Linux-Advocacy Digest #879, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
E.g. I have a directory called "warez" ; windows true-type fonts ("Dan Jacobson")
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: Unuther UNIX sight doun! (John Travis)
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
(C++ > C) = Red Herring? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:13:52 GMT
On 14 Dec 2000 04:49:55 GMT, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:19:13 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Similar silliness from the transportation segment...
>>
>>Hughes Air West == Hughes Air Worst
>>Republic Airlines == Repugnant Airlines
>>Southern Pacific == Suffering Pathetic
>>Denver and Rio Grande Western == Dangerous and Rapidly Getting Worse
>>
>>It's not just software vendors.
>
>Outlook Express == Outhouse Distress :)
>
Microsoft makes it easy: winCE = wince
I was amused when they used a rolling stones song for an ad, but cut it
off just before "make a grown man cry".
--
Remove 'wakawaka' and 'invalid' to e-mail me. You can thank spammers for this
inconvenience.
I didn't do it! Nobody saw anything! You can't prove anything! -- bart
------------------------------
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 21:48:58 GMT
Bruce Ediger writes:
>> I have *not* made any statement like "hjkl is not intuitive".
> Gee, what about in article <1xYV5.5482$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Dated 12/02/2000? See http://x66.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=700191329
> for the article itself. In that article, you were responding to one
> Donovan Rebbechi, who wrote: "The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi
> (hjkl)".
Note the context: "movement keys".
> You responded:
> "Which is not intuitive."
Perfectly consistent with what I said earlier about the use of hjkl *as
cursor keys* is not intuitive.
> You have made a statement like (similar) to "hjkl is not intuitive".
On the contrary, there is a big difference between "hjkl is not
intuitive" and "hjkl as cursor keys is not intuitive".
> This is beyond denying.
Incorrect, given that I just denied it, which I can justify by noting
your failure to include the relevant qualifier about the cursor keys.
> If you're using the work "like" in some other
> sense than "similar", you'll need to say so.
Unnecessary.
------------------------------
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: 14 Dec 2000 21:48:51 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,
: Ah, so your defense is that any keyboard that doesn't mean your
: standards is "weird". Any keyboard that I can produce to support
: my case is by your definition "weird".
I just was looking for a new modem yesterday. I went to three different
stores: (Specifically Best Buy, CompUSA, and, a local university supply
place called "DoIT"). Out of curiosity while I was there I looked at
the keyboards to see if any of them did not match the following
description: "esc is closer to 'a' than left-arrow is to 'j'."
All of them matched that description. Each and every one.
:> and for whatever dishonest reason you are not telling us this.
: You're erroneously presupposing a dishonest reason on my part, Steve.
Okay, then what is the reason you aren't talking about it? Is it
because you like prolonging the argument? Because you know you are
wrong? What is it? Out with it, what's the reason?
:>>>>> 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 don't need to hit a key at all, no precision at all is needed.
: How can that be more precision?
As you know perfectly well, this is not a comparasin of escape vs
no escape. It's a comparasin of escape vs arrow keys - which one
requires more precision (and therefore cannot just be 'whacked'
with a slap in the general direction.)
: I say yes, from first-hand experience. It takes me less time to
: not hit a key than it does to hit a key. How about you?
If this were merely an argument about one single key, then what
you said might have actually been relevant. It's about the use
of hjkl cursor movement (which INCLUDES using esc) vs arrow key
movement. I'm not arguing that esc is faster than not hitting
any key (and you already know this). I'm arguing that hjkL, with
it's associated use of ESC, taken as a whole, is faster than using
the arrows, taken as a whole. Normally I'd assume that common
sense would take over from here on out, but in your case I'll
spell it out: If hitting esc is slower than not hitting it,
BUT hitting hjkl is faster than using the arrows, then overall,
it is still possible for the hjkl method to be faster, depending
on the ratio of time spent on hjkl vs time spent hitting escape.
