Linux-Advocacy Digest #870, Volume #29 Fri, 27 Oct 00 03:13:02 EDT
Contents:
2.4 Kernel Delays. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Sorry, Claire, but this is urgent ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (.)
Re: And another one, Claire, sweetie (.)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (David M. Butler)
Re: Sorry, Claire, but this is urgent ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: And another one, Claire, sweetie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing (Jason Bowen)
Re: Astroturfing (Jason Bowen)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bennetts family")
Re: Hello again Claire ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("JS/PL")
Re: And another one, Claire, sweetie (.)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install. (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:14:56 GMT
Compaq has made a significant stink of the delayed 2.4 kernel
release.
It's funny but I can't remember a single Windows version which wasn't
delayed by months from the target release.
Bill Gates said Windows 95 would be released almost a year
before it actually was. Nobody said a damn thing about it.
I think it shows that people CARE about Linux and WANT
to see the release. If they didn't CARE about Linux
and have a NEED to see the release then we would
not have heard from them.
Further,
People keep forgetting what Linux is all about.
They have this BIG corporate picture painted in
their heads as if it were anything like Microsoft
in structure and needs. The GNU/Linux model
is nothing like the business model found in Microsoft.
Millions will NOT be made or lost to Linus if he was
a year or two late with a kernel. It doesn't bother
the man one bit. He's not under somebody else's
gun. And he never will be either.
And in this fact, you can see why people are
in anticipation and WAIT for the new Kernel.
They like his work.
People just have to understand that Linux
isn't like Microsoft where they just slap
layers together and QA the product until
they have it 1/2 running. It's not like
that at all.
Microsoft has to turn out Operating Systems
in order to make money to pay salaries.
In the Linux camp, nobody HAS to make money
and there are NO SALARIES TO PAY.
If EVERY commerical operation involved with
Linux were to go bankrupt by January there would
STILL be Linux available and being constantly
developed. The commerical end of Linux is
not significant toward it's progress.
If there were only Debian and the GNU and
the Linux Kernel community left there would
still be Linux forever.
Linux can't be dragged into a Federal Court house
and broken up as technically it never existed.
There is NO Linux company. There are just
a bunch of independent groups all working together
cooperatively toward a common goal which is
a dynamite operating system. And they are
all doing it for their operating system.
Their operating system is THEIR payback
for doing this. So they are not going to RACE
thru nothing for anybody.
If the 2.4 kernel were delayed till 12/2001,
Compaq would still be supporting it and still
mouthing off about it. Why you ask?
Because it's free and it works better than
Windows products.
Because they know Microsoft is heading
toward a court ordered breakup of the company.
Because they see what's going on overseas in
Europe, South American and Asia and they
realize that Microsoft is seriously loosing
big marketshare in these area's as they
can't compete.
Because they KNOW they need an operating
system to sell their PC's. That's what makes
Compaq profitable.
Compaq kick Linux off it's table? Well, they've
bitched enough about the 2.4 kernel issue you
would think so. What's holding them up anyway?
Could it be common sense?
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sorry, Claire, but this is urgent
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:46:13 GMT
You're behind the times Terry "the" Porter.
I provided solutions to 3 out of 5 of his stupid questions. The other
2 need more information to answer.
You obviously suck. Much like the "not watched" Olympic garbage you
tried to push on TV.
Hint: It was the least watched Olympics in the last 25 years. A shame
seeing as the athletes did a great job.
Too bad the production end sucked.
claire
On 27 Oct 2000 03:04:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:10:38 +0000, Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> After trying unsuccessfully to install a MIDI cable, WIN 2000 would no
>>> longer boot.
>>
>>Yeah, mebbe it doesn't boot, but it rocks all right, doesn't it
>>luv?
>Gee Jacques is really giving it to "Clear_Lying" heheheh, "Keys88/Heather/
>Amy/Steve" will soon be thinking of me as a friendly Linux advocate at this
>rate ;-)
>
>Keep up the good work Jacques, this Wintroll deserves it!
>
>
>
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:35:42 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Compaq has made a significant stink of the delayed 2.4 kernel
> release.
>
> It's funny but I can't remember a single Windows version which wasn't
> delayed by months from the target release.
But I thought OSS software was supposed to be superior in all regards.
Shouldn't a reasonable expectation be that it ships on time?
Also, considering that most of the functionality in the 2.4 kernel is catch-up
to NT and other OSes that have had most of it as a basic part of the OS
for years now, it's kind of embarassing that they're spending all this
time just to get up to today's level of expectations. Compaq's anger
is justified.
