Linux-Advocacy Digest #859, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Steve Mading)
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: security (was Re: Whistler review.) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:28:15 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> >> Russ Lyttle writes:
>
> >>> For those not inclined to read below I will recap. Tholen claims use of
> >>> power cords is intuitive.
>
> >> Correct; people do not generally need to consult a manual to know what
> >> to do with a power cord. Do you disagree?
>
> > Sometimes, this disregard is at their own peril.
>
> Most times, no peril is involved.
Who cares. There are instances when it is.
By your argumentation strategy, that is sufficient.
>
> > Tholen...
> > when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> > remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
> is, remember to come back here and apologize.
Tholen...
When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
remember to slit lengthwise.
Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano gods.
>
> >>> I give several counter examples about power cords behaving in ways
> >>> people do not expect, and of people doing strange things with power
> >>> cords.
>
> >> None of your so-called "counter examples" prove that people generally do
> >> not know what to do with a power cord without reading a manual. For those
> >> inclined to not believe me, read below.
>
> >>> Tholen counters that that wasn't fair as the users couldn't have known
> >>> about that or couldn't see inside the TV set or some such.
>
> >> Where did I allegedly say anything about "fair", Russ? I simply stated
> >> that people generally know what to do with a power cord without consulting
> >> a manual. What might happen inside a set is quite irrelevant to that issue.
> >> Whether the circuit is broken by a fuse or an internal socket-plug interface
> >> is also irrelevant. The issue is whether people generally know what to do
> >> with a power cord without consulting a manual.
>
> >>> This attitude is one think I especially dislike about MS software.
> >>> Everything is proclaimed to be "intuitive", when in fact, nothing in
> >>> this universe is "intuitive", not even the simple power cord.
>
> >> Really? You need a manual to know what to do with a power cord on some
> >> new appliance??? Why do you think the word "intuitive" exists?
>
> >>> If you don't test your product agains a naif user, expect it to fail in
> >>> the field, no matter how "intuitive" you thought it was.
>
> >> Looks like you're one of those people who thinks "intuitive" is an
> >> absolute. If it doesn't work for everyone, then it can't be intuitive.
> >> Sorry, but the word isn't defined that way.
>
> >>> Murphy originally said, "If someone can f**k it up, they will." It lost
> >>> meaning in the translation.
>
> >> Doesn't render everything non-intuitive.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you citing evidence that destroys your argument, Aaron?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Familiarity (or experience, to use my word for it) does not have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be universal before something can be declared "intuitive".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a good rule of thumb: if you need to consult the manual,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not intuitive.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has to "consult the manual" (or a friend, or the on-line
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> help) at some point early in their learning process.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I know some first-time computer users that did not need to consult
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the manual or a friend to know what to do with the power cord, for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> example.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have earned a lot of money plugging in power cords for people.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Congratulations. I know people who replace water heaters, and they
> >>>>>>>>>> also plug in the power cord for customers while installing the
> >>>>>>>>>> replacement appliance.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The first electronics job I had was making calls to fix TV sets.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Not to install them? Televisions that hadn't yet been used don't
> >>>>>>>>>> usually require fixing.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Both. The most common was after the set was at home. Most people, by
> >>>>>>>>> that time, were trying to install the sets themselves.
>
> >>>>>>>> And you're claiming that they didn't know enough to plug it in? Do
> >>>>>>>> these people use a toaster? A lamp? A microwave oven?
>
> >>>> Note: no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> About half the time the problem was the power cord wasn't plugged in.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> But was it because they didn't know that it had to be plugged in, or
> >>>>>>>>>> had it accidently become unplugged without them knowing it? There's
> >>>>>>>>>> a big difference there. I've seen it happen to people many times.
>
> >>>>>>>>> They didn't know all the subtilities of operating a power cord.
>
> >>>>>>>> What "subtleties"?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Plug it in all the way.
>
> >>>>>>>> What's subtle about that?
>
> >>>> Note: no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Unplug it before moving the set.
>
> >>>>>>>> Are you saying that the cord was damaged from strain?
>
> >>>>>>> No, I'm saying that your description of how to use a power cord is
> >>>>>>> missing sum subtilities. Such as : a power cord has *two* ends.
>
> >>>>>> What has that got to do with unplugging before moving the set?
>
> >>>> Note: no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>> On a toster one end is usually fixed to the toster.
>
> >>>>>> On many televisions, one end is usually fixed to the television.
>
> >>>> Note: no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>> On TV sets and computers neither end is fixed.
>
> >>>>>> Not always. My television does not have a detachable power cord.
>
> >>>>> It does if the set is in the US.
