Linux-Advocacy Digest #385, Volume #29 Sun, 1 Oct 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Charlie Ebert)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (Pete
Goodwin)
Linux to equal NT 3.51???? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Open Source to impact industry in 4 years. (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:34:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I can crash the WinNT4.0 system at one of my clients, by the simple
>expedient of pointing IE to a webpage with <img src="c:\con\con"> bam,
>instant bsod... I'd call that unstable. Don't know re: W2k, haven't
>tried it yet. None of my clients have switched to W2k yet.
I managed to take out the Window Manager of KDE by picking a specific web
site. It appeared as though the whole machine was dead, but if I could kill
X then I could recover.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 16:42:40 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
@>@> The choice is not mine--I don't own/run the machines. Why does
@>@>Windows need a third party utility to do something that makes perfect
@>@>sense?
@>@
@>@You don't. In a real enterprise system (like I've seen, but you
@>@haven't) typically software to do that is at the very bottom of the
@>@food chain - ie unimportant.
@>
@> Seems to be rather important if it can render the machine unusable.
@
@Do you have any proof that it can do that?
Machine #21, AUDB room #307c, UNT campus, Texas. IOW, the very
machine we've been discussing this entire thread.
@>@>@>I'm trying to find out what you
@>@>@>really meant to say.
@>@>@
@>@>@I think it's been very obvious to anyone with even passing knowledge
@>@>@of 9x/NT.
@>@>
@>@> Well, it's not.
@>@
@>@It is. It's merely that you don't have that passing knowledge that
@>@you find it difficult.
@>
@> That's unprovable. Also, you are not a very good writer. It isn't
@>my fault I can't understand what you're trying to say. Unloading the
@>blame on me, and accusing me of just being ignorant doesn't change the
@>fact that your articles are sometimes poorly written and very confusing.
@
@You are very nontechnical and you're asking me to explain some very,
@very technical items. Hence, my suggestion to you is to read books on
@the subject, so that you can become familiar with the terminology.
Actually, I can read technical writings quite well. And I am quite
familiar with many of the terms tossed around here. But you have been
giving contradictory information, which no amount of experience on my
part will get around unless I just flat out tell you that you're
lying/misinformed. Hell, you can't even ask a simple question: see
below.
@>@>@>@>@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@> Yes.
@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@At what, exactly?
@>@>@>
@>@>@> My stuff. Net BSD on my IIci talking to my Quadra. Two machines.
@>@>@>
@>@>@>Two users: root, and me.
@>@>@> Therefore, I have administrative experience.
@>@>@
@>@>@Not even close. You've set up a single BSD machine, something that
@>@>@typically takes about 30 minutes to a few hours and requires no or a
@>@>@very light technical skillset; administrative experience would be
@>@>@doing that for a job (say, during summertime) 40 hours a week, setting
@>@>@up 20 or 30 users a day and doing permissions, NFS, CIFS, YP, and
@>@>@other 'stuff' day in and day out.
@>@>@
@>@>@By that logic, one can be an administrator because he's set up OS X
@>@>@beta. That's silly.
@>@>
@>@> You asked: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?" I
@>@>said, "Yes." Did I lie? Nope, you just asked a bad question. How am
@>@>I
@>@>supposed to know you meant, "Do you have any administrative experience
@>@>that I would consider impressive?"
@>@
@>@Don't be silly. By that logic anyone running Windows 95 is an account
@>@operator / administrator (because hey, you can have a "multi-user"
@>@(heh) Win95, too!)
@>
@> Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer....
@
@You were being stupid. The question was perfectly valid.
The question: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?"
The answer: "Yes."
You didn't qualify it, but you meant to. Hence, it's a stupid
question.
@>@>@>@No, you're more than qualified to call your desktop support staff
@>@>@>@'shit'. Since you have no idea what's wrong with the machine, any
@>@>@>@other analysis you could make would be silly.
