Linux-Advocacy Digest #872, Volume #29 Fri, 27 Oct 00 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Hello again Claire (Terry Porter)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Toon Moene)
Re: Astroturfing ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
MS Hacked? (Stuart Fox)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (mlw)
Re: MS Hacked? (mlw)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: MS Hacked? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Beats NT! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("Chad Myers")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: MS Hacked? ("MH")
Re: MS Hacked? ("Philo")
Re: MS Hacked? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing (Jason Bowen)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Nik Simpson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Hello again Claire
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 27 Oct 2000 11:09:59 GMT
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:05:30 +1300, Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do you remember the dicussion about Windows being easier for users, here is
>a perfect example of a poorly designed OS. Had the filesystem been
>replaced by something that actuall worked, ie ReiserFS (which I am running)
>there would be no need to run a defragmenter thus this question would never
>appeared. I also remember you comment regarding windows, "no need to edit
>text files", now look whats happened, a complete 360, it appears your
>glorification of Windows is based on bull $*#.
This Wintroll (claire_lynn) has being doing this since 1997, its the same old
story, FUD all the way.
He/she gets resoundly beaten in debating and facts, dissapears for a while
then comes back with a new and false identity, its a boring cycle.
>
>matt
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> He has programs running in the background like a screensaver.
>> 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.
>>
>> claire
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 5 days 7 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:20:49 +0200
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Caveman) writes:
> > > As for giving things away as a business strategy, AT&T was pretty
> > > smart about giving away UNIX.
> Actually, UNIX was more like an accident. A few guys at Bell Labs
> were trying to get Multics running on a pretty expensive computer
> and their funding was cut by AT&T.
IMPLICIT SMILEY (A-Z)
Hmmm, the way I recall it Ken needed a computer (and an OS) to run his
games on - Bell Labs "gave" him a PDP-7 and he invented Unix.
But don't take my word for it - Dennis is listening in to this
(comp.arch) newsgroup, so you can hear it from the horse's mouth.
--
Toon Moene - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:14:07 -0400
Nick Condon wrote:
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > you actually are stupid enough to imagine that MS would need to pay
> > anyone in some lightly trafficed advocacy newsgroup? The mind boggles at
> > what this implies of the rest of your capacity for stupidity might be...
>
> It's called "peer marketing", it's very trendy in ad-land right now, and there
> are whole agencies that specialise in it. The target audience is not the
> anti-MS poster the pro-MS poster argues with, but the lurkers. The group may be
> lightly trafficked, but how many lurkers are there? Nobody nows. They are all
> potential converts for The Church of Redmond.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean "Cult of Bill"
--
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: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MS Hacked?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:31:11 GMT
Could the source code get out somehow, or is this just a hoax?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_993000/993933.stm
Stu
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[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 07:52:25 -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?
The important aspect of OSS is that it work. It is a non-trivial change
to the kernel and I would prefer that every one takes their time.
When software is delivered late, people stop grumbling the day after it
is shipped. When software is shipped buggy, you lose credibility.
>
> 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.
Hardly. You don't see Compaq putting their money where their mouth is do
you? Funding kernel development by dedicating engineers to it would
probably help.
>
> > 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.
That's the argument isn't it? Seriously. The argument against OSS is
that it is unstructured and will always be delayed and of poor quality.
Where as "commercial" development is structured and managed, thus it
should always be on time and of better quality.
The reality is that software development is an unknown. If it were
known, it would be typing. What we see is that software no matter how it
is managed, does have the tendency to slip. I am as guilty as the next,
however, with OSS there are no hard ship dates where marketing weasels
stand in the engineering meetings and declare "We have to ship by
xx/xx/xx or we might as well all go home now." Where more than half the
engineers in the group think to themselves, "I don't need this crap, I'm
sending out my resume."
OSS allows the engineers the freedom to do it right. So far, Linux's
stability is proof. It may be beta, but 2.4 is still more stable than
2K.
>
> > 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.
Compaq can give up on Linux. Who cares? They have yet to make a clear
and consistent, reasonable decision on anything.
Pentium, Alpha, True64, VMS, OpenVMS, NT, 2K, StrongARM, etc. Compaq
swallowed Digital and became Digital. They have the power and size to be
a market leader, but squander all advantages they acquire. It matters
not one bit what Compaq decides to do, they may be around for a long
time, they may have influence, but they haven't been important since
EISA, and that was a mistake.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:57:06 -0400
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> Could the source code get out somehow, or is this just a hoax?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_993000/993933.stm
>
Very cool. All we have to do is wait. Sooner or later the code will be
posted, and we will get a good laugh.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: 27 Oct 2000 11:57:08 GMT
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:35:42 GMT, 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?
Not at all. Part of the philosophy is that it ships when it's ready
to ship. It has always been this way. Most reputable software comapnies
also delay releases until software is ready for release.
>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.
The new features are nice, but suffice it to say that a lot of people
have been doing just fine without them.
>> 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.
