Linux-Advocacy Digest #646, Volume #29 Sat, 14 Oct 00 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Double standards around here :( (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Double standards around here :( (elmig)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Astroturfing ("JS/PL")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Linux Sucks ("Les Mikesell")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Microsoft kicked off the Web! (Charlie Ebert)
Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Convince me to run Linux? ("Philo")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
Re: Magnetism ("ostracus")
Re: Astroturfing ("Drestin Black")
Re: Astroturfing ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double standards around here :(
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:13:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It seems we have different standards around here.
>
> Someone doubts my post about Hotmail being down and the message I
> received.
>
> I post proof of it.
Furthermore, it was subsequently substantiated by press releases,
announcements, and apologies. Yes, it went down, it was down
for a short time (about an hour?), and then it came back up.
This was even announced on several network news programs, including
CNBC and CNN. Let's face it, back when Hotmail was running on Suns,
an outage was a newsworthy event. But, it's only newsworthy the first
two or three times. And since Microsoft has switched the proxy-servers
(the web servers that provide the front-end for the UNIX back-ends),
Hotmail outages have gone from being "big news" to "again?".
> Somebody else posts a message about
> Winvocates being paid by MS to
> troll this group.
>
> I ask for proof and get called an idiot.
Again, this was somewhat substantiated. Shortly after the publication
of the "Halloween Document", which was published almost exactly two
years ago, Microsoft announced that they had hired 25 programmers to
"deal with the Linux Problem". Essentially, they were being paid, by
Microsoft, to discredit Linux in as many ways as possible. This
included cooking up benchmarks in which Windows NT could outperform
Linux, spreading misinformation on the internet to intimidate those
who were curious about Linux. They also targeted certain information
sources such as those who post regularly on forums such as this.
The tactics were very surgical, and usually anonymous. For example,
when a dialogue discussing the comparitive reliability between Linux
2.2.11 and versions of UNIX such as Solaris, AIX, and HP_UX were
resulting in statements such as "compared to Solaris, Linux isn't as
reliable". This would be snipped to "Top Guru says Linux unreliable".
The intent was to mislead the reader into thinking that Linux was
less reliable than Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 3.
In many cases, specific sources, were also targeted for purposes of
attacking their credibility. If a poster posted a 25,000 word
document, and there was an unsubstantiatable assertion in the 73rd
paragraph, that paragraph would be snipped, quoted out of context,
and challenged as if every other element of the posting was also
inaccuarate.
In many cases, the unsubstantiatable assertion was actually
information protected by strict nondisclosure agreements, often
with the poster's employer or client. The challenger was nearly
always anonymous, leaving either no clue at all as to identity,
or using an msn.com e-mail address.
On the other hand, it was hard to tell who was playing which angle.
One character, "Roger", was regularly challenging nearly everything
I posted. I began to notice that each time I gave him clues as to
where to look (since I was restricted by NDAs myself at the time),
the DOJ would announce a breakthrough in the case. I still have no
clue who Roger was, but I was happy to respond to his challenges
whenever he chose to do so.
As you notice, I post my web site at the bottom of each of
my postings (or the bottom of the last posting when it is
chopped up by dejanews). This is so that those who wish
to can examine my credentials can do so. I'll admit, I get
more calls from head-hunters than I might really like, but
I'd rather let people know a little too much than try and
be a nameless pseudonym with no past, no real name, no
physical appearance, and no context other than the Microsoft
web site to back me up. I include some of the most frequently
requested references right on the home page.
Unfortunately, I tend to be a bit too busy doing what I do as a
IT Systems Architect (the original, I was the first to use that
term as a Job Title in 1991).
> For all I know Kulkis is getting paid by
> RedHat to troll around. You
> certainly post quite a few messages.
Actually, there are a number of us who are paid by companies who
can benefit from either a stronger Linux (UNIX and Open Source)
or from a weaker Microsoft (bargaining leverage). Much like
"Mission Impossible", they formally disavow all knowledge of
our activities.
