Linux-Advocacy Digest #860, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped) (JoeX1029)
Re: Suggestions for Linux (JoeX1029)
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (.)
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (.)
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (.)
Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (Steve Mading)
Re: Linuxgruven.com = BAD NEWS (Steve Mading)
wasting time (was Re: Uptimes) (Stephen King)
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:59:58 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:36:07 -0500,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
>
>
Let us not forget the gigantic sucking sound comming
from your ass when your wallet is lifted into Bill's
bag and thrown up the chimney with a grim smirk!
>>
>> 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: Steve Mading <[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: 13 Dec 2000 22:53:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> Repeating it again is pointless.
: Especially without any supporting evidence.
I already gave it. You discount it. Repeating it is pointless.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 13 Dec 2000 22:58:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> Yes, *And* you have made statements like "hjkl is not intuitive",
:> which CANNOT be made bare like that if intuitiveness is not absolute.
: I have *not* made any statement like "hjkl is not intuitive".
This is a lie. Now, I know you'll just deny it again, or chalk it
up to my alleged reading comprehension problems, so I invite any
onlookers to just look upward in this thread at other posts by
tholen.
[Rest snipped in an attempt to trim my time wasted in this. Once
someone shows themselves willing to lie like this there's no hope
of concluding the argument.]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 13 Dec 2000 22:59:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Forgetting to type it doesn't change the fact that you thought Aaron
: wrote something that he didn't write, Steve. That's an example of a
: reading comprehension problem.
Uhm - yes it does change it. The omission was on the output side,
not the input side. (I read it correctly, but failed to write
it back out correctly.)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 13 Dec 2000 22:50:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>> Maybe, just maybe you can get one pinkie up to the Esc key, but
:>> that is insufficient to operate the key painlessly.
:> False.
: Independent of keybaord?
Yes, unless your keyboard is weird, and for whatever dishonest
reason you are not telling us this.
:>>> The escape key is all by itself, one key, easy to 'whack' without
:>>> needing much accuracy (if you get all 'butterfingers' and slap the
:>>> key on the edge, that's good enough).
:>> With other editors, I don't need to do that.
:> Yeah I know - more precision is needed.
: How would more precision be needed to NOT strike a key (because it is
: unnecesary)?
If I hit half-off the escape key, I don't end up hitting
another key next to it and getting the two-keypress problem.
If I hit half-off the arrow keys, I typically get another
arrow keypress in there too - which is why it is insufficient
to merely whack at them with the pinkie - they require that
I actually remove my hand entirely from the vacinity of the
home row, and move it over to the arrows.
:>>> The cursor keys require accuracy,
:>> Incorrect; it's easy to undo an incorrect motion operation, and
:>> I have fewer of those than with hjkl.
:> Okay, they only require accuracy if you don't want to waste your
:> time.
: Waste your time? You mean like changing modes?
This is part of what is under debate - whether or not this is
really a waste of time or not. I say no.
:>>> and they require the hand to remain there for a while while
:>>> you hit them several times,
:>> Incorrect; my keyboard has autorepeat. I just hold the key down.
:> Notice the plural in the phrase "hit them several times". Note I
:> did not say, "hit it several times". Autorepeat doesn't help much
:> when you hit something like "up/up/left/left"
: It can; it can cut the number of keystrokes in half.
Only if you have superhuman timing, of your key-repeat rate
is amazingly slow. Getting exactly two keypresses and no more
by using the key repeat is hard. Slowing the repeat down to the
point where this is possible leads to other annoyances (taking
a long time to type something like /*---------------------*/).
:>>> so hitting them with a twisted wrist, using your stretched
:>>> pinkie, doesn't work.
:>> Works just as well as for the Esc key.
:> I will never agree to that premise without a demonstration. It
:> doesn't seem possible if you are a human being using a standard
:> keyboard.
: Yet you expect me to agree to your premise without a demonstration.
Here's my demonstration: measure the distance between 'a' and 'esc',
compare to the distance between 'j' and 'left-arrow'.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 13 Dec 2000 22:52:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>>> Admitedly, those presumptions could have been wrong.
:>> As well as your presumption that the Esc key is closer than the
:>> cursor keys.
:> A. Measure the distance from 'a' to escape. (left pinkie)
:> B. Measure the distance from 'j' to left-arrow, or 'k' to up
:> and down arrows, or 'l' to right arrow. (right-hand's three
:> fingers that operate the arrows).
: On whose keyboard? Yours? That's not available to me.
On any standard 104-key or 101-key keyboard. If yours is
different, then say it or shut up.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 13 Dec 2000 23:04:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> There isn't a concrete cutoff line, since everything in natural
:> languages is at least slightly relative. I put "intuitive" way
:> out there as much more realative than words like "twist" or
:> "stretch", which describe specific types of motion.
: But not amounts of motion. Is 5 millimeters a stretch? Or does it
: need to be 10? Maybe 20? Is 10 degrees of rotation a twist? Or
: does it need to be 20? Maybe 30?
The distance is irrelevant to the term. All of those could be
"stretches", assuming they are lengthwise lengthenings. The direction
is what matters for the term, not the size.
