Linux-Advocacy Digest #658, Volume #29 Sat, 14 Oct 00 16:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future!
Re: A Public Service Announcement (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (Bob Hauck)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again (Marty)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again (Marty)
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... (unicat)
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles (sfcybear)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (2:1)
Re: Astroturfing ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Anybody want to test a widget? (2:1)
Re: welcome to the world of objects (Thomas Corriher)
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech ("kosh")
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:44:29 GMT
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 10/11/00, 12:47:49 PM, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote=
=20
regarding Re: The Power of the Future!:
> You mean http://www.aom.pace.edu/meetings/1999/INTEL1.htm? I'll=20
quote:
> IBM=92s continued use of the Intel architecture for its PC line was on=
ce
> again the most important design win. Several factors were important to=
> IBM in making this selection. These included the strengths of Intel's
> microprocessor technology, development tools, and marketing support,=20
as
> well as cross-licensing agreements that allowed multiple=20
manufacturers
> to source these microprocessors. According to Gordon Moore,
> "The 80286 was introduced in 1982, and we were given huge
> forecasts. This was a new generation of products, and we had IBM using=
> several other things too. It looked like we would need more than we
> would be able to make ourselves. So we ended up sourcing the 286
> technology very widely. We had AMD in the United States, Fujitsu in
> Japan, and Siemens in Europe. We did lots of sourcing. The actual=20
demand
> was about 1/3 of what we had been led to believe, so this turned out=20
to
> be a very competitive business. We essentially gave away the profits=20
on
> several generations of product."
> Read that carefully. If Intel had sold the processors made by AMD how=
> could there have been competition? Just sell only the one's you built=
> :-) How could they have given away profits unless someone else was
> selling Intel designs under the AMD or Fujitsu or Siemens name? So we=
> have contradiction and nowhere does it say that Intel sold AMD chips. =
=20
I
> repeat -- nowhere does it say that Intel sold chips of AMD manufacture=
> as Intel branded products.
It's probable that Intel contracted with AMD to build processors in=20
anticipation of demand and when the market was a bust intel had to=20
sell these chips. Selling them with a AMD brand would be the last=20
think a Intel would do - Intel is working on branding products=20
regardless of who makes them (BRAND !=3D Manufacturer). It would be=20
common sense to label prodcutds Intel has bought with the intel brand=20
and sell them as intel branded products. If they sold AMD branded=20
chips they'd be telling their customers the AMD brand was=20
interchangeable. =20
> The word "sourcing" turns up several times but that just means that
> Intel licensed the design and other folks built and sold them under
> their respective brand names, not under the Intel nameplate.
Typically sourcing out work doesn't mean you let them use their brand=20
to compete against you in the market. I would not know of any example=20
where say MS outsoruced work and branded the product with a non-MS=20
lable. Or Ford or any electronic company. =20
It appears you haven't considered the importance of product BRANDING. =20
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: A Public Service Announcement
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:43:42 GMT
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:20:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Taken from the firewall group:
Golly, and it looks like I already have all those patches installed.
>Looks like it's been a busy week.
Yes, usually we only see that many announcements about LookOut.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:43:44 GMT
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:02:58 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ironically, Microsoft has been killing it's own market. They
>created checks that now make it impossible to develop server
>software on workstation editions.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? What sort of "checks" are done?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:43:43 GMT
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:50:54 +0100, Nigel Feltham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Maybe you could use the "generic/text-only" driver.
>
>As far as I can tell MS dropped the text printer driver when they ditched
>win3.11 as I cannot find it in NT or win9x.
I coulda swore it was there in NT. Can't check until Monday.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:57:51 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> 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 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.
> >
> > Just shut up, blowhard. This is the 5th time that you've repeated this
> > blurb. How ironic.
Continuing your harassment I see. I have not repeated my argument this time,
so you're lying again as well.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:58:02 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> 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 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.
> >
> > I'll let you know when I'm scared. In the meantime, get on with your life and
> > try not to be such a hypocrite in the future so that we can avoid these
> > situations.
Continuing your harassment I see. I have not repeated my argument this time,
so you're lying again as well.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:27:18 -0400
From: unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
What's the matter claire? Spending all night on the computer because you
can't get a date?
I see that microsoft stock is in free-fall, almost down to $50/share. And
this in
spite of the recent release of Windows ME, and a favorable appeals court
decision
on the break-up case.