@>@>@>
@>@>@> 1. My support staff IS shit.
@>@>@
@>@>@That, folks, is the root of the problem.
@>@>@
@>@>@> 2. They did just fine with 95/98.
@>@>@
@>@>@Immaterial. See #1.
@>@>
@>@> Very material. 95/98--OK, w2k--failure. Staff hasn't changed,
@>@>hardware hasn't changed, usage hasn't changed, even the damn weather
@>@>hasn't changed. All that's changed is the OS.
@>@
@>@...according to you, who isn't an administrator, can't look at the
@>@machine in question, and generally is clueless about NT / Microsoft
@>@OSs. Sorry, but that's not an authoritative answer.
@>
@> Umm, nope. That has nothing to do with it.
@> DC, is it just me, or has out conversation slipped away from
@>hollering at eachother? It's a nice change, don't get me wrong, but
@>it's still a little odd.
@
@I'm trying to have a technical discussion with someone who is quite
@non-technical AND is assigning blame left and right to a machine which
@may or may not have a problem with quotas, profiles, or disk space -
@but we don't know - and may or may not have other problems - which we
@also don't know - and you refuse to get desktop support out there to
@fix it - and you're calling THIS odd?
@
You make far too many assumptions. I've been bugging the support
staff for the entire semester. Unfamiliar with windows' methods != lack
of technical knowledge. The issue long ago turned from broke machine to
bugging you about your continual contradictions. Then, even when by all
common sense, what windows is doing is stupid, you accuse me of not
understanding, yet you don't explain why, you accuse my support staff of
being incompetent, then you turn around completely and accuse me of
assigning blame willy-nilly?
I don't mean to be rude, but you sure do seem to be an asshole.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://people.unt.edu/~bdb0015
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:42:25 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> In article <VKtu5.43238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry to reply to myself, but I found even MORE evidence
> > of Linux developers trying as hard as they can to copy
> > everything from Microsoft including Icon layout, wording,
> > and colors:
> >
> > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/previews/2013/1/
> > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/previews/2013/1/screenshot1376/
> > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/previews/2013/1/screenshot1375/
> >
> > Is this not a DIRECT copy from Outlook in every respect of the
> > appliction?
> >
> > Jesus, for bashing Microsoft so much, you guys sure try hard to
> > copy everything they do!
> >
> > -Chad
>
> I think there's actually a symbiosis going on here. Microsoft has
> recently adopted some concepts from KDE and GNOME for Windows ME,
> and Gnome and KDE have been sprucing up applications to make them more
> like Windows.
>
> In some cases, this isn't even coincidental. Microsoft often
> undercompensates ISVs for the software it appropriates, and this
> often results in support for competitiors (like Linux, UNIX, and Mac).
>
> Ironically, FVWM95, which provided a "Windows 95 look and feel", never
> really caught on. Most people prefered KDE which was a look-and-feel
> clone of CDE used in AIX, Solaris, HP_UX, and other UNIX flavors.
> Others preferred Afterstep which was a clone of NeXtStep.
>
> The similarities aren't always accidental. In some cases, the original
> designers of the original interfaces are directly involved in the Open
> Source effort and are often committed to making the Open Source version
> bigger and better than the originials.
>
> This isn't new. It's been going on even before Richard Stallman decided
> to GPL Emacs after Gosling tried to rip off a commercial verion with
> proprietary extensions. Xerox PARC contributed most of their best work
> (including STiX - Smalltalk for X) to UNIX and X11. Furthermore, Xerox
> introduced virtual desktops to X11 an a nearly exclusive basis.
>
> We are even beginning to see Microsoft explicitly excluded from
> Open Source software through the use of licensing terms that
> prevent linkage to proprietary libraries.
>
> The qt library used for KDE is free to Linux users and nearly
> $6000 per developer to Windows programmers.
