Linux-Advocacy Digest #305, Volume #29 Mon, 25 Sep 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (mark)
Re: The Linux Experience (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: News client (clyde)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (mark)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Linux Experience (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Win2K (mark)
Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:38:20 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Butler) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>But linux itself hardly ever freezes up (or in my case, never has). And
>>if something does freeze (application, not linux), it's a matter of
>>about 5 seconds to kill and restart it (rather than rebooting).
>
>True, but Linux can still freeze up. I've managed to see a hang on system
>shutdown (a kernel oops! in fact).
I've not seen that. Win98SE generally won't shut down whenever I've used
the Outlook client (which used to be every day); now that we've got a
web-client, I can use my browser (and linux for that matter) - work
recently became far more pleasant. I find Win98 very unreliable, whereas
the linux router/server it connects to has never frozen (I've been using
it about 3 years now).
>
>I've also seen the Window Manager freeze up. Since there was no way to
>telnet into the machine, I had to reboot to recover.
I did have a similar problem on a old 486 I was trying unstable packages
on. I was able to connect my Psion to its serial port to shut down
the X-server. 'Course, I could have telnetted in, but where's the fun
in that?
>
>>Actually, it's more like no real games. Or very few, anyway. Other
>>than games, I've not had trouble finding a linux equivilant (or better)
>>to any windows software. Of course, this depends on what specifically
>>you need software for... I just use the standard stuff (word processor,
>>news/email, C development environment, etc).
I like legacy Doom. It's not as graphically smooth as eg., quake, but
I've enough older machines around to have a networked game with a few
mates (with a few beers); the linux server has approx 3,000 wads on
it - a mix of doom1 and doom2. Legacy will play all of those, but with
the advantages of later games such as mouse aiming, changes weapons
preferences and so on.
If I get around to running some up to date iron, I might look a bit
more seriously at the quake series.
>
>Some of the graphics tools leave a lot to be desired. They all do different
>things, with different styles and menus. I seem to need to use multiple
>applications to do what I do on Windows with two.
I know what you mean - I find that windows packages seem to try to get
everything into one monolithic application which can take minutes to load,
doesn't really do anything very well (tries to do too much), doesn't
interwork with any other tools or apps very well, usually uses closed
binary formats to store my work in so I can't import into anything else.
That's in fact one of the main reasons I stopped using Windows apart from
those few occasions where work requires it (becoming fewer and fewer now :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: 25 Sep 2000 18:55:30 GMT
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:23:19 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 25 Sep 2000 17:57:51 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The likely alternatives that you would provide don't do even
> this. So unless you would like to drag big iron into the
> disucussion, Unix documentation in general and Linux in
> specific aren't as terrible as they're made out to be.
I don't think the documentation is "bad". On the contrary, it is excellent
( especially if you compare it to 'doze, which has docs that border on
completely useless )
The problem is that it's not terribly well organised.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:55:38 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El sáb, 23 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> If you know so much, why don't you do it?
> >
> >I am; it's just going to take me 5 to 10 years,
> >so I'm taking out my frustrations in the meantime.
>
> Hey, it's not our fault is you are slow! ;-)
I'm not particularly slow, I just don't have a lab full of
researchers busily implementing my architecture and
supporting me financially, intellectually and emotionally.
What I do have is a bunch of ignorant people acting like
assholes and saying things like "I doubt you'll ever
implement anything", "It's useless anyways", and
"You sound like a kook to me" even though they have
no stake in the project at all.
What I do have is people who seem to be obsessed with
finding a Saviour that will make all their problems go away.
They aren't willing to work on a new OS (and that's fine
as far as it goes) so they try to destroy anyone who comes
along that might need their help to achieve something
because he's a subtle reminder that they aren't doing
anything to help their own situation.
You can even see it in the language chosen for their
denunciations. As if I were a False Messiah (which
implies clearly that they *are* waiting for a messiah),
a demon to be banished back to hell by a disciple of
the True Faith. Because of course, it is sheer /faith/
(or arrogance and stupidity) that lets them say any
such thing, not any genuine authority in the subject
matter.
And even though ultimately I don't give a shit what
people think about me and my project on this NG,
it still wears me down.
Social expectations are self-fulfilling prophecies.
Humans will rise or lower themselves so as to meet
your expectations of them. People should remember
this truism more often.
> >And if you don't start puberty until 16 (*) then marrying at 14
> >still counts as pedophilia.
>
> Come on, you are saying that anything that's observed will fit.
> Wide hips-> because there is some golden standard
> Narrow hips-> pedophilia
> So, no matter what hips are actually preferred, your theory fits.
> That makes the theory useless.
I'm saying that past societies had many more pedophiles than we
do and the social expectation that pedophilia wasn't something
to be outraged about. Child abuse and incest rates in advanced
nations are at their lowest levels in /all of human history/.
