Linux-Advocacy Digest #701, Volume #29 Tue, 17 Oct 00 06:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claire Lynn (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Convince me to run Linux? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Convince me to run Linux? (Gardiner Family)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Linux Sucks
Re: Convince me to run Linux? (Gardiner Family)
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Re: Linux Sucks (Ian Davey)
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: (Gardiner Family)
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: (Gardiner Family)
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:06:54 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Sorry, these aren't facts being made up as we go along; they can be well
> supported through both logic and evidence. Linux is the best OS that
> ever was, because it is the only GPL PC OS.
What about GNU's HURD?
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:10:40 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Many of us have pointed this out and she is still hanging around!
Chris
Keith Peterson wrote:
>
> In article <8s88og$6mr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Hung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >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.
>
> Advocacy: The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a
> cause, an idea, or a policy; active support.
>
> Why would a linux user who doesn't want to advocate the product hang around an
> advocacy newsgroup?
>
> Just wondering.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:10:55 +1300
Why do I need to convince you to run Linux even though you have already
pre-emptively decided to run Windows anyway? I hear the same rubbish on
the Be Advocacy groups, a cheap way to start a cat fight amoungst the
hardcore windows and linux advocates. If it is a genuine inquiry, I would
say to them (dell) to install Windows, sell the windows CD then buy a
copy of SuSE Linux Version 7 Pro. I have had no problems when installing
it. (I have a Dell XPS 550r with 128MB RAM, 10GIG HDD, TNT2 Card and a
Soundblaster Live sound card)
matt
Linux wrote:
> 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: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:11:55 GMT
FM wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It has meaning, and I have articulated it, you just persist
> >in denying it.
>
> You have also defined it as some other things. This is the first
> time you have come closed to defining it.
Obviously you haven't followed the entire thread where I proposed
and defended this definition.
> >Object Orientation means:
> > 1) everything's an object (where "object" is the normal sense
> > of the term and not some bizarre abstract sense like you
> > have been promoting)
>
> Object in the normal sense of the term doesn't exist in programming
> languages. It's a metaphor.
Great, another idiot. And I suppose that the number '2' isn't an object,
right? Just a "metaphor". Do you also believe like Jedi that there are
is a "true" meaning to every word and that anything that comes later is
by definition a "metaphor"? Just what the fuck ISN'T a metaphor ??
> The problem with the above definition: In order to do some
> action, one needs to send messages to objects. But since
> all messages are objects, one first either locate or create
> these messages. But that in itself is an action, so the
> whole cycle begins again and nothing gets done.
Bullshit. Conceptually, each object keeps a supply of messages
(created when the object is created) and just sends these messages
to their destination when it needs to. (These messages aren't
exhausted because they're copied before being sent and they
'copy' message isn't exhausted because IT is copied before being
sent.) <-- and this whole regress is unnecessary because message
sends are atomic as far as users are concerned. Yet again you
prove that you can't distinguish between the users and implementors.
(Oh yeah, and don't even bother arguing that "sending a message
on its way" is an "action" that must be performed by a message
send. That would only prove you're stuck on physical analogy.)
> Your definition only serves to demonstrate my argument that
> OO itself is not a complete [computational] paradigm.
Your objection only serves to prove that you are an idiot.
> So according to you, Smalltalk can't be called OO either.
> Neither can any language, since they all break OO in some
> way. What was your point again?
My point, cretin, is that some languages are vastly more OO than
others and considering that Smalltalk has serious flaws as far
as being OO, a language that has a thousand times as many flaws
can't possibly be called OO. There is a spectrum and if you know
that Smalltalk is quite a ways from pure OO then C++ can't possibly
make it to the cutoff.
> >> A computational paradigm is a notion for viewing and
> >> sometimes describing a computational process. A language
>
> >But NOT for the language designers; for language *USERS*.
>
> Your non-point serves you very well here.
Your failure to understand my point does me no harm.
> Because most general purpose languages allow one to mix and
> choose between different paradigms. All languages force you
> at some level to think in their own models of computation,
> but usually those are general and multi-paradigmatic. A
> language can, on the other hand, force a particular paradigm
> by not supporting mechanisms that are necessary for other
> paradigms.
So instead of forcing one paradigm, it forces a choice from
a restricted set of paradigms. Oh, yeah, that is SUCH a solid
basis for your argument. Going from an implicit "all" to "most".
