Linux-Advocacy Digest #632, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: (Matthias Warkus)
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ext2 file size limit? (Rob Komar)
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Magnetism (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Astroturfing ("JS/PL")
Re: what defines a paradigm (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Magnetism ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux Sucks (Terry Porter)
Re: Astroturfing ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Astroturfing ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:27:54 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:57:25 GMT...
...and Santiago Sainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. Standardised GUI, either, MacOS or Windows like interface
>
> I'd like voice recognition as the only user interfaz, and talking to
> me as the main output device, with a 3D device for diagrams :)
So you aren't blind. Then why would you want such a horribly slow
sequential output device? Also, voice control isn't very efficient for
anything besides giving simple commands and entering natural-language
text.
> > 3. Simplified Library structure similar to what Amiga had (ie,
> > icons.library, fonts.library, printers.library)
>
> I'd mind nothing libraries as it would stay updatded by itself
> using the net.
Have a look at apt or at Helix Update some day ;)
mawa
--
Es begab sich aber zu jener Zeit, daß Volt, genannt der Spannende, in
das Gate der Schaltung floß, zu richten die Wechselnden und die
Gleichen. Und so öffnete er dem Strom Thyr und Istor.
-- 1. Buch Danfoss 1, 23-24
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:21:24 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:36:32 GMT...
...and Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It was the Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:18:54 +1300...
> > ...and Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Both Windows and Linux have great attributes, Linux, opensourced and
> > > very stable. Windows, easy to use and administrate.
> >
> > *WHAT*? Easy to administer? Windows?
> >
> > Windows cannot be administered, at least the consumer Windows can't.
> > All you can do is pray, fix registry corruption and such, and
> > reinstall frequently.
> >
> > mawaa
>
> > This was a public service announcement brought to you by mawa.
>
> Okay, mawa(a), why don't you explain what gnome is doing to make
> administration on Unix less painful than a root canal?
Oh, if you're asking for something GNOME-specific... Helix are
developing a full set of GNOME administration tools. This involves
wrapping a CORBA interface around each and every important text
configuration file. Will be interesting as soon as it's done.
mawa
--
The danger of the haphazard application of computer technology to
situations that are really getting along just fine in the first place
should be apparent to all.
-- Art Medlar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:27:00 GMT
I configured one on their site for $4million.
> How much does this hardware cost? A 128-cpu Sparc is going to run a
> few bucks.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Rob Komar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ext2 file size limit?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:40:15 -0700
In comp.os.linux.development.system Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> jdavida writes:
> > Correct. You should define
> > #define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE 1
> > instead. This define should come before
> > including the header files. This will
> > enable the use of large files greater than
> > 2 Gig. Unfortunately, user commands and utils
> > like ls(1) and stat(1) will not work: See the
> > following:
> > # ls -l
> > /bin/ls: BIG4GIG: Value too large for defined data type
> > /bin/ls: BIG4GIG2: Value too large for defined data type
> > total 0
> > Both of these files are 4gigabytes large!!
> > I created them by a simple program that
> > wrote a large buffer to the file in a loop
> > that brought the size to 4 gig, and exited
> > normally.
> Recompile those tools after you installed a glibc that understands LFS
> - it works fine for me with fileutils 4.0.
> Andreas
This works for me using a 2.2.16 or 2.2.17 linux kernel with Scyld's
LFS patches applied, with a recent glibc-2.1.3, and with fileutils 4.0
recompiled against the new kernel header files. However, it doesn't
work with kernel 2.4.0-test9, even with fileutils re-built against
the 2.4.0 headers. For both kernels, I used -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
or -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE when compiling and linking the fileutils
programs. Under 2.4.0-test9, a test C program was able to write a
file > 2GB; I just couldn't use `ls -l' to list its size. I didn't
patch glibc with Scyld's patch, but I don't use file locking in my
simple programs so I didn't think I had to.
I thought that the 2.4.0-test kernels had LFS support. If so, any
idea why the fileutil programs don't work?
Cheers,
Rob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:31:49 GMT
The black helicopters are coming for you right now.
claire
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:47:08 +0100, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>What are the chances that a company as PR aware as Microsoft would allow
>these advocacy forums to exist with astroturfing them? Pretty close to
>zero I would say.
>
>So given that there must be astroturfers here how would we spot them?
>- Not having a real job to go to they make lots of posts.
>- They are technically competent on MS stuff (not wizards, but
>competent).