>
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:zFtu5.43236$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7572420206.html
> > >
> > > Real preemptability (not the fake they have now),
> > > somewhat less than laughable SMP (as opposed to the
> > > laughable MacOS 9-ish SMP they have now)
>
> Real preemptability has been available for quite some time
> under both UNIX and Linux. The main problem with true real-time
> preemptibility is that it enables a single high priority service
> to consume all CPU time, which can lead to system failures
> elsewhere.
>
> Both Linux and UNIX use a form of scheduling that assures that all
> processes are scheduled eventually. With 40 levels of "Nice" (used to
> calculate priority), it's usually only a matter of months before an
> application that previously required real-time service could be handled
> by a "nice -20" routine. The typical uses where true real-time is
> actually critical (microjets used to trigger a sequence of chemical
> reactions, a series of explosions to cause a nuclear reaction, or the
> precise timings required for optimal fuel economy in an automobile) are
> usually programmed in FORTH, not UNIX/Linux.
>
> The best-known real-time version of UNIX is Lynx, which is used to
> process satellite feeds (where no resend is possible), or to control
> sattellites. In these applications, an extra 20 nanoseconds will
> make a difference, and there won't be a second chance later.
>
> Modern Linux systems running on 500 mhz pentium class machines can
> perform an average of 1 million context switches per second, which
> includes ONLY those processes which are ready to run.
>
> One can go into the blood and guts of OS theory and chip
> micro-architecture for the last 1/10th of 1% of performance, but when
> your OS spends 98% of the time waiting for the disk drive to spin
> (8 milliseconds per access on a 7200 RPM drive with cache), it's
> a bit silly to try and haggle over the extra 200 picoseconds
> you'd save by switching to the top priority process every time it's
> interrupt is triggered.
>
> The applications where it might actually make a difference would be
> things like controlling the spark, fuel injection, and cam-shaft
> positioning for an automobile. Even then, the engine cranks
> 1200 RPM even with 8 cylinders, that's only 38,400 "cycles" and
> about 1/4 million critical events to manage per second. A 300
> mhz transmeta chip would still have enough time to refresh video
> displays for the entire dashboard AND do DSP on the audio and video
> of a digital video system.
>
> > > "For example, as a desktop user I want to be able
> > > to watch a movie and hear the sound, while also
> > > running a browser and my mail program. And when
> > > I use the mail program and the browser, I don't
> > > want any glitches in the movie or sound. That
> > > really requires improvements in Linux responsiveness"
>
> Actually, Linux can play multiple video channels quite smoothly.
> In most cases, the only "glitches" come if the video feed is
> coming from an NT server. Linux was playing MPEG on 100 mhz
> pentiums back when Windows was still trying to process 9600 baud
> serial ports (due to interrupt handling difficiencies in Win 3.11).
>
> > > I must apologize. I had been giving Linux FAR too much
> > > credit. I had assumed that they had at least a decent
> > > PMT implementation, but according to this article, it
> > > appears it's no better than the MacOS's CMT.
>
> There is a radical difference between the PMT used in a real-time
> system and the preemptive multitasking used by EITHER NT, Linux, or
> Win2K.
>
> NT, Linux, and Win2K all support preemptive multitasking that manages
> the load across multiple contending processes. At the same time, all
> of them contain measures in their schedulers to assure that every
> process that can run is given at least SOME time slice. This is
> critical when a system is experiencing a denial of service attack.
>
> The preemptive multitasking used in real-time systems are based on the
> assumption that some processes MUST run IMMEDIATELY (within picoseconds
> of the satisfying interrupt or signal). This is most critical when you
> have 200-300 signal sources and all of them need to be handled within
> picoseconds of the event. Typical applications are Nuclear weapons,
> electronic switching systems (100 or more DS-5 lines for example).
