Linux-Advocacy Digest #466, Volume #29 Thu, 5 Oct 00 10:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2.4! (Jesper Krogh)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: programming languages and design (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Double standard? (John Sanders)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 13:02:40 GMT
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad, not be rude, have you ever used UNIX in your life? I consider, in my
humble
> opinion, 30 years of development to be a great legacy to builder apon.
Yes, I've used it. And I agree... it's legacy.
> For example, look at the development process of Windows Datacentre. A
complete
> re-write for each version.
You mean each version of Win2K was a complete rewrite? As in Win2K Server is a
complete rewrite from Win2K Advanced Server is a rewrite from Win2K Datacenter?
You are completely mistaken. Not to be rude, but have you ever used Windows 2000
in your life?
> UNIX can scale from a Workstation (such as an SGI or
> Sun Ultra Sparc 5) up to a mainframe class system.
So can Windows. Note the the TPC-C results.
> The fact that Windows NT has gained it popularity is not because of technical
> superiority but because any old twit who can use a mouse can setup a Windows
> NT server.
No, it really is because of it's technical superiority. It has almost all
the benefits of Unix, plus it has applications. NT wasn't too great in the
largest of enterprises which is where it couldn't compete with Unix.
Windows 2000, however, can and does, and kicks the pants off of big iron
Unix boxes. Cite: TPC-C
> I currently have SuSE Linux installed on my machine with ReiserFS
> and I experience no problems, completely stable, fast, when I kill a process,
> it actually dies, does hang around like in Windows,
See, this is what I'm talking about. You've obviously never used Windows NT
or 2000 because you would know that it is rock-solid stable as well, and you can
KILL a process and it goes away immediately, just as in Unix. You're confusing
Windows 9x (crap) with Windows NT/2000 (Good(tm)) which means you really don't
know what you're talking about.
This is what frustrates me so much. Many people, such as your self are
old-school
Unix developers or sysadmins. They used Windows 3.1x and realized what a pile
of dung it was and labelled Microsoft forever. They've never used another copy
of Windows except for, perhaps Win95. They assume WinNT and 2K are along the
same lineage and therefore suffer all the same ailments of Win9x and forever
label those products as well, which simply isn't the case.
> rip out a PCI card whilst computer is running, Linux doesn't give a toss,
Windows 2000
> crashes to a black screen of death.
Um... ripping out a PCI card whilst the computer is running will halt or damage
the
motherboard in most cases (unless you're on a server with hot-swap PCI). This is
a complete lie. Any OS would die because the whole computer would freeze or
choke.
Perhaps you mean PCMCIA? Windows 2000 allows for swapping PCMCIA cards all day
long.
In either case, you have no idea what you're talking about. Please refrain from
insulting Windows until you have even the first clue about what you're talking
about.
And... to futher back up this claim, it's a "blue" screen of death, not black.
*PLONK*
> Before you post, run a server with UNIX on it.
I have. Appearently you've never run Windows, or even a PC because you don't
even know what PCI is.
> Then after several years experience then comeback and stand on your soap box.
I'm here!
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rgkl7$d9d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Hi Chad,
> > > >
> > > > Howdy from Texas!
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Please keep your ignorant slants to yourself.
> > >
> > > Gee, amazing how you can be so nice and so condescending all in the same
> > > post.
> >
> > Same with you. Your post started out friendly and objective, but as it
> > progressed, it became apparent that you weren't interested in learning
> > anything, merely bashing Microsoft with misinformation.
> >
> > > I expressed myself wrongly when I posted "And won't be told to buy the
> > > next version to get bug fixes."
> > >
> > > I meant to say that I won't be told to buy the next version to get fixes
> > > to functionality errors that are Microsoft's own fault, but could properly
> > > be called bugs.
> >
> > Examples? You're still talking out of your ass. Both statements are crap.
> >
> > I hear the same thing coming from penguinistas about the majestic Kernel 2.4
> > which will magically fix all of Linux's problems.
