* why the
> LGPL was created.
However, you can't just say that GPL'd code is LGPL'd.
> Here are the choices with the current model:
>
> (1) You can provide software, but withhold the source. No-one can
> further benefit from the work you have done; development stops at you.
>
> (2) You can provide software and source without restriction (public
> domain). Everyone can do as they wish, meaning at any point down the
> tree, anyone can choose to close it off and withhold further access
> (becoming a new point (1) themselves).
If it's public domain, that means someone else can copyright it. That's why
liscenses like the BSD liscense exist. TO make it freely available without
restriction.
> (3) You can provide software and source, but require all future
> development do the same. Everyone can do as they wish *except* close it
> off at a future point. The software will always conform to (3) at any
> point in the tree.
Enforcing your own personal politics on someone elses IP.
> Take your pick. Only one of the above guarantees what rights you'll have
> at any point in the future.
No, #2 also guarantees that the software remains free as well.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: 15 Sep 2000 01:18:06 GMT
by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hmm, I see things differently.
: If we're talking about copying files here, isn't it better to say 'make
: a copy of the file' instead of 'make an image of the file' ?
(Sorry about the lateness of this reply - I only read this newsgroup
occasionally.)
My previous post wasn't very good. I emphasized that "image" was
a noun while "copy" is both noun and verb, but now that I think of
it, that's not the really important difference. The important
difference is that "copy" has more generic scope than "image". An
image is a very particular type of copy - the type that is done at
a low-level that goes under the filesystem abstraction. Here's an
example. If I had one floppy drive, I could copy a floppy by using
the hard drive as temporary storage while I switched floppies. Here's
two ways to do that, one uses an image, the other does not.
method A -> Not using an image:
1. insert source floppy.
2. make a temp dir on your hard drive.
3. copy the files from source disk to temp dir, one at a time.
4. switch in the target floppy, format it if need be.
5. copy the files back from temp dir to floppy, one at a time.
method B -> using an image:
1. insert source floppy.
2. copy all 1.44 MB worth of bytes from the floppy to a single
archive file on the hard drive. This file will be an
exact *image* of the bytes that were on the floppy, without
regard to its format.
3. swap in the target floppy.
4. copy all 1.44 mb from the archive file you made in step 2, back
onto the floppy drive directly, again without regard to the
format on the floppy.
Method B is called making an "image", but method A is not.
Both are types of copying. Method A goes through the
filesystem format, while method B only treats the entire floppy
like it was one big long 1.44 MB file. Method B can even work
on *any* type of floppy. I've copied Mac disks this way, even
when my Linux machine didn't have Mac filesystem drivers installed.
"Image" is a subset of "copy", and has a very particular meaning.
Asking us to use the word 'copy' instead is like saying, "oh,
why bother with the words 'truck', 'car', and 'bus'? Just use the
word 'vehicle' for everything - it means the same thing".
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:41:10 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : No, I said that similarly configured systems use similar amounts of
memory.
> : I didn't say what that memory was used for (caches or otherwise).
>
> : Please quote me alledgedly misinterpreting how Linux uses memory. I
think
> : you'll find that if you go back and re-read the whole thread, I said no
such
> : thing.
>
> (I've been away from this newsgroup for a few weeks, so I've just seen
> this now. The original post has expired from my news server, and a
> Deja News search would be a bit of a pain. But here is my re-creation
> of what I saw. If you contest that you did something like this after
> I offer this explanation, THEN I'll go through the bother of a DejaNews
> search to back it up.)
>
> Here's an example output from "free" on my machine:
> total used free shared buffers cached
> Mem: 257644 167708 89936 113836 31672 46020
> -/+ buffers/cache: 90016 167628
> Swap: 128484 0 128484
>
> In the above example, you acted like there was 167708 Kb of memory that
> was being hogged up, with only 88936 Kb left that could be used. You
> deliberately ignored the fact that the more useful numbers are given
> by the second line - 90016 Kb is *really* tied up, and 167628 Kb is
> still available (some is being *TEMPORARILY* used as extra I/O buffers
> and cache by the OS, but that's not really necessary and will be dropped
> the instant some program needs the space) I don't really care if NT does
> the same thing behind the scenes or not. If you compare free memory on
> NT and Linux, and you don't subtract the buffers and cache first on
> the Linux numbers, you are comparing apples and oranges.
I don't understand your logic here. You claim that comparing NT with
buffers and caches to Linux without buffers and caches is an apples to
apples comparison?
