Linux-Advocacy Digest #641, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need expert for info on troubleshooting Linux (lyttlec)
Re: Need expert for info on troubleshooting Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Convince me to run Linux? (Linux)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Larry Ebbitt)
Re: How low can they go...? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mark McIntyre)
Re: Convince me to run Linux? ("Hung")
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Convince me to run Linux? (Daniel Tryba)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need expert for info on troubleshooting Linux
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:14:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I thought it came optimized perfectly right out of the box and ready
> to boot after which you should not have to reboot it for at least 28
> months or so baring act's of God and such?
>
> Could I be wrong here?
>
> claire
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:39:46 -0700, "Seth S."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm in desperate need of an expert or two to help me develop an article on
> >troubleshooting (or optimizing) RedHat Linux 7. If anyone thinks they can
> >help, or knows of someone who can, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >Thanks,
Just to save someone a bit of trouble. By tradition any Linux release
ending with an even number is "experimental". That is they have lots of
new features that might not all work well out of the box. Odd numbers
are traditionally more stable. Also you will hear about the "most stable
release" usually two or three back with some patches.
One big difference is that you can get whichever you want. You have
enough history to make an informed decision. Unlike MS where everything
is hidden.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Need expert for info on troubleshooting Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:23:16 GMT
Linux in and of itself is an experiment in progress fostered on the
public. It is a semi-ready for prime time pile of junk masquerading as
an alternative to Windows and nothing could be farther from the truth.
If you're a geek running a server farm go and try it. If you are
looking for a desktop alternative to Windows, look elsewhere (Mac
would be a good choice).
claire
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:14:59 GMT, lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> I thought it came optimized perfectly right out of the box and ready
>> to boot after which you should not have to reboot it for at least 28
>> months or so baring act's of God and such?
>>
>> Could I be wrong here?
>>
>> claire
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:39:46 -0700, "Seth S."
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I'm in desperate need of an expert or two to help me develop an article on
>> >troubleshooting (or optimizing) RedHat Linux 7. If anyone thinks they can
>> >help, or knows of someone who can, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>Just to save someone a bit of trouble. By tradition any Linux release
>ending with an even number is "experimental". That is they have lots of
>new features that might not all work well out of the box. Odd numbers
>are traditionally more stable. Also you will hear about the "most stable
>release" usually two or three back with some patches.
>
>One big difference is that you can get whichever you want. You have
>enough history to make an informed decision. Unlike MS where everything
>is hidden.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:28:30 GMT
Marty writes:
>> David T. Johnson writes [to Marty]:
>>> You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
>>> characterize my replys to your personal attacks and name-calling as
>>> 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
>>> accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
>>> you will have to answer.
>> Marty has also falsely accused me of a "smear crusade" against an
>> OS/2 ISV. What do you suppose causes such strange behavior?
>> Meanwhile, he's not said anything about Glatt's libelous claim
>> that my own OS/2 software lost its certification. Makes you wonder
>> if Marty recognizes a real "smear crusade" when he sees one.
> I certainly have recognized Tim Martin's smear crusades (note plural).
The issue is your libelous claim that I engaged in a "smear crusade"
against an OS/2 ISV, Marty.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:30:29 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>> Marty writes [to David T. Johnson]:
>>>>> Do you utilize the same (to quote Joe Malloy) "mythical and ineffective
>>>>> lawyer" as Tholen?
>>>> My lawyer is neither mythical nor ineffective, Marty, despite what Joe
>>>> Malloy wants you to think.
>>> Who is your lawyer and what has he done for you?
>> You and Malloy made the claim, Marty, therefore the burden of proof
>> falls on your shoulders.
> I asked a question.
You made a claim about a "mythical and ineffective lawyer", Marty.
Substantiate it.
> I made no claim, Dave.
Incorrect, Marty.
> You, however, made a claim that he is neither mythical nor ineffective,
A direct reference to your unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Marty,
despite the fact that you deny making a claim.
> and I was asking for some form of evidence on that matter.
I was asking for some form of evidence that my lawyer is "mythical
and ineffective", Marty.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:08:19 +1000
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> "Frédéric G. MARAND" wrote:
>
> > Can you seriously write that ?
> >
> > Or add something like "..part of the time" .
> >
> > John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:25:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [...]
> > > 1) Windows works.