:> Yes, I do see it as vague and fuzzy as words like "nice". This is
:> the main point of the article Aaron was citing way back at the start
:> of this - the word isn't as concrete as people have tricked themselves
:> into thinking it is, and as such, things that have been labelled as
:> "intuitive" interfaces are much less so than we thought.
: And that is supposed to make a power switch non-intuitive?
Non sequitor.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 13 Dec 2000 23:01:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about now.
:> You didn't say so.
: I shouldn't need to say so for those who understand context.
:> (See I can be a pendantic pain too. Your game is fun.)
: You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing a game, Steve.
Sorry, I was giving you too much benefit of the doubt again. I
guess this deceptiveness is about something serious and important
to you then, which actually makes it worse than a game.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 13 Dec 2000 23:07:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> I suggest you pay attention to what we are saying.
: How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't been paying attention
: to what others have been saying. You did, after all, accuse Aaron
: of having claimed that nothing is intuitive.
Stop pretending I didn't already answer this.
:> We aren't talking about someone repeating the *same* command, but
:> someone coming up with a NEW command that is built by putting
:> together previously known information - as with this d/foo
:> example. It could be intuitive to someone who had NEVER done
:> it before but HAD done other d-something commands, and had
:> done other /something searches.
: Ah, so something about a computer could be intuitive, contrary to
: Aaron's claim. Gee, sounds like you just agreed with me. Yet for
: some peculiar reason, you are spending all this time arguing with
: me rather than Aaron. Most interesting.
Because you aren't consistent. You claim you think intuitiveness is
all relative, but then don't act like it.
:> No, it's already clear you like taking statements out of context.
: Which statement did I allegedly take out of context, Steve? No,
: it's already clear you like pontificating.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Stop projecting.
:> It was blatantly obvious he meant that Vi lets you use stuff you
:> learned *about Vi* in new ways.
: It's also blatantly obvious that the issue was not internal consistency,
: which is what you are describing here.
:>>>> I see you missed my point.
:>>> I did as well.
:>> Glad you agree.
:> It's easy to miss points that are unstated, or not there.
: It's easy to miss points that are not comprehended.
It's impossible to comprehend points that are not stated.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:10:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped)
>Which caused printf to produce a pointer >out of bounds.
Hmmm, never actually read and C books or anything (no classes etc), never even
taken the time to run gdb on a core file. Sorry about that, my mistake.
I can program in C but basically taught my self (translation: i hacked a the
code till it complied right/ran right) so pointer out bounds never came up
while teaching myself. Again, sorry.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:14:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
>Microsoft wil do it then Linux wil take 10 yeres to coppy it.
And the MS version will such real bad, not work correctly and cost $5,000. The
Linux version, on the other hand, will be free, and work correctly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:18:58 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . wrote:
>> So actually, linux DOES install on a P4, and you still dont know
>> what youre talking about.
> I didn't say anything, so what on earth are you talking about?
Did your mother type the subject of yoru post, pete?
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:19:37 GMT
Swangoremovemee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:42:04 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I didn't say anything, so what on earth are you talking about?
> Sounds like . has been drinking again.
I'm sorry, did you have something informative or helpful to add
to this thread?
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA
Sorry, I just couldnt type that whole thing with straight fingers.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:21:21 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> spicerun wrote:
>> Pete keeps claiming he isn't a Wintroll, yet he makes these posts that
>> don't tell the entire story....misinformation if you will...that favor
>> unjustified discrediting of Linux systems. Despite Pete's attempt to
>> imply that Linux doesn't and won't support Pentium 4, the truth is that
>> there are 2 distributions of Linux that do support the Pentium 4, and
>> others could be supporting it as soon as they make a small change as
>> shown in the above quote and article referred to by above link. And the
>> real bottom line isn't that Linux won't support Pentium 4s, it is that
>> some ditributions won't install themselves because they currently don't
>> recognize the Pentium 4. I'll bet Slackware will install just fine
>> seeing that Slackware relies on the user to tell it what it installs on.
> Stop putting words into my mouth. The title of the article is "Linux lacks
> P4 support - nobody at all dead" which isn't far from "Linux doesn't
> support P4".
Semantics. Learn them. The title of the article does not attempt to quantify
the amount or type of lack. It leaves it to the article.
Your terms, on the other hand, insinuate complete and total non-support;
that linux itself is incapable of running on a P4 chip.
Which is entirely untrue, and always has been.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT
Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:25:42 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:06:04 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:51:46 -0600,
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What experience nitwit!
>You won't even find recuiters asking for GCC experience
>for Windows!
No, they ask for "C programming" and "C++ programming" skills. C and C++
are both ISO standards. They don't ask for "gcc experience", just like
they don't ask for "bcc32 experience" or "mc experience". Using the compiler
is easy, using the libraries is harder.
>I'm sure some people could share your opinion.
>
>Find me ONE recruiter asking for GCC expience then!
>You know they run ad's also!
One could find a ton of recruiters asking for "C/C++ programming experience".
One could also find people who want to "port software from UNIX to Windows"
or something of the sort. They won't say "gcc on Windows", but that
doesn't imply that they do not use it.
