Linux-Advocacy Digest #819, Volume #30 Mon, 11 Dec 00 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) (kiwiunixman)
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) (kiwiunixman)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) (kiwiunixman)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (mlw)
Re: undefined reference to `__eh_pc' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (kiwiunixman)
questions about Konqueror (Kenny Pearce)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:11:11 GMT
I wasn't aiming at Canada (I have visited Canada, and it ROCKS!), mainly
the neighbour towards the south of Canada.
kiwiunixman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Ahh, Linux is kicking Microsofts ass out of every continent and
>>> country with the exeption is the U.S.A and Canada as we speak.
>>>
>>
>> I agree that Linux is kicking ass outside Canada and USA, Linux is
>> like the metric system, whilst the rest of the world moves forward
>> using Metres, Centimetres, Degree's Celcius, kilometres and other
>> metric terms, there are still countries unwilling to catchup.
>
>
> Uh... we're metric up here in Canada.
>
> -ws
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:21:44 +1300
<snype>
> And in the US, it's kind of like Washington's fight against the British...
>
> years of defeats, culminating in total victory.
>
Question is, was Washingtons little tiff a total waste of time,
considering, most of the English colonies gained their dominion status
shortly after their colonisation (which would have happened, as
maintaining America was becoming too expensive for the English economy
to continue it's funding). Hypothetically speaking, had America been a
good little colony and went with the flow, Slavery would have been
banned 50 years prior to what today is known as the Civil War. I am not
stirring any xenophobic feelings, just a quick thought :)
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:57:56 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> But YOU were the one talking about how inconsistent the quitting
>>> command "ZZ" is (eariler).
>> Where did I allegedly say that? I merely said that exiting the editor
>> is one of the first things you need to learn. It never ceases to amaze
>> me of the difficulty some people have with reading comprehension.
> I hate it when people waste my time making me look things up in
> dejanews because they can't remember what they posted a few days
> ago.
How ironic, coming from the person who accused Aaron of claiming that
nothing is intuitive. Fortunately, I can remember what I posted a few
days ago, and your quotation proves it.
> Okay, here goes:
>
> From the URL:
>
>http://x52.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=701721023&CONTEXT=976576911.1172570136&hitnum=5
>
> ] Well, it's been a while, but I suspect that the first vi commands
> ] I saw were i, Esc, and ZZ. That made d$ still a special case.
Gee, and there it is: exactly what I claimed I said. Note that I am
talking about the first vi commands I saw. Above I said that exiting
the editor is one of the first things you need to learn. Perfectly
consistent. Not a single word about ZZ being inconsistent.
What I noted earlier has been reinforced: you do suffer from reading
comprehension problems.
>>> I'm saying that it doesn't have to be
>>> taught that way, and in my case it wasn't.
>> Were you taught the undo command before you were taught how to save
>> your text and exit the editor?
Note: no response.
>>>>> ZZ was just a quick shortcut mapping to the 'real' command.
>>>> Why do you suppose it was added?
>>> Dunno - I don't use it or find it convienient.
>> Think about it.
> Okay, I did. I still don't find it convienient because it doesn't
> tell me what kind of quitting it is doing. I prefer the control over
> the types of quitting: :wq! vs :wq for example.
You obviously didn't think about it enough. It exists within vi.
Apparently you haven't figured out why yet.
>>> Whatever it was that caused the distraction (phone rings, lose
>>> train of thought, brain fart, whatever) is going to be vastly
>>> more of a factor.
>> Irrelevant, given that I'm talking about the speed of operation
>> of the editor itself, not the wall clock time getting an editing
>> job done.
> Bull.
Oh really? Suddenly you know more about what I'm saying than I do?
> If you believed that, then you wouldn't have brought up
> the whole point about losing track of where you were in the first
> place.
Illogical. Distractions are a fact of life. The time it takes me
to write a program can be measured as the time spent working with
the editor itself. With vi I am slower than with other editors.
The time spent on distractions doesn't change that, but the
occurrence of distractions does have an effect on the time spent
working with the editor.
Furthermore, I derive some benefit from using the same editor for
both programming and manipulating data files. The block column
features of BRIEF are what attracted me in the first place.
> Clearly, you had the human-time spent in mind as the
> important metric,
Incorrect.
> or such an issue would never have come up.
Illogical, for the reason I just gave.
>>>>>>> It is consistent with being the end of the type of motion command
>>>>>>> you gave.