My point was that Unix and Linux are using similar amounts of memory. If
you want to remove caches and buffers from Linux, remove them from NT as
well. You *STILL* have similar amounts of memory.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:29:36 GMT
<?sarcasm version="1.0">
<root>
<comment poster="Chad" text="No, I _WAS_ serious! Seriously!"/>
</root>
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:em7w5.890$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> i agree...heck, in my newreader the thread was something like 75 mess. long
> how do you expect people to read all that?
>
> /IL
>
> > You assume that people who aren't following the thread will
> > take a look back at the whole thing. In my case all I saw was
> > "Linux PCs have no BIOS". Whether people who don't know the
> > full thread should post is another issue. Whether he should have
> > included more context (thus making the statement not appear
> > as an idiotic one) is also another issue.
> >
> > ..darcy
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:24:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> Yup, and WinDOS does not support this sort of thing. It's one
> of the things I find so annoying about explorer. Then, there's
> what to do with explorer if a file doesn't even have an extention.
Being stuck on Windows now, I've discovered that "quick view" is quite
useful in many of these cases (but these need to be enable for each
file type).
> A new user is unlikely to be using more than one desktop as well.
But apps from different desktop environments will get installed. Few
people stick purely to KDE apps, or Gnome apps, etc. If you install
Netscape, which environment is it going to check to decide on its
look (color, font size, etc)?
The idea of standardizing the look of X apps was a relatively later
idea, although there was limited support (ie, get
foreground/background color from X resources). It's hard to get newer
ideas pushed through to other apps though without the muscle of
Microsoft to ensure everyone complies (ie, I don't think you weren't
allowed to use the "Works with Window 95" logo unless your app used
the desktop properties for its look).
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:31:38 -0400
Yannick wrote:
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Yannick wrote:
> > > The card was a Realtek 8019 (IIRC), which is either PnP or NE2000-comp.
> > > As for the network card, it was partly my fault because I wanted it to
> stay
> > > in PnP mode for all other systems. IIRC I got it to run eventually, but
> this
> > > is
> > > pure luck because I still don't understand how I've done it.
> > >
> >
> > I would suspect "embrace and extend".
>
> Sorry, what do you mean ? (I know the expression, but don't understand what
> you mean in this context...)
Microsoft might have changed (or encouraged IHV's to change) how the
settings could be detected.
>
>
> BTW, maybe it was 8029...
> Realtek's official solution was to configure it as a ne2000 card, but I
> don't remember if it included changing the switch... I don't think so. I
> guess the switch was only to disable PnP functionality, but did not
> otherwise change the behaviour of the card.
>
Don't know about that particular card, sorry.
Colin Day
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:28:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> This is not something that is really ever going to be good
> enough for the really lazy or the really stupid. That class
> of user will just have to have it all automated for them.
"Really lazy" is subjective. Sure, a smart user can set everything
up and have it work perfectly, but how much time to allot to this?
I never want the option of fine tuning to be removed, but being able
to do things simply and quickly is very important.
Ie, when I first got KDE up and going, I found myself often switching
back to generic fvwm and X, just so that I could get work done. I
wasn't lazy, but I had work to do that was more important than fiddling
and experimenting.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:33:16 GMT
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Trick question: what's the point of selecting a single file?
So you can select a menu options that operate on that file. The Mac
has only one mouse button remember, you can't just right click on it
to get extra options.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!!
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:33:27 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> Actually, I was trying to have some fun at the expense of Aaron
> >> Kulkis and his Communist conspiracy theories, by proposing one that is at
> >> least as well-supported as anything Mr. Kulkis has been able to think up.
>
> >My theories have supporting evidence.
>
> The absolute sum total of it is {}
>
Of course, a dyed-in-the-wool commie like petrich will deny the
existance of communist subterfuge.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:33:29 GMT
In article <8pqttm$27a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[deletia]
> Wait a second! I am not sure what camp you think I fall into (all
> depends on the age of the observer, some may consider me more the "old
> fart side", not me).
>
> ((I first saw Unix(TM) while taking a tour of Bell Labs in the
early/mid
> 70s. Then again, that version would not pass the requirements set
forth
> by Open Systems, can't call it Unix(TM) ))
>
> Still, other then a technical correct (but stupid from every other
point
> of view) trademark issue, I have no issues considering Linux to be a
> version of Unix(TM).
>
> Maybe a more accurate reference point for what camp a person is in
would
> be the oxygen flow rate to the brain.
>
> No flow: Not blessed, not Unix(TM). Blah Blah Blah
> Normal: Smells like Unix(TM), Taste like Unix(TM), must be Unix.
>
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply physical age, merely old thinking. Your
criteria suits me just fine. Sure glad I didn't step in it....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
