Linux-Advocacy Digest #873, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows review (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Another UNIX sight is doun! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Another UNIX sight is doun! (mlw)
Re: Nobody wants Windows because it don't Super Computer. (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:17:47 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I still have to run into an application that will crush Win2K.
>> Me too - I don't use Win2k. NT 4 is, however, quite vulnerable.
> To what?
To be crashed by applications, of course. E.g. if I print web pages,
it will bluescreen every once in a while. Of course, at the moment, I
can't get it to connect to any of our printers, so it's been pretty
stable lately :-/
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:59:08 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> That's hilarious - yo do realize that more uses hjkl too, right?
>> You do realize that you don't need to use hjkl to view a document
>> using more either?
> Big deal. You don't *need* to use hjkl either.
Didn't I just say that?
> It's just one of several mappings, just like it is in vi. I was
> just commenting on the fact that you picked 'more' as an example
> of a non-vi-like viewer when it shares so many keymappings with vi.
Where did I call it a non-vi-like viewer? I simply called it a
viewer. But there are things about it that aren't like vi.
>>> Sure, you can go down a line with 'return', but that's the same
>>> as in 'vi'.
>> You can go down a screen with the space bar.
> You mean it doesn't go one character forward?
Ah, you caught my point.
> Gee, I guess that makes more less intuitive than vi in that regard,
> using similar logic to your own.
On the contrary, similar logic to my own would have resulted in you
saying that it makes more non-vi-like in that regard. But you don't
want to say that because it contradicts your position.
>>>> There is no need to move a cursor around in an unmodified document.
>>> Not true. What if you want to look for something ("Please find the
>>> word "goose" in this document")?
>> You don't use hjkl.
> So what?
Go back and reread your original claim, then my response to it.
> Your exact verbatim statement was that there was "no need to
> move a cursor around in an unmmodified document." The /pattern
> search is all that is sufficient to make that statement false.
Incorrect, given that you're not moving the cursor around with
hjkl.
> How do you like it when people get pendantic with you, huh?
Whether I like it or dislike it is irrelevant. What is relevant is
why you're choosing to use a "pendantic" [sic] argument.
>> Finding an occurrence of a string is a rather different matter from
>> simply viewing a document. The latter was what he brought up.
> Why?
You'll have to ask him why he brought it up.
> By that logic, I could say that inserting text is a different
> matter than moving the cursor,
And you'd be right.
> and therefore it doesn't matter if you have to switch modes
> between those two tasks.
On what basis do you claim that it doesn't matter? Switching
modes slows you down.
>>>>>>> d/foo<enter> = delete until the pattern "foo"
>>>>>> As opposed to "delete the pattern 'foo'".
>>>>> Yes, /foo positions you to the beginning, not the end of the
>>>>> matched pattern.
>>>> My point is that its action isn't intuitive.
>>> To whom?
>> To someone who hasn't used it before. Who else? Intuition
> NO - To someone who has NOT seen d/foo before, but HAS
> used the 'd' command, and the /foo mover, it is intuitive
> how they go together.
You have a peculair notion of intuition. If I learn that the form of
a Fortran DO loop ends with start, stop, and step values, and the first
time I use a step value of one, does that make the subsequent time I
use it with a step value of two an intuitive use? No! I learned the
form.
>> You have a peculiar notion of intuition. Needing to know a bunch
>> of things suddenly makes something intuitive.
> There you go leaving off the qualifiers again.
How ironic, coming from someone who has left off qualifiers, such as
"nothing [about computers] is intuitive" and "hjkl [as cursor keys]
is not intuitive", with the qualifiers your left off in brackets.
> To someone who KNOWS
> those other things already, they can INTUIT the way they can be
> combined to make the d/foo command. I thought you claimed you
> never used "intuitive" unqualified. Here you just did it again.
Where did I allegedly leave it unqualified? What do you think
"bunch of things" refers to?
>> Thus the symbol is overloaded, and not consistent.
> <sarcasm>
> Yeah, let's stop using all those overloaded keys like "ctrl',
> and 'return' (does it break a line or does it pick a menu
> option from a drop-down, or does it select the "ok" of an
> ok/cancel dialog? Oh, crap it does three different things
> depending on context! Oh, no, how un-intuitive!)