>>>>>> Do you consider d to be a "motion command"?
>>>>> '$' is the motion command, not 'd'.
>>>> But you called it "the end of the type of motion command you gave".
>>> *I* didn't call it anything - pay attention to the attributions.
>> Practice what you preach. There is only your attribution to pay
>> attention to.
> Silly me. Again I got presumptuous and assumed you'd remember who
> you had been talking to in a thread you were participating in.
Is that your justification for removing attributions? How ironic
that you should forget who said what in a thread you are participating
in. For example, it wasn't Aaron who claimed that nothing is intuitive.
>>>>> That's the way the other ones work:
>>>>> d {motion command} (delete from cursor to the moved-to-spot)
>>>>> y {motion command} (yank from cursor to the moved-to-spot)
>>>>> > {motion command} (indent block from cursor to moved-to-line)
>>>>> < {motion command} (outdent block from cursor to moved-to-line)
>>>>> v {motion command} (visually select from cursor to moved-to-spot)
>>>>> ....etc... (the last one (v) didn't exist in the original vi, but
>>>>> exists in all the new incarnations of it)
>>>> Doesn't specify whether $ is the end of line or the end of file.
>>> It's always end-of-line everywhere except where it's being used
>>> in a place where you would normally put a line number.
>> The key word here is "except".
> The rule has only 2 cases. You act like there's some sort of guesswork
> involved, as if it required rote memorization of several special cases.
You act like it's perfectly consistent, except that you had to use the
word "except", which demonstrates that it is not perfectly consistent.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:24:09 GMT
Joseph T. Adams wrote:
> kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Windows 2000 Pro, has had slow sales, not because of any technical
> : limitations, but because most consumers are waiting for the arrival of
> : Windows Whistler that will address the short commings of Windows ME and
> : Windows 2000 Pro.
>
>
> But if you believe what the Wintrolls were saying just a very short
> time ago, there were no shortcomings in WinME and W2K.
>
>
The shorts coming under WindowsME is the poor system stability,
realibility and intergrity, Windows 2000's problems is its poor hardware
support and gaming support.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:04:44 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> The Ghost In The Machine writes:
>>> So, to sum up:
>>>
>>> [1] Nothing is intuitive.
>> You need to consult a manual for everything???
> Do you consider a small folding card (of the type sometimes
> found in O'Rielly books, or of the type published by SCC) to
> be a "manual"?
It serves the same purpose in this case.
> That's all I used to learn VI.
Wasn't intuitive. You needed to consult a reference.
> It was about 10 inches by 11 inches, and I only used one side
> of it.
Still a reference.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:03:32 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>> Joe Malloy wrote:
>>>> Tholen tholes:
>>>>>> Silly me, I thought I was talking about text editors, not signs.
>>>>> Something wrong with a simple analogy to help illustrate a point?
>>>> Wattsamatta, Tholen, you don't like being called on the carpet for
>>>> an inappropriate "analogy"?
>>> No...what he objects to is the fact that ... Steve was right.
>> Right about what, allegedly? There were several issues discussed,
>> mostly diversions from the original issue, namely your ridiculous
>> claim that nothing about computers is intuitive.
> Your stance, (which I am getting by simply inverting Aaron's
> claim - correct me if I'm wrong here), is that "At least some
> things about a computer are intuitive".
Very good, Steve. Now, if your reading comprehension were are good
as you claim, you wouldn't have needed to invert anything.
> (This is the negation of "nothing about a computer is intuitive.)
Funny how you previously translated that into "nothing is intuitive",
or erroneously atrributed someone else's statement about that to Aaron.
> The problem with this statement is that natural languages like English
> often lead to anbiguous statements,
What is "natural" about English?
> especially when the qualifiers "some" or "all" are left off - because
> both are often equally valid ways to interpet the statement, depending
> on the situation. There are two ways, both equally valid, of interpeting
> the statement "Some things about a computer are intuitive":
>
> A) Some things about a computer are intiutive to all people.
> B) Some things about a computer are intiutive to some people.
And if you understood context, namely the statements I've made that
intuition isn't an absolute, you'd already know which case applies here.
> If your statement is (B), I agree with you.
You mean you're unsure?
> But I think Aaron is assuming you are meaning (A),
Illogical, given that intuition isn't an absolute, which is something
else I've made perfectly clear to him.
> since that is often what it means when someone leaves a qualifier
> off on a statement like that.