> > [...]
>
> Windows works for business almost all of the time. Start talking 9s on
> the desktop and you'll find that it's the best desktop OS out there.
> That's why it's the most popular OS for the desktop. On the server
> Windows 2000 has made innovative inroads into the UNIX space at a
Mind telling me how W2K costs less than $0?
ROTFLOL
> fraction of the cost. It will only get better from here. Linux is
It'd need to get better! Well, at least you don't need to reboot
your 24x7 server if you change the IP address on one of the secondary
network interfaces now :-)
> great! Only because Microsoft works best under pressure.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:34:26 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [repetitive comments snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry David, you lose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't the one preaching about off-topic posting while writing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such postings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You were the one preaching about "stop being a hypocrite and grow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up", Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, Dave.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So why did you bring up "off-topic posting", Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>> Just staying on topic. Look at the thread topic.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm looking at what you wrote, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> Of what relevance is this self-evident remark?
>>>>>>>> It shows that you brought up "off-topic posting", Marty,
>>>>>>> Irrelevant, as doing so was an act of staying on topic.
>>>>>> Exactly how does that statement represent an act of staying on topic,
>>>>> See the subject line.
>>>> See what I was talking about, Marty, which deals directly with what
>>>> you were talking about.
>>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>> MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>> ]
>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
> How does that deal with "Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)"?
It deals with what you posted, Marty. If you wish to claim that what
you posted was on-topic, then my response must also be on-topic.
>>>>>> when the topic was about you practicing what you were preaching with
>>>>>> regard to "Stop being a hypocrite and grow up", Marty?
>>>>> Incorrect. See the subject line.
>>>> See what you wrote, Marty:
>>>>
>>>> MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>> Note the nature of the hypocrisy to which I was referring and how it deals
>>> with the subject line.
>> Note how you don't practice what you preach, Marty.
> I didn't "preach" about off-topic postings, Dave.
You preached about hypocrisy, Marty.
>>>>>>>> despite the fact that I was suggesting that you practice what you
>>>>>>>> preach.
>>>>>>> You made no such suggestion, Dave.
>>>>>> Incorrect:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>> That's not a suggestion, Dave.
>>>> Yes it is, Marty.
>>> Consult your grammar school English teacher to verify that your statement was
>>> an imperative.
>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
> Unnecessary, as I already knew that the statement in question was an
> imperative.
You obviously don't know that it is a suggestion, Marty.
>>> Suggestions are given in a passive tone.
>> Not necessarily, Marty.
> Evidence, please.
See my aforementioned suggestion, Marty.
>>>>>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>>>>> Not at all.
>>>> Then why don't you recognize
>>>>
>>>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>
>>>> as a suggestion?
>>> Because I am correctly identifying it as an imperative.
>> You're failing to recognize it as a suggestion, Marty.
> Because I am correctly identifying it as an imperative.
You're failing to recognize it as a suggestion, Marty.
>>>>>>>> Context, Marty.
>>>>>>> Like the thread topic, for example?
>>>>>> Are you able to comprehend that?
>>>>> Obviously.
>>>> Then why don't you recognize
>>>>
>>>> MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>>>
>>>> as the topic?
>>> Because the topic is "Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)".
>> Yet you were talking about someone being a hypocrite, Marty.
> Very good Dave. Note the nature of the hypocrisy to which I was referring.
Note the nature of my response, Marty.
>>>>>> You certainly didn't comprehend that I wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>> Incorrect. You simply failed to realize that it was not a suggestion.
>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who doesn't recognize it as a
>>>> suggestion.
>>> Where is the irony?
>> DT] coming from the person who doesn't recognize it as a suggestion.
> Repeating your statement does not provide demonstration of irony, Dave.
It does answer your question regarding the whereabouts of the irony,
Marty.
>>> I have correctly identified the statement as an imperative.
>> You failed to recognize it as a suggestion, Marty.
> Because I am correctly identifying it as an imperative.
You're failing to recognize it as a suggestion, Marty.
------------------------------
From: Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Convince me to run Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:50:39 GMT
I really do want to run Linux but I can't find any viable reason to
switch from Windows ME to Linux?
My Dell comes with Windows ME installed as well as internet access and
all of the programs, including Quicken, encyclopedias and children's
scholastic program's all pre installed.
Why should I switch to Linux?