And it's not wide hips versus narrow hips; it's hip/waist ratio
that stays constant across societies. IIRC, even Kate moss
<shudder> is supposed to meet this ratio.
> >Sure. Now, does that mean that there are no underlying principles
> >of beauty?
>
> Pretty much. An underlying aesthetic principle that changes is called
> fashion.
Do people with brain damage count? Because beating an infant before
three years of age causes visible scarring and neurological damage.
What about psychological damage caused by brutal and repeated
beatings after three years of age? (You're not going to suggest that
the same activity which causes brain damage early on is acceptable
when the brain has stabilized, are you?)
Do I seriously need to prepend "After you factor out all psychological
damage caused during early development" to "there exists universal
aesthetic principles underlying human perception of beauty"?
The same applies to ethics and morality btw.
> >And keep in mind that a lot of things meant to enhance sexual
> >attractiveness aren't meant to enhance beauty; scarring and
> >tattooing are symbols of courage for example.
>
> Tattos are meant to look pretty. Scarring in occasions is, too.
Tattoos will never be considered as beautiful as unbroken skin.
Some tattoo may be more beautiful than another but it's still
less beautiful than no tattoo at all. Tattoos also break symmetry.
The fact that humans cannot routinely separate out all the
aspects of physical attraction into separate components means
nothing.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:01:32 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee writes:
> MOUL wrote::
>> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>> Joe Malloy wrote:
>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>> My second point: show some goddamned originality.
>>>>> Why should I waste originality on someone like Mark Kelley?
>>>> Nathaniel, you have to realize, Tholen *can't* be original, he
>>>> *must* employ his stock phrases because that's all he has. If
>>>> ever he were to enter into the spirit of a debate, he'd be
>>>> lost...which, come to think of it, isn't that bad of an idea...
>>> Yeah, sometimes I'm thick headed enough to actually think
>>> that people are basically interested in stimulating and
>>> intelligent conversation. Sometimes it takes me a while
>>> to realize that there are those people that just are so
>>> totally enthralled with their own stupidity that even when
>>> given the oportunity to learn something, they refuse on
>>> the grounds that 'learning is the key to losing my soul'.
>>>
>>> Tholen and hard-core Christian activists probably have a
>>> lot in common. Rational thought flees them like flies
>>> flee a fly swatter. And the few rational thoughts that
>>> don't escape, well, they probably end up in the same shape
>>> that the flies that don't escape do.
>> Hard-core Christian activists (zealots) would impale tholen on a
>> sharpened stake to punish his perversions.
> True enough.
Illogical, Nathaniel. Hasn't happene yet.
> But hardcore (zealotous) Christians would simply be lashing out
> at another hard core religious entity, namely tholen's obsession
> with stupidity.
Are you saying that my responses to you are due to some alleged
obsession of mine with your stupidity, Nathaniel?
> Until seeing tholen's posts, I didn't realize that stupidity
> could be a religion. Obviously, it is to some.
Such as Malloy, whose use of "parrot" mode leads him to post
outright lies?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:59:57 -0400
From: clyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: News client
Try pan you can get it @ http://www.superpimp.org
clyde
Martin Svensson wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Can anyone recommend a good news-client for Linux/X ?
> I'm currently using Netscape Mail & News client but maybe I've missed
> something that is even better?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Martin Svensson
> System Administrator
> Netch Technologies AB
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: 0733-745736
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:20:56 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:59:54 -0300, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>An interesting, if inane, discussion. The short answer to your
> >>question, I think, would be "interoperability and compatibility."
>
> Easy to address this -- Richard doesn't believe in either interoperability
> or compatibility. So as far as his argument goes, that's a pretty
> questionable answer.
Don't presume to speak for me; you've tried before and failed
miserably. I do believe in interoperability; just not compatibility
to the detriment of any other important principle (like uniformity,
elegance or connectedness)
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:29:30 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El sáb, 23 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> If you know so much, why don't you do it?
> >
> >I am; it's just going to take me 5 to 10 years,
> >so I'm taking out my frustrations in the meantime.
>
> Hey, it's not our fault is you are slow! ;-)
I'm not particularly slow, I just don't have a lab full of
researchers busily implementing my architecture and
supporting me financially, intellectually and emotionally.
What I do have is a bunch of ignorant people acting like
petulant toddlers and saying things like "I doubt you'll
ever implement anything", "It's useless anyways", and
"You sound like a kook to me" even though they have
no stake in the project at all.
What I do have is people who seem to be obsessed with
finding a Saviour that will make all their problems go away.
They aren't willing to work on a new OS (and that's fine
as far as it goes) so they try to destroy anyone who comes
along that might need their help to achieve something
because he's a subtle reminder that they aren't doing
anything to help their own situation.