Evidence, please.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:37:08 -0500
Rodrigo Iglesias wrote:
>
> > IMHO Microsoft makes crap products. When one aspect is measured against
> > competitors, you will ALWAYS find a competitor which behaves better. I
> > will NEVER use Office again unless there is absolutely no other way.
>
> I think that you can find crap products anywhere. I admit that Microsoft
> perhaps sometimes puts before market than quality. But again, that is
> something no company can avoid, as an example (and not a anti-Linux
> one), Redhat.
Obviously, but Microsoft is king of crap.
>
> > The Microsoft brand operating systems are probably the worst ones
> > available. They have no qualities that make them better than other
> > solutions available.
>
> They do have qualities. Not seing them is being blind. Persons are
> not at stupid as we use to imagine.
Microsoft operating systems do not have a quality that isn't available
somewhere else, done better. The problem is that they have used their
monopoly power to make it practically impossible to write shrink wrap
for anything else.
>
> > The only reason people have to use Microsoft products is because
> > Microsoft has a long history of coercing companies to sell only
> > Microsoft products, and by doing this limited competition, and locking
> > the application market by leveraging dominance of the PC OS business
> > into application business.
>
> What OS would you have used under the original IBM PC ? If it
> is not MS-DOS, tell me some of the improvements of the product
> you chose over the MS-DOS one. Just try to be objetive please.
CP/M86 was much better than DOS.
>
> > It is perfectly obvious, at least to me, the state of the art of
> > computers would be much better off without Microsoft. The applications
> > that "get the job done" as you say, would be a lot better if it were not
> > for Microsoft. Admittedly, they would not have dancing paper clips, but
> > they would be more stable and probably have fewer but better features.
>
> Unproved all of that, just your opinion. I have had a ZX-81, a Spectrum,
> an Amstrad CPC 6128, an Amiga 1200 and several PC's from 8086 to
> Athlon, and I can't really tell me if I think Microsoft had a negative or a
> positive influence in computers world. Even when admitting that their
> current and past OS's are technically very bad ... may be if Microsoft
> had not existed you would not have a computer ... is not Microsoft the
> only guilty, there are IBM, Sun, ... why Amiga was left on the dust when
> it was a better computer than PC ones (in my opinion) ? Why did IBM PC
> triumph when it was a shit ? Why did not OS/2 succeeded ? (we are
> talking about Windows 3.0 times ... easy to beat) Where was a GNU OS
> running on the original Intel 8088 ? Things are not white or black.
I was hacking computers in the late 70's. Anyone who was doing that
stuff at the time knew that computers would be on every desktop. We all
expected that there would be many different operating systems. We didn't
expect to be locked in to the same sort of operating system now as we
had then. Like it or not, Windows ME is still based on DOS. It has
components ranging in age from 20 years, to about 1 or two years, but
the average age of the aggregate has to be at least 11 years.
Amiga lost because it was not marketed correctly, it tried to be both a
home and a business computer.
IBM won because no one ever gets fired for buying IBM.
IBM published the source of their BIOS in the technical reference.
Phoenix created the legal way to reverse engineer software.
Phoenix BIOS allowed ibm clones to be legal.
OS/2 1.x failed because IBM insisted that it run on a 286 (they did not
have a 386 system then)
OS/2 was fatally late because the 286 OS could not be protected from
apps in the DOS box.
OS/2 2.x and higher never recovered from the bad rep of 1.x
UNIX slowed to a crawl because AT&T decided to take it back.
Linux was written because no UNIX was available.
BSD was "encumbered" by AT&T.
Digital Research, CP/M
Digital Equipment Corp
on, and on, and on.
There are lots of historical events. Many interrelate, some do not. I
could write for hours on all the things that happened in the last 20 odd
years.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: undefined reference to `__eh_pc'
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:25:38 GMT
>
> Link using g++.
>
Didn't work ;-(
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:08:40 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe Malloy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Tholen tholes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whoa, this is the pot calling the kettle black! Pedantic to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of silliness, Tholen now turns around and uses pedanticism
>as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an attack. Great going, Tholen, you're really low on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency list now!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a reason why Tholen, in 12 years, has never budged from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TOP of my list as "GODDAMN STUPIDEST FUCKING IDIOT ON USENET"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has he really been at it for TWELVE YEARS?!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not, Marty. Aaron is simply another in a series of liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen nothing that leads me to agree with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you've seen nothing that leads you to agree with Aaron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, the lack of Aaron's evidence is precisely the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that you've seen nothing that leads you to agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Balderdash, Dave.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really? Where's Aaron's evidence, allegedly?