I asked Dell about Linux when I placed my order, about 2 weeks ago,
and they laughed saying that 99 percent of the Linux pre-loads they
shipped come back with the customers asking for the Windows pre-load
instead.
According to them, it is just a matter of them exchanging the hard
disk?
I have not committed to my order yet, but I am having second thoughts?
What viable reasons are there for going with Linux?
Izzy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:58:12 -0400
From: Larry Ebbitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
2:1 wrote:
>
> The early OSs were a lot less than DOS was. Dos is an old OS. 20 years
> ago, that wasw about all the OS you could fit o to one of those
> computers, but it was still an OS. Just because it was used long past
> it's use-by data, doesn't make it any less of an OS.
The industry standards and real OS's were around long before DOS for
OC's. IBM had a couple and UNIX was around.
------------------------------
From: [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: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:14:09 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <NIsE5.50444$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bill Gates belongs in jail. So does Steve Ballmer. So do a dozen other MS
> executives past and present. Microsoft was built on theft, lies, and
> plagiarism, and it hasn't changed a damn bit. It never will. You're one of
> the apparently endless number of fools who can't or refuse to see this.
>
> Software in general, but especially OS software, is at LEAST 10 years behind
> where it would have been if not for Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, et al, and
> their utterly evil willingness to stifle any and all competition illegally
> while investing next to nothing in improving their own products.
>
> This is not conjecture. It is not bitter spewing from a Microsoft hater.
> It is fact. It has been proven. It is reality.
This is what I cannot understand. It is clear from the trial that
microsoft personnel committed purjury but I hear nothing about
them being charged with anything. Is there any justice in the
USA?
------------------------------
From: [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...?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:07:16 GMT
It, unfortunately, depends on how much money you have :(
Ever hear of a cat named O.J. Simpson?
claire
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:14:09 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This is what I cannot understand. It is clear from the trial that
>microsoft personnel committed purjury but I hear nothing about
>them being charged with anything. Is there any justice in the
>USA?
------------------------------
From: Mark McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:08:34 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:01:41 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<babbly>
GET THIS OUT OF COMP.LANG.C its utterly nontopical....
--
Mark McIntyre
C- FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
------------------------------
From: "Hung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:18:58 +0800
If Win ME satisfies your needs, stick with it. Only you yourself can
convince yourself whether you nee Linux. We are not Linux salesman here. Heh
heh.
"Linux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I really do want to run Linux but I can't find any viable reason to
> switch from Windows ME to Linux?
>
> My Dell comes with Windows ME installed as well as internet access and
> all of the programs, including Quicken, encyclopedias and children's
> scholastic program's all pre installed.
>
>
> Why should I switch to Linux?
>
> I asked Dell about Linux when I placed my order, about 2 weeks ago,
> and they laughed saying that 99 percent of the Linux pre-loads they
> shipped come back with the customers asking for the Windows pre-load
> instead.
>
> According to them, it is just a matter of them exchanging the hard
> disk?
>
> I have not committed to my order yet, but I am having second thoughts?
>
> What viable reasons are there for going with Linux?
>
> Izzy
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:22:38 -0400
You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
you will have to answer.
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > You continue to repeat the same arguments
>
> How ironic.
>
> > which futilely attempt to characterize my replys to your personal
> > attacks and name-calling
>
> Which themselves were replies to your personal attacks on others and
> namecalling of others. How ironic.
>
> > as 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers.
>
> I am an OS/2 developer and I've pointed out how your comments are both
> harassment and denigrating. You haven't refuted a single one, I'll add.
>
> > You have falsely accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > developers.
>
> Classic pontification.
>
> > For that, you will have to answer.
>
> I already have answered as much as I am required. Even moreso perhaps, as I
> have bothered to post another response to you, which was not required.
>
> > Reposting the same arguments in this forum only digs a deeper hole for
> > you.
>
> I've cited my evidence which you haven't been able to refute. Looks like
> you're the one in the hole.
>
> > And you fail to understand the significance of your claim to be an
> > OS/2 developer.
>
> Not at all. I develop software for OS/2. Period.
>
> > I am not contesting that you are an OS/2 developer.
>
> So why have you yet to establish it, referring to me as an "alleged" developer
> or some such tone?