> >
> > Show me a piece of software, and I'll show you one that has to be upgraded
> > to get the newest features.
> >
> > > There are other impairments in this "powerful" email combination
> > > (including not being able to reply within the body of a message while
> > > using Word as my email editor). Will Microsoft fix these before Office
> > > 2001? I very much doubt it.
> >
> > Don't use Word as your email editor.
> >
> > And if you do, I never had a problem replying in-line. It always highlights
> > my text and prefaces it with [Chad Myers]stuff stuff stuff and highlights
> > it blue.
> >
> > > I bet you in the Pronto mail client that I am using from Linux that an
> > > unintended functionality impairment could be fixed within weeks. Users
> > > post in bug reports and have discussions with developers because they know
> > > the license provides security that the developer cannot turn around and
> > > make them pay for the beta testing they have contributed.
> >
> > Pronto also only does POP3 mail. Outlook is expected to, and does, do much
> > more, so you're comparing apples to Mac trucks. Outlook is designed to
> > be a client to Exchange. Period. It _HAS_ POP3 support only as a secondary
> > support, but it's sole purpose is to be a client to Exchange. If you want
> > a decent MS POP3 client, use Outlook Express. It has many more features
> > for Internet-only (POP3, NNTP, SMTP only) services. Outlook, for example,
> > doesn't even have NNTP support.
> >
> > > Why should I continue making submissions to a MS web form where
> > > submissions aren't even replied to? Take this for an ignorant slant: The
> > > open source development process appears to be superior to the Microsoft
> > > proprietary software development process.
> >
> > But the "bugs" you've mentioned aren't even bugs. No one else seems to
> > have this problem. I just said you can reply in-line even with Word as your
> > email editor. The fact that you can't figure out how to do it isn't
> > necessarily MS's problem. It's there you don't know how to use it, maybe
> > you should get a book or take a free CBT course on Outlook.
> >
> > > Six months ago I couldn't find a stable enough graphical email client on
> > > Linux that satisfied me. Now there is one and it is improving at an
> > > incredibly rapid rate. There have been 8 new RPM releases since June. In
> > > some aspects it is already superior to MS Outlook.
> >
> > Outlook Express has several features superior to Outlook. Like I said,
> > Outlook is a client to Exchange and should only be thought of as such.
> > Pronto probably doesn't do collaboration, PIM, scheduling, or any of
> > the things that Oulook does, above and beyond email, at all, or at least
> > better than Outlook.
> >
> > > What will the mail client be like in 6 months? 12 months? Microsoft is not
> > > up against a static target. It is "competing" against software that is
> > > just getting better, and its traditional method of buying superior
> > > technology and incorporating or shelving it just doesn't work.
> >
> > Outlook is competing against GroupWise and Lotus Notes in which every aspect
> > it's WAY better. It's not competing against POP3 clients because it's not
> > a POP3 client. You're frustrated at MS because you're using the product
> > incorrectly.
> >
> > > Microsoft doesn't have to just try to be as good as open source software
> > > development projects, it has to be better.
> >
> > It is, so why are we arguing. There is no decent collaboration and
> > enterprise information management solution for Linux. Exchange is lightyears
> > ahead of anything Linux has to offer in all areas of information management
> > and collaboration. Enterprises don't run on Email or POP3, they run on
> > the ability to collaborate and share their information and make it readily
> > available to decision makers.
> >
> > > TCO is a difficult concept to compute. But we do know one component of TCO
> > > is the cost of the software. MS is clearly at a disadvantage here, and has
> > > to do better than OSS in other components of the measure.
> >
> > Many studies by respected groups (including Gartner Group) showing that the
> > initial costs of the software (software itself, licensing, etc) is less
> > than 30 or 25% of the TCO of a software product or platform.