When I worked for one company, the management made sure I was well
informed, but made sure that nothing could be traced back to
deliberatly provided information. I had a cubicle which put
my back to the Microsoft representative. I could hear every
word she said, I could hear her bargaining techniques, and I
could hear every conversation she had with her immediate
supervisor. I could even hear some conversations she had
with Steve Balmer and the other top executives. I blew
my cover when I left a Linux CD-ROM in her cubicle. I can
only disclose this now because my nondisclosure agreements
with this company have expired. Even so, I'll leave it
to the investigator to dig up WHICH company :-).
Quite simply, Microsoft had targeted this company for a certain
amount of money, for each fiscal quarter, and they were going
to get it any way they could. Initially, they were assuming
an automatic upgrade to Office, with initial purchases of
Office for about 30,000 workers who had PCs at home that
they used to do company related work. I had already read
the fine print on the licenses, pointed out the additional
purchases (nearly $3 million dollars), and about two weeks
later, Gartner noticed it too. Prudential opted to skip
that upgrade and wait for the next version.
Eventually, Microsoft performed a license audit, explaining
their definition of a client access license. It was an
expensive lesson, worth over $2 million. I made assertions,
but I couldn't back them up without exposing my client.
I was once asked to make xerox copies and get them to my boss
as quickly as possible. When I got to the copier, there was
a contract left on the glass. It wasn't market as confidential,
and I dropped it on the floor. As I was sorting the pile, I noticed
that it was a draft of a contract with Microsoft. I noticed a bit
more, but noticed that it hadn't been signed, I didn't even know
whose it was. I left it on the copier, made the copies my boss
requested, and gave him the copies and the originals. Later that
night (I worked till about 11:00 PM that night), I noticed that
the contract had disappeared.
My current clients are also aware of my Linux advocacy. Again,
they don't pay me to advocate. They don't even officially
acknowledge that I do it. On the other hand, they send me clips,
e-mails, and leave interesting tidbits lying around where I'm sure
to see them.
I even have some anonymous "fans" who publish information to
distribution lists which include information that is very
interesting to a Linux advocate like myself. And finally,
my personalized web page seems to constantly have links to
publishable information about Linux (links to other articles).
There were some things I couldn't disclose until now, like
the availability of MQSeries Server for Linux (now available
in beta form
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/ts/mqseries/announceoct/mqseriesv52/MQLX4Q
0052.pdf
(sorry about the wrap).
> So where is your specific proof that winvocates in this group are
> getting paid by MS?
It was originally announced by Microsoft! I believe the official
announcement was around November of 1998. Appearantly Tux was really
messing up Billy's christmas :-). I was actually contacted by
Microsoft, and "invited" (like the state trooper invites you to
pull over by flashing his lights and getting the siren to who
"whoop":-). Needless to say, I didn't get the job because I didn't
have "the Microsoft Religeon" (I'm lucky I wasn't burned at the stake
as a heritic).
> Show me somebody posting from a microsoft.com address, or listed
> somewhere on the net as a Microsoft employee etc.
That's the point. Most of these efforts are "stealth" tactics.
If someone like "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" posted a challenge to
a Linux poster, and left the link to his "Official Microsoft Bio"
on the bottom of the page, he'd lose his vote immediately.
On the other hand, posting from msn.com or hotmail.com addersses
just make them "one in a few million". And you can BET Microsoft
tries to protect the privacy of their "Linux Ninjas" much more
carefully than they protect the privacy of their own customers.
> These are specific comments that need
> specific facts and proof to back
> them up.
Actually, Microsoft only has a "staff" of about 20 people, and they
probably spend most of their time working on much bigger fish than
a few usenet junkies in comp.os.linux.advocacy. There are a few
very articulate posters who were attacked relentlessly until their
constant and consistent replies, often more damaging to Microsoft
than the original post being challenged, made it clear that it's
best not to feed the mouth that bites you.
> So where are they?
Actually, many of the people accused of being "on the payroll" are
actually not. In fact, most are actually committed to Microsoft
because of other economic interests. Some are consultants with
"special relationships" with Microsoft. They like getting free
software and client referrals, and they like defending Microsoft.
Others, like "S", was eventially identified with another identity
who was boasting about his stock manipulation ability. The evidence
was not overwhelming (same year, make, and model corvette, same
girlfriend's unusual name, same unusual sexual practices, and
similar spelling and grammer styles). Still, an anonymous
e-mailer did provide the curious with several links to the related
postings that made a strong argument.