> </sarcasm>
Do you feel better now?
>>>>>>> 4dj = delete current and 4 lines going down
>>>>>> Assuming you remember which letter is for up and down.
>>>>> Which you don't have to consider a special case.
>>>> Is 4dk a special case?
>>> It fits the generic pattern: {number}{command}{movement}
>> I see you missed my point.
> What? You asked if it was a special case.
After you said that you don't have to consider 4dj a special
case, despite the fact that I wasn't talking about that.
> I showed that it isn't.
While missing my point.
> I'm sorry if "no" wasn't the answer you were looking for.
I was looking for some recognize of the point I made.
>>> Ctrl-V is common in many other unix interactive tools.
>> Backslash is common in many other UNIX applications.
> Yeah. And?
It's prefix for special chaarcters. Why use ^V^M when \r will
work? Or does it?
> Now are you trying to assert that something needs to be
> universally used in every other context on the computer to be
> intuitive?
Not at all. I've not come anywhere close to even trying to
suggest that everything on the computer should be intuitive.
Such an extreme statement weakens your argument. It's like
someone who argues that Mark McGwire isn't the best active
player in baseball, and his opponent then trying to turn it
around and claim that the other person therefore believes
that McGwire must be the worst active player in baseball.
Such an argument style is so ridiculous that it makes you
look bad and loses your credibility.
> That leads right into Aaron's conclusion, since it
> sets to bar too high for anything to ever achieve it.
Illogical, given that there is middle ground between the
two extremes. Some things can be intuitive without requiring
that everything be intuitive. To argue that only the extremes
are possible is ridiclous. See the McGwire example for why.
>>> I use it at the shell all the time.
>> Do you consider yourself a UNIX novice?
> Irrelevant.
On the contrary, it's quite relevant, because intuition applies
to people trying something for the first time.
> This is about mapping knowlege outside vi to
> knowlege inside vi. (ctrl-V).
Funny that you've spent so much time talking about the internal
consistency of vi commands (that is, knowledge inside vi to
knowledge inside vi). Do make up your mind what this is about.
>>> It's mnemonic is "verbatim", as in, "Do this next character verbatim,
>>> ignoring any special meaning it may have."
>> And do you consider the mnemonic intuitive?
> Of course not. NO mnemonic is intuitive, since the English language
> has so many synonyms it isn't obvious which one to use for a function.
Ah, so if a program you've never used before prompts you with
"overwrite existing file (y/n)?" you won't have any intuition about
how to respond?
> (Is this operation called delete, or remove, or throw away, or destroy,
> etc.) Mnemonics are for remembering things after the first time, not
> for intuiting them the first time.
I disagree. See my previous example.
> I fail to see how this is relevant, since all I was pointing out is
> that vi is not the only application to use ctrl-V for literalizing
> verbatim special characters.
I'm not the one who brought up ^V^M. Ask the person who did.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:38:44 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> Here's my dictionary's take on "liberal". Note that China and friends
> clearly don't satisfy 2, or 3 or 6. 1,4,5 and 7 aren't immediately
> relevant (but the imagery invoked by those definitions isn't a very
> good fit for China etc either)
>
> 1. given freely; ample, abundant.
> 2. (often foll. by "of") giving freely, generous, not sparing.
> 3. open-minded, not prejudiced.
> 4. not strict or rigorous; (of interpretation) not literal.
> 5. for general broadening of the mind, not professional or technical
> ("liberal studies").
> 6.
> a. favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and
> social reform.
> b. (Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
> 7. [Theol.] regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated
> by modern thought, or liable to change ("liberal Protestant"; "liberal
> Judaism").
I'm sure, Donovan, that some nuts would aver that "liberals" absconded with
the word so that its dictionary meaning no longer applies.
I used to think it was only South Carolina that was full up with right-wing
wackos.
Chris
------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:16:54 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.
> This is a point I just responded to in another two posts. I won't
> repeat it here.
Too embarrassing?
> (Note, normally I'd just snip it off in this case,
> but I don't want to see you put in that assinine "note: no response"
> reply just because I don't want to repeat the response 3 times.)