You can even see it in the language chosen for their
denunciations. As if I were a False Messiah (which
implies clearly that they *are* waiting for a messiah),
a demon to be banished back to hell by a disciple of
the True Faith. Because of course, it is sheer /faith/
(or arrogance and stupidity) that lets them say any
such thing, not any genuine authority in the subject
matter. (Donovan's excuse was precious; the equi-
valent of "I've been disappointed too many times so
I'm going to act like a resentful and petulant child.")
And even though ultimately I don't give a shit what
people think about me and my project on this NG,
it still wears me down.
Social expectations are self-fulfilling prophecies.
Humans will rise or lower themselves so as to meet
your expectations of them. People should remember
this truism more often.
> >And if you don't start puberty until 16 (*) then marrying at 14
> >still counts as pedophilia.
>
> Come on, you are saying that anything that's observed will fit.
> Wide hips-> because there is some golden standard
> Narrow hips-> pedophilia
> So, no matter what hips are actually preferred, your theory fits.
> That makes the theory useless.
I'm saying that past societies had many more pedophiles than we
do and the social expectation that pedophilia wasn't something
to be outraged about. Child abuse and incest rates in advanced
nations are at their lowest levels in /all of human history/.
And it's not wide hips versus narrow hips; it's hip/waist ratio
that stays constant across societies. IIRC, even Kate moss
<shudder> is supposed to meet this ratio.
> >Sure. Now, does that mean that there are no underlying principles
> >of beauty?
>
> Pretty much. An underlying aesthetic principle that changes is called
> fashion.
Do people with brain damage count? Because beating an infant before
three years of age causes visible scarring and neurological damage.
What about psychological damage caused by brutal and repeated
beatings after three years of age? (You're not going to suggest that
the same activity which causes brain damage early on is acceptable
when the brain has stabilized, are you?)
Do I seriously need to prepend "After you factor out all psychological
damage caused during early development" to "there exists universal
aesthetic principles underlying human perception of beauty"?
The same applies to ethics and morality btw.
> >And keep in mind that a lot of things meant to enhance sexual
> >attractiveness aren't meant to enhance beauty; scarring and
> >tattooing are symbols of courage for example.
>
> Tattos are meant to look pretty. Scarring in occasions is, too.
Tattoos will never be considered as beautiful as unbroken skin.
Some tattoo may be more beautiful than another but it's still
less beautiful than no tattoo at all. Tattoos also break symmetry.
The fact that humans cannot routinely separate out all the
aspects of physical attraction into separate components means
nothing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:29:34 +0100
In article <8qj4rv$ric$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Stutts wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><snip>
>
>> Spoken like a true astroturfer, not a user. Because win98se is so
>unstable,
>> it is necessary to save files every minute or two (particularly for those
>
>Actually, the better approach is to not use a home operating system (Win98)
>in
>a corporate environment. NT was designed for this. While not perfect, it
>is
>far more stable than Win98.
>
Very true. We've now got a web front-end for the exchange server so that
I don't have to use Outlook any more. Whilst I'd be happy with Imap, this
does mean that I can do 90% of my 'day work' on linux, with maybe only 10%
requiring the Win98 machine - the joy of a stable platform. I can see that
if you were really stuck with Outlook then NT ought to be a better bet.
It's interesting how my 'work' requirements are now starting to go through
what my 'home' requirements went through a couple of years ago. I dumped
the windows partition off my home machine at that time because I hadn't
booted it for about 4 months and wanted the space (I had originally and
very foolishly assigned 1G to windows and 600M to linux the previous year.
I was a newbie - I didn't know :)
I think the interesting measure will be how long it takes for me to come
to the point where I no longer need to boot Windows for work, either.
There seems to be a kind of race between viable linux based desktops and
the 'network appliances' offering alternative approaches (such as web-
based front-ends to served apps).
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:44:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>You expect anyone with any Linux experience whatsoever to believe that (of
>all people) Microsoft?? makes it more expensive to use Linux? [...]
Of course I do. Just as I expect anyone with more than half a brain to
recognize what 'monopoly pricing' actually means, which is that it is
greater than it would be in a competitive market. Using an alternative
to a monopoly product is more expensive than not; this is why
monopolizing is illegal. Its a shame you cannot grasp the principle,
but its hardly surprising, in the end.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:46:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Ah, but didn't you know that Max considers himself way above everyone
>on earth?
Ironically, it is only my detractors which seem to believe this is the
case.
>After all, why should the beliefs of everyone on earth stop
>Max from "thinking harder"? LOL!
<chuckle> Think harder.
>BTW, I hope you're prepared for the inevitable Devlin bullshit
>response: "I refuse to seek out alternatives to monopoly crapware. If
>there were a free market, I wouldn't have to."
