Linux-Advocacy Digest #428, Volume #29 Tue, 3 Oct 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Michael Marion)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ("David T. Johnson")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Double standard? ("MH")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: 3 Oct 2000 20:10:25 GMT
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:04:35 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>> > OFF-TOPIC IDIOTS!
>>
>> Fuck off, idiot.
>
>Same to you.
Hey -- that was off topic !
Welcome to the "off topic idiots" club. ( if you can't beat 'em,
join 'em, eh ? )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 20:10:53 GMT
Peter van der Linden wrote:
>
> James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You haven't mentioned the main reason I stopped arguing - Mr. Revusky is
> >tiresome. He has one mode (non listening attack), and I got real tired
> >of that real fast.
>
> It is pretty clear to most people that the real reason you
> won't debate the matter is that you do not have the intellectual
> depth behind your "gut feelings".
Hmm - yet another brilliant response. I can add you to my personal list
of tiresome people.
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 20:13:46 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> Actually you are wrong on both counts. YOu would be much better served
> (performance and price wise) running two 100 mb/s NICs than a single Gb NIC.
> I would run 4 NICs, 2 teamed pairs load balanced. But you'd have to
> understand high end networking ....
Well we've got multiple NetApp filers with close to (and a few over) 1TB on
them. These filers are RAID'd, do NFS and CIFS, and are hammered with high
usage 24/7. They perform much better on Gb then even quad trunked (or
individual) 100Mb. If you're not seeing good performance from Gb adapters,
then you either have sub-par NICs or your OS isn't using them efficiently.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
http://www.miguelito.org
"...In my phone conversation with Microsoft's lawyer I copped to the fact that
just maybe his client might see me as having been in the past just a bit
critical of their products and business practices. This was too bad, he said
with a sigh, because they were having a very hard time finding a reporter who
both knew the industry well enough to be called an expert and who hadn't
written
a negative article about Microsoft." -- Robert X. Cringely
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:17:24 -0400
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > People who post on this thread are posting about subjects that have
> > > > nothing to do with the newsgroups to which they are posting. They are
> > > > polluting these newsgroups with posts based on topics that belong in
> > > > other newsgroups. The posters are apparently unable to identify the
> > > > appropriate newsgroups and I therefore bestow upon them the title of
> > > >
> > > > OFF-TOPIC IDIOTS!
> > > >
> > > > Congratulations to all of you.
> > >
> > > He's not only the club President, he's also a member!
> >
> > Your typical garbled, illogical, nonsensical comment.
> > Maybe you should do some work on that "Grad School in Texas" thread.
>
> Reading comprehension problems? How ironic, given you grammatically incorrect
> statements.
Your 'given you grammatically incorrect statements' is itself
grammatically incorrect which is even more ironic. But what should
anyone expect from someone whose thoughts are so poorly formed that he
writes illogical, nonsense sentences about club presidents who are also
members?
>
> Meanwhile, I see you're still hypocritically contributing to off-topic
> threads. No surprise there.
Unlike you, I have pointed out that the thread in question does not
belong in the newsgroups in which it is being posted. No surprise that
understanding eludes you on this point.
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 20:16:05 GMT
Peter van der Linden wrote:
>
> James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I came to the conclusion that I was wrong after watching the amount of
> >harrassment that people like pvdl were willing to heap on JTK after
> >figuring out who he is.
>
> I don't expect anything much from you James, but I do somewhat resent
> you misrepresenting the situation in this way.
>
> Do you think that somehow Gary Van Sickle had an unlimited right to
> make libellous accusations from his anonymous account? Due to
> ineptitude on Van Sickle's part, he actually was including his employer's
> IP address on every posting.
>
Nope. I state that you going after him at his place of work is uncalled
for. There are procedures for harrassment cases; they involve civil
courts.
Either:
(a) You believe that he's been libellous and should be taken to court
(b) you're a gutless wonder who tosses accusations, harrasses people at
their place of work, but has no stomach for the actual proper channels
Looks a lot like (b) so far.
> Van Sickle also pretended to be black to evade a charge of racism, while
> accusing other people of drunkenness, drug-taking, being racists, etc.
>
So what? Are you going to drag yourself down to the level you accuse
him of by being a harrassing person, or are you going to attempt to
handle it correctly (i.e., the courts). If you don't think you have a
legal case of libel, then why are you shouting so loudly?