Others are just plain scared. When you spend $6,000 to get your
MCSE, spend thousands of hours trying to stay on top of Microsoft's
ever-shifting architecture, and spend years collecting first-names,
phone numbers, and direct e-mails of people who have actually SEEN
Microsoft source code, the prospect of having Linux completely
nullify all that has got to be a bit threatening.
Keep in mind, there are thousands of programmers, many of whom
post on this list, whose only exposure to Linux, or any verion of
UNIX, is a failed 3 hour attempt to perform an unassisted
installation of a dual-boot Linux system, without making a
back-up.
Certainly, this is still the most traumatic part of the Linux
experience. Now that Dell, IBM, and others are offering
preinstalled Linux, the curious should be encouraged to go this
route. It's much easier to make the transition from a Linux system
custom configured for your PC to Windows 98 or Windows ME than to
go from Windows ME to a dual-boot Windows ME/Linux system. If Win98
prices come down, it should be a no-brainer.
> Claire
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:21:14 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have sent your post to that person and thank you, but my point is
> this.
>
> "You" know how to do this stuff.
> He, and just about every other newbie who tries Linux does not. Notice
> his comment about this topic being rehashed a lot? That's because it
> is NOT easy compared to Windows.
>
> Under Windows with Norton or BlackIce or ZoneAlarm, this is trivial,
> and he doesn't have to worry about screwing up and leaving himself
> open to attack because of his ignorance of the subject. It's all be
> taken care of by the experts although he is free to modify any
> parameter he wishes freely.
What's a Norton or BlackIce or ZoneAlarm, and how did you find
out about them? I know someone in a remote office that has
spent ages trying to make winproxy and RRAS on NT act as a
VPN for several other machines. Last week he tried to put
in a local mail server and ended up with a loop that bounced
everything.
> It's not that it "can't" be done under Linux, it's just figuring out
> where the documentation is that explains HOW to do it.
> And then, being able to understand how to implement the changes.
Linux stuff is pretty straightforward compared to getting something
to actually work under Windows. I've dropped Linux boxes in other
remote offices as mail servers (among other things) that have run
unattended for years.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (elmig)
Subject: Re: Double standards around here :(
Date: 14 Oct 2000 03:25:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It seems we have different standards around here.
>
>Someone doubts my post about Hotmail being down and the message I
>received.
>
>I post proof of it.
>
>Somebody else posts a message about Winvocates being paid by MS to
>troll this group.
>
>I ask for proof and get called an idiot.
>
>If you can't at least make even a lame attempt at backing up your
>statements, it is you who are the Astroturfer.
>
>For all I know Kulkis is getting paid by RedHat to troll around. You
>certainly post quite a few messages.
>
>
>So where is your specific proof that winvocates in this group are
>getting paid by MS?
>
>Show me somebody posting from a microsoft.com address, or listed
>somewhere on the net as a Microsoft employee etc.
>
>These are specific comments that need specific facts and proof to back
>them up.
>
>So where are they?
>
>Claire
How many guys support linux around here? Are they pay? If so send me some
money to!
elmig
http://www.alunos.ipb.pt/~ee3931
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:31:51 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xXOF5.9099$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Finding a now non-existent undocumented API
> > should be easy enough for those who actualy care.
> How about this scenario: initial versions of MS software used
> undocumented API's that were later moved into DLL's that are
> supplied by the app(s) that need them? How else do you get
> from a situation where IE isn't even included as part of the OS
> to one where they can claim it is an essential part? Why else
> would MS apps update the system DLL's?
It is still easy enoguh to see if the API exists in the system or not.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:29:34 -0400
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > > What's wrong with Windows 2000?
> > >
> > > Stabilty.
> > >
> > > Still not ready for prime time.
> >
> > My Linux apps crash nearly every time, shit, half of them won't even
start.
> >
> > My Win2K apps never crash. Who's not ready for prime time?