>
> Ironically, many, including myself, have often criticized Linus for not
> using interrupts as signals instead of doing "real processing" during
> the interrupt. Back in the days of 80386SX/16 processors, you needed
> to handle interrupts immediately. Most recent Linux drivers have the
> interrupt set a semaphore and then pass control back to a high priority
> process through the scheduler. Unfortunately, we are still suffering
> from a few drivers that try and manage the ethernet buffer during an
> interrupt cycle.
>
> > > Can't watch a movie and check email at the same time?
>
> Sure you can. You can watch 2-3 movies at the same time. You just
> might be challenged if you wanted to watch 300-400 movies at the same
> time, AND you wanted to decrypt DVD-CSS on all 400 channels. In this
> case, one lost byte would result in loss of the channel. This is where
> a real-time kernel (for routing 400 video channels in real-time to 4000
> destinations) would probably be better handled with a true real-time
> operating system.
>
> > > And this is supposed to be the OS that's the death of
> > > the MS OS? Give me a break!
>
> Microsoft still only supports 3 priorities, which makes it even harder
> to manage multiple tiers of high priority channels. Linux offers 40
> priorities, which means that the one or two extremely high priority
> processes (nice -20) won't be waiting very long. Which is why video
> actually plays smoother over Linux than on Windows (for the same CPU,
> memory, and bus bandwidth).
>
> Fortunately, with 700mhz K6 and Athalon chips running under $200,
> including the motherboard, even Windows ME can show smooth-scrolling
> video. I don't even want to think what ME would do to video on a 100
> mhz pentium with 32 meg of RAM.
>
> A good example of Video on Linux is the TIVO box, which lets you watch
> one program while storing another.
>
> > > Linux strives to be more like Windows in every iteration.
>
> There's a convergence. Microsoft is borrowing more and and more from
> UNIX and Linux, while Linux is using more and more axioms from
> Microsoft.
>
> For obvious reasons, icons and trademarked logos are avoided by both
> sides, but many of the core features are the same on both systems.
>
> > > Case in point?
> > > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/previews/2285/1/
>
> > > Let's look at the screenshot up in the upper-right
> > > corner of this web page.
> > >
> > > - At the top of the screen, we have a MS Win95-ish
> > > task bar, completely with pop-up menus, shortcuts
> > > on the bar (like IE4 shell integration or Win98),
> > > a SYSTRAY-like program notification area on the
> > > right-hand side.
>
> Ironically, this was something that was originally part of the Motif
> Window Manager. A similar feature was included in Open Look Window
> Manager as well. And the concept of shortcuts on the bar was from CDE.
>
> Microsoft introduced many of these features in Windows 95 because they
> were so popular among UNIX users. Microsoft copied a number of concepts
> from MWM (OSF), OLWM (Sun), Open Desktop (SCO), and NeXtStep (NeXT).
>
> > > It's bad enough they copied everything
> > > lock, stock, and barrel, but they even had to put it
> > > in the same positions. Linux developers are copying off
> > > of the $millions of research Microsoft did to develop the
> > > Win95 interface to make it efficient and conducive to
> > > productivity.
>
> Which was a rip-off of $millions in R&D performed by Sun, HP, IBM,
> SCO, BSDi, and other UNIX vendors, as well as Apple, Xerox, and
> of course Linux.
>
> Furthermore, many of the new features from Windows ME are also borrowed
> from KDE, GNOME, and NextStep.
>
> And speaking of royal rip-offs, Windows ME's hottest feature, video
> editing, was kept out of Linux because the DeCSS was blocked by the
> courts while Microsoft put "Lock-stock-and-barrel" piracy tools into
> ME.
>
> UNIX has had video editing capabilities since before Star Wars (the
> original). Pixar used UNIX on Crays and Power 6/32 servers back in the
> early 1980s.
>
> Linux has Video editing and has already established a pretty
> substantial market with it's TIVO boxes.
>
> Now, when you have sweeps, fades, special effects, conversion to 3D
> objects, talk to me about innovation.
>
> > > - We have Icons on the desktop that look remeniscent of
> > > Win95. Of course, with the icons on the left-hand side.