> I think it is a pretty mild response to first complain to the ISP,
> and when that had no response, to ask the owner of the systems that
> Van Sickle was posting from (i.e. Braemar Inc, of Minnesota), if he
> was acting in accordance with their policies.
>
Pretty fair bit of harrassment, actually.
> Since then all the harassment has been from people like you and
> Simon Cooke defending the indefensible. Cooke even posted my home
> address and phone number in an attempt to harass me.
I haven't done any such thing; it's not proper. On the other hand, you
haven't had the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing. Either
develop a court case or go lie down until the bad thoughts go away.
Either way, stop bothering the whole group with it. At worst, Gary is a
harmless idiot.
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:10:28 +0100
>I bet if MS tried to bundle any of these things, they'd be sued.
>
The difference is that microsoft try to force users into using one product -
one operating system, one web-browser, one wordprocessor, etc.
Linux distro's include at least 4 or 5 web browsers ( netscape, kde browser,
gimp browser, lynx), several text editors, up to 10 window managers, etc
MS tries to get users to use their applications and use this to kill off the
competitors,
linux distros don't try to limit competition as they include similar
products from several
competing projects (they also don't force you to buy one disto - mandrake,
redhat,suse,
caldera, slakware, etc never try to kill off each other's products in favour
of theirs and often
include open source code written by their competitior in their own product
so killing off the
competition will hurt their own product).
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double standard?
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:17:43 -0400
"Chris <no - shi*t> Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How about VB scripts inside email programs that execute viruses?
>
> Chris
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > Oh, I don't know about that! GNOME is beginning to really take shape,
> > > but just about everything that you can do in Windows you can do in
KDE!
> >
> > Ok, how about create a virtual file system housed inside the shell
browser
> > as a plug-in? How about Shell extension contexts? How about Embedding
HTML
> > into the desktop (including Java applets)? How about shell namespace
> > extensions that allow you to create things like the printers or dialup
> > networking folders (Obviously, using the Linux equivelants of these)?
How
> > about shortcuts that can be HTTP links?
Typical zealot response. No response at all.
So, when I send you an 'email program', which I assume after minimal idiocy
parsing, that you mean to be an email message, that you don't have the
where-with-all to disable such threats? No? Didn't think so.
Go join your friend with the snorkel in the commode.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 20:19:46 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >What *probably* happens?
>
> If I know anything about the academic mind.
>
> >Go ahead, condemn something without knowing the first thing about it ....
>
> I know academics.
So do I. I also think it likely that my judgement of academics is
quite a bit harsher than yours. About the only field I don't have
anything against is astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology.
> >Great, now you've never heard of retrodictions before!
>
> I did. It's just crap. Retrodictions have zero scientific value.
Then neither do predictions.
> Nonsense. Predictions are guessing what will happen, not what happened.
> Predicting the past is trivial: you just keep fudging your guesses until you
> hit a right one, then you stop.
And you think that predicting the future is any different?!
> >put it into the theory, gravity *has* to be there for superstrings to be
> >internally consistent.
>
> This shows just what a mess your science is.Superstrings didn't predict gravity
> because the people doing superstrings theory already knew gravity! Predicting
> something you already know is kinda easy.
You're just giving more proof that you're a total idiot talking out of his ass.
Guessing the equation that gives rise to a massless spin two boson (the
graviton)
is *impossible*. You have a bigger chance winning the lottery ten times in a
row.
Give it up, you don't know the first thing about philosophy of science.
> >We were talking about the body. You claimed that if the human body
> >replaces all its cells then there can't be any continuity.
>
> Yup. Just try it. Do a brain implant.
You stupid fuck. If I did a brain transplant on clones, and I somehow
managed to get all the nerves reattached, then I'd fully expect it to
work.
Human cells in a body get replaced with other human cells with the same
DNA and the same chemical signals. You're such a stupid witless moron.
Are you specifically turning off your brain for this discussion? I'd
hate to think you were this much of an arrogant idiot all the time.
> Considering that the brain is the physical basis for most cognitive behaviour,
> it's kindof a large exception.
We were talking about the human body, not the human mind, so it's a trivial
exception. There is no discontinuity in THE BODY from the fact that every
cell in it gets replaced on a regular basis.
> >If you can't prove that humans think then why the hell should I have
> >to prove that corporations think? Lovely double standard there.