> >
> > Training, workflow, ease of use, ease of administration, support and
> > maintenance costs, and performance of the platform are among the largest
> > expenses, all of which Linux falls flat except for performance, perhaps,
> > but it still isn't even on the map with the Big Boys(tm) (IBM, Sun, MS,etc)
> >
> > No one's even attempted a TPC submission. However, if you look at the
> > TPC rosters, Windows ranks top in price/performance and in performance
> > beating out IBM big iron, Sun, and Fujitsu. In fact, IBM AS/400 is #5
> > and Sun falls flat on it's face at #7. Windows owns #1-4, and 6.
> >
> > > If freedom and security is also a part of the total benefit of ownership
> > > then Microsoft is also at a grave disadvantage.
> >
> > Microsoft's security implementation is far more advanced than the 30 year
> > old archaic Unix implementation in linux. Unfortunately, most people deploy
> > Windows and don't give enough consideration to security, this is a problem
> > in all platforms. If you look at Security Focus' cracks/platform you'll
> > notice NT and Linux are neck and neck in cracks each month. Sometimes
> > Linux has more, sometimes NT.
> >
> > Windows has the potential, when configured properly to have a better, more
> > robust security implementation because it has concepts such as DAC with
> > explicit deny and inheritence, full auditing capabilities as required by
> > the DOD's trusted security evaluation council (TSEC), directory-based
> > enterprise-wide policy execution and auditing, and many more. These
> > concepts are foreign to Linux. You basically have Group/User/Everyone and
> > that's it. There are 3rd party add-ons to gain some or a fraction of the
> > implementations of security in Windows 2000, but they're risky and untested.
> >
> > If half of the people who use Windows 2000 got serious about security, the
> > number of cracks would drop considerably.
> >
> > On the contrary, people installing Linux are generally more aware of these
> > solutions as you have to be a Unix expert to even consider deploying
> > Linux in a production system that the Linux numbers are unlikely to take
> > a down-turn anytime soon.
> >
> > Windows is so easy to install and configure (lessening the TCO) that
sometimes
> > less-educated administrators don't consider all the factors, such as
security.
> >
> > This has been addressed, and yes, Microsoft can do way more on that front.
> >
> > The capability is there, just not the mindset. MS is trying to educate
people
> > but many have expectations of Windows, so it's hard to get it into their
heads.
> >
> > Linux is still immature. It's not enterprise ready, nor is it suitable for
> > many production environments. It's good enough to be a DNS server and maybe
> > a mail server, but has yet to prove itself effectively in any other area.
> >
> > Web serving is an up-and-coming strength of Linux and my hats off to the
> > developers, but it still needs a ton of work; they'll probably be the
> > first to tell you this.
> >
> > -Chad
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesper Krogh)
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:20:43 +0200
> > If you re happy with using microsoft products, then fine with that.
> > Some other haven´t sold their soul to microsoft.
>
> Sold my soul? It's just an operating system. Get a life.
No, it is not, it is a question about letting companies stik out closed
standards to monopolise the future. About having a opinion to destruction
of standards.
Corel, any other isn´t better, but linux is.
> > thats why you can clain this. When you have, you wouldn´t even think about
> > turning back.
>
> I didn't say 'why even use UNIX', I said "Why even use **Linux**?".
> There is a huge difference.
Please explain ?
Btw: Have Microsoft come up with a reliable newsserver ?
--
./Jesper Krogh.
The Goal is world domination, no more, no less.
This means that your PC should run linux too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 13:28:32 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
>>
>> I'll add them to my 'list of bad Linux supporters' along with
>> InterVideo.
>>
>> Intervideo was the company that was claiming to make a
>> 'legal' DVD player for Linux (and the one that the MPAA
>> was using to claim that DeCSS wasn't necissary for watching DVDs on
>> 'other' operating systems). Nearly eight months after their initial
>> announcement and they have burried the press release and have absolutely
>> nothing but
>> 'get WinDVD here' type of links on their site.
