Linux-Advocacy Digest #813, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: linux questions (Matthias Warkus)
Those who can, do, those who can't, post to Usenet (was: (Matthias Warkus)
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Real Linux Advocacy ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Claire Lynn ("ostracus")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. (Jacques Guy)
Linux growth rate explosion! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Time is Money (WAS: A classic example of unfriendly Linux) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why. ("Mike")
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Real Linux Advocacy ("Mike")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Nik Simpson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: linux questions
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:20:26 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 21 Oct 2000 07:29:52 -0700...
...and drschwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> o What kind of handwriting recognition software is there for Linux?
>
> o Would Linux be able to support a requirement to rotate the 'desktop' 90
> degrees, i.e., to use the table in either portrait or landscape mode?
The Compaq iPaq (sp?) has both handwriting recognition and a rotatable
desktop when running X11 under Linux. Thus, software for both jobs
exists. I think it's all free software, even.
There is also a Linux-based Java operating environment for the iPaq
which is a slow resource-hog and still mostly vapourware.
mawa
--
It sounds like all you windows losers are just jealous. You are
ashamed that you cannot endure the pain of freedom, so you chide us for
"not having a life". Oh, that is so easy, you're so transparent.
-- Tim Kelley on c.o.l.advocacy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Those who can, do, those who can't, post to Usenet (was:
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:18:07 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 21 Oct 2000 15:43:41 GMT...
...and Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:48:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >My field, unfortunately, is full of them. I can spot one at 1000
> >yards, and yes my company keeps them away from the clients as well.
>
> And I'm sure the "geeks" prefer it that way just as much as you do.
>
> Why does the company keep these "geeks" around anyway? Do you suppose
> that they have some skills that the compnay needs? Having nice
> blow-dried hair and being able to grease customers is not the be-all of
> useful skills you know. Somebody somewhere actually has to make things
> work. And having that somebody out doing sales calls is not the best
> use of their skills.
There are people who run and maintain this world, and there are people
who only use it. Typically, those are proud of not being able to
program their video recorders, and they despise anyone with an ounce
of non-trivial knowledge.
The maintainers could well live without the users, but civilisation
would crumble if the maintainers left. For some reason, our culture
praises the users and has contempt for the maintainers.
mawa
--
You gotta watch your toes! Your toes, that is!
-- Foghorn Leghorn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:22:32 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 22 Oct 2000 14:06:29 GMT...
...and Idoia Sainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Although some of you would consider me a Wintroll, I am
> not typing here as one (just as GNU/Linux user), just to say
> that another thing I don't really like about Redhat is putting
> all of the packages at /usr (instead of using /opt for things
> like GNOME, KDE or Netscape).
Yup. Judicious use of /opt makes everything easier. Red Hat apparently
presume that nobody will ever want to install hand-compiled software
on one of their systems, because if you do all your package management
through RPM, it doesn't matter where all the stuff goes.
mawa
--
mirrorite, n.:
Highly reflective material manufactured at extremely high cost
under zero-gravity conditions and then polished for years, like
telescope reflectors. Used solely in floor cleaner commercials.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Date: 22 Oct 2000 18:11:22 GMT
James E. Freedle II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Because it's robust, standard-compliant, powerful, supports almost all
:> useful applications ever written, allows me to learn a great deal,
:> helps me to get my work done, behaves in a reliable and predictable
:> fashion, and causes me no problems at all.
: I can say the same thing about Windows. It works, and it is easy to work
: with.
If it works well enough to meet your expectations, great.
:>
:> Now why would I want to use Windows????
: That is what I was asking about Linux.
:>
:> What would Windows give me, besides problems, that I don't already
:> have?
:>
:>
:> Joe
: Right now the only use for Linux for me, is to learn a little UNIX.
That's why I started learning Linux also, and I wasn't expecting much
more, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that once I had some
vague idea of what I was doing, it an excellent workstation and
development platform as well.
: I have
: to to UNIX at work to run one application, that I could easily rewrite for
: Windows. I have had problems with Windows at work, but I can attribute that
: to the IR department, and they probably know nothing about Operating System
: theory or design, and yet the muck up the system and expect it to work
: properly.
Using Norton Ghost images to "install" Windows is definitely asking
for trouble, as is installing newer applications on top of older ones.