I doubt it. Linux is not going to just quietly go away because a
kernel is released late.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:57:25 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stuart Fox wrote:
>>
>> Could the source code get out somehow, or is this just a hoax?
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_993000/993933.stm
>>
>
> Very cool. All we have to do is wait. Sooner or later the code will be
> posted, and we will get a good laugh.
Especially if some gpl'd code is found. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:46:16 GMT
Too bad you're using Netscape's crappy news reader.
Outlook Express has the concept of Identities which would allow
you and other members of your families to have seperate, unique
configurations.
-Chad
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Member of the family, can't be bothered changing the from title.
>
> Matt
>
> JS/PL wrote:
>
> > "Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Following on from other posters, it also fails to list the 200 copies I
> > gave
> > > out to students at my IT course when learning UNIX (Which is a very big
> > > module, the copy installed on the UNIX server at my UNI. is Debian w/
> > Kernel
> > > 2.0.36).
> > >
> > > Matt
> >
> > Is your whole family contributing to the thread, or just you? Are you the
> > Gardiner Family editor, or just a contributor?
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Beats NT!
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:50:22 GMT
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 1. READ THE FUCKING POST, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FUCKING WEBSERVERS YOU
> FUCKING CUNT HEAD, I AM TALKING ABOUT BIG FUCKING SERVERS USED INSIDE BIG
> FUCKING CORPERATE NETWORKS SERVING HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF EMAILS, FILES
> AND APPLICATIONS TO THOUSANDS OF USERS PER DAY.
Ok... Windows is taking over this space day by day. If you look at IDC
and Gartner studies on Windows penetration in the Fortune 500 space, you'll
see it's rapid.
> 2. TCP.ORG IS ACTUALLY THE WEBSITE FOR THE TEXAS CHURCH PLANTERS YOU FUCKING
> CUNT HEAD, GET A FUCKING LIFE YOU FUCKING DICK HEAD.
TPC.ORG half-wit.
> 3. RESEARCHED A NUMBER OF SITES (YAHOO.COM, GOOGLE.COM, REAL.COM,
> WHITEHOUSE.GOV, BE.COM, IBM.COM, APPLE.COM, ZDNET.COM, WINZIP.COM) ALL USE A
> UNIX VARIANT INSTEAD OF WINDOWS, GET THE FUCKING HINT, NOBODY WANTS TO USE
> WINDOWS AS A WEBSERVER EXCEPT FOR THOSE TO GUTLESS TO STAND UP AGAINST THE
> WINTEL MONOPOLY.
Um... who cares about all those sites? The only one that has half-way
respectable numbers is Yahoo, and up until their recent deal with Google.com,
they were NT on the front end.
How about sites with real numbers? Dell.com and Gigabuys.com, the two
largest e-Commerce sites on the 'net. Powered by....? Windows 2000 and
SQL Server 2000.
Barnes and noble? Win2K
Lycos? Win2K
Hotmail? Win2K
Anyone of those sites has more hits than all the sites you listed
(except for yahoo) combined.
Pull your head from the sand and open your eyes.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 12:53:04 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP>
> Rock solid stability!! :-) (insert flame here)
> Intalled flawlessly
> Only sees one processor.
Are you using the personal version? Win2K had this when it was in
beta, you had to manually set it up for 2 processors sometimes.
> 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
It's in beta, they usually have a bunch of unneeded crap and debug junk in
there. Win2K was something like 800mb or larger in debug, but release
is somewhere around 250-300mb.
> 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.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:58:52 GMT
"Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tbaj6$oj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <F%fJ5.15978$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > In all fairness to Chad, Linux does not detect RAM correctly on certain
> > > computers. For instance, the Thinkpad that I use...Linux will only detect
> > > the first 64MB.
> >
> > Certain? How about the majority.
>
> I'm sure Chad will post his personal verification of this.
Well, the 8 or 9 systems I installed, all the systems my friends have installed,
confessions from Linvocates themselves (earlier in this thread and others like
it) and several Linvocates confirming that it is a bug in Linux that is uses
the BIOS to determine the RAM which doesn't always work right.
Regardless, no matter, how they're doing it, they're doing it wrong, because
it doesn't work right on ALL systems. Specifically, the 810 seems to be
the worst, as it only detects 16MB of RAM. The 810 chipset is pretty popular
and is common place in the business world on the desktop.
>
> > Note: If you get this wrong, KERNEL PANIC...
>
> I'm sure that no other OS panics if you like to it about the RAM it
> has.
Other OSes are competent enough to be able to do simple things like
discover the amount of RAM installed in the machine. Unfortunately,
Linux isn't capable of the basics like this.
>
> > > (That's with Staroffice and Netscape both active, along with other bits)
> >
> > Both hogs, geez...
>
> Windows lusers probably wouldn't notice high RAM usage, since it's
> a normal every day issue.
It is? How so?
> > Spare us the Microsoft conspiracy bit... BeOS Personal Edition was able to
> > detect it all just fine.
>
> > Face it, it's yet another example of the less-than-good programming
> > efforts of the Linux team.
>
> Well, that's just too much bullshit from one human. The meter is in
> the red.