Must just be that people are sick of windows.
You may be too stupid to learn how to manage unix, but most
companies would rather pay for competent staff than put
up with the blue-screen-of-death on their corporate systems.
Which is why IBM chose Linux as the OS for their new line of mainframes.
And why HP, Compaq, Dell, and even Sun are following suit.
Four years ago MS had everyone conned with their line that Wintel
would take over the world and replace unix, and now MS is losing
marketshare in every category.
As I once heard at a Gartner group lecture- the GUI of Windows simply
makes it easier to manage your system badly.
Face it claire, the future belongs to the competent, and competent people
use Linux.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We don't want compilers.
> We don't need 200 different text editors.
> We don't need all kinds of freeware libraries and fragmented programs
> that do specific functions, most of which are useless to all but other
> programmers..
> We don't need 90 percent of the software on Freshmeat.
> We don't want to return to the 1980's playing with config files.
>
> We have gone through Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files ad nauseam with
> Qemm and Qualatis, playing with Himem.sys to gain that extra 5k of
> free memory.
>
> This is 1980's stuff and it is gone, goodbye. We don't want to
> resurrect playing around with text files.
>
> We don't want half assed implementations of Windows software either.
> If you choose to clone it but can't clone it completely, including all
> ease of use features, don't bother at all. it will only make you look
> silly. The current crop of mp3 players are a good example. Damm things
> can't even remember the song directory.
>
> We are willing to pay for quality software that works out of the box.
> And Windows has plenty of it.
>
> Example: Norton Internet Firewall, BlackIce, Zonealarm (free BTW).
> Compare this to trying to set up a firewall under Linux using
> IpChains, ipforwarding and such....What a waste of time, as well as a
> potential security risk for those setting it up that don't know what
> they are doing.
>
> Sorry but my data is worth $30.00 or so, to have a professionally
> designed program that works out of the box and is easily customized.
> Also I don't have to scour the net for config scripts that may
> actually compromise security. The products I use, and pay for, are
> used by corporations everywhere, and if a flaw should arise, and they
> do, a fix is released....
>
> Browsers?
>
> Netscape, says it all. Even Windows users think Netscape sucks.
>
> Email?
>
> Anything like Eudora yet?
> Sorry but I don't feel like configuring sendmail today, or any day for
> that matter.
>
> Linux still lags far, far, far, far, behind Windows and this is
> evident by the number of sales of Windows ME.... Why would people pay
> for what really amounts to a minimal upgrade instead of getting Linux
> for free?
> They are not interested in Linux, that is why.
>
> Linux has had it's day in the press, let's do every desktop user a
> favor and put it out of it's misery once and for all :)
>
> I along with everybody else in the world would LOVE free applicaitons,
> but not at the price that running Linux involves.
>
> claire
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:28:05 GMT
This was Rex's comment and I want him to respond but, I will
make an attempt at explaining this in terms you might understand.
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:02:58 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Ironically, Microsoft has been killing it's own market. They
> >created checks that now make it impossible to develop server
> >software on workstation editions.
>
> Can you clarify what you mean by this? What sort of "checks" are done?
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
Have you ever watched the old T.V. show "I Love Lucy"?
Lucy would lie to Ricky and this lie would be the basis for almost
the entire show. The more you lie, the harder it is to cover up.
Microsoft front page extensions are not lies but are similar as
they are proprietary crap. And once you get one batch of
proprietary crap, as soon as you see something NEW you
need to do, all your LIES have to change to make it work.
These LIES could be installed on a server or a client.
In Microsoft's case, the Lies are mainly on the clients.
And to have to sweep through 95 then 98 then NT then 2000 and
what ever you have in the future to implement your new version
of the truth to support some new thing, IT'S A LOT OF WORK!
Just like on "I LOVE LUCY", Bull Gates ends up crying in the end.
He's got the major case of the RED ASS.
Now, RED ASS DISEASE attacked the Microsoft WEB systems
first but it's also what's tearing down their basic Client/Server
systems also.
And with that, you have every 3rd party vendor who's trying to
make a buck off of Microsoft developing a case of the RED ASS
as old version which worked with OLD LIES no longer work
with the LATEST LIE. So a SIN PATCH must be sent to
make the LIE work again.