>
> And viceversa. You expect me to prove corporations think, and won't prove
Wrong imbecile. I expect you to prove that corporations don't think, I
expect you to prove exactly what you claim or give me unambiguous and
rigorous tools by which I can do the exact opposite. I'm not the one
claiming that humans don't think.
> humans don't. I'd say we should agree that such proofs are not practical, and
> agree to disagree.
Such proofs are *eminently* possible, they're just beyond *YOU*.
You're just talking out of your ass and you're getting a rude shock
from the fact that formalizing the humanities is my stock in trade.
> >And if you do want me to prove it then start by defining corporation,
> >thought, and thinking.
> >
> >I'll start with:
> > thinking is the process of constructing thoughts
>
> That is a silly definition. It has zero information in it.
It does indeed contain information, just no information that is *new*.
But why the fuck should it?
> >This is complete nonsense. You might get away with it for loose and
> >fuzzy (ie, informal) human thinking but not here and now.
>
> Are you engaging in formal human thinking or informal inhuman thinking?
Both or either, as it suits me. Your inability to be think rigorously
on the subject doesn't place any constraints on me in that respect.
> >Your claim that "we refuse to not define any [words]"
> >is utter bullshit. Most humans are utterly incapable
> >of rigorous definitions and "informal" ones don't count.
>
> Says who? Even though most men can't define words, they all expect the
> definitions to exist.
No, they don't. Most people are incapable of creating formal
definitions and don't know what a rigorous definition is.
> >Words denote concepts and many concepts are not defined in terms
> >of other concepts. The concept "blue" is an abstraction of the PERCEPT
> >blue. Same with any other sensory concept. Abstract set theoretic
> >concepts are merely further abstractions of the resulting concepts.
>
> The color blue can be fairly precisely defined in electromagnetic terms.
Talking out of your ass again. In fact, the colour blue *cannot* be
precisely defined in electromagnetic terms. Sensory perceptions do
not have precise analogues in the physical realm. There is no linear
transformation between the physical colour map and the perceptual
colour map.
> You said that "All of the internals of corporations are available". They are
> not. The internal reason why the CEO decided to sell asset A instead of asset B
is not an internal of the corporation.
> is not available to us. The process he uses to reach such a decision is unknown
> to us.
and is irrelevant.
> > The only
> >question is whether they do or do not think. If all corporate thought were
> >reducible to individual humans then you could claim that corporations
> >don't think at all.
>
> Which is my position.
But it is not so reducible anymore than a car can be reduced to an
incoherent mass of atoms or to properties of those atoms. There's a
reason why Complex Systems is an entirely separate field in physics.
> > In order to show that corporations think, one has only
> >to show that 1) corporate thought arises from human thought, and 2)
> >that it is separate from human thought.
>
> Go ahead.
I already did. If you want a detailed anatomy of corporate thought
then provide me with rigorous definitions of thought and corporation.
> >It is in fact possible to know that the behaviour of organs is different from
> >the behaviour of individual cells without knowing how individual cells work.
> >One only has to know what individual cells *do*.
>
> The behaviour of organs is not comparable to the behaviour of cells, yet the
> behaviour of organs can be decomposed into the behaviour of its cells.
No, it can't. Cells alone do not behave in the same way as cells in aggregate.
The same with humans, the same with atoms, the same with elementary particles!
Bound neutrons are stable, free neutrons have a half-life of 10 minutes.
> Since we still lack an operational definition of thinking, I was leaving ample
> room for interpretation. I, in fact, believe corporations don't think in a
> meaningful way, that is, in a way that is in any way different from the
> thoughts of the humans within.
That's because you're a cretin. Corporations *obviously* think in a manner
*MUCH* different from the humans within. This is so obvious that I'm in the
position of explaining the difference between grey and mauve.
> If you want to call that thinking, the problems are equivalent, and you are
> wrong.
>
> If you don't want to call that thinking, then corps. don't think, and you are
> still wrong.
> >My definition is inclusive, not exclusive. Armies *are* beings.
> >Anything I can prove from a weak definition of corporation I
> >can certainly prove from a stronger definition!
>
> A corporation with negative management (a management that is more ineffectual
> than the sum of the corp's members) would not be a corporation according to
> your definition, yet some corporations manage to be that way.
Wrong again, cretin. Management is not the sole source of corporate
decision-making. Every salesman performs decision-making. If a corporation
is reduced to automatic reactions then that is analogous to a comatose
patient and only reinforces the analogy.