But even "vanilla" OEM Windows installs have given me an incredible
amount of headache, and, once I knew what I was doing, Linux gave me
absolutely none.
: I don't adovcate Windows or Linux, just the user. I want to be able to use
: my computer and get what I need done. I keep hearing that Linux will be the
: Windows replacement, but I see nothing that would backup that claim.
I fully admit it is not likely to replace 'Doze for the average user
quite yet. It still requires some learning and understanding, as do
most Linux apps, to install and to use effectively.
But it most certainly has replaced Windows for my purposes, and for a
number of other people I've showed it to.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 13:32:26 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 15:43:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>
>
>>And I'm sure the "geeks" prefer it that way just as much as you do.
>
> Sure they do.
> They are an anti-social bunch.
>
> Some don't even come to the company picnic, but prefer to go to work
> instead.
Assuming I was the CEO of a company. Why would the above be seen as a
minus?
>>Why does the company keep these "geeks" around anyway? Do you suppose
>>that they have some skills that the compnay needs?
>
> Of course they do and the company drains their brains and then let's
> them go and hires a new bunch of geeks at less salary.
This might happen in some companies. Problem is that word spreads around
quickly. Not a good long term strategy.
>>Having nice blow-dried hair and being able to grease customers is not
>>the be-all of useful skills you know.
>
> But they typically make substantially more money than the geeks do.
Simply shows how skewed the world is.
>> Somebody somewhere actually has to make things
>>work. And having that somebody out doing sales calls is not the best
>>use of their skills.
>
> Depends on the person. Some of them are quite sharp, having been former
> geeks themselves. Others haven't a clue and should be selling used cars
> instead.
>
> claire
>
So who's making more money of the two?
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:51:30 +0200
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >
> > > The very fact that the majrity of people are running a 10 year old, 32
> >
> > Win 9x is so old ?
>
> No, but the DOS/Windows core, as it works in 9x and ME had its beginning
> in Windows 2.1/386. It is older than 10 years old, but I was being
> generous.
Wasn't it a 32 10 year old *shell* we were talking about ? Or maybe the
shell is the core ? Now I'm confused. :)
> > > bit shell, on top of a 20 year old 16 bit floppy based OS, in the 21st
> >
> > Some computer "experts" do think that Win9x is an OS in its own right.
>
> I have made this point endlessly, Windows 9x is as much, and in the same
> way, and OS as DesqView and DOS's EMM386 was. If these two programs were
> not operating systems, neither is Windows.
>
> BTW What computer "experts?"
Pietrek and Schulman.
> > > century on what 20 years ago would have been called a super computer,
> > > with less reliability than a video game, tells me that MS has harmed
the
> >
> > A video game does only one thing on a particularly limited set of
hardware.
>
> Unlike windows which does a lot of things (poorly) on a bunch of
Insert necessary Windows bash. Can't help it, can you ? :)
> hardware. So?
It helps reliability to only one thing on a an extremely set of hardware, by
reducing compexity. I don't even believe that you have to ask asked this
question.
> > > computer industry.
> > >
> > > UNIX on the other hand, was designed and developed with the notion of
> >
> > Of course, UNIX people had a crystal ball and knew in the 70s how the
> > computer would evolve in 30 years, gimme a little break.
>
> Actually, they didn't need a crystal ball. Speaking as someone writing
> software and designing hardware IN THE 70's all it took was common
> sense.
Nevertheless, a great many of current capabilities were tacked on along the
way, with more or less seamless integration.
> > > what computers, like the ones that we are using, could do.
> >
> > Sure, why didn't they bring that formidable and visionary computing
marvel
> > into the hands of the layman when it mattered ?
<SNIP> Some computer history stuff not involving MS </SNIP>
No ! No ! No ! You have it all wrong, it's all MS's fault.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:43:42 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> It's actually impossible for most tech companies ( the ones that aren't
> in big trouble ) to pay dividends. The problem is that these companies
> typically have very high P/E ( price/earnings ) ratios, so even if they
> payed out *all* their earnings as a dividend, the dividend yield would
> still be 1-2%.
Well, I just checked: MSFT's P/E is about 36, General Motors' 6 (that is
very low, isn't it? And their dividend is very low too, around 3%)
No, I don't think GM is typical. I had a look at Telecom Australia.