Would be a nice save if I weren't crass enough to point it out.
> Why? Didn't you argue that Smalltalk isn't OO either? If it
Because it /is/? Because it has enough OO features to get within
sighting distance of pure OO? Because you can actually *list*
all the ways in which Smalltalk breaks OO instead of effectively
having an infinite list?
> isn't, why is it so hard to write non-OO code?
> OOP isn't complete. You can't describe an entire computational
> process purely in OOP. At some level you come down to imperative
> programming, functional programming, or some other basic
You're such a provincial empty-headed fool. What did you do,
learn about functional programming and fall in love with it
so much you couldn't learn anything else?
> paradigms. For example, what you gave as a definition for OO
> inherently includes the imperative paradigm at heart (seeing
> a computational process as a series of actions).
No cretin. Only as a series of message sends, which are atomic.
If you're talking about actions at all then you're thinking in
terms of the imperative paradigm. Why the fuck don't you do that
with functional programming?
> I don't think you know what a metaphysical question is.
> Whether a combination of two paradigms is a paradigm in
> itself or not is a metaphysical question because it
> focuses on essence, rather than observation.
You obviously don't know what metaphysics means. Focusing
on the *essence* of things is just general *philosophy*,
imbecile, and not the very specific branch of philosophy
called metaphysics.
> The problem is that I'm not defending C++ at all. That you
> think I'm defending C++ by arguing C++ is OO demonstrates
> your bias towards OO, not my bias towards C++. Supporting a
In that case, your conflating C++ with OO only demonstrates
your incredible bias *against* OO.
> certain paradigm does not necessarily make a language
> "better." Paradigms are not sacred.
And you would do well to believe that.
> I know perfectly well what OO is, in both its elusive
> theoretical sense, and in the practical sense. The problem
> is that you don't understand what OO is, since you obviously
> haven't used it.
ROTFLMAO.
> You cannot tell if a language is OO, since
> you can't distinguish mechanisms from concepts and
> abstractions from metaphors.
And you can't distinguish between problem domain, architecture
and low-level design of the paradigm. The first is the concerns
(data abstraction) I talked about, the second is what we are
talking about now (everything's an object), the last is the
irrelevancies (runtime polymorphism) you idiotically insisted
were the essence of OO.
> There are many programmers who
> are so fixated on mechanisms, that they can't understand
> concepts beyond mechanisms.
And naturally, you are speaking of yourself, yes?
> You are flawed in the other
> direction - you have become so obssessed with concepts
> that you can't see how mechanisms can differ from concepts
> (or rather from how concepts are described) and can still
> implement them correctly - and much less useful.
Of course I can distinguish between the two; that's why I
consider message sends to be atomic whereas you idiotically
insist they are "actions" because the language designer has
to implement them at some point in some imperative/assembly
language. And by your argument, functional programming must
be based on imperative programming as well. Of course, you're
so in love with functional programming and so hateful of OO
(or just completely and totally ignorant of it?) that you
don't see the inconsistencies in your own position.
> >> this is meaningful since the term "good" has no clear
>
> >LOL. You're a fucking moron. You're one of those people
> >who tries to understand something, fails, and then instead
> >of asking an adept, you come to the conclusion that it's
> >meaningless/useless. Like your definition of OO: you can't
> >come up with a suitable formal definition so you create
> >one that's so general, universal even, it becomes vacuous.
>
> You didn't read or address my definition. Perhaps you read
I didn't address it because it was so ludicrous as to be
self-disproving.
> it, but you didn't understand it. Either way, your comments
> apparently don't apply.
>
> >Your attitude seems to be "this is too much for my poor
> >weedle brain so it can't be useful and can't even exist".
>
> Perhaps if you knew how to read, or think, for that matter,
> you wouldn't have come to such a pitiful conclusion.
LOL. Perhaps if you knew how to think, you wouldn't come up
with such pitiful insults.
> >Reading and writing are completely different things.
> >If you'd ever taken a look at Smalltalk, Self or any
> >other high-level language, you would know this fact
> >intimately.
>
> No, you wrote that you didn't know C++ very well. You didn't
> just claim that you didn't write in C++. Reading and writing
Yeah. And just what the fuck do you think "I don't know C++
very well" *means*?
> are also different enough that anyone who hasn't written C++
> code isn't really qualified to judge its merits. I also doubt
Only the merits of the code. One can appreciate the (absence of)
merits in the language.