>- They use the standard bullet-points and marketing buzzwords that look
>a bit out of place in an informal Usenet post, so that they read like
>advertising copy. (like "Advantages to the business", and "Fortune
>500")
>- Talks up Windows 2000 a lot (because it's the latest upgrade and MS
>lives on upgrades)
>- Defends MS when anyone says "anti-trust".
>- Has a slightly salesman feel about them.
>- Doesn't directly attack Linux, but makes sly comments like ("great for
>mom-and-pop operations cutting costs")
>
>Any others?
>
>So who are the astroturfers? Obviously Mike Byrns, but who else?
>---
>Nick
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 15:32:12 GMT
Is that the best you can do?
claire
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:58:10 +0100, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I know that.
>>
>> claire
>
>But what you don't seem to know is Usenet replies go *after* the question (like
>this), not at the top of the post, like yours. Because now people don't know
>what the hell you were talking about.
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:17:46 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But there is no more DOS to boot into afaik.
>> >> Of course Windows runs on top of DOS, I assumed I didn't have to
>> >> mention that.
>> >
>> >It is there is is just that MS is trying to hide it. Just because you
>> >think you see it, does not mean that it isn't there.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> claire
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:29:13 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> You seem to have a fixation on Notepad?
>> >> >> MSDOS is dead...
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you should rethink this statement in that Windows ME still boots
>> >> >DOS first.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Subject: Magnetism
Date: 13 Oct 2000 15:53:05 GMT
What are the odds of finding a GNU project for the design of magnets and
magnetic shielding?
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:53:07 -0400
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What are the chances that a company as PR aware as Microsoft would allow
> these advocacy forums to exist with astroturfing them? Pretty close to
> zero I would say.
>
> So given that there must be astroturfers here how would we spot them?
> - Not having a real job to go to they make lots of posts.
> - They are technically competent on MS stuff (not wizards, but
> competent).
> - They use the standard bullet-points and marketing buzzwords that look
> a bit out of place in an informal Usenet post, so that they read like
> advertising copy. (like "Advantages to the business", and "Fortune
> 500")
> - Talks up Windows 2000 a lot (because it's the latest upgrade and MS
> lives on upgrades)
> - Defends MS when anyone says "anti-trust".
> - Has a slightly salesman feel about them.
> - Doesn't directly attack Linux, but makes sly comments like ("great for
> mom-and-pop operations cutting costs")
>
> Any others?
>
> So who are the astroturfers? Obviously Mike Byrns, but who else?
> ---
> Nick
What's wrong with Windows 2000? Surely you must acknowledge that Microsoft
has the freedom to innovate, building on the strengths of Windows NT Server
4.0, the Windows 2000 Server Family delivers three increasingly powerful
products that set a new standard for reliability and scalability. The
Windows 2000 Server Family also demonstrates how well an operating system
can be integrated with a standards-based directory, Web, application,
network, file and print services, and end-to-end management. This
combination of reliability and functionality provides the best foundation
for integrating your business with the Internet.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: what defines a paradigm
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:02:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donal K. Fellows
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 13 Oct 2000 10:17:44 GMT
<8s6ng8$7t6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The OO paradigm is concerned with updateable state and
>
>No.
>
>Donal.
Don't be too hard on him; he probably wouldn't know an OO paradigm
if it sent him a message. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random silliness here
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:14:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8s1ef5$aja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > So, when did the Microsoft leapord change its spots?
>>
>> I have to wonder what is so evil about displaying a non-fatal error
>message
>> based on an OS version.....
>>
>I guess you could ask what was so bad about leaving a horse's head in
>someone's bed too. If you are a complete idiot...
LOL. Oh, so true.
>As someone who was specifying office equipment at the time I took it
>as a non-too-subtle warning from MS that they could and would break
>things on a whim if you used another vendors DOS. And I still think
>that is the correct interpretation - and it worked. Remember, this was
>a time when virtually every MS product release broke some competitor's
>product - a practice that seems to have lingered on all the way through
>NT's SP6.
--
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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:21:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > If not for that fortunate fact, that code would never have been
>> > > discovered, and you would have been saying that Microsoft would NEVER have
>> > > done something like that. And no one could have proved you wrong. As it
>> > > is, you're probably going to say "so what? Ancient history."
>> > >
>> > > So, when did the Microsoft leapord change its spots?