P/E is 20, dividend 3% -- that sounds more reasonable. And BHP (a
miner/steel maker here) P/E is also 20, dividend 2.8%, and they
never were generous with their dividends. ANZ (a bank), P/E 14,
div. 4.5%. Now I was being sarcastic of course when I wrote that
at $1000 per copy of Windows M$hit would at long last be able to
pay dividends. Instead, they'd likely try and buy the whole country.
Mind you, it would be good for software pirates too: they'd be able
to sell WinME for $50 instead of $5! So do let's hope for the
day when M$ has to charge $1000 per copy of Windows.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:46:42 GMT
http://counter.li.org/
GEEZE look at this thing.
Look at the growthrates!
They are saying now, with several commercial firms backing it up that
21% of all web browsers in the world now are powered by Linux!
WOW! 21%. WHAT WHAT WHAT 21% WOW!!!!
That the growth rate in several countries are consistently over
100% with about 50 being in the 4 digit % bracket.
Over 2000% growth!!
Linux is just taking off like wildfire across all of Europe, South
America
and Asia.
The balance of power is changing a lot more rapidly than I anticipated.
I think I can say with confidence that by 2003 Microsoft will not
be used outside of US boarders to the degree it is today.
Microsoft will be a single digit player by 2003 overseas.
The United States and Canada are still chugging along at
16% to 40% depending on which graph you read.
The other graphs vary but they seem to be consistantly over 500% growth
for Europe, South America and Asia no matter how you slice it.
That just astounds me! WOW!
Clearly this would simply be dismissed had it not been for all the rest
of the private-commercial statistics groups who backed up most of
the numbers!!!!
SO, we went from 3-5% to 21% of the worlds computer users!
And we did this all in the span from May, 1999 to now.
So this explains why Microsoft is running that AD in europe!
YES! They must already know then that Microsoft is bleeding
to death overseas.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
Jeez! They are just taking an ass wiping!
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:50:22 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time is Money (WAS: A classic example of unfriendly Linux)
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> Most people who use software use it to make money. This is probably a
> forbidden concept in this group but paying X amount for software that
> will make you Y amount of money, where Y is greater than X is a value.
What absolute nonsense. Most people who use software either play
games (or gamez if they haven't paid for them), or spend their time
clickety-clicking away to keep accounts which they could have done
as well with pen and paper (and without losing their accounting
skills as they do when they rely on software to do the work).
People who use software for what it is really worthwhile,
number crunching, art work, are a tiny minority. Computers
nowadays are just on par with TV as time wasters. And if you
were serious about it, you wouldn't be here wasting your time
(time is money) posting stuff that is not going to earn you
a penny.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:56:01 GMT
Idoia Sainz wrote:
> GNU/Linux is a big opponent ... as a server.
HA! Thank you.
This is the thing I find STILL everybody is just clueless about!
Catagorization! Linux can't be treated that way.
The GNU/GPL is going to shape up as one of the
most powerful documents to affect mankind.
It marks the end of a period and the beginning of
another.
And yes it has been responsible for some Microsoft
Server damage but also,,, it's eating away at the
desktop's also. Especially in Europe, South America
and Asia.
America will follow the world into this revolution.
We will be last.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:20:20 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> We all know the text book definition of an operating system: manages
> memory, scedules programs, etc.
>
> By that definition, DesqView and other DOS extenders were operating
> systems. Is DesqView an operating system? If your answer is yes, then
> you need to read no further.
...
> So, we have products which are not operating systems, but encapsulate
> DOS, emulate hardware, handle interrupts, and present APIs. These are
> very OS level sorts of things to be doing. They are very difficult to
> debug, and some of the things Schulman did at PharLap, and many others,
> including myself, have done elsewhere.
>
> This is what is being use to claim that Windows is an OS, however, if
> doing this does not let products like DesqView, PharLap, and EMM386
> claim OS status, it should not be reasonable to let MS use it to call
> Windows an OS.
They are indeed OS level things to be doing, even though they aren't OS'en.
But it seems to me that from a user's perspective (or even, to a large
extent, a programmer's perspective), something similar to a Turing test
could be applied.
If I gave you an API, and it did everything an operating system should do,
then with the exception of exceeding its capabilities in some way, is there
any way that you could learn the implemetation of the underlying system?