And companies who are actually trying to run huge networks of
order taking systems on Microsoft equipped systems are
suffering also. They have a case of the RED ASS.
And this might be where RED HAT comes in.
RED HAT helps to keep you from having RED ASS.
http://24.94.254.33/Linux/intro.html
Read all of this, have a good laugh, then realize it's really
happening. I'll see you after you get off the pot later.
The basis for RED ASS DISEASE is partially found in an
idea known as a COPY RIGHT. The rest of RED ASS
DISEASE is caused by pure loonacy in marketing.
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:26:49 GMT
And that, of course, is why you are here.
In article <Pine.LNX.4.04.10010110151100.24339-100000@snoopy>,
Cannon Fodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 'Nuff said
>
> --Trolling about trolling,
> From A Troll
> hehehe
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:41:29 -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 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 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.
> > >
> > > I'll let you know when I'm scared. In the meantime, get on with your life and
> > > try not to be such a hypocrite in the future so that we can avoid these
> > > situations.
>
> Continuing your harassment I see. I have not repeated my argument this time,
> so you're lying again as well.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:41:47 -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 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 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.
> > >
> > > Just shut up, blowhard. This is the 5th time that you've repeated this
> > > blurb. How ironic.
>
> Continuing your harassment I see. I have not repeated my argument this time,
> so you're lying again as well.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:42:18 GMT
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:27:18 -0400, unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What's the matter claire? Spending all night on the computer because you
>can't get a date?
I'm married, not that it is any of your business.
>I see that microsoft stock is in free-fall, almost down to $50/share. And
>this in
>spite of the recent release of Windows ME, and a favorable appeals court
>decision
>on the break-up case.
I don't own ANY stock.
My investments are mostly in real estate.
>Must just be that people are sick of windows.
Could be.
>Which is why IBM chose Linux as the OS for their new line of mainframes.
>And why HP, Compaq, Dell, and even Sun are following suit.
Yawn...did I say anything about servers or mainframes?
Why do you Linux people keep changing the topic.
DESKTOP...
>Four years ago MS had everyone conned with their line that Wintel
>would take over the world and replace unix, and now MS is losing
>marketshare in every category.
I don't listen to anything MS says, and in reality am quite behind on
the DOJ stuff as well.
It's boring and who cares what happens. Except Linux folks that is.
We Windows users use what works best for us, and that is Windows.
>As I once heard at a Gartner group lecture- the GUI of Windows simply
>makes it easier to manage your system badly.
Their track record is hardly anything to be proud of.
>Face it claire, the future belongs to the competent, and competent people
>use Linux.
Then why are you using it?
Face it. People, competent or not, use what works for them. Linux is a
real hard sell on the DESKTOP and will continue as such for some time
to come.
claire
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> We don't want compilers.
>> We don't need 200 different text editors.
>> We don't need all kinds of freeware libraries and fragmented programs
>> that do specific functions, most of which are useless to all but other
>> programmers..
>> We don't need 90 percent of the software on Freshmeat.
>> We don't want to return to the 1980's playing with config files.
>>
>> We have gone through Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files ad nauseam with
>> Qemm and Qualatis, playing with Himem.sys to gain that extra 5k of
>> free memory.
>>
>> This is 1980's stuff and it is gone, goodbye. We don't want to
>> resurrect playing around with text files.
>>
>> We don't want half assed implementations of Windows software either.
>> If you choose to clone it but can't clone it completely, including all
>> ease of use features, don't bother at all. it will only make you look
>> silly. The current crop of mp3 players are a good example. Damm things
>> can't even remember the song directory.
>>
>> We are willing to pay for quality software that works out of the box.
>> And Windows has plenty of it.
>>
>> Example: Norton Internet Firewall, BlackIce, Zonealarm (free BTW).
>> Compare this to trying to set up a firewall under Linux using
>> IpChains, ipforwarding and such....What a waste of time, as well as a
>> potential security risk for those setting it up that don't know what
>> they are doing.
>>
>> Sorry but my data is worth $30.00 or so, to have a professionally
>> designed program that works out of the box and is easily customized.
>> Also I don't have to scour the net for config scripts that may
>> actually compromise security. The products I use, and pay for, are
>> used by corporations everywhere, and if a flaw should arise, and they
>> do, a fix is released....
>>
>> Browsers?
>>
>> Netscape, says it all. Even Windows users think Netscape sucks.