>>
>> I would bet by the end of the year they will say the same thing NetZero
>> is saying now. Especially if the entire appeals process has run it's
>> course in the DeCSS trial.
>>
>>
>
>I'm unhappy that it didn't come out too. I'd like to be able to play DVDs
>on my laptop while traveling.
>
>Here is an article that MaximumLinux had a little while ago about
>InterVideo's LinDVD.
>
>Apparently they have it, and it works, but they don't want to develop
>it.
>
>http://www.maximumlinux.com/content/news/2000/09/15/11340
Yeah, I had read that story too. I'm not much into
conspiracy theories most of the time, but here's my take
on this one.
The MPAA needed some 'backup amunition' in the DeCSS case
(forget the fact that the judge used to be a lawyer for
the MPAA himself, and was extremely biased, read any of
the papers). So they hired InterVideo and one other
company (I know there was another one) to 'create' a DVD
player for Linux. Both were mentioned at trial by the
MPAA with the statement, "there is no need for DeCSS other
than to copy movies. If people want to watch DVDs on
Linux they can purchase a legal player from one of these
companies." Of course, the judge seemed to buy that hook
line and sinker. Once the trial ran its course, these
companies dropped what little development they had done
(the other company I don't think did as much as InterVideo
appeared to have done), and I assume when the appeal
process gets going full-swing we will hear all kinds of
stuff about these 'commercial alternatives' for playing a
DVD.
I've messed very little with DeCSS and it is a bit of a
pain. But I refuse to keep a copy of Windows around just
to watch the few DVDs I have. It defeats the entire
purpose of having a DVD player in my computer (being able
to keep 'working' on my stuff while watching a movie).
Anyway, I do hope someone actually gets enough guts to
fully develop an open-source player. I know of a couple
of efforts to do so, but at the moment they are kind of
stalling until they see the final outcome of the DeCSS
case. :-(
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: 5 Oct 2000 13:22:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, yeah, power means different things to different people.
Yup. For many, it means the ability to keep the beers cool in summer.
> I'd define it as ability to do complex things in a short amount of
> time. Or ability to do much with less.
Power is the ability to do (typically complex) things. The other
things you mention are more related to beauty and efficiency. What
these things are varies according to context...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I could even declare myself a religion, if that'd help.
-- Mark Loy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 13:21:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 15:37:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Also, I'd like to think of a Linux Free ISP as creating
> > its own ad-bar software for the "AOL-Effect": by making
> > connections even easier than KPPP or EZPPP, coupled with
> > free internet software, users are more likely to get
> > Internet accounts and expand the testing user base.
> > (which leads to faster bugfixes and less downtime for
> > everyone, so its a win-win situation)
>
> Well, those of us in the UK have http://www.uklinux.net,
> and they don't use an ad-bar thankfully.
Yeah, if I lived somewhere else, I'd have free internet. :)
Here in the Midwest of the U.S.A., if you look at a map
showing the major cities wherein free internet (or in
fact any major backbone connection to the internet can
be found), you can connect the dots to form a *circle*
around the 48 connected states...which neatly circles
where I live and leaves no place really that close to
where I live.
America has some servers for local users in Wisconsin,
Oregon, and I think Washington D.C., which all do
standard PPP and allow Linux access. My complaint was
that there are no free ISPs [a] in my area, and
[b] which have dialup numbers all over the place to be
in other people's areas and where people travel to.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:51:44 -0300
El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >immortal = animate object that does not age
>>
>> That is not english. I'd suggest getting another word.
>
>I'd suggest you get a brain.
Ok, I suggest you use "ageless". Webster defines it as "not growing old or
showing the effects of age".
>> >eternal = inanimate object that does not age OR animate object that does not
>> die >
>> >Perpetual cell lines are immortal.
>>
>> But perpetual cell lines are very peculiar. Normal cells can not reproduce ad
>> infinitum. Cancerous cells and embryo cells can, though.
>
>And what is your fucking point?
Just a comment.