Let's assume here that the system doesn't crash, and that you're constrained
to using the API. Then, I think the question boils down to, "Is there
anything that the OS API can do that the encapsulating API can't?"
I've written a fair amount of software for Windows, but unlike the device
driver stuff you've done, mine is all applications software. Most of my
software is generic batch mode stuff - the user interface is a command line
to start it, and a configuration file if it needs one. It makes generous use
of the 32 bit address space, and does a fair amount of file I/O, and in
general I find that the same code compiles on both Win98 and WinNT/2000, and
on my Unix box as well (although we recently made the switch from HP to Sun,
I'm not expecting too many differences there). The point is that I have no
differences in my code to handle Win98 and WinNT/2000. So, from my external
viewpoint, it walks like an OS, and talks like an OS...
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:48:34 GMT
2:1 wrote:
> Before I start this message, please read the following.
>
> If you are a Wintroll, go away. This is not a post about Windows Vs
> Linux, so don't make it one.
>
> Also remember that I have been posting Linux advocacy here for a while
> and only use Linux on my computer.
>
> I also know this doesn't reflect in any way on the Linux Kernel. I am
> specifically refering to the RedHat GNU/Linux distributon.
>
> I decided to do a major upgrade of software on my computer yesterday. I
> finally decided to install glibc2.1 because I have a new versionm of
> Xevil which doesn't crash under glibc2.1.
I would like to know what version of RedHat are you upgrading from?
>
>
> All of the binary RPMs supplied with RH6.2 are compiled under the newer
> libraries, so I came in to the position of being able to install binary
> RPMS, which is a lot quicker than compiling the source for each one.
>
Yeah.
>
> I decided to start with xmms.
>
> I didn't have any `nice' package management tools like kpackage or the
> GNOME equivalent, since I neither had KDE or GNOME. All I had was the
> GUI RedHat package manager and the rpm command (I opted for the latter).
>
> The first (minor) problem was with dependencies. When trying to upgrade
> a package, the dependencies were generally listed in terms of which
> libraries (or other files) were needed, not which packages were needed.
> This problem was easily solved by taking a list of the contents of every
> package on the CD, and searching for the relavent librariies.
>
> The main problem with the dependencies was the bizare trail of
> dependencies which was needed to install xmms. According to rpm, after
> following every dependency, I needed a new kernel to install xmms.
> Okay....
> (as it was, I already had the new kernel installd from a source tarball,
> bit rpm didn't know about this)
>
> The problem, I think is that all the dependencies are not as sensible as
> they should be. For instance, XFree 3.3.6-20 needed xfs to go with it.
> This is no problem. The problem lies in xfs needing a new set of
> initscripts. This is plain stupid. Why can't xfs put the relavent script
> in /etc/rc.d/init.d and run chkconfig on it? In hind sight, I should
> have realised this and done more by hand, but what actually happened is
> that I installed a new load of initscripts, which wrecked my
> configurations which I had slowly built up over time.
> On the plus side, all the overwritten files were saved automatically by
> rpm, so it hasn't been too difficult to restore the system so far.
>
Yeah, well this is nothing new. They made the RPM system so
people could follow it. If you untar some files and roll your own
then your not using the RPM system. And you take the
responsibility for that.
So okay so far.
>
> Going further down the tree of dependencies, new newt libraries needed
> to be installed. rpm wouldn't let me upgrade or install the packages
> because existing files depended on the old libraries. What I don't
> understand is why it wouldn't install new libraries, whilst leaving the
> old ones in place (I made it do that after some fiddling).
>
It can but this is NOT recommended. You can cause yourself
some nasty run time dependency problems doing this.
>
> In conclsion, I now have a nice RH6.2 iso image on my hard disk and
> quite a few new toys installed. The main problems, as far as I can see
> them is that the dependencies in the rpms supplied by redhat are not as
> sensible as they could have been: if i didnt have to install new
> initscripts, I wouldn't have had to worry about newt. I am a competent
> user and willing to try, but it turned out to be quite akward to do a
> custom upgrade (I didn't want to go the whole hog) and it disabled most
> of my custom configurations.
>
I disagree.
If you want slackware then run slackware.
This is what slackware is all about.
>
> What I will say about the package system is that it wouldn't let me
> break anything in the install process, unless I forced it to.
And that's the key word. You wanted to "BREAK IT".