Ah yes... stick the head in the sand. Deny, deny, deny... insult, insult,
insult.
How come no other OS has this problem on any hardware? It's _JUST_ Linux.
Why? Why does Linux have this problem?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:03:00 GMT
"David M. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
But the response isn't much better, in fact slower in most cases than
Microsoft (according to SecurityFocus.com and other security-related
sites). The stability in Linux is a myth purpetrated by the Penguinistas.
> 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).
But there's no testing. You do know what testing is, don't you? Of course not,
you use Linux!
Go to any Fortune 500 company and ask them to install this OS you just
nabbed that's in-development and hasn't been tested. See how long before
they throw you out laughing their asses off.
-Chad
------------------------------
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 13:03:57 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NlbK5.4158$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP>
> > In the Linux camp, nobody HAS to make money
> > and there are NO SALARIES TO PAY.
>
> You seem to forget that many companies DO in fact pay developers to do Linux
> work. Red Hat certainly does.
Heh... you wouldn't think they do judging by the junk they put out...
-Chad
------------------------------
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 13:09:46 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
>
> The important aspect of OSS is that it work. It is a non-trivial change
> to the kernel and I would prefer that every one takes their time.
But the problem with this... you guys always say that's why Linux is
better because there are no hard and fast deadlines, but it doesn't show.
Linux now exceeds NT 4.0 on hacked sites list, it's taking over on the
number of bugs list, and the response time for patches is worse than
Microsoft in most cases. This just doesn't hold up.
> When software is delivered late, people stop grumbling the day after it
> is shipped. When software is shipped buggy, you lose credibility.
Ah... I see. So when MS does this with Win2K, it's a joke, but it's ok
with Linux right?
I seem to recal you are people like you continually bashing Microsoft
for the lateness of Win2K. But Win2K was much better than anyone
expected and included more features than anyone expected. It advanced
the state of OS technology. Linux is trying to play catch-up. When you
look the feature list for Win2k and the feature list for Linux 2.4,
Win2K still has more features.
It's understandable in MS' case that they were adding new features
and new technologies, but in Linux, they're just trying to keep
up with everyone else, which is embarassing.
> > 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.
>
> Hardly. You don't see Compaq putting their money where their mouth is do
> you? Funding kernel development by dedicating engineers to it would
> probably help.
They don't? I seem to recall seeing on their site that they were working
with Linux kernel developers to get Linux working on most of their
systems (Proliant x86 on up).
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:28:58 -0400
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > Could the source code get out somehow, or is this just a hoax?
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_993000/993933.stm
> >
>
> Very cool. All we have to do is wait. Sooner or later the code will be
> posted, and we will get a good laugh.
>
No, but it would be interesting. Looking at NN's code would be funny.
But then it is open now, isn't it.
And I would guess that is why the folks at Mozilla decided on a complete
re-write of it.
Something tells me they didn't find it "funny."
I love everyone's attitude about MS's source code somehow being "funny", or
full of "goto's" and on and on. The truth is that none of you would more
than likely even know what you were looking at if the source code for a MS
office app or a MS os was in front of your face.
Yet you make these statements because you can write a trivial C program or
an sql statement.
Or hell, even a device driver. Try even thinking about what is involved in
the process of bringing a product like Word for Windows to market.
Oh, I know. It's SSSOOOO easy to write this stuff, isn't it?
You're all so full of yourselves.
And living in a dream world.
A constructed fantasy of self grandeur.
Wake up people
The play has started, take your seat.
Theatre of the absurd is what it is called.
Casting stones from your glass houses.
Let he who can post his source for his best program here and now, lay waste
by way of comparison to the code of any MS application in use today. Let us
see the code, hot-shots.
Put up or shut up.
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:28:55 -0500
QAZ??? hacking into Microsoft?
hmm...i suppose
next we'll hear that Bill Gates really invented Linux.
--
Philo
website: www.plazaearth.com/philo
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:27:50 GMT
In article <8tbp20$clh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could the source code get out somehow, or is this just a hoax?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_993000/993933.stm
>
> Stu
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Yeah, I've read about it on Bloomberg, too.
According to them, whoever did it was accessing
MS network for about 3 months undetected...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 27 Oct 2000 13:37:34 GMT
In article <39f944fd$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <8tb2n8$prf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/27/00
> at 05:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>>Typical invective from somebody that lacks an argument. Good day Ed! :-)
>
>That is because you're an asshole who refuses to understand or consider any
>argument you don't want to hear. Your parents really should not breed any
>more like you.
Nice pontification. Tell me, why are you such a bitter old man?
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:32:00 -0400
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8takir$d28$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You mean the "X mouse" functionality? Why not use TweakUI? There's no
reason
> > to edit the registry.
>
> This indeed works (but only under win95, 98 and ME). But it only offers
> "sloppy focus" (that is, when the cursor is over the root window, no
> other windows can have focus). It would be nice if there were more
options.
Actually, the same functionailyt also works under NT and W2K, personally I
hate it and never enable it, but its there if you want it.
--
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
******************************