>
> It's just one of several placement options. You can specify gravity
> on most window managers, move ICONs left, right, top, or bottom. To
> suit your preferences. Most people prefer top or bottom.
>
> > > - We have another Win95 taskbar knock-off on the bottom of
> > > the screen complete with clock.
>
> Of course, this one has some additional features, like multiple
> desktops, the ability to rearrange your top and bottom menu bars
> in any way you like, the ability to select your desktops. Add to
> that the fact that this is only the latest contender in a number of
> different desktops (often possible to use more than one at a time),
> and was probably specifically arranged to look more like NT for this
> screen shot (to reduce the exlanation required).
>
> What you can't see in the screen shot is that there are a number of
> different themes that can make this screen look about 40 different
> ways.
>
> With GNOME, you can make the screen look more like a Mac, more like
> Motif, more like Windows, or like something "out of this world" (arctic,
> space, jukebox...). It really boils down to how much real estate you
> want to waste on eye-candy.
>
> > > - We have a web-browser file navigator just like the IE4/
> > > Win98 "View as Web Page" function that so many Linux
> > > idiots make fun of Microsoft for, yet try so hard to
> > > immitate (KDE, Gnome, and now Eazel)
>
> The joke here is that UNIX and KDE had blurred the distinctions between
> web page and file almost 6 months before Windows 98 was released. The
> KDE 1.0 version didn't support JavaScript on the pages.
>
> > > - We have the ability to "view as icons" which is a
> > > direct knock-off of Windows 2000's "View as Thumbnails"
> > > option
>
> Which is a direct knockoff of TWMs "view as icons" feature. You seem to
> think that Microsoft is the only company that ever innovates. You pull
> up a screen shot which was deliberately arranged to make the desktop
> look more like Windows 9x to reduce the need for explanation of the
> screen shot. What isn't in the screen shot is the hundreds of options
> that X11 and Nautilus have to offer.
>
> I've often been amused by the number of options available to KDE users.
> It borders on the ridiculous. But if you have the CPU Bandwidth,
> memory, and screen resolution,...why not!
>
> > > Shall I go on?
>
> You should! You should get yourself a copy of Linux, go through
> all the various window managers, desktops, and GUI tools and explore
> them completely. You should give us a comprehensive chart of all
> of the features available on Windows 98, 2K, and ME, along with KDE,
> Gnome/Enlightenment, AfterStep, and Fvwm and give us an feature by
> feature breakdown of who supports what features.
>
> Would you like to take bets on which OS as the widest variety of
> options, the most features, and the most innovations? Of course,
> you would probably not notice any of the features not available for
> Windows.
>
> I'm sure it took some real effort to mix up the exact same shade of
> putrid blues used on Windows 9x/ME. Windows has some nice options as
> well, and if you have LOTS of memory, you can even run the virtual
> desktop from the NT toolkit under NT (will it run on Win2K?).
>
> > > It's sad, really. It's sad that they bash on Microsoft for
> > > the same things they try to emulate (and do a shitty job
> > > of, BTW).
>
> Actually, nearly all of the "innovations" you mention above were
> actually features of other systems before they were implemented in
> Microsoft windows. The few exceptions (ctl-alt-del to get task
> manager), were kludges created to make up for deficiencies of Windows
> 3.1 and Windows 95 first edition. Thank goodness for the 95B release,
> NT 4 with Service pack 3, 5, and 6a, and Windows 98 Second Edition.
> We already have Windows 2000 with SP1, and ME is already putting the
> critics to sleep in the isles.
>
> Again, the biggest feature of ME, video editing, was a feature
> of TIVO, which has been out for over 9 months now, and is based on
> Linux.