>
>
> Just thought I'd share some dissatisfaction about it.
>
> Does anyone have any better ideas how it could be done in Linux. I've
> heard about the deb system, but never seen it in action.
>
> -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
Being a Mandrake and Debian user, I can say the Debian package management
system
is far superior to RPM in the dependency department,,, BY FAR SUPERIOR.
Yet it WON'T allow you to BREAK things either unless you run it manually
and force the command.
But why people WANT to break things bothers me.
Why on earth do you WANT to BREAK your system?
What is the advantage in doing so?
Leaving Red Hat and Debian out of the picture, we could just
get a 12 guage shotgun and blow a big whole thru your processor.
Or perhaps we could take the processor and pitch it out of a
12 story apartment building!
Why do we NEED to go to such extremes to BREAK your system?
There are plenty of EASY way's to break a computer.
Let me send my daughters over to your house.
I'll pay the airfare.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:48:46 GMT
> > MH wrote:
> > >
...
> > > One reason, cost. Many universities run a *nix infrastructure due to
the
> > > cost incurred by using retail solutions. On the home front, some folks
don't
> > > like paying 100's of dollars for software. (OS & APPS). There is MUCH
> > > more to it that this, but I'll stop here.
All the universities I've been to run Sun and HP hardware. Maybe my view is
skewed, since they're all EE departments involved in IC design research.
But, Sun and HP have very friendly university programs, and donate lots and
lots of equipment. They all run lots of commercial software, that is also
donated or supplied at very low cost by the vendors. In fact, it's not
uncommon to find that universities have more commercial software available
than I do at a successful semiconductor company.
> > > Power. If you're really into learning to leverage the true power of a
> > > computer, the console shells & binaries that ship with most *nix
systems
> > > provide you with that means. If you know DOS, you'll be amazed with a
> > > few days with a good book in front of a *nix shell.
I'm still amazed by my Unix shell, but not in the way you'd think. I used to
think that Perl was the best thing that happened to the Unix shell, but
Python offers the same capabilities with a more consistent syntax, so that's
what I use. Of course, Perl and Python (and their Tcl/Tk interfaces) are
both running on my Win2k box as well, making my shell programs compatible
across platforms. All those Unix binaries, like diff, grep, make, etc. also
run on my Win2k machine. In short, it's getting hard to draw a serious
distinction between my Unix box and my Win2k box, especially when talking
about scripts and utilities.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:54:07 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "Rauni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:01:51 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Loren Petrich wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > Loren Petrich wrote:
> > >> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> > >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > > > Answer: Never...this country was founded upon the principle of
> > >> > > > PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
> > >> > > Except, of course, for Mr. Kulkis. If he got fired for
> venomously
> > >> > > making lots of accusations against his fellow employees, he'd blame
> it
> > >> > > on anyone other than himself.
> > >>
> > >> > FALSE PREMISE.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for proving my point.
> > >
> > >Your PREMISE is invalid, which makes your conclusions invalid.
> > >
> > >Philosophy 101, fat ass.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > Since the Premise of your argument has never occured, your
> > >> > supposed "observations" of the conclusion are null and void.
> > >>
> > >> Consider yourself lucky, buster.
> > >
> > >You see...I don't go around making unfounded accusations....
> > >so...why should I consider myself "lucky"
> > >
> > >On the other hand, I will note quite heartily that you still have
> > >a big, fat ass.
> > >
> > >http://www.webcom.com/petrich/my_portrait.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > >Your childish love affair with food is what keeps you from ever
> > >having a productive relationship with a woman.
> > >
> > >You should, like, do something about that.
>
> That's a FINE photograph!
> :-)
Only if Porky Pig is your ideal for the human form.
>
> It doesn't show any ass though.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:59:06 -0400
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Demo's don't count. We want to SEE the BEEF!
>
> You can download the IA64 version of Redhat anytime you
> want it. It's on the web.
And if you have an IA64 platform to run it on, you can and are registered
64bit developer for MS, you can get there version as well. Since MS don't
make stuff like this available on public websites, the fact that you can't
get it from a public website proves absoultely zero.
>
> You can possess it!
>
And once you've got it, what do you do with, look through the code and
examine it in awe, after all you can't get anything to run it on unless you
happen to be one the privileged few who has an early access Itanium machine.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