> that you have read C++ code. Not only is reading different
> from writing, but it's also different from seeing.
And typing is different from writing, as your trained-monkey
responses attest.
> >I also didn't read the vast majority of your posts.
> >You're an emotionally disturbed fool and it's not my
> >job to look after you.
>
> Look how you are completely unable to argue rationally and
> look at a mirror and then see how your sentence fits. It's
> quite hilarious to see someone so emotionally disturbed about
> his logic and knowledge being questioned that he becomes
> completely unable to address logically any of the points made
> against him, simply resorts to ignoring all the points and
> arguing against his imagination, and then shares his own
> state of mind by accusing others of his own problems.
ROTFLMAO. Obviously, even a monkey can pick up tricks from
observation; I've accused others of projection often enough.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:14:19 -0000
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:52:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>If you knew anything about Linsux, you would know that offline news
>reading is about as scarce as a do-do bird.
>
>Of course you can use nightmares like Leafnode and Slrnpull to do the
>job, but PAN traps on me daily.
>
>Agent is probobly the number one newsreader on the net.
>
>Linux has nothing like it, although maybe in 2 years or so Pan may
>come close.
This is a good thing actually.
Tying your newsreader, editor and news spooler together is
actually quite a stupid idea. The non-shiny Linux alternatives
really aren't that difficult to deal with and are pretty much
self maintaining once setup.
[deletia]
Even if there were such a Linux beast, it should be constructed
such that the shiny happy news spooling tool can be unbound from
the singluar newsreading interface it was bundled with.
Although with real net connections, the value of some ubernewsreader
like Agent (and cache spooling in general) becomes diminished.
--
If you wish to succeed, consult three old people.
Either I'm dead or my watch has stopped.
-- Groucho Marx's last words
Jones' Second Law:
The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone
to blame it on.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:15:32 +1300
Me to, I like Lotus Smart Suite, however, it would be great if it was ported
to Linux.
Matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "I" don't like Office, but I am in the minority here. I use Lotus
> Wordpro, but in corporate America you would be hard pressed to find
> anybody not running Office.
>
> Personal opinion..
>
> The Windows PC is the better deal, even if you dump office.
> You get a printer, Internet access and many other things you DON"T get
> with the Linux version.
> claire
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:12:00 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The Windows machine looks like a better deal. You get a free decent
> >> printer (I have a Lexmark Z42 and it is fantastic), MSOffice, Internet
> >> access a bigger drive, Home networking kit, much better sound system
> >> etc.
> >
> >You said to me in an earlier post that Office was very bad, yet here you
> >list it as a plus point.
> >
> >-Ed
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:20:17 -0000
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:04:00 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Dave Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:1LmG5.2924$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>:
>: I don't buy that "easy to use" stuff for technical types. If you factor
>in
>: how much effort that goes into keeping "MS-Windows" going, and compare it
>to
>: learning a real OS, they are about the same. But the payback comes two
>: ways, first - you have time to move your business ahead instead of doing
>: "reboot", "patch" and "security" while loops and second: you can use Linux
>: knowledge on HP-UX, Sun, UnixWare, SCO, Iris, AIX, and a host of others.
>: From a career perspective, it is vendor independent knowledge and pays
>: better. McWindows, like McDonalds burgers, are quick but you get less.
>
>Wether you buy the "easy to use" stuff or not, it does not change the facts.
>I can't comment on the "McWindows", never heard of such an OS. However, to
>build up and learn a Linux system does take considerable amount of time, not
>to mention the software installation routines on Linux.
./setup
./install
configure;make;install
gnorpm
None of these are terribly taxing and aren't that hard to remember
after you've done them 10 or 20 times. They just might look different
or scary (with all those icky compile commands) relative to what
someone's been indoctrinated into.
[deletia]
>: and stability. The only thing that keeps NT afloat is that where else do
>: you know you can flip burgers on Tuesday and be a NT admin on Friday. As
>: the market matures, this will occur less often.
>
>The industry started out with Unix and along came NT beating the crap out of
>the "xNIX". When the 64-bit version of NT becomes available sometimes in the
>next year, it'll be lights out for the "xNIX". All of the "real
>professionals" will be flipping burgers somewhere and they can keep
>wondering about what hit them.