>
> > Rather, I am pointing to this claim of yours as increasing the damage
>
> You're erroneously presupposing some "damage" that can be "increased".
>
> > that your false accusation of 'harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > developers'
>
> I've already pointed out why your statement is a lie. If I've got something
> wrong, feel free to point it out. You haven't done so to date, and instead
> have preferred to continually pontificate on the matter.
>
> > has done by adding undeserved credibility to your false accusation.
>
> On what basis do you claim it is "undeserved"? Hard evidence was presented.
> It was repeated. Though it is understandably very damaging to your position,
> repetition earns it no more credence than it had the first time it was
> posted. It was repeated to aid your apparently lacking understanding on the
> matter and to encourage you to attempt to refute it, since you feel so
> strongly that it is incorrect. One can lead a horse to water...
>
> > I recommend that you confer with competent legal counsel on this
>
> Why bother? Are you interested in wasting your funds on unnecessary legal
> fees?
>
> > and refrain from further comments on your false accusation until such
> > time.
>
> I'll say what I choose, when I choose. That's what this country is all
> about. I told the truth to the best of my knowledge and pointed to facts
> underlining said truth. You have merely pontificated to the contrary. Looks
> like I was right about you all along.
>
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You repeat your arguments to yourself
> > >
> > > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > > and incorrectly seem to feel that that gives them weight.
> > >
> > > What you perceive that I "seem to feel" is irrelevant. Nonetheless, your
> > > statement is quite ironic, given that your posting consisted solely of a
> > > restatement of your arguments with no supporting evidence for your position.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > > You have accused me of harassing and denigrating OS/2 developers.
> > >
> > > Incorrect. I have accused you of lying, and rightfully so.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > > That is completely false (and ridiculous as well for reasons you are not
> > > > yet aware of). Glatt accused me of being on a mission to harass and
> > > > denigrate OS/2 developers. You have supported his false accusation
> > >
> > > Incorrect. More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > > by publicly posting that: 1) you consider yourself to be an OS/2
> > > > developer
> > >
> > > I am not alone in that consideration.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > > and 2) My statement denying any harassment and denigration of OS/2
> > > > developers is false.
> > >
> > > I have shown your harassment and denigration of myself by providing a
> > > definition of each word and applying it to various quotes of yours which were
> > > addressed to (or should I say "at") me.
> > >
> > > haˇrass (hrs, h-rs)
> > > v. tr. haˇrassed, haˇrassˇing, haˇrassˇes.
> > >
> > > 1.To irritate or torment persistently.
> > > 2.To wear out; exhaust.
> > > 3.To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
> > >
> > > denˇiˇgrate (dn-grt)
> > > v. tr. denˇiˇgratˇed, denˇiˇgratˇing, denˇiˇgrates.
> > >
> > > 1.To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
> > > 2.To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
> > >
> > > DTJ] I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1
> > >
> > > DTJ] perhaps you need to reevaluate your surroundings since you fail to
> > > impress me as being extraordinarily bright, yourself.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1
> > >
> > > DTJ] I doubt that your typical comments can be "dumbed" down any further.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] As for the substance of your comment, it appears to be as garbled
> > > and confused as Marty's.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] I am starting to feel like I am being flamed by a gaggle of
> > > fifth-graders.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > >
> > > DTJ] I was pointing to Marty's mental confusion.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > Harass: 1,3
> > >
> > > DTJ] The entire thrust of your posts over the last week seems to be
> > > personal attacks. I am losing respect for you.
> > >
> > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > >
> > > ...
>
> Note: no response.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: 14 Oct 2000 00:19:51 GMT
Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really do want to run Linux but I can't find any viable reason to
> switch from Windows ME to Linux?
[snip Dells preload stuff]
> Why should I switch to Linux?
Why do you really want to run Linux if you don't have any reason to
switch?
[Should I order a Dell preloaded with Linux?]
> What viable reasons are there for going with Linux?
-You like the Linux like OpenSource stuff.
-You like to tinker with your machine.
-You disklike an(y) other OS.
-The programs you can't live without only run on Linux.
-Stability
-Remote Administration
-hundreths of other reasons.
Just use the OS that fullfills your needs and makes you happy, for many
that a version of MS Windows, for others it is a unixlike OS. Why not
try both by making your system a dualboot one?
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:23:00 -0400
You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
you will have to answer.