>> >
>> > Hey, I have a knife in my kitchen drawer at home. At any time, just by
>> > bringing it out, I could have used it against somebody.
>> >
>> > The important thing, however, is that I did not.
>>
>> Microsoft *did* use it against DRI (as well as Korean DOS and who knows what
>> else). They did it in the beta version, which is what the press was
>> reporting on at that time, of course. "Preview of New Windows Version!"
>> You know the types of articles that get written up in the trade mags.
>
>No I don't. Could you send me some reviews of Windows from the time so that
>I can see first-hand what the damage was? I'd like to say that I trusted you
>to do your research on this, but I can't.
I'd like to say that we trusted you to properly understand the issues,
and honestly and correctly interpret the information, supplied either
contemporaneously or in retrospect. But I can't, because you've shown
no reason to trust your ability to understand or recognize anything that
might conflict with your private fantasies about how wonderful Microsoft
is.
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Microsoft's FUD campaign included at least the following:
Warning the market that changes in future versions of Windows might
render DR DOS
incompatibleóand then carrying through on the threat during the
Windows 3.1 beta program;
Making false and misleading statements to computer makers and
others about DR DOS, and
especially about DR DOS's compatibility with Microsoft Windows;
Blacklisting DRI from participating in the Windows 3.1 beta
program, thus ensuring that users
would encounter errors when they tried to run Windows with DR DOS;
Taking advantage of the blacklisting by making public allegations
that the problems users were
encountering running DR DOS with Windows were the fault of DR DOS
and it was up to DRI to
fix themósecure in the knowledge that blacklisting DRI from the
Windows 3.1 beta program
ensured that DRI could neither diagnose nor fix the problems;
Including code in Windows 3.1 during the beta program that was
designed solely to display false
error messages if a user tried to run Windows 3.1 on DR DOS;
Introducing bugs in Windows 3.1 that caused fatal errors when users
tried to setup Windows on
DR DOS; and
Including code in Windows 3.1 during the beta program that
prevented users from running
Windows with DR DOS.
>> Microsoft's scheme (illegal, by the way) had the desired effect of
>> generating false reports that the new Windows would not run on DR DOS.
>
>The reports, please. Not just rhetoric. I want to read the reports with my
>own two eyes. And those reports had better say something bad about DR DOS,
>or you're just blowing smoke.
So go find the reports on which these factual accusations were based,
and stop with your senseless prattle here, where people who know better
wonder why you bother trying to insist that you are competent to judge
Microsoft's behavior and products. Be an ignorant moron on your own
time, Simon; I personally would prefer more serious and reasonable
discussions here, rather than retreads of old news, and I think that
Weevil would agree.
Thanks, Weevil; I've enjoyed the posts.
--
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]
Subject: Re: Magnetism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:20:04 GMT
That sounds like something you should be able to find that runs under
Linux.
claire
On 13 Oct 2000 15:53:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory
L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>What are the odds of finding a GNU project for the design of magnets and
>magnetic shielding?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:30:35 -0300
El jue, 12 oct 2000, Colin R. Day escribió:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >> Assuming you can count the oscilations exactly, you will have a +-0.5 error in
>> >> the count.
>> >
>> >> Measure time in seconds with an error of less than 1E-25, and count the
>> >> oscillations in 1E15 seconds.
>>
>> Uhm...Roberto...do you know how long 1E15 seconds is??
>
>3.1-3.2E7 seconds per year, Hmm... That makes 3.1-3.2E7 years.
>
>
>> You must
>> believe in reincarnation:)
>>
>
>Perhaps he meant 1E-15?
No, I said it had a small practical problem ;-)
If someone actually bothered doing the error propagation, he would have noticed
I (intentionally ;-) made this a bit more precise than was requested ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 13 Oct 2000 16:26:21 GMT
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:15:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You guys are all so out of your minds it's incredible.
Look who's talking ;-)
> Whatever the
>semantics involved (ie:Linux is the kernel), it is a fact that Linux
>is trying to compete with Windows for the desktop simply by virtue of
>the number of Windows program look a likes
Nonsense, Linux stands on it own, there is real innovation here in the Linux
world.
> as well as kde and Gnome.
>It is also for sale in CompUSA for anywhere from $29 to about $100
>depending on distro.
>
>You can pull all the word twisting you want out of the hat
Look whos talking ;-)
> but Linux
>is not taking any market share away from the Windows desktop.