> Bill Gates said Windows 95 would be released almost a year
> before it actually was. Nobody said a damn thing about it.
Oh, there was plenty said. So was there about Win2K, but people
just like you, if not you yourself.
> I think it shows that people CARE about Linux and WANT
> to see the release.
More like... Compaq is giving Linux one chance, if they can't get
their shit together (which they haven't, and won't) Compaq will
give up on them.
<SNIP: more useless drivel I don't have time to debunk>
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: 27 Oct 2000 03:52:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Compaq has made a significant stink of the delayed 2.4 kernel
> release.
Which I find amusing, as compaq has never actually released
a kernel...(unless you count Tru64; but nearly all of that was
already done for them when they bought DEC).
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: And another one, Claire, sweetie
Date: 27 Oct 2000 03:53:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So do you.
> Between your ears :(
I dont get it.
=====.
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:13:42 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
> But I thought OSS software was supposed to be superior in all regards.
> Shouldn't a reasonable expectation be that it ships on time?
The stability, significant reduction in bugs, and ultra-fast response time
to reported bugs is where the OSS superiority comes in. Shipping on time
is secondary to quality. However, with Open source, you can grab the
current version of something such as the linux kernel, long before the
"official" release is out, and sometimes it's stable enough to use
regularly (KDE 2.0 betas were a good example).
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sorry, Claire, but this is urgent
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:00:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
No-Spam wrote:
[snip]
> Keep up the good work Jacques, this Wintroll deserves it!
It does raise the noise-to-signal ratio in here a bit, but in this case
I'm all for it. I too was once a lurker here, until Drestin convinced
me to buy a copy of Linux. Maybe Claire will do the same for the next
generation of Linvocates.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And another one, Claire, sweetie
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:23:02 GMT
You're kidding?
claire
On 27 Oct 2000 03:53:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So do you.
>
>> Between your ears :(
>
>I dont get it.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 27 Oct 2000 05:10:00 GMT
Typical invective from somebody that lacks an argument. Good day Ed! :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 27 Oct 2000 05:12:48 GMT
In article <39f8cd77$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jason you are not just a twit, you are a very dumb asshole. Your argument was
>that a low level cache would make the user of any operating system -- even a
>single threaded-one like wincrap anything -- *more productive* because the
>machine would run faster then the user of system without a low-level cache
>that could multi-task very well. -- Focus on the word "Productive." Look it
>up if you don't know what it means.
We were talking about hardware Ed. You obviously can't differentiate
between the hardware and software. You didn't understand what was going
on and instead of admitting this you keep looking like a dumb ass to
anybody that has a small understanding of the hardware caching.
>
>I did try to explain it you several different times and in several different
>ways. You didn't get it. That you keep whining the same stupid idea every time
>you lose a point, is proof that either you are a complete nincompoop, or a
>petty immature grudge carying idiot, or a person whose parents should
>apologize to the world for breeding you. -- My vote is for all three!
No you didn't get it. Tell me how OS/2 overcomes the CPU hardware caching
again. Me and all the EE's that are reading would love to know.
>
>I'm not sure why Colorado took you in or keeps you. Perhaps you are their
>token dumbbell something and they can't get rid of you. But since you won't go
>away and growup, and keep whining the same stupid argument, I am tempted to
>locate your boss and ask if you're the department janitor playing with the
>computers when no one is looking, or something more. Because you certainly
>have never displayed the brains or the good sense to shutup when you're wrong
>-- and if you are in any position with responsibility beyond emptying the
>trash, it implies to the outside world that the department has no respect for
>itself or anyone else -- especially those who are paying good money to be
>there.
One things for sure, you couldn't pass the classes that I have.
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:24:44 +1000
"David M. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The stability, significant reduction in bugs, and ultra-fast response time
> to reported bugs is where the OSS superiority comes in. Shipping on time
> is secondary to quality. However, with Open source, you can grab the
> current version of something such as the linux kernel, long before the
> "official" release is out, and sometimes it's stable enough to use
> regularly (KDE 2.0 betas were a good example).
Indeed, with OSS, there are *no* arbitrary release dates. OSS is released
*when and only when* it is feature complete and production stable. Compaq
can whinge and get as frustrated as it likes, it's not going to get the
kernel out any sooner. Expectation is why OSS is much better than most
commercial stuff.