>>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> Classic incorrect pontification.
>>>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>>>>>> MA] Classic incorrect pontification.
>>>>> Of what relevance is this quotation?
>>>> It's where the irony is, Marty.
>>> Classic incorrect pontification.
>> Incorrect, given that I reproduced the ironic statement, Marty.
> Where, allegedly?
Six non-blank lines up, Marty.
>>>> Don't you remember what you asked me?
>>> Certainly, which is why I recognized the inappropriateness of the
>>> quotation.
>> Non sequitur, given that you asked me for the relevance of the quotation,
>> Marty.
> One can ask a question when one knows the answer to it already.
Why would you need to in this case, Marty?
> Haven't you ever been the recipient of a math test in grade school?
Irrelevant, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truly amazing that you think you know more about what I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen from Aaron than I do.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's so amazing about knowing that Aaron hasn't presented any
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to anyone about when I allegedly started posting to
>>>>>>>>>>>> USENET, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> Classic incorrect pontification.
>>>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>>>>>> MA] Classic incorrect pontification.
>>>>> Of what relevance is this quotation?
>>>> It's where the irony is, Marty.
>>> Classic incorrect pontification.
>> Incorrect, given that I reproduced the ironic statement, Marty.
> Where, allegedly?
Six non-blank lines up, Marty.
>>>> Don't you remember what you asked me?
>>> Certainly, which is why I recognized the inappropriateness of the quotation.
>> Non sequitur, given that you asked me for the relevance of the quotation,
>> Marty.
> One can ask a question when one knows the answer to it already.
Why would you need to in this case, Marty?
> Haven't you ever been the recipient of a math test in grade school?
Irrelevant, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Arrogance and stupidity in a single package. How efficient of you."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Londo Mollari
>>>>>>>>>>>> Applies to you, Marty. And Aaron.
>>>>>>>>>>> Applies to you, Dave.
>>>>>>>>>> What is allegedly arrogant or stupid about knowing when I started
>>>>>>>>>> posting to USENET, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>>>> MA] Classic pontification.
>>> Of what relevance is this quotation?
>> It's where the irony is, Marty.
> On what basis do you make this claim?
On the basis of your pontification, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, if you can find a USENET posting from me that dates back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 1988, feel free to repost it. I know you can't. I know Aaron
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't prove that no postings were made by you in that time
>period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What would you consider as proof, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not my problem, now is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it is, Marty, given that you're the one who wants prove that I
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't post anything in that time period.
>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I want to prove that you didn't post
>>>>>>>>>>> anything in that time period.
>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "That doesn't prove that no postings were made by you in that
>>>>>>>>>> time period."
>>>>>>>>>> --Marty Amodeo
>>>>>>>>> And where is the quote that's supposed to show that I want to prove that you
>>>>>>>>> didn't post anything in that time period?
>>>>>>>> "That doesn't prove that no postings were made by you in that
>>>>>>>> time period."
>>>>>>>> --Marty Amodeo
>>>>>>> Repeating the same inappropriate quotation doesn't make it more appropriate,
>>>>>>> Dave.
>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that the quotation is inappropriate, Marty.
>>>>> Not at all, Dave.
>>>> Classic pontification.
>>> How ironic.
>> Where is the alleged irony, Marty?
> DT] Classic pontification.
On what basis do you call it irony, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm content to believe what Aaron said.
>>>>>>>>>> Why are you content with a lie, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>>>> MA] Classic pontification.
>>> Of what relevance is this quotation?
>> It's where the irony is, Marty.
> On what basis do you make this claim?
On the basis of your pontification, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truly amazing that both you and Aaron think you know more about when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I started posting to USENET than I do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "think I know" anything about when you started posting. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply take Aaron's word over yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that he doesn't know what he's talking about, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't accept this weak and unsupported premise.
>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you accept the truth, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>>>> Yet another example of your pontification.
>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>>>> MA] Yet another example of your pontification.
>>> Of what relevance is this quotation?
>> It's where the irony is, Marty.
> On what basis do you make this claim?
On the basis of your pontification, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since neither of you can present evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Above you considered it truly amazing that I think I know more about
>>>>>>>>>>>> what you've seen from Aaron, Marty,
>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, Dave.