You could avoid that by deleting all the discussion leading up to it.
Wouldn't be the first time you've used that strategy.
>> Fortunately, I can remember what I posted a few
>> days ago, and your quotation proves it.
> No it doesn't.
Yes it does. See below.
> It proves there is at least one such case, not
> that it is a regular occurance.
It proves that I never said ANYTHING about ZZ being inconsistent,
contrary to your claim.
>>> 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.
> Then what does this sentence mean: "That made d$ still a special case."
It means it wasn't the first thing I learned. Indeed, I learned D before
d$. Nowhere did I say anything about ZZ being inconsistent.
>> What I noted earlier has been reinforced: you do suffer from reading
>> comprehension problems.
> Then what does this sentence mean: "That made d$ still a special case."
It means it wasn't the first thing I learned. Indeed, I learned D before
d$. Nowhere did I say anything about ZZ being inconsistent. You were
going on and on about the first thing you should learn in vi, but I
mentioned other things that must be learned before that.
>>>>> 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.
> I ingored it because it had nothing to do with me. I don't
> have to answer for all things said by others.
You should leave their attribution intact, however.
>>>>>>> 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.
> Someone wanted it.
Why did someone want it? Why did someone want a two-button mouse?
Why did someone want a keyboard with cursor keys on it? Think man!
> That someone isn't me - so I don't pretend to
> know the motives of the person who put it in there.
And you don't care to speculate either?
> I don't pretend to have ESP.
You don't need ESP to speculate.
> If you think you do, then please enlighten us, oh exhaulted one.
Enlightenment comes from within.
>>>>> 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?
> I just know that this doesn't mesh with your previous posts.
What previous post of mine does it allegedly not mesh with?
Unsubstantiated claims don't work on me.
>>> 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.
> You are drawing arbitrary lines where there is no reason to.
Where is the allegedly arbitrary line?
>> 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.
> So do I - vi.
So do you what? You manipulate columns with vi?
>>> Clearly, you had the human-time spent in mind as the
>>> important metric,
>> Incorrect.
> In that case, you have an irrelevent metric in mind.
On what basis do you call it irrelevant? The time spent on a
distraction is the same regardless of which editor you were
using at the time the distraction occurred. The variable is
the time spent recovering from that distraction.
>>> or such an issue would never have come up.
>> Illogical, for the reason I just gave.
Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>> 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?
> No - I never said it was.
Then what is your justification?
> If I was an asshole, I might try to claim you had reading comprehension
> problems for assuming that.
Illogial, given that such an assumption does not involve a reading
comprehension problem, given that I have correctly comprehended the
lack of other 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.
> (I already responded to this, in a post you probably haven't seen yet.
> I shouldn't have to waste time saying that, but I don't want to see
> one of your arrogant "note: no reply" things.)
Then why didn't you write a response forty lines up?
>>>>>>> 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.
> In most editors, the 'X' key inserts an 'X' - except in the context
> of pressing the control key also, in which case it cuts text.
Not in my editor.
> Gee, it's so fucking inconsistent.
Such foul language.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:48:45 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
> The point in GUI is not the GUI per se, but to present the user with some
> easy-to-understand way to work with the program.
> If, frex, I want to go to the directory where I saved last year's reports.
> I can't recall the exact path to the directory, so I've to do something like
> this:
> cd <directory>
> dir
> cd <directory>
> dir
> ...
Or just do "find /partofpathyouknow -name <directory>"
Roughly similar in effort to right-clicking, selecting "Find", then
typing in partofpathyouknow. (Or you can just start at the root with
either method.
> And so on until I get what I want, in GUI, it's done for me automatically,
> and I can get where I want much faster.
Not necessarily.
> But text based representation would be just as good, in this case.
> Anyone remember Norton Commander? All the power of CLI, plus the advantage
> of text based GUI.
>
> As a side note, anything similar for Linux?
Yes, Midnight Commander, in the curses version. (The GUI version is Gnome's
File Manager.) I haven't used it much, but it might offer the best of
both worlds for file-management.
Just type "mc" at the console command prompt. It's a stock Linux item.