>>
>> Email?
>>
>> Anything like Eudora yet?
>> Sorry but I don't feel like configuring sendmail today, or any day for
>> that matter.
>>
>> Linux still lags far, far, far, far, behind Windows and this is
>> evident by the number of sales of Windows ME.... Why would people pay
>> for what really amounts to a minimal upgrade instead of getting Linux
>> for free?
>> They are not interested in Linux, that is why.
>>
>> Linux has had it's day in the press, let's do every desktop user a
>> favor and put it out of it's misery once and for all :)
>>
>> I along with everybody else in the world would LOVE free applicaitons,
>> but not at the price that running Linux involves.
>>
>> claire
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 21:38:53 +0100
Larry Ebbitt wrote:
>
> 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.
But the computers that DOS ran on weren't big enough to run big OSs.
Also OSs were OSs before things like virtual memory and multitasking
were used. The first OSs were program loaders. Still OSs, though.
Besides, DOS can be a very good OS under some circumstances. For
instance, the FDA doesn't allow multitasking OSs on medical equipment.
This makes DOS a very good OS for that purpose.
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 14 Oct 2000 19:48:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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.
Classic! :)
Joe
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anybody want to test a widget?
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 21:42:11 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > If you post your email on several lines (like in my sig) it seems to
> > be worm free.
>
> Thanks!
>
> wrinkledshirt
> @
> hotmail
> .
> com
>
> (sorry, but I still need the evil empire for some things)
>
> > Sorry i can't help, though.
>
> Rat bastard.
When I start on GTK and have some time I might help. I understand your
frustration, though.
I understand your frustration, though.
Anyone want to help on a FORTH project? It's a nice, fast, portable (I
hope)implementation designed to be embedded very easily in C programs.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Corriher)
Subject: Re: welcome to the world of objects
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], abuse@[127.0.0.1]
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:50:06 GMT
On 10 Oct 2000 22:38:30 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Unless you are cynically referring to the fact that
>many humans eschew logic and accept illogical things
>(like a self-creating God.))
Most people who believe in (accept) the existence of God,
would in most cases, be more logical than those who dispute
the existence of God. They normally don't go about attacking
the belief systems of others; even when others foolishly
state that the human race was "self-created" from virus
matter, and later frogs, and then monkeys. I do not have any
monkeys in my family tree. Perhaps some of the people here
do. It is no coincidence that "evolution" (like many pagan
religions) links the human race to nature and the animal
kingdom. They are visions of humanity being more beastial,
or in Christian terms: more like "The Beast", or as some
Hindus might say "The Great Devourer". Of course, the
attacker's "logic" is always recursive, because it is based
on a belief system too. Legitimately religious people don't
normally assault these people who "educate" others about
their contrary beliefs. This is true even when a religion
is created from this anti-Christian (humanistic) movement
and then forced on their children by masquerading it as the
"science" of "evolution". This "education" is not only
unscientific, but it is also illogical and immoral.
--
From the desk of Thomas Corriher
The real email address is:
corriher at bellsouth.
net
------------------------------
From: "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:44:59 +0600
In article <8sa0kl$55i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "MH"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8s8kh3$rc7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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 have just the opposite experience. I've setup Linux on a number of
> occasions and have had minimal problems with the install. My gripes come
> after the install. I really think it boils down to one glaring problem.
> Linux has no decent web browser. When I'm logged onto Linux, I'm running
> a KDE desktop with two or three xterms open compiling with gcc and
> trying my hand with bash scripting. I make use of the KDE editors for
> various writings, and use Kmail for email. But when I venture out onto
> the internet I'm stuck with a third rate browser which I can't stand.
>
I think you will really like konqueror. It is part of kde2. It is fast and
stable. It is also part of the environment in kde just like ie is for
windows. So type in a url in your file browser and it goes there. It seems
to work very well and the one major difference between it and ie is that I
have tried mahy times very hard to take the desktop with it when konqueror
dies and it does not. I am not sure how they are seperated but they are
and it works better as a result.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 21:49:03 +0100
> >I have addressed your "point", so I'm sure you won't
> >object now when I point out that you have in the past
> >posted things which were crude and downright pornographic,
> >as well as extremely homophobic. Pot:Kettle:Black.
>
> Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle.
And this from someone who repeatedly undergoes sex-changes.
Hmmm.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