Sun doesn't really have to worry. By your own admission, DOS
is still trying to play catchup to where even free unix was
years ago.
Nevermind the fact that for a serious server, intel based machines
aren't going to be very price competitive anyways. That's not even
getting into the scaling and HA options that RISC vendors have
been delivering for years already.
Even today, the systems that NT can run on are relative toys.
--
Spring is here, spring is here,
Life is skittles and life is beer.
Do you think the "Monkees" should get gas on odd or even days?
toilet toup'ee, n.:
Any shag carpet that causes the lid to become top-heavy, thus
creating endless annoyance to male users.
-- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:21:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>>Agent is probobly the number one newsreader on the net.
If Agent really floats your boat it's runs fine under Wine.
>I don't really care who is number one. Slrn works fine, as do many
>others.
At home I normally use slrn, it's a really nice news reader.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:22:01 -0000
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:07:41 -0400, James E. Freedle II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You know I think that it is kind of funny that Windows NT Administrators get
>paid more than UNIX Administrators :)
>Also it is completely false that Windows (Any Version) is harder to
>administer that UNIX. Actually it is the other way around. Of course that
What I like is when the PHB's trying to run a startup with
NT and mssql revert to hunting for Oracle/Unix dba's because
by their own admission none of the NT people have any
experience with HA or (moderately) large databases.
>all depends on who you ask. If somebody has been trained in administering
>UNIX, they will resist with tooth and nail to learning to administer
>Windows.
>"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:QBrG5.27341$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Dave Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:1LmG5.2924$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> :
>> : I don't buy that "easy to use" stuff for technical types. If you
>factor
>> in
>> : how much effort that goes into keeping "MS-Windows" going, and compare
>it
>> to
>> : learning a real OS, they are about the same. But the payback comes two
>> : ways, first - you have time to move your business ahead instead of doing
>> : "reboot", "patch" and "security" while loops and second: you can use
>Linux
>> : knowledge on HP-UX, Sun, UnixWare, SCO, Iris, AIX, and a host of others.
>> : From a career perspective, it is vendor independent knowledge and pays
>> : better. McWindows, like McDonalds burgers, are quick but you get less.
>>
>> Wether you buy the "easy to use" stuff or not, it does not change the
>facts.
>> I can't comment on the "McWindows", never heard of such an OS. However, to
>> build up and learn a Linux system does take considerable amount of time,
>not
>> to mention the software installation routines on Linux.
>> OS does not move businesses forward, it can however aid that direction,
>but
>> it won't do it by itself. Not to mention the fact that some of the OSs
>don't
>> support business programs. That in itself limits the choices. There are
>> times when people only need a McDonalds burger, they could probably get
>more
>> at the next door in a fancy restaurant, but they elect to get the burger.
>Go
>> figure...
>>
>> :
>> : I would rather spend my time learning and moving the business ahead
>than
>> : fixing and futzing. From an end user perspective, there are far less
>> : problems with stable versions of Linux than with McWindows. As the
>> techi's
>> : crunch out better and better software for Linux, more and more end users
>> : will use it.
>>
>> You are not saying that there is some "not so stable version of Linux",
>are
>> you :)?
>>
>> :
>> : It is inevitable as the industry matures to shift to a xNIX as the real
>> : professionals will learn more... and our clients will like the
>reliability
>> : and stability. The only thing that keeps NT afloat is that where else
>do
>> : you know you can flip burgers on Tuesday and be a NT admin on Friday.
>As
>> : the market matures, this will occur less often.
>>
>> The industry started out with Unix and along came NT beating the crap out
>of
>> the "xNIX". When the 64-bit version of NT becomes available sometimes in
>the
>> next year, it'll be lights out for the "xNIX". All of the "real
>> professionals" will be flipping burgers somewhere and they can keep
>> wondering about what hit them.
>>
>> Otto
>>
>>
>
>
--
Clear the laundromat!! This whirl-o-matic just had a nuclear meltdown!!
A watched clock never boils.
Somehow, the world always affects you more than you affect it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:25:30 -0000
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:05:33 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:02:18 -0500, "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >You really are a silly person. I'd wager that 99% of the people reading
>> >this newsgroup have more experience with Dos/Windows than you. It really
>> >is kind of dumb for you to blather on about how great "Windows" is to
>> >them.
>>
>> I doubt it. I go back well before DOS was a dollar sign in BG's eyes.