Chris
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:57:27 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:06:27 +1300,
kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie, shame on you, we must be very compassionate for Tim Palmer, as
>he is a "special needs" luser. Tim suffers from the very common
>syndrome, called Unix Envy, a bit like the Freudian concept "penis
>envy", except, Unix Envy is common amongst the Windows Admin community
>because instead of using a OS with a bit of grunt, they choose Windows,
>which is a limp risted, left footer, excuse for an OS..
>
>kiwiunixman
>
I'll be he's just the kind of person who plays with them
before he cut's em up and stuff's em in those 55 gallon
cans.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:59:42 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:01:18 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>Yup, I just saw that too. I was gonna post it, but ya beat me to it. IBMs CEO
>said that IBM feels Linux is growing faster than Windows in the server dept,
>and that Linux has been ported and installed on a supercomputer in the
>Netherlands, according to the Dallas Morning News. That means, and please
>correct me if I'm wrong, that Linux is now the only OS capable of running on
>all major types of computers. Super, mainframe, mini, micro,.... it just
>proves the capabilities of the Open Source movement. And now, us computer
>geeks aren't the only one's saying so. Anything to add?
>
>
Yes! That's correct. Unlike Microsoft Windows, Linux is an actual
operating system! Very good!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:02:00 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:39:23 -0600,
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mig wrote:
>
>> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/15416.html
>>
>> You're a couple of days late on this one... and i have already cried
>
>Yeah, P4 owners *everywhere* are crying.
>
>Have they actually sold any P4s yet?
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
>
They have recalled the ones they sold a month ago for
defects.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:07:06 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 06:56:28 GMT,
kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:35:11 GMT, kiwiunixman
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You have missed the point completely. Windows 98SE is compiled and
>>> optimized to work with the lowest grade processor possible (486), hence,
>>> the very poor speed improvement once the processor is upgraded (say from
>>> a PII to PIII). Compare that to Linux, where, if I have the latest
>>> processor, and Linux can recognise it, you have the ability to optimize
>>> the kernel to utilize the processor to its compacity.
>>
>>
>> Now if it only supported USB hardware properly like Windows and Mac.
>> If it only had a decent non pre-alpha web browser.
>Can't win that battle, so you go back to the USB whine feast, very
>mature, esp for a socalled "computer expert" with 25 years experience.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you RTFM that is included with your distro (like the huge one
>>> included with SuSE Linux), unless you are a complete moron, anyone
>>> should be able to compile a kernel.
>>
>>
>>
>> You haven't tried to compile a kernel under Redhat 7 yet have you?
>>
>> Try following the How-To and see if it works.
>You use Redhat! you must be a complete moron. Fuck, I wouldn't touch
>Redhat with a 40M pole. Why didn't you buy a copy of SuSE Linux 7? or
>are you one of those people who only buy "American Made" software (aka
>xenaphobic software buyer)? Your so dumb you probably don't even know
>what SAP is!
>
>kiwiunixman
>
>
DEBIAN - BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY...
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:07:27 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> On 13 Dec 2000 21:27:44 -0500,
> Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The site www.brainbench.com runs Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) Resin/1.1.5 on Solaris 8, and
>its always DOUN becoz its' UNIX! If it was Windos it wood be alwayz UP like microsoft
>.COM!
> >
> >You fuckibg UNIX nurdz SUX BWAHAHAA!! Tipitty-tipe, it douz you no
>good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 UNIX STILL SUX!
> >
>
> Wow. Just like a real Windows Administrator.
>
Just goes to show the quality of people that promote Windows.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Windows because it don't Super Computer.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:09:40 GMT
On 14 Dec 2000 05:23:47 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:04:34 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>Gee. I wonder why that oil company passed up W2k for
>>the supercomputer project?
>>
>>Could it be it's not a real operating system?
>
>No, they passed it up, because Charlie's articulate statesman-like advocacy
>convinced them not to.
>
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
>elflord at panix dot com
If I'm their senior marketing spokesman, haven't you
wondered why it's still growing at 40% per year?
It's because Linux is an operating system and Windows
isn't. And Linux is free.
Thanks for helping me point that out.
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
******************************