>
> Oh come on. I know how hard it is to rigorousl proove something, but you
> don't even provide a shread of anecdotal evidence. If I complained that
> mk Win2K apps crashed *all* the time, you would say that something was
> wrong. Use your brain...
>
> -Ed
What kind of proof do you need? I've got a stock Mandrake 7.1 installation
on an Abit dual 500 celeron motherboard, with 256mb ram, supported video,
supported sound, supported modem, supported network card etc... The system
is a walk in the park for Windows. Linux manages to see both processors,
64mb of the 256mb of ram and the applications which were automatically
installed crash regularly or won't start at all. For instance, it has three
news readers, ONE manages to open. Another of them opened ONCE then crashed
and now won't start. Netscapes newsreader works. A number of other apps wont
open or crash constistently. The worst is the "file manager" or whatever
it's called in Linux, I open it and stare at the "working..." notice at the
bottom of the window (for hours), which is a pretty ironic message
considering that it ISN'T WORKING!
I have nothing against Linux, one of these days they'll be able to compete
with Microsoft, but they've got a LONG way to go before being ready for
primetime in the desktop market.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:33:31 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >Well that would imply that MS had thought out using undocumented apis
> >with the mind towards changing them to screw people later... I don't
> >know what I think of that idea...
> I think it is an accurate interpretation of the facts:
> "I doubt they [Digital Research] will be able to clone Windows. It is
> very difficult to do technically, we have made it a moving target and we
> have some visual copyright and patent protection. I believe people
> underestimate the impact DR-DOS has had on us in terms of pricing."
> (Bill Gates, May 18, 1989)
Moving target may mean adding APIs not necessarily changing them.
I am not a windows programmer (and neither are you) so I would
tend to hold off on making assumptions about what that statement means.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:34:09 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I agree with that, but the same could be said of a Commodore-64, or an
> Atari.
Or a Mac.
> When setup properly Linux is no more difficult to use than any other
> system assuming that the application base contains everything the
> person needs.
>
> The problem arises when changes need or want to be made. A newer
> scanner or printer, or software that exists only in the Windows world.
> Maybe the person want's to try AOL (God help them) or one of the free
> isp's.
Odd, you never hear Mac people complaining about not being
able to use all that great Windows stuff....
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:36:36 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> No.
> >> >
> >> >Then shut up until you can provide proof.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Then you maintain no credibility as usual.
>
> Maybe in your opinion.
No, no opinion is necessary, it is the result of the equation.
Absurd statement + Refusal to provide a shred of proof = no credibility.
I feel sorry for you.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:46:24 GMT
Microsoft has such a small grip on the WEB you could functionally
declare
their bid for the market over.
I think they just keep it open to say they have one.
Linux kicked Microsoft's butt in 1999 on server sales in general.
This year proves to be little different.
When it comes to WEB serving or just general office file serving,
Microsoft is disappearing from the scene.
The boxed server software is still there for sale, but companies
are just not buying it anymore.
I wonder how much workstation Linux will get in 2000.
That's Microsoft's final frontier!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:39:15 GMT
I've been reading all these messages around the internet about how
easily people have been setting up their Linux distributions. I'm here
to tell you that it is in fact, not easy at all to setup a Linux
distribution onto an older machine. I'm a software developer in real
life, and have been pushing my company to support more and more open
source solutions. I don't know why I've been doing this now, because I
have tried over the last two months to get my RedHat 6.2 distribution
setup on my older Compaq 133mHz machine. It took me several tries to
get it running, and a little personal help from a linux guru. After
that, I could never get the damn thing to talk to the internet. Why?
I don't know why, I have a 3C509B-TPO card, I guess I have to do more
than disable the PNP etc, blah, blah, blah. I have a Linksys firewall
in which it can talk to, but it refuses. I'm wondering why I don't
just set up another windows os on that machine. It's easy, and it
works. But, I HATE WINDOWS!! I own RedHat stock, I'm pushing for open
source solutions, but admit it!!! Linux is NOT ready for primetime as
far as a personal computer, desktop solution. Save the figures about
Apache on the web, and SendMail, I'm talking about a home computer
desktop solution!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:50:09 -0500
actually you should run both...i figure...the more operating systems...the
better.
either dual boot...
or to play it really safe...just get a removable drive kit...they are about
$15 apiece...