Yea, that pretty much sums it up. Congratulations on having gotten that
far.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:56:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Joe R.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:17:39 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Joe R.
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 24 Sep 2000 02:21:42 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
>> >Most people use NT and ME?
>> >
>> >You're out of your mind (what little apparently remains).
>>
>> I dunno; 100 million units is awful hard to argue with.
>> Or is it 200M now? I'd have to look. (Mind you, that encompasses
>> Win 3.1 all the way to Win2k --
>
>So "most people use WinNT and ME" really means "most people use some
>version of Windows between Win3.1 and Win2K"??
>
>It would be a lot easier of you windiots said what you meant instead of
>making stupid incorrect statements, then criticizing people for
>correcting you.
Oops...my mistake.
(I'm certainly not planning on upgrading my Win95 install! :-) )
I don't particularly care for Windows, Me or otherwise. However,
I'm not going to call myself a "Linux zealot" either. :-)
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Joe R.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random idiocy here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:04:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:40:25 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 25 Sep 2000 15:04:05 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:28:51 GMT, A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
>>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:16:21 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>: "What was I supposed to do?" she asked.
>>>
>>>Um, read the documentation? You yourself said that she was using RH 6.2.
>>>The xfs that comes with RH 6.2 supports TrueType fonts out of the box.
>>>Where did I need to go to find this out? /usr/doc/XFree86-xfs-3.3.6.
>>
>>Well, there's another problem already. The problem is that documentation
>>is scattered willy-nilly. There's manpages, info pages, and /usr/doc.
>
> /usr/doc is not "willy-nilly".
No, but /usr/doc, $MANPATH (which includes /usr/man, /usr/X11R6/man,
/usr/lib/perl5/man, and on occasion /usr/local/man), the 'info' command
(I'm not sure where it puts its stuff), and /home/httpd/html/index.html
(which on a stock install contains a RedHat introductory page and a
link to an HTML manual) is definitely a bit hodgepodgeish.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you; it's just more stuff
to look through.
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Win2K
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:54:15 +0100
In article <8qkr6h$lev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote:
>Hi Mark,
>
>I appreciated the compassion of your post about an employee with dyslexia.
Thankyou - some things transcend technology.
>
>You have to realise that what I posted was correct. The initial poster made
>the logical fallacy of implying that a particular instance of something
>happening means it will always happen (Some A is B does not imply all A is
>B).
Can't disagree with the logic there.
>
>> >1. Of course Win2k can multitask.
>
>IIRC, the original poster said that Win2k cannot multitask any better than
>Win 3.1!
>
>> >2. Many application crashes do not bring down explorer.
>
>Making the point that not all application crashes bring down explorer...
>
>> So many application crashes do bring down explorer - the shell.
>
>Of course some can.
>
>> >3. Even if explorer halts, it can be restarted (the computer will NOT
>> >spontaneously reboot).
>>
>> Always, or just sometimes?
>
>Caught me there. That would be sometimes.
>
>> >4. Win2k is a stable operating system (but of course it is not "the" most
>> >stable OS).
>
>> Err, how do you know? The previous poster was quite convinced that it
>> be unstable. So much so that he'd rather use linux at home. Looks like
>> Win2k is unstable. In his view, at least.
>
>To deny that Win2k can be a stable OS is just plain silly.
>
>> Very little said, I thought, but an awful lot stated without a hint of
>proof.
>
>(Sigh). Do I really need to provide proof that Win2k can multitask better
>than Win 3.1? (3.1 couldn't even pre-emptively multitask). Do I really need
>to provide proof that all application crashes don't bring down explorer? Do
>I really need to demonstrate how to restart explorer using the Task Manager?
>Do I really need to labour the point that Win2k CAN be a stable OS? (and
>look how I tempered my initial comment)
>
>Any person that disputes these simple issues is a poor alternative-OS
>advocate. Let's stick to debate about debatable issues :-)
>
Could be my writing style - I wasn't commenting on whether win2k was more
able to multi-task than win3.1 or more stable than win3.1.
I suspect that Microsoft have a Win2k machine which has been in a carefully
controlled lab environment for a few months now, on a UPS, not running
anything, so that someone can post an 'uptime' statement when it starts to
look competitive with linux. 'course, I could just be an old cynic :).
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: 25 Sep 2000 20:06:37 GMT
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:50:17 -0000, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>Tholen and hard-core Christian activists probably have a
>lot in common. Rational thought flees them like flies
Not that much. See my definition of a "Tholen-war". ( It's like
a flame war, but it's characterised by triviality and silliness ).
I bet you get a followup which amounts to the thollowing:
<thole>
>..
didn't
>..
illogical
>..
I know you are but what am I ?
</thole>
A Tholen-war breaks out when this kind of silliness makes up most of
the discussion to the point where it *becomes* the discussion.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