Linux took my Windows95 market share off my pc in 1997.
> Joe and
>Jane that is. Programmers? Students? maybe, home users? Nope.
Bull, Ive had a lady friend using Linux the last 3 weeks, before that she had
*never* seen Linux. She loves it, uses Xchat to IRC and is amazed how much
easier it is than mIRC under Windows98. In fact she rues the day that she
upgraded from Win95 to Win98.
>
>And if it doesn't get it's ass in gear it will remain a niche' system.
More bs from the Wintroll master "Steve". Still pretending to be a girl I see
shame, shame, shame.
>
>claire
>
>
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:54:26 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
>Warkus) wrote:
>
>>It was the Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:28:40 GMT...
>>...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The underlying OS is simply a means to the end result and Linux is a
>>> fine operating system. In my opinion it should stay focused on the
>>> advanced market, where it is making major gains in usage, and stop
>>> trying to compete with desktop Windows.
>>
>>Linux cannot stay focused on anything, and Linux cannot stop trying to
>>compete with something, because Linux is not a product.
>>
>>mawa
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 27 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:31:58 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What are the chances that a company as PR aware as Microsoft would allow
> > these advocacy forums to exist with astroturfing them? Pretty close to
> > zero I would say.
> >
> > So given that there must be astroturfers here how would we spot them?
> > - Not having a real job to go to they make lots of posts.
> > - They are technically competent on MS stuff (not wizards, but
> > competent).
> > - They use the standard bullet-points and marketing buzzwords that look
> > a bit out of place in an informal Usenet post, so that they read like
> > advertising copy. (like "Advantages to the business", and "Fortune
> > 500")
> > - Talks up Windows 2000 a lot (because it's the latest upgrade and MS
> > lives on upgrades)
> > - Defends MS when anyone says "anti-trust".
> > - Has a slightly salesman feel about them.
> > - Doesn't directly attack Linux, but makes sly comments like ("great for
> > mom-and-pop operations cutting costs")
> >
> > Any others?
> >
> > So who are the astroturfers? Obviously Mike Byrns, but who else?
> > ---
> > Nick
>
> What's wrong with Windows 2000?
Stabilty.
Still not ready for prime time.
> Surely you must acknowledge that Microsoft
> has the freedom to innovate, building on the strengths of Windows NT Server
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Speaking of astro-turfer phrases...
Funny how Microsoft doesn't feel the same way about USB, CSS, etc.
> 4.0, the Windows 2000 Server Family delivers three increasingly powerful
> products that set a new standard for reliability and scalability. The
> Windows 2000 Server Family also demonstrates how well an operating system
> can be integrated with a standards-based directory, Web, application,
> network, file and print services, and end-to-end management. This
> combination of reliability and functionality provides the best foundation
> for integrating your business with the Internet.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:32:54 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The black helicopters are coming for you right now.
>
It's well known that Microsoft pays people to post FUD to this newsgroup.
> claire
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:47:08 +0100, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >What are the chances that a company as PR aware as Microsoft would allow
> >these advocacy forums to exist with astroturfing them? Pretty close to
> >zero I would say.
> >
> >So given that there must be astroturfers here how would we spot them?
> >- Not having a real job to go to they make lots of posts.
> >- They are technically competent on MS stuff (not wizards, but
> >competent).
> >- They use the standard bullet-points and marketing buzzwords that look
> >a bit out of place in an informal Usenet post, so that they read like
> >advertising copy. (like "Advantages to the business", and "Fortune
> >500")
> >- Talks up Windows 2000 a lot (because it's the latest upgrade and MS
> >lives on upgrades)
> >- Defends MS when anyone says "anti-trust".
> >- Has a slightly salesman feel about them.
> >- Doesn't directly attack Linux, but makes sly comments like ("great for
> >mom-and-pop operations cutting costs")
> >
> >Any others?
> >
> >So who are the astroturfers? Obviously Mike Byrns, but who else?
> >---
> >Nick
> >
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:36:24 -0500
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:57:06 GMT, "Nicholas Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>if you don't want to call DOS an operating system, you can't call linux an
>operating system, because they're more similar than you seem to be able to
>accept
Let him cry about how DOS isn't an OS all he wants. Everyone
in the world knows better, and the only one being hurt by his
tantrum is himself.
--
Stephen Whitis
Email replies should go to...
scw120198 (at) whitis.com
The address in the header is not valid.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