>
> >>>> The set is in the US, and the power cord cannot be removed from the
> >>>> rear of the unit.
>
> >>> Bet if you open the box the power cord will stay with the case and
> >>> unplug from the chassis.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that the case you brought up was moving the set,
> >> not taking it apart.
>
> >>> Or did you think they had 6 feet of power cord
> >>> curled up inside the case?
>
> >> Also irrelevant to the case of moving the set that you brought up.
>
> >>>>> If you open the case the power cord comes unplugged from the set.
>
> >>>> When people move a set around, they don't usually open the case
> >>>> first. You were talking about moving a set around, not opening
> >>>> a case. Do try to be consistent.
>
> >>> No but they yank on the power cord.
>
> >> Not necessarily. Some of us were taught to grasp the plug, not yank
> >> on the cord.
>
> >>> On older sets it was pretty obvious.
>
> >> That they yanked on the power cord?
>
> >>> I can understand people not grasping that fact on the newer sets.
>
> >> The fact that they yanked on the power cord?
>
> >>>>> You have to use a "cheater" cord to power
> >>>>> up the set once it has been opened.
>
> >>>> But you weren't talking about opening a set. You were talking about
> >>>> moving a set around, which doesn't require that it be opened up.
>
> >>> Sure. Move the set. Forget to unplug it first or step on the cord. The
> >>> resulting strain unplugs the cord at the set end.
>
> >> Isn't that what I first asked about?
>
> >> RL] Unplug it before moving the set.
>
> >> DT] Are you saying that the cord was damaged from strain?
>
> >>> Intuitive, right?
>
> >> Irrelevant, right?
>
> >>>>> Sometimes the set end comes loose,
> >>>>> especially if someone doesn't unplug before moving the set.
>
> >>>> If you're talking about some internal connection that can't be seen
> >>>> by the user, then that doesn't serve as an argument against my claim
> >>>> that the power cord is intuitive.
>
> >>> Its a power cord. It should be intuitive.
>
> >> And it is. They plug the appliance in and expect it to be powered.
> >> You claimed that it's not intuitive, and tried to prove it by pointing
> >> to service calls that you made, but you have yet to describe a single
> >> case involving someone who didn't know enough to plug it in. Instead
> >> you've talked about an internal connection coming undone, bent prongs,
> >> and such, none of which illustrates a case in which the user didn't
> >> know enough to plug the cord into a wall outlet without consulting a
> >> manual.
>
> >>>>> It can often be reinserted by simply pushing on the back of the set
> >>>>> near the power cord.
>
> >>>> Does that somehow make the power cord not intuitive?
>
> >>> Was it intuitive that you should push on the back of the set to
> >>> reconnect the power cord?
>
> >> I wasn't talking about that end of the cord. What is intuitive is the
> >> end that people plug into a wall socket.
>
> >>>>>>> You need to make sure *both* ends are plugged in.
>
> >>>>>> Same situation applies. Usually people know how to do that, but were
> >>>>>> simply unaware that one end had come unplugged.
>
> >>>> Note: no response. It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
> >>>> connection coming loose.
>
> >>> Lets see. You say a power cord is intuitive.
>
> >> Correct; people do not generally need to consult a manual to know what
> >> to do with a power cord. Do you disagree?
>
> >>> I point out some non intuitive things about power cords.
>
> >> You point out some thing that has nothing to do with the end that
> >> people generally know goes into a wall socket (strain that causes an
> >> internal connection to become lost, which says nothing about the
> >> user's intuition regarding what to do with the other end of the power
> >> cord).
>
> >>> You say they weren't intuitive because the user didn't know about them.
>
> >> On the contrary, I said "It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
> >> connection coming loose." That has nothing to do with knowing what
> >> to do with the other end of the cord.
>
> >>> My Websters defines intuitive as "capable of being know by intuition.
> >>> And it defines intuition as "direct perception of fact independent of
> >>> any reasoning process".
>
> >> And experience with other electrical appliances means that people
> >> generally do not need to apply any reasoning process to know what to
> >> do with the power cord of a new appliance.
>
> >>> But you argue that my examples of non intuitive facts about power cords
> >>> are invalid because they are not intuitive.
>
> >> On the contrary, I said "It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
> >> connection coming loose." That has nothing to do with knowing what
> >> to do with the other end of the cord.
>
> >>>>>>> Also power cords are polarized. Try to plug them in the wrong way and
> >>>>>>> they don't fit properly.
>
> >>>>>> The polarized plugs that I've used won't fit at all if you try to do
> >>>>>> it the wrong way. My television has a three-prong plug, however. Only
> >>>>>> goes one way.