--Chris
Who does realise that he is using Windows. The other half of my system is
coming together slowly but surely.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hello again Claire
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 01:20:35 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> He has programs running in the background like a screensaver.
Another demonstration of the LOUSY FUCKING DESIGN of Lose-dose....
Hint...in REAL operating systems, there is a concept called 'process
priority', wherein the PEOPLE (remember, them...those living agents
which the computers are there to serve) running the machine can give
important processes (like, say, a defrag job) higher priority than
cpu-wasters (like, say....a lame-ass screen saver)
> Run msconfig and remove the check boxes from the following:
>
> Load Startup group items
> Processs system.ini File
> Process Config.sys File
> Process Autoexec.bat File
> Process Winstart.bat
> Process Win.ini File
>
> Reboot and run the defrag. How long it takes depends on the type of
> drive and how badly it is fragmented.
>
> After it is done, run msconfig again and check the Normal startup box
> and reboot.
Better yet, through that steaming pile of shit in the trash, and
load up Linux or Solaris or some other REAL operating system.
>
> claire
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:03:12 +0000, Jacques Guy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> Hi
> >> I have a brand new Pentium III 800 mzh, 64 RAM running WIN ME
> >> How long should it take to run Defrag
> >> I have a 30 Gig hard drive
> >> It took 4 hours is that normal and is it supposed to keep restarting
> >> over and over.
> >
> >Give the chap a hint, won't you darling?
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 01:49:03 -0700
"Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qtwJ5.1200$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Could we have this printed on some big piece of granite please?
>
> I guess you could just call Microsoft the FORTRAN of system houses.
>
> We don't know what the desktop OS of the future will look like, but
> it will be called MS Windows.
I'm looking at (and using) build 2276 of Whistler right now. The OS of the
"home computer" future is incredibly similar to Win2K, the UI is much closer
in appearance to Money 2001 or similar though. It is a much different UI
than Win2k, and much different from any Win9x. I believe it will be called
Windows.Net.
Some basic stats of the first half hour of use
Rock solid stability!! :-) (insert flame here)
Intalled flawlessly
Only sees one processor.
Sees devices the exact same as Win2k did.
Set up and integrated itself into a boot loader like 2k does.
Somehow uses 1.3gb with no other apps installed, I think the entire cd was
copied to the HD first. Good thing 75gb hd's will be the norm next summer.
"Windows" folder is huge.
Has some sort of movie editor added.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: And another one, Claire, sweetie
Date: 27 Oct 2000 06:18:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You're kidding?
Bright bulb.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:09:54 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Compaq has made a significant stink of the delayed 2.4 kernel
> release.
>
> It's funny but I can't remember a single Windows version which wasn't
> delayed by months from the target release.
>
> Bill Gates said Windows 95 would be released almost a year
> before it actually was. Nobody said a damn thing about it.
>
> I think it shows that people CARE about Linux and WANT
> to see the release. If they didn't CARE about Linux
> and have a NEED to see the release then we would
> not have heard from them.
>
> Further,
>
> People keep forgetting what Linux is all about.
> They have this BIG corporate picture painted in
> their heads as if it were anything like Microsoft
> in structure and needs. The GNU/Linux model
> is nothing like the business model found in Microsoft.
>
> Millions will NOT be made or lost to Linus if he was
> a year or two late with a kernel. It doesn't bother
> the man one bit. He's not under somebody else's
> gun. And he never will be either.
>
> And in this fact, you can see why people are
> in anticipation and WAIT for the new Kernel.
>
> They like his work.
>
> People just have to understand that Linux
> isn't like Microsoft where they just slap
> layers together and QA the product until
> they have it 1/2 running. It's not like
> that at all.
Microsoft performs Quality Assurance?
coulda fooled me.
>
> Microsoft has to turn out Operating Systems
> in order to make money to pay salaries.
>
> In the Linux camp, nobody HAS to make money
> and there are NO SALARIES TO PAY.
>
> If EVERY commerical operation involved with
> Linux were to go bankrupt by January there would
> STILL be Linux available and being constantly
> developed. The commerical end of Linux is
> not significant toward it's progress.
>
> If there were only Debian and the GNU and
> the Linux Kernel community left there would
> still be Linux forever.
>
> Linux can't be dragged into a Federal Court house
> and broken up as technically it never existed.
> There is NO Linux company. There are just
> a bunch of independent groups all working together
> cooperatively toward a common goal which is
> a dynamite operating system. And they are
> all doing it for their operating system.