If you want a proof so formal and rigorous that even an imbecile can't
dispute it, then produce formal and rigorous definitions of corporation
and thought.
> >Great, another moron who believes that Artificial Intelligence is not
> >"truly" intelligent. (Or should I say, an idiot who doesn't think about
> >even the simplest consequences of his statements?)
>
> You seem to miss how simple a program needs to be to match your definition of
> will:
And as usual, you are being selective and inconsistent. Just how complex
do you think a biological organism needs to be to say it possesses will?
A paramecium is complex enough. A bacterium is complex enough. In fact,
anything self-replicating can be viewed as possessing will. If you have
a better definition, then produce it, otherwise I can just append "that
is more complex that X" to my definition of being and tell you to shut
the hell up.
> >The value system that consists of ONLY "Survival, Domination
> >and Power" (ie, the typical corporate value system) does not
> >extend beyond the boundaries of the corporation. Caring for
> >survival isn't the same thing as caring ONLY for survival.
> >Nearly all humans care about power but only psychopaths lack
> >the empathy that mitigates their desire for power! A strict
> >subset of a set is not the same as that set.
>
> You didn't say the corporate value system consisted ONLY of that. You said "that
> and little else", IIRC. You are changing horses midriver.
No, shithead. In the case of humans, it's "that and *MUCH* else" while
for corporations it's "that and little else". Do you see the difference
now, pinche pendejo?
> >You proposed a hurricane as a being with the laws of physics
> >as its value system. Fine, but the laws of physics inside of
> >a hurricane are *IDENTICAL*, not merely a subset or superset
> >of, the laws of physics outside of a hurricane. This difference
> >is crucial.
>
> If the ony beings in the world were corporations, then the system would be
> universal, and thus corporations would stop being beings? I can't swallow that.
<rolleyes> If every being in the world were corporations then there
would still be plenty of entities left over that are NOT beings and
thus NOT corporations!
> >As a trivial example consider that almost every human being
> >likes children, but corporations do not like /any/ children,
> >not even the children of employees.
>
> Corporations can't like, so they don't dislike either. You are still
> antropomorphizing the corporation, and then holding against them that they fall
> short of your arbitrary measure.
You're such a stupid, stupid fuck. You couldn't get the charge of
anthropomorphization to stick a dozen posts ago and you think you
can NOW? You *shithead*!
Corporations do not like children for the exact same reason and in
the exact same way that psychopaths don't like children!
> >> Yes, it's called impenetrabilty of solid objects.
> >
> >And of course, this is a *HUMAN* law, right?
>
> As I said below, it's human laws, and physics. I assumed you would take the
> inviolavility of physics as a fact. I see not.
<rolleyes> You're too much of a moron for me to explain why this is irrelevant.
> >> >Single neurons *don't* *think*! If you don't believe this,
> >> Indeed they don't think. That's another reason why your analogy of "humans as
> >> corporate cells" is flawed. You are equaling parts that have no separate
> >> existence (cells) with parts that do (humans).
> >
> ><rolleyes> Individual humans don't have any separate corporate
> >existence! An individual is not a corporation and is not capable
> >of corporate thought.
>
> separate existence. Not "separate corporate existence". You change my words and
> then debate what ever comes to your mind. That's stupid and a waste of time.
Then cells have separate existence! So do free neutrons, numbskull. I didn't
believe anyone was stupid enough to think that cells can't exist on their own!
> >You're trying to mess up the analogy by applying it selectively.
>
> You claim the analogy to be an abstraction. If it were a good one, it would
> resist it.
It does but the sheer mass of your idiocy overwhelms it.
> In that case, I would agree that what you do is abstraction. Since there are
> obvious places where the analogy breaks down, the analogy is not a valid
> abstraction.
In fact, it *doesn't* break down.
> >> >A "manager" without a corporation is the equivalent of a
> >> >single neuron. He is utterly incapable of any corporate thought
> >> >or corporate decision-making.
> >>
> >> I disagree. His decision-making is scaled-down, but it exists.
> >
> >No, it does not. And anyone who says he does is denying the
> >patently obvious.
>
> He can buy or not buy the corporation's products. He can buy or not buy stock
> of the corporation. Both things are corporate decision-making, and he needs not
> be part of the corporation to do so.
These things are ------******* N O T *******------ corporate decision-making!!!
Deciding to *sell* something to a consumer is corporate decision-making, some
other being buying it is no more corporate decision-making than my deciding
to insult you, bonehead, is your decision.