>
> I like Windows 2000. It's clean, fast (when you have 160 meg in your
> laptop and 500 meg to swap), and it even runs some of the NT
> 4.0 applications without modifications. But I've also noticed that even
> Microsoft's "updates" includes a whole series of patches for Office,
> replacement of Explorer, upgrades to numerous Microsoft applications,
> and replacements for most of my drivers. And even then, I had to
> install my own drivers for a number of devices, some of which didn't
> work.
>
> I've noticed that there isn't a big rush by Lotus, Borland, Corel, or
> much of anybody else, for that matter, to make things work for Windows
> 2000. Microsoft may actually have to reengineer their next patch to
> provide backward compatibility with NT 4.0.
>
> Meanwhile, Lotus Notes runs on Wine for Linux quite nicely now,
> and a number of old third-party Windows 95 applications run quite
> well under Wine.
>
> Microsoft has again become a victim of it's own success. Microsoft now
> has to compete with Microsoft for market share. It's discovering, the
> hard way, just how effective it's monopoly really was. Not that
> Microsoft will give up control of the market. They're more determined
> than ever to push exclusive, proprietary technology into the internet
> (giving them control of the net), and more stubborn than ever about
> refusing to adhere to standards they don't control through exclusive
> NDA contracts.
>
> Meanwhile, there are about 600 million Windows 9x machines out there,
> that don't need replacement. There are about 60 million NT machines out
> there, that don't need replacement. IF people are looking for something
> new and different, they are looking at Linux, not 2000 or ME.
>
> > > -Chad
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
> Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Well, here's my spin!
If a couple of guys in some office somewhere can come up with an outlook
express replacement which
has the look and feel of outlook express and works better than outlook
express, then what in the hell are
you whining about Chad?
It's not like sombody just stole nuclear secrets from New Mexico!
If a couple of guys in some lab somewhere can replace outlook express in
just a year then maybe we
should be asking why Microsoft spent nearly 5 years making it? Are they
stupid or what!
An E-mail client with a calendar! Now there's something they needed to
spend 5 years developing!
No wonder Chad likes Microsoft. He doesn't like anybody or anything which
is more intelligent than
he is.
Charlie
------------------------------
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:42:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I said in such a way that included M$ SQL server, and excluded DB2. You
>give an example in _one_ area, and ignore High end graphics programs
>like Harlequin.
> Perhaps you want to modify your statements a little to be less general,
> as
>they stand, they are inaccurate. So I ask again, do you not consider DB2
>as "real" software? how about Sendmail or Apache?
I don't see how my statement that PSP and ACDC are better than the free
software in various distros is inaccurate.
DB2 I don't use, so it is of little relevance to me.
Apache is one of the examples where Linux works well as a server. However,
my interest is in the desktop, something where Linux does not do as well.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux to equal NT 3.51????
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:44:58 GMT
This is total horse shit people! Outlook Express didn't ride on 3.51
when it came out!
The KDE and Gnome we use everyday has been ahead of NT 4.0 since
christmas of last year.
Show me one thing you can do with NT 4.0 you can't do with KDE or
GNOME folks!
One thing....
That's all I ask.
Just one thing...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 17:52:48 -0400
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Sun, 01 Oct 2000 12:57:59 GMT...
> ...and STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > good for germany, we are NOT SOCIALIST here.....
>
> Pray tell how Germany is socialist?
Excessive taxes on those who work, to pay for
Government coddling for those who don't.
>
> mawa
> --
> Einblattlocher!
> Elektrogriller!
> Erbsenpürierer!
> Zweifingertipper!
--
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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
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
her 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: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Open Source to impact industry in 4 years.
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:55:59 GMT
YIP! There are some stories that the Open Source industry will impact
the entire planet by 2004!
Can't help but wonder if they read one of my Microsoft will be dead by
2005 bulletins!
Yes,
People are starting to do the marketing math. They are looking at this
years growth of Linux with a fine
toothed comb.
Linux is starting to hurt Microsoft finally.
And Microsoft is going to die by 2005.
Do the math.
Enjoy
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