>
> >>>>> I'll send you the next three pronged plug I get that has had the third
> >>>>> prong bent or broken by the user. I kept one for years that someone had
> >>>>> managed to plug the third prong into the hot side of the socket. They
> >>>>> didn't understand why their GFI tripped every time they turned on the
> >>>>> set.
>
> >>>> Was it bent or broken intentionally so that the set could be plugged
> >>>> into a outlet that hadn't been upgraded with three-prong outlets? I
> >>>> can't think of any other reason why someone would do that.
>
> >>> It was intuitive.
>
> >> "nothing in this universe is 'intuitive'"
> >> --Russ Lyttle
>
> >> Do make up your mind.
>
> >>> You only need two prongs to get electricity, so if you break off the
> >>> third prong, you will use less electricity and your bill will be
> >>> cheaper.
>
> >> Which is the unneeded third prong?
>
> >>>>> The classic case for this is an event in Idaho where a technician
> >>>>> plugged a multi-pronged cord in backwards and killed himself when the
> >>>>> research reactor he was working on "pulsed". No one living could
> >>>>> understand why he went to the trouble to bend those pins to make it fit.
>
> >>>> Does that make the power cord non-intuitive?
>
> >>> It is a good example of how relying on things being "intuitive" is
> >>> dangerous.
>
> >> Oh really? Was it intuitive to intentionally modify the prongs to
> >> permit plugging the cord in backward?
>
> >>>>>>>>> If the light doesn't come on check the power cord. That sort of thing.
>
> >>>>>>>> What's subtle about that?
>
> >>>>>>> People don't do it. For computers it is worse. The light on the computer
> >>>>>>> can come on, but not the monitor, or vice versa.
>
> >>>>>> Same situation applies. Usually people know how to do that, but were
> >>>>>> simply unaware that one of the two was unplugged.
>
> >>>>> If the power cord was that intuitive, they would have checked, now
> >>>>> wouldn't they?
>
> >>>> Did they succeed in plugging both in, in the first place? When something
> >>>> stops working that was previously working, they tend to think of what
> >>>> might have changed. If there is no reason for the power cord to have
> >>>> become unplugged, then it makes sense to consider the possibility that
> >>>> there is a problem with the unit itself and not the power cord.
>
> >> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>> They wouldn't bend prongs to get it plugged in. They
> >>>>> would unplug it before trying to work on the set. In this industry, you
> >>>>> cannot assume that anything is intuitive for a sufficient percentage of
> >>>>> your customer base.
>
> >>>> And just what percentage of the people do you need to plug power cords
> >>>> in for them?
>
> >> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I learned very quickly not to just plug in the cord and send a bill
> >>>>>>>>>>> for $50. I would futz around a while, take the back off, look intent.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Then put the back on and plug it in.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You're admitting to what some people would consider a "dishonest"
> >>>>>>>>>> service call?
>
> >>>>>>>>> No. They got charged the same, the fee for one hour service call.
>
> >>>>>>>> Even if it took one minute?
>
> >>>>>>> Yes. The minimum charge is one hour. Same as auto repair shops and other
> >>>>>>> such services.
>
> >>>>>> Why? Travel time for an on-site visit can be justified, but why a
> >>>>>> minimum? Would you like to pay for an hour long-distance telephone
> >>>>>> call, even if it lasted only a minute?
>
> >>>>> Never had your own service business have you? Overhead, book keeping,
> >>>>> accounting, taxes, etc. all mean that a charge less than a minimum is a
> >>>>> loss. The service charge for one hour is that minimum in this case.
>
> >>>> It takes you an hour to do all the book keeping, accounting, and so on
> >>>> for a one-minute service call?
>
> >> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I just decided not to upset them by pointing out that they didn't know
> >>>>>>>>> how to operate a power cord.
>
> >>>>>>>> Which would have been rather presumptuous of you.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> When PCs came out, there were more power cords not to be plugged in
> >>>>>>>>>>> and thus more business.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Some people prefer to have experts install new gizmos for them.
> >>>>>>>>>> Doesn't mean that they don't have the intuition to plug it in for
> >>>>>>>>>> themselves.
>
> >>>>>>>>> But that doesn't mean the power cord is all that "intutive" either.
>
> >>>>>>>> Doesn't mean it isn't "intutive" [sic] either.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP<<
Tholen...
When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
remember to slit lengthwise.
Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano gods.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 13 Dec 2000 22:28:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Yes...the term liberal (root: liber = freedom) has been absconded
: with by the freedom-hating socialists.