>Are you implying that normal cell lines *are* immortal??????
No.
>> >Corporations are immortal because they do not age and are animate beings
>> >(and thus animate objects).
>>
>> Corporations, using that peculiar definition of immortal, are immortal, if we
>> accept them to be animate beings.
>
>*WRONG* NUMBSKULL! Corporations need only be animate *OBJECTS*.
"Corporations ... are animate beings", you just said, if I agreed with that,
I would agree with the whole. I won't even guess what animate objects are
supposed to be, so I won't agree or disagree to that.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double standard?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 08:30:05 -0500
MH wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > OS stability by far. I'm just glad that Linux offers better in both
> > departments.
> > I have asked windows users time and time again what makes windows
> > greater
> > than KDE and GNOME and I never get an answer.
>
> This movie has been rolling for sometime now, but it has gotten really old.
True.
[deletia]
> So, this 'home' user,.. or 'luser' as you people here like to call them.
> What do they really want?
> Family 'luser'? Simple suite of tools? Financial, contacts, printshop type
> of program, web browsing and email, games, reference, and educational
> software for the kids.
> Windows 8, Linux 2
This is probably a pretty fair comment. Financial: I have a friend
that justifies his purchases of new computers (about 1 every two years)
by saying it's the only way he can balance his check book. (WIN)
Contacts: What? A phone list? You can do this with the shell. And
retrieve anything faster than you can even start your GUI based mess.
(Linux) Printshop: Haven't used 'em. (WIN) Web/email: Lynx, Netscape
and elm. (Split) Games: don't use 'em. (WIN) Reference: There are
specific ones for Windows. I have cds of RFCs and a couple of magazines
and some I.C. manufacturers. (Split) Edu.: (WIN). Win: 6 Linux: 3.
> OK, someone just starting to program..
> I love hunting and pecking with GNU's GCC, GDB and multiple xterms. Trouble
> is I can do it all in ONE screen with Borland turbo C++ for DOS!! but, Linux
> is a great environment for a programming student. Visual
> environments...Phoenix? please... student discounts on the Borland & the
> Visual tool of the year is around $99.
This is what kills me. I've used Borland 4.0 for Windows IDE. You're
basically saying here that DOS is as capable as UNIX? For software
development? You're just insane. You "hunt and peck"? That's probably
a lot of your problem. I'd really love to know how you can do on one
screen in DOS what you can do on multiple xterms. Your tool list also
left out vi or emacs, the shell, sed, awk and RCS or SCCS. Maybe you're
the one that can't exploit your interface to the fullest?
> Windows 5, Linux 5 --Toss up, depends on which way you want to go. Perl,
> python, linux comes with so many tools..and is so stable. I like both. I
> think I'll use both.
>
> Top things for the new Linux -'luser' to consider.
>
> You don't purchase software.
$600 for ModelSim. $1200 for Mentor. These are the highest priced
software I've bought. BS I don't buy software.
> You don't have much software either.
Well, I don't have shelves full of games.
> It's NOT windows = not a 'luser'.
???
> Cool desktop themes to make you stand out.
What the fu..??
> Boast big 'uptimes'.
My net is always up except when I shut down for weather.
> Fall asleep ASAP reading 'learning the Bash Shell'
Ah-ha! You take pride in your lack of knowledge.
> Keep telling yourself you're hip while running a third-rate web browser in
> NN(sic) for *nix.
OK. That's NNTP.
>
> And number one....
> How are you gonna get that tux sticker off of your bumper once you realize
> how silly it looks?
You should use Windows. I don't care if you incapable of using Linux.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:54:28 -0300
El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> You seem to have a really bad time reading. I said that if aliens were proven
>> to exist, the definition may have to be changed. Currently, they are not, so it
>> has not.
>
>Irrelevant, cretin. Something need not be proven to exist in order to
>require a change in the language. That it be shown POSSIBLE is usually
>sufficient.