>>>>>>>>>> What is very good about your inconsistency, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> Another non sequitur.
>>>>>>>> Another incorrect statement.
>>>>>>> Still another example of your pontification.
>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>>>> MA] Still another example of your pontification.
>>> Of what relevance is this quotation?
>> It's where the irony is, Marty.
> On what basis do you make this claim?
On the basis of your pontification, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>> but here you just confirmed what I said about Aaron.
>>>>>>>>>>> I did no such thing.
>>>>>>>>>> Reread what you wrote, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> Unnecessary.
>>>>>>>> Then why did you say "I did no such thing", Marty?
>>>>>>> Because I've done no such thing, Dave.
>>>>>> Yet you found it necessary to say so.
>>>>> Would you prefer that I allow you to mislead the readers by suggesting that I
>>>>> have done such a thing?
>>>> On what basis do you claim that I would be misleading the readers, Marty?
>>> Are you suggesting that you haven't suggested that I have done such a thing?
>> I've demonstrated that you did such a thing, Marty.
> On the contrary, you've demonstrated your prowess with regard to
> pontification.
The presentation of evidence is not pontification, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Typical inconsistency.
>>>>>>>>>>> Typical illogical conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>> Balderdash, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> Oh really? What is allegedly logical about jumping to a conclusion?
>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I jumped to a conclusion, Marty.
>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>> Balderdash, Marty.
>>>>> Oh really? How is it erroneous to presuppose something which has already
>>>>> occurred?
>>>> By erroneously presupposing that something has already occurred, Marty.
>>> Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>> Balderdash, Marty.
> Oh really? What is allegedly logical about your circular reasoning?
You're erroneously presupposing the use of circular reasoning on my part,
Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Arrogance and stupidity in a single package. How efficient of you."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Londo Mollari
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where's the alleged irony, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>> See my usage of said quote.
>>>>>>>>>> I already saw your inappropriate usage, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> Impossible, given that there was no such inappropriate usage.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>>>> MA] Classic pontification.
>>> Of what relevance is this quotation?
>> It's where the irony is, Marty.
> On what basis do you make this claim?
On the basis of your pontification, Marty.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:09:06 GMT
Marty writes:
>> David Ogg writes:
>>> Wow, you three should get a room!
>> Counting problems?
> See what I mean about his illogic?
What alleged illogic, Marty?
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:43:02 +1300
<snype>
it's nice to see a Wintrol actually practicing what he preaching, and
its about bloody time.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: Kenny Pearce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: questions about Konqueror
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:48:18 -0800
1) does it include a graphical, HTML compatible e-mail client/newsreader?
2) is it compatible with Netscape address books/bookmarks files?
3) is it fully Javascript/Java/newest version of HTML compatible (I would
assume this is the main reason they would use source from mozilla)?
4) where can I get it?
5) will it, like most KDE apps, run from GNOME if one has KDE installed (but
not currently running) on the system?
Adam Short wrote:
> This has to be the most common cause of Linux crashes I've ever seen.
> Although I've never had Netscape lock up my machine completely, obviously it
> does happen. Makes you wonder why so many people still put up with this
> piece of crap. Have you tried Konqueror? I think its great. I think a lot of
> it is still unfortunately based on Netscape (or rather Mozilla) but it
> certainly makes browsing the web a more enjoyable experience than Netscape
> does. There is no horrible default grey background (Yahoo in grey, ugghh!)
> and the text is actually shown at a reasonable size, in a readable font. No
> more squinting to look at 5pt text or trying to decipher a word in a font so
> blocky and crap you can't work out where one letter ends and the next
> begins. Kudos to the KDE guys on that one.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:45:19 GMT
In article <4yUY5.4218$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:910k79$nr2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In about 2 weeks, there won't be any Linux systems on the list.
> > >
> > > Oh, and Netcraft has changed their policy. Now they only monitor
> > sites for
> > > a few days, then will not monitor them again unless they are on
the
> > most
> > > requested sites list. That means there will be literally millions
of
> > sites
> > > out there that might have huge uptimes and will not show up in the
> > list
> > > simply because they're not the most requested.
> >
> > and not one of the NT boxes could POSSIBLY be on the list because of
the
> > poor desing of the Uptime timer.
>
> It's not an uptime timer per say.
odd, if it is not the case then why would Linux drop off at 497 days?
Needs to prove the above before the rest of this can be considered.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