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > chrisv wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Psst... I am an OS/2 developer.
> > > >
> > > > It looks to me like you're doing the harassing....
> > >
> > > Take another look at where this thread started. Then examine threads with the
> > > name "Wenham" in the title (or any correspondence between David and Chris
> > > Wenham).
> >
> > You disagree with my opinions about Wenham's comments...
>
> I pointed out your hypocrisy on the matter. Are you still unable/unwilling to
> comprehend this simple point?
>
> > > I'm not denying that I am returning the harassment,
> >
> > You have not been harassed but you are admitting that you are harassing
> > me...
>
> Bzzt. I already presented the evidence showing your harassment of me. You
> are once again pontificating on the matter. Here's my evidence again, which
> you have yet to refute in any form:
>
> haˇrass (hrs, h-rs)
> v. tr. haˇrassed, haˇrassˇing, haˇrassˇes.
>
> 1.To irritate or torment persistently.
> 2.To wear out; exhaust.
> 3.To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
>
> denˇiˇgrate (dn-grt)
> v. tr. denˇiˇgratˇed, denˇiˇgratˇing, denˇiˇgrates.
>
> 1.To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
> 2.To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
>
> DTJ] I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
>
> Denigrate: 1
>
> DTJ] perhaps you need to reevaluate your surroundings since you fail to
> impress me as being extraordinarily bright, yourself.
>
> Denigrate: 1,2
> Harass: 1,3
>
> DTJ] H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
>
> Denigrate: 1
>
> DTJ] I doubt that your typical comments can be "dumbed" down any further.
>
> Denigrate: 1,2
> Harass: 1,3
>
> DTJ] As for the substance of your comment, it appears to be as garbled
> and confused as Marty's.
>
> Denigrate: 1,2
> Harass: 1,3
>
> DTJ] I am starting to feel like I am being flamed by a gaggle of
> fifth-graders.
>
> Denigrate: 1,2
>
> DTJ] I was pointing to Marty's mental confusion.
>
> Denigrate: 1,2
> Harass: 1,3
>
> DTJ] The entire thrust of your posts over the last week seems to be
> personal attacks. I am losing respect for you.
>
> Denigrate: 1,2
>
> ...
>
> > > but I "didn't start the fire". David feels that he should be able to
> > > tell us who the good guys and bad guys are and what people should and
> > > should not say.
> >
> > Again, you disagree with my posted opinions about 1) Wenham's pattern of
> > posts, 2) the ugly Tholen "insanity" thread, and 3) the large number of
> > off-topic posts.
>
> Again you show evidence of a complete failure to comprehend 2 consecutive
> sentences I've written in our recent exchanges. I stated no opinion on these
> matters. Rather, I've pointed out the hypocrisy inherent in your opinions.
>
> > Rather than "step in" and offer constructive comments with a differing
> > opinion,
>
> Like your constructive comments toward Chris Wenham and Aaron R. Kulkis, for
> example? Hypocrite.
>
> > you have chosen to make continuous personal attacks and name-calling
>
> How ironic.
>
> > culminating in a false accusation against me of 'harassment of OS/2
> > developers.'
>
> Incorrect. I claimed that one of your statements is a lie. You still fail to
> comprehend this fact.
>
> > > Unfortunately, he screwed up and started discussions that fell under
> > > his own "should not say" category, and that's when I stepped in.
> >
> > That is your opinion (which I strongly disagree with) and you were and
> > are free to express it.
>
> You were free to express valid reasons for your strong disagreement, but
> failed to do so.
>
> > But you are not free to falsely accuse me of harassment of 'OS/2
> > developers' or of anyone else.
>
> I accused you of lying. And rightfully so. Re-examine the original exchange
> before you waste any more time.
>
> > > He also tends to repeat himself in preference to providing evidence to
> > > back up anything he says (look for his references to "garbled,
> > > illogical", etc.), but that's another issue.
> >
> > Yes, it is.
>
> One which further establishes your hypocrisy and ability to pontificate.
>
> > > In short, take another look. Take note of who is providing evidence
> > > and who is "snipping" the "irrelevant ranting".
> >
> > Trimming portions of posts in reply is the privelege of the person
> > making the reply.
>
> So is failure to provide evidence, empty pontifications, and hypocrisy
> according to your book.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