>You are a total ASSHOLE.
>
>There. Now is that better.
Take it easy ! He's considerably more restrained than you are.
>>The cost is insignificant in any project of any size.
>
>Even if you could buy VB Pro for $1,299 a copy, which
>you can't, that's significant. It can only be in-significant
>if your on welfare.
Huh ? What the hell are you talking about ?
Look, how much developer time can $1299 buy ? Suppose you buy one license
a year. Then you pay about one developer-week for the software. If the
software increases the developers productivity by more than 2%, it's a
good investment.
As always, you are trying to make business arguments from the perspecive
of a home user, which is ridiculous.
Allow me to remind you that a home user does not have to pay for development
time, while a business does. And that programmer time costs a lot of money
(certainly substantially more than $1000 per year per programmer)
>>> Defy us all by stating that all US newspapers are
>>> chocked full of ad's looking for GCC experience
>>> using Windows.
>>
>>That's irrelevant.
>>
>
>Reality is never irrelevant.
I challenge you to find adds for people with "GCC experience using UNIX".
Guess what ? You won't find any. ANd the reason why you won't find any is
because the reecruiters do not care about the *COMPILER* you use, they
care first about what languages you have used, second about what type
of programming you're familiar with (web dev, systems programming, UI
programming), and third, what APIs you are familiar with. They couldn't
give two sh*ts about what you used to compile your software as long as
you have the right language, the right experience, and know the APIs.
>>You're argument is stupid. You should use the tool that works best for you.
>>If that's GCC, use it. If it's not, don't use it. It doesn't matter what
>>platform you're using.
>>
>
>Well I can't win there Fukenbush.
>Damn! I thought I had a decent chance before he
>declared me stupid in his mind!
>
>Now all is lost!
>
>Woooow with me! Woooow with me!
>
>Oh Darn!
Your sarcasm is well founded -- your arguments were stupid long before he
pointed it out.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:24:44 GMT
Keith Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I've seen so many pointless alterations of "Microsoft" and "Windows" in the
: past that I can't remember them all. Micros~1, Microshaft, Microslut,
: Micro$oft, Windoze, Losedows, etc..
: Why do people think this is useful, or that it conveys anything but immaturity
: on the part of the poster? What is the point?
: Just saw one guy refer to something called "Mickeyshaft".
: Using misspellings such as those listed does nothing but make you look like a
: 12-year-old techno-weenie who attaches more importance to being anti-something
: than pro-something. If your hatred of an OS is so strong that you feel the
: need to name-call it routinely, you should reevaluate your life and maybe try
: to find some meaning beyond your CRT.
: It's sad, really. I understand discussing the pro's and con's of OS's, but
: this mindless, consistent, and pointless bashing of a product line by
: name-calling helps nobody.
: You don't look knowledgeable - just uncertain and geeky.
I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that MS marketting uses names
that try to sound like the be-all-end-all, and therefore repeating
them is helping their marketting engine. And the term "Micros~1"
actually IS pointing out something about their product, not just
name calling for name calling's sake.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linuxgruven.com = BAD NEWS
Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:29:27 GMT
Jason Portell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hello gang,
: there is a company on the fringes of the Linux community that you all
: should be VERY aware of. The name is linuxgruven.com . The company is
: extremely unethical and should be rejected in the Linux community. If
: you would like more information please email and I will be happy to
: provide more information.
If you have information, then just give it - why the need to waste
time with e-mails? (Or are you just trying to gather an e-mail
address list for some nefarious purpose?)
Just put it up on a website and provide a URL, or just post it here.
No way am I going to fall for that "just e-mail me for more info" line.
------------------------------
From: Stephen King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: wasting time (was Re: Uptimes)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:32:16 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> YOU of all people cannot make the claim of "not wasting my time" since
> that's all you do here is waste your and others time.
Since when has an advocacy group been anything more than a waste of
time?
I engineer extremely robust and capable products daily, without the need
to pay homage to Redmond, yet there are those who gladly throw their
money away on half-baked trash which barely makes the grade.
Case in point: I just had the misfortune of interacting with a Microsoft
ftp server (you would think that by now MS could have gotten THAT right)
and what do I find? The files I just uploaded are all timestamped for
some day in 2038!
Now, I know what this means: the server uses 16 bits to count time since
1970.
Even the most arcane of programs can (and usually is) be botched by
Microsoft - give me Linux anyday.
Wintrolls will never been convinced of their folly - we *nixvocates KNOW
of the superiority of our solutions and 'nere the twain shall meet ...
--
Porsche Boxster 88,295,375 Club-Z points away
Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
--
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:33:11 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/15416.html
What you fail to mention is that the only problem is a
piddly little ID code - It doesn't realize that it's on
a pentium because the ID returned by the CPU isn't in the
list yet. This is trivial to fix, and involves like one
line of code or so. In the long run, this won't matter.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: 13 Dec 2000 23:34:46 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Stop putting words into my mouth. The title of the article is "Linux lacks
: P4 support - nobody at all dead" which isn't far from "Linux doesn't
: support P4".
Both phrasings are lies.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