Then why help then mis-use it? Stop calling them liberals then.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:30:17 -0500
MH wrote:
>
> > And RedHat is closing offices all over the world including one in New
> > England.
>
> Yep. I remember all the hoopla when redhat got sucker money from intel. I
> said to myself,
> "self, does this seem like a dot.com fantasy IPO or what?"
> Many Penguinistas thought the benefits of investments such as this was the
> 'killer-app' for linux.
> Now we know that like a giant swaggering ape pissing in a toilet for the
> first time, intel didn't even allow a "trickle-down" event to occur for the
> linux end user. Same with IBM. Same with them all. The business model has
> been one based on service. They can't sell the sh*t, the linadvocates don't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Leave Windows out of this.
> purchase boxed software. So what can they service? The minute redhat tries
I have
> to make things easier for the user they catch hell from the suspender-laden,
> un-laid old school GNU commies who want linux to remain a free Unix that the
> "idiots who use windows" will never be able to operate. Where's the business
> model, where's the service? Lip service is all I see.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:36:07 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:45:08 -0500,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:37:58 GMT,
> >> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:14:07 GMT,
> >> >> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
> >> >> >> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge
> >> >> >can
> >> >> >> >> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when
> >> >you
> >> >> >> >install a wrong application.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the wings" and
> >> >> >> >"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad' applications
> >> >and
> >> >> >> >'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements. (and if
> >> >> >> >something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read my ORIGIONAL
> >> >> >> >post in this light and it point should be more clear.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> <snipage>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This is typical of the Windows mentality.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The definition of an operating system includes the ability
> >> >> >> to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
> >> >> >> this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
> >> >> >> enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
> >> >> >> is not an operating system.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
> >> >> >> application in itself.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Charlie
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I would agree with you when referring to Win9x/ME, however when you enter
> >> >> >the NT/2000 family the game changes significantly. BTW, eunuchs are just
> >> >as
> >> >> >susceptible to bad programming as windows and a programmer running as
> >> >root
> >> >> >or some other privileged user can just as easily bring the system to it's
> >> >> >knees with a runaway process, some idiot fills swap completely and you
> >> >are
> >> >> >toast.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Windows has no user accounting system. Linux and the *nix does.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Windows 9x and ME have no user accounting system.
> >> >
> >> >Windows NT and Windows 2000 do.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Interesting. What do you open on NT to perform user accounting with?
> >> For that matter, Windows 2000?
> >>
> >> Say I had a 60 GB drive and I wanted user harry to have up to 10 GB of
> >> it. I also wanted harry to have a nice cap of 5 clicks below the rest
> >> of the system so he wouldn't hog it all away from the rest of us.
> >> Oh, and harry will be in a special group which I'm going to create
> >> which only has use of 20 programs from the system.
> >>
> >> Windows doesn't have this capability. They never have and they
> >> never will. They are slowly going the UNIX way, but they don't
> >> have this capability yet.
> >
> >.....being dragged, kicking and screaming....all the way...
> >
>
> And spell checked.
>
> No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
> They stole Windows from apple.
> They are stealing the operating system very slowly
> from UNIX.
>
> Where is THEIR VISION VERSION!
>
> What has Microsoft brought to the human race?
> This might be a good contest.
>
> What idea has Microsoft brought to the computer
> industry it never had before?
The belief that thrice-daily crashes are normal and should be considered standard.
> What thing did
> Microsoft TRUELY and UNIQUELY INVENT.
The Blue Screen Of Death.
>
> Spell check please.
>
> Thanks
>
> Charlie
>
> >>
> >> Charlie
> >
> >
> >--
> >Aaron R. Kulkis
> >Unix Systems Engineer
> >DNRC Minister of all I survey
> >ICQ # 3056642
> >
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: security (was Re: Whistler review.)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:37:09 -0500
Stephen King wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > > Windows doesn't have this capability. They never have and they
> > > never will. They are slowly going the UNIX way, but they don't
> > > have this capability yet.
> >
> > .....being dragged, kicking and screaming....all the way...
>
> On the contrary. They incorporate the features, claim to have invented
> them and call it 'innovation'.
5 years after the fact = being dragged along by the rest of the
industry's standards.
>
> --
>
> Now, about security, doesn't creditcard.com run on Windows machines?
>
> Is this what you get when you trust an MCSE to administer security at
> your site?
>
> --
> Porsche Boxster 88,295,375 Club-Z points away
> Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
> --
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:57:58 GMT
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/20001212/tc/
ibm_to_spend_1_billion_on_linux_in_2001_2.html
That's too cool.
Ibm is spending 1 billion dollars on Linux in 2001!
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