>
>*ARE* aliens human?
What aliens? The aliens that are like hamsters only dumber? No.
>If so then *why*? Produce a FORMAL definition of human that will *NOT*
> need to be updated regularly (geez, ever heard of mathematics?)
Not everything is mathematics.
>And if not then can they be psychopaths?
If who not what?
>> Nonsense. For someone who claims to be a formalist, you have no problem being
>
>And as I already explained, cretin, 1) being a formalist is a philosophical
>position and has nothing to do with being formal all the time, and 2) you are
>too stupid to appreciate rigour, let alone work rigorously, so I hardly feel
>the need to be rigourous myself.
Whatever.
>> completely illogic. Formally, if you wanted it to be a statement that is not
>> always true, you need to qualify it. A is B means A is always B. If you mean,
>> sometimes, you have to say it.
>
>I'm only rigorous when it's RELEVANT, nitwit. You're only ever concerned
>with logic when you think you can score a point. I (Richard) am rigorous,
>you (Roberto) are pedantic. Learn to conjugate that verb properly!
You are doing it again, Richard. You are not rigorous all the time (you said it
above). You are _sometimes_ rigorous.
>> >> I don't care. All I said is "the UN would disagree". Just showed you they
>> >
>> >If the UN doesn't fucking matter then why the fuck did you bring it up???
>>
>> Who says it doesn't matter? Please don't try to impose your opinion by forse of
>> assertion.
>
>And now we're ALL the way back to the beginning where I explained that
>the UN isn't an expert in moral philosophy!!!!!!!!
And you are?
>> >With *NO* rational reasons. There is no right to have religions since this
>> >supposed "right" directly contradicts freedom FROM religion.
>>
>> My having a religion doesn't impose any religiousness on you.
>
>Learn to be consistent, cretin. At least in the same fucking sentence!
I don't see any inconsistence in "My having a religion doesn't impose any
religiousness on you."
>Your being religIOUS does not impose any "religiOUSNESS" on me.
>Your having a religION imposes that religION on me.
No. I don't impose the religion's guidelines, values, rites or ablutions on
you. What am I imposing? You could not even be able to notice the religion,
even trying.
> A religion is an inherently public structure, like a corporation.
You have a very limited view of religion.
>> > Claiming that
>> >you have a right to impose your little irrationalities on others is like
>> >claiming that you have the right to murder people; utterly absurd.
>>
>> Claiming that because someone is religious he is imposing religious on others
>> is just false.
>
>And you are a fucking moron.
And you, apparently are traumatized because of abuse during your childhood,
maybe by your mother, or perhaps she just failed to protect you?
>> >Look, cretin, I said that A had to happen and B had to happen, I never
>> >said that B could only happen after A!
>>
>> Perhaps you could explain how a corp. can become a cooperative, then.
>
>And now we're ALL the way back to the beginning *AGAIN*.
Because what you said didn't work.
>> >You're a fuckhead.
>>
>> And you, my friend, are wrong. And as usual, resort to insult when shown to be
>> wrong. What a sore loser. With emphasis on loser.
>
>You're a moron.
Well, it's an upgrade from fuckhead. Nice to see your concept of me is
improving.
>> >No, it would not.
>>
>> Giving away money to employees with the purpose of decreasing stockholders's
>> stock value is not against fiduciary duty? Amazing.
>
>No, SHITHEAD, *selling* stock to employees ("issuing" does not imply giving it
>away you fucking stupid moronic shit for brains!) and buying back the stock of
>non-employees does not devalue the stock.
In that case, what happens if an employee quits?
>> You seem to have a very poor grasp on the free market. On the other hand, you
>> claimed it doesn't exist, so it figures.
>
>You have a poor grasp of EVERYTHING, including Godel's incompleteness theorem
I could fax you the 120 page thing I wrote on it.
>(sight unseen, you are just SO much of a moron that I feel 99% confidence in
>that statement)!
Whatever.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