> >> >A person within the corporation that successfully mimicks
> >> >the signals of a manager unit is able to engage in corporate
> >> >decision making and is infinitely more of a "manager" than
> >> >the "genuine" manager outside of a corporation.
> >>
> >> So what? Or rather, that is yet another way on which your analogy is flawed.
> >> Cells in a body are not interchangeable, while humans in a corporation are.
> >
> >So an engineer is interchangeable with a janitor?????
>
> In function? Yes.
In function: No!
> In performance? No. The manager can mop the floor, just not
> well, and the janitor can run the corporation, but not well.
Your typical janitor *cannot* run the corporation anymore than
your typical cell can become a blastocyte.
> If you put a brain cell in the liver, it will just not do the job, and
> viceversa.
And you think putting a janitor in the engineering department is
sufficient to turn him into an engineer, no matter how incompetent?
> >Just what the fuck are you talking about now?
> >You're engaging in spurious and selective thinking.
>
> At least it's thinking.
I wouldn't go that far.
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 20:20:56 GMT
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>
> "James A. Robertson" wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > > I don't believe you have any grounds at all for assuming that "they
> > > will
> > > > probably think the accusation is true." You'd have to provide some
> > > > evidence that someone's real 'good name' can actually be damaged by
> > > some
> > > > *anonymous* person on Usenet calling them a racist, an alcoholic, or a
> > > > pedophile. I don't know of anyone with a good name that would be
> > > > damaged by such obviously absurd accusations.
> > >
> > > Well, actually, a good friend of mine was in a situation (outside
> > > usenet) where someone made a false accusation that he was a racist. His
> > > lawyer managed to sort this out and it had to be done quickly, because
> > > in communities, well, people like gossips. Specially nasty gossips. And
> > > then people will avoid to be associated with you, because, well, there
> > > is a sort of suspicious black cloud over you.
> > >
> >
> > Note the term lawyer. If you felt wronged by JTK, then a civil court is
> > the appropriate forum.
>
> Well, Yann doesn't live in the same country and the forum is
> trans-national, so it's not a practical suggestion.
>
If a Spanish lawyer can bring charges against Pinochet in Britain, it's
possible.
It's also the proper procedure.
> But James, I asked you this before in response to this exact same point
> and you never answered:
>
> QUESTION: On what basis do you believe that it is appropriate to file a
> lawsuit and inappropriate to file a complaint with the employer?
>
The former is the duly authorized fashion to file a complaint about
libel. The latter is just rock throwing. You end up in a 'my word
against his' forum with no due process and no presentation of facts. In
what possible way <is> it appropriate?
> I cannot, for the life of me, see why you would believe that the lawsuit
> -- which is the more extreme form of action, after all -- is
> appropriate, yet simply writing a written complaint is not. After all,
> if a lawsuit were filed, it would likely name the employer as the entity
> providing the resources. And anyway, as a practical matter, the employer
> would hear about it.
Because it gives legal protection to all involved.
>
> I think that, by all rights, if you won't answer a QUESTION above where
> I ask you to clarify your reasoning, you should really stop repeating
> this stuff about a lawsuits and civil courts being the only appropriate
> response. Also, I would like you to stop claiming that you don't reply
> because I do not debate in a fair manner. That's a falsehood. For
> example, right here, I am very clearly giving you a chance to make clear
> the reasoning behind your statement -- if there really is any, that is.
> :-)
Not to mention the fact that in a court of law, the wronged party has
access to compensation. In your preferred solution, it's just
vengeance, pure and simple. There's no 'clearing of name' involved in
getting someone fired, whereas a finding a libel is a powerful method of
getting closure and clearance.
I think the main problem is that while gary has been a jerk, it's not at
all clear that you would be able to prove libel. Given that, other
methods were employed.
>
> Jonathan Revusky
>
> >
> > --
> > James A. Robertson
> > Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:38:35 -0500
"Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Because I really can't stand that each time I install something in NT,
> am asked if I want to reboot now or later to let the changes take
> effect?
> I do NOT want to reboot, WHY can't I make an application run without
> rebooting? I know it's just a minor annoyance, but it's there, and it's
> getting more and more annoying each time it happens.
The reason is pretty simple. Most applications are written for Windows 95,
which cannot replace in-use files at runtime (requires a reboot to replace
the old version of a shared library that is in use).
In most cases, you can ignore this in Win2000.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