>
>Then you should realize that if you had spent a week back then learning
>to use unix productively it would have served you well from then on
>without having to deal with any of BG's nonsense, taking at most a
>recompile as you switched among processors over the years.
...and taking your shell interpreter preferences right
along with you.
Some of my Linux tweaks date back to SunOS.
--
The last person who said that (God rest his soul) lived to regret it.
Brandy-and-water spoils two good things.
-- Charles Lamb
The way to a man's stomach is through his esophagus.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:27:24 +1300
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am no win advocate or Linux advocate, however, if I were to design
> an
> > OS these are some of the features:
> >
> > 1. Linux Kernel
> > 2. Standardised GUI, either, MacOS or Windows like interface
>
> WHy? do you really think that One GUI fits everyones needs??? I think
> not. I like having a choice. If i wanted to one size fits all I would go
> with MS or pantyhose nither of which I want
>
Because the average, non-linux user is totally stupid and expects to be
spoon fed and all decisions about their computer made by some one else (aka
Microsoft).
>
> > 3. Simplified Library structure similar to what Amiga had (ie,
> > icons.library, fonts.library, printers.library)
> > 4. ReiserFS as the file system
> > 5. A windows interpreter, when a program makes a call it goes through
> a
> > filter (like wine) and matchs the windows dll call with the UNIX
> > equivilant.
>
> What for? I would rather have Native linux apps
>
Again, the average CEO is totally thick as two short planks. The chances
that even one of Microsoft comrades deciding to port an app to Linux is very
unlikely. Although it would be nice to have Smart Suite ported, it is very
unlikely.
>
> >
> > Both Windows and Linux have great attributes, Linux, opensourced and
> > very stable. Windows, easy to use and administrate. By combining the
> > power of a UNIX core and the simplicity of the Windows GUI there would
> > be a balance between simplicity, functionality and flexibility. (a
> > concept very similar to the MacOS X project).
> >
> > feel free to reply, no flaming please.
> >
> > matt
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:29:15 -0000
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 20:34:48 -0400, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Why do my posts generate so much hate and semi-intelligent insults
>> from the Linux world?
>
>Because you attack them where they're weak, and where they live.
...and interesting way to put it.
Many of us are busy doing with our Linux boxen what you say
can't be done with them. Sometimes, we're doing it better
than our WinDOS contemporaries. Although, that has to do more
with being clueful, aware of one's actual requirements and
willing to explore a system's full potential.
[deletia]
The common rants against Linux are typically quite without
substantiation. This is somewhat of a shame actually since
genuine criticism could be acted upon.
--
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing.
-- Bertrand Russell
Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other
forms that have been tried from time to time.
-- Winston Churchill
God shows his contempt for wealth by the kind of person he selects to
receive it.
-- Austin O'Malley
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:28:43 +1300
I was only joking! All I was trying to emphasise is that there is an advocacy group
for almost anything.
matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I couldn't find any on ATT.Worldnet.
>
> Here is what they offer:
>
>
>Sex,adoption,infosystems,java,pascal,linux,windows,os/2,acorn,amiga,atari,be,soundcard,mac,next,powerpc,
> unix,food,games,roleplaying,video,dvd.
>
> I suspect the hardware advocacy get's pretty nasty. Maybe it's in one
> of the hardware groups?
>
> Could be pretty entertaining at any rate :)
>
> claire
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 10:55:41 +1300, Gardiner Family
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I wonder if there are hardware advocacy groups? could you imagine,
> >comp.sys.ide.advocacy or comp.sys.scsi.advocacy, LOL (laugh out loud, for those
> >who donot know what it means)
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Try OS/400.
> >>
> >> claire
> >>
> >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:22:19 -0400, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The FIRST thing I would LOVE to see in an OS is NO ADVOCACY news group for
> >> >it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:30:16 -0000
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:50:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The truth sometimes hurts.
>Get used to it, because it isn't going away.
>
>And neither am I.
>
>I intend to be Linux's worst enemy.
...then the Penguin certainly has nothing to fear.
>
>and judging by the responses here I am succeeding quite well.
[deletia]
No, you just have beer glasses without the beer...
--
One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is... If they do
foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little.
-- Joe Martin
Stay the curse.
HOW YOU CAN TELL THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A ROTTEN DAY:
#32: You call your answering service and they've never heard of you.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