Linux will take some getting used to...but when you get used to it it will
have been worth it.
--
Philo
website: www.plazaearth.com/philo
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:52:22 GMT
In article <UgXx5.9584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I said almost because their MIGHT be one or two
> pieces of software that weren't for Windows, but
> I couldn't find 'em.
These are some very interesting references:
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/cautwarn.html
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/106.LAN.nominal.html
>
> At least a few of them are windows, but, judging by the
> software it says the no-named-OS computers are running,
> it appears they are Windows as well.
>
> No mention of Linux, MacOS, or *laf* OS/2
Actually, it could be various UNIX Variants. Lynx (real-time UNIX),
SCO UNIX, and nearly all of the BSD systems would be "no-name".
Also, these could have been FORTH computers. This is very likely
since FORTH is frequently used in robotics and time-critical
and mission critical systems. Furthermore, there are so few FORTH
programmers, and they are paid so well, that there is almost no
need to promote it. Your car computer is probably programmed in
FORTH. Your VCR, Microwave, and possibly your Thermostat are running
FORTH. At work, your copier, Fax machine, and answering machine are
probably programmed in FORTH. You can even get FORTH for your Palm
Pilot. Even many PDAs are written in FORTH.
One of the first PDA type devices, the Federal Express
SuperTracker is/was programmed in FORTH. The nice thing
about FORTH is that you only need a 2K ROM and 2 K of RAM
and a $5 microcontroller chip to create a computer so reliable
that you actually have to put in special program code to reboot
it (The Fedex Couriers used to run a penny across the ROM chip
to force it to reset if they missed a delivery, by early 1988,
even the programmers couldn't force it to reset - they had to
take it apart to short the storage capacitor before it would die.).
About 18 months later, Federal Express won the Malcom Baldridge
Award - their super-trackers were able to reduce "lost"
packages to about 4 packages per million. The tracker itself
went from 5% scans lost, to 5 scans lost per million, (and those
were usually intentional). In fact, most of the "lost" packages
were actually either stolen or seized as evidence.
The nice thing about the FORTH computers is that they can be
operated remotely from the UNIX systems at Mission Control, and
preprogrammed for the key sequences during reentry (when
communication is no longer possible).
I did notice that most of the computers shown appeared to be used
as display consoles. If you can't see the indicator lights for a
few seconds, it's no big deal.
> Guess they actually want some productivity. They also
> trust their lives to it because they know that when it's
> properly set up, NT can be the most stable OS available
> (2nd only to Win2k, of course).
Or rather, that Windows NT is reliable enough and cheap enough
for use in non-critical systems when operated by a flight crew
who is sufficiently trained to handle the typical "reboot the
system" type problems.
In fact, many of the computers were actually Windows 95 consoles.
Would you bet your life that Windows 95, running on a Thinkpad Laptop
wouldn't crash for 7-10 days?
You've seen pictures of what replaced the "blinking lights". It's
actually a pretty good idea.
If the Pilot's console crashed during reentry, toasting the pilot
and crew, you'd bet they would be looking to put UNIX on those
laptops.
> -Chad
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Magnetism
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:02:23 +0500
In article <8s7b51$na2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gregory L. Hansen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What are the odds of finding a GNU project for the design of magnets and
> magnetic shielding?
>
>
http://sal.kachinatech.com/index.shtml
Is always a good place to start a search.
--
There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire
become a great writer.
When asked to define "great" he said, "I want to write stuff that
the whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a
truly emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl
in pain and anger!"
He now works for Microsoft, writing error messages.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 13 Oct 2000 23:05:15 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [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.
Prove it. Document "well known"
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 13 Oct 2000 23:05:37 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s7jsg$13f8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You were the one who said "people" are paid by MS to post here.
>
> > Now prove your statement.
>
> You are an idiot. Its actually been confirmed over the years that
> one or two people have indeed reaped financial benefit from microsoft
> by posting FUD here. This doesnt mean that everyone who does it
> is making money. You need courses in semantics and logic, respectively.
Actually confirmed? Where. Show us. Document ANY part of you claim in any
way shape or form.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