>
> Their operating system is THEIR payback
> for doing this. So they are not going to RACE
> thru nothing for anybody.
>
> If the 2.4 kernel were delayed till 12/2001,
> Compaq would still be supporting it and still
> mouthing off about it. Why you ask?
>
> Because it's free and it works better than
> Windows products.
>
> Because they know Microsoft is heading
> toward a court ordered breakup of the company.
>
> Because they see what's going on overseas in
> Europe, South American and Asia and they
> realize that Microsoft is seriously loosing
> big marketshare in these area's as they
> can't compete.
>
> Because they KNOW they need an operating
> system to sell their PC's. That's what makes
> Compaq profitable.
>
> Compaq kick Linux off it's table? Well, they've
> bitched enough about the 2.4 kernel issue you
> would think so. What's holding them up anyway?
>
> Could it be common sense?
>
> --
> Charlie
>
> By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
> LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:11:33 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Compaq has made a significant stink of the delayed 2.4 kernel
> > release.
> >
> > It's funny but I can't remember a single Windows version which wasn't
> > delayed by months from the target release.
>
> But I thought OSS software was supposed to be superior in all regards.
> Shouldn't a reasonable expectation be that it ships on time?
Define "on time" in the context of software development.
In my experience, outside of trivial university homework assignments,
NO SOFTWARE ever gets completed on time.
>
> Also, considering that most of the functionality in the 2.4 kernel is catch-up
> to NT and other OSes that have had most of it as a basic part of the OS
> for years now, it's kind of embarassing that they're spending all this
> time just to get up to today's level of expectations. Compaq's anger
> is justified.
>
> > Bill Gates said Windows 95 would be released almost a year
> > before it actually was. Nobody said a damn thing about it.
>
> Oh, there was plenty said. So was there about Win2K, but people
> just like you, if not you yourself.
>
> > I think it shows that people CARE about Linux and WANT
> > to see the release.
>
> More like... Compaq is giving Linux one chance, if they can't get
> their shit together (which they haven't, and won't) Compaq will
> give up on them.
>
> <SNIP: more useless drivel I don't have time to debunk>
>
> -Chad
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 27 Oct 2000 06:34:58 GMT
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:26:18 -0700, Bob B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:22:19 -0700, Bob B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > IBM Thinkpad 765L with 3 gig blank un partitioned hard disk.
>> >> > Sigma Data 24x CDROM (says IBM certified on label) in Ultrabay.
>> >> > USR PCMCIA 56K modem.
>> >> > Linksys Cardbus PCMCIA Ethernet card.
>> >> > 64 Meg memory.
>> >> >
>> >> > And one friend who asked me to install Linux, no particular
>> >> > distribution in mind. Just something "nice" so he can try Linux.
>> >>
>> >> Bullshit.....
>> >>
>> >> Large blob of bullshit below...
>> <snip>
>> >Now here is great representative of the Linux "community" - he doesn't
>> >try to refute or explain anything, his only contribution is to say
>> >"bullshit".
>> Thats because "Claire_Lynn" is a Wintroll and a waste of time, nothing
>> this person says is believable, hence the "bullshit".
>
>Did you even read the thread you are replying to ? The CD problem was
>confirmed by at least one other poster, and several people offered
>suggestions on how to solve the other problems, and the problems were
>reported to be fixed. A nice civilized discussion. Except for Aaron R.
>Kulkis, and now you.
Fortunately thanks to the Wintroll police, youve "helped" us understand all
this. Good job, medals are 4th door down onm your left.
>
>>
>> If you want tech advice take it to a relevant newsgroup, this is
>> Linux ADVOCACY, tech help is the third door down on your right.
>>
>> And as if this wasn't already wasting enough bandwidth, he
>> >includes a 37 line signature.
>> Your point being ... ?
>
>Hey, if you don't see anything odd about a 37 line sig, I'll never be
>able to explain it to you.
No but the Wintroll thought police will ?
While we are on proper Usenet protocol, why are you posting tech probs on
COLA ?
>
>>
>> >
>> >With advocates like this, its a wonder that ANYONE is using Linux.
>> With Windows advocates like YOU, its a wonder anyone replied to your lame post.
>
>Windows advocate ? I love these knee jerk reactions.. You had problems
>with Linux ? BULLSHIT! You dare question a rude reply ? WINDOWS
>ADVOCATE!
Same old tired Wintroll reply Bob B. I remain underwhelmed with your canned
replies.
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> Terry
>
>Bob B.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 5 days 2 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