In my experience, hjkl + esc is the faster way.
:>> 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 /*---------------------*/).
: Not nearly as annoying as your argument. Do you really think that
: autorepeat is used for two instances?
No, I don't. That was precisely my point, Mr. "reading comprehension".
I was showing you that autorepeat doesn't eliminate the need to
hold you hand over the arrow keys for a time while you tap several
keys. You recognized that the example I gave doesn't work well
for auto-repeat, but failed to see that this was exactly my point.
: Yet that's the example you
: tried to use. (Note that your example came AFTER my reference to
: "autorepeat", which followed your reference to "several times".
: Is "two" your idea of "several"?)
:>>>>> 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'.
: You don't want to believe my measurement, or you dismiss my keyboard
: as "weird". How convenient for you.
All you have to do is name the keyboard - what make and model is it,
Given that I can probably find a diagram of it or a picture somewhere.
If you refuse to do that, I'll have to assume you are lying. NONE of
the seperate keyboards I can find on the market today fit your argument.
If you want to back up your argument, then name the keyboard or shut up.
The only keyboards that fit your claim are an occasional laptop layout
here and there. Is that what you have?
------------------------------
From: "Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: E.g. I have a directory called "warez" ; windows true-type fonts
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:40:15 +0800
> > > E.g. I have a directory called "warez" and i want to know quickly how
> > > much data is in there and wheter the entire folder will fit on a CD.
This got me thinking. If we were fully weaned from Windows, we wouldn't need
any more "warez", specifically, I read that the DrakFont utility [which by the
way does not much as far as I can tell here in Mandrake 7.2] will help me bring
over all my windows true-type fonts thus making Netscape, or whatever, less
ugly. But won't that still keep us dependent on proprietary stuff instead of
fore us to find free solutions?
--
www.geocities.com/jidanni E-mail: restore ".com." ???
Tel:+886-4-5854780; starting in year 2001: +886-4-25854780
------------------------------
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: 14 Dec 2000 21:55:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> On any standard 104-key or 101-key keyboard.
: My keyboard is quite standard, Steve.
:> If yours is different, then say it or shut up.
: Practice what you preach, Steve.
I would, except that mine isn't "different". There *IS* a standard
101 and 104 key layout pattern, that the vast majority of keyboards
sold use. I could list them all, but then again I don't have all day.
Let's just start with the one in front of me:
IBM KB-8923
I've seen keyboards on Dells, Gateways, Compaqs, Sparc stations, SGI
Indy's, SGI O2's, IBM 3151 terminals, DEC VT220 terminals. They all
fit my argument, the only exception being the one I already mentioned,
a few laptops have layouts that are unique to them. (with the
arrow keys up above the number row, on the right.)
------------------------------
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: 14 Dec 2000 21:59:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> so I invite any onlookers to just look upward in this thread at other
:> posts by tholen.
: And they'll see me talking about the use of those keys for cursor
: movement, the qualifier that you conveniently left out.
It's irrelevant to the argument. It's not a qualifier on to whom
it is intuitive. (More pendantry on your part).
------------------------------
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: 14 Dec 2000 21:56:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> Repeating it is pointless.
: Especially without any supporting evidence.
Go into any fucking computer store and right before your eyes
will be anywhwere from 5 to 15 examples right on display.
------------------------------
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: 14 Dec 2000 22:01:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>> 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.)
: Either way, it's your problem, not mine.
I admitted it when I made the error. You still kept up with the
claim that I didn't know what Aaron meant. That makes you a liar.
------------------------------
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: 14 Dec 2000 22:02:31 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.
: Where was the alleged benefit of the doubt?
Assuming you weren't malevolent, and that this was all just a
prank or a game to you.
:> I guess this deceptiveness is about something serious and important
:> to you then, which actually makes it worse than a game.
: What alleged deceptiveness, Steve? Yours?
This deserves no reply.
------------------------------
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: 14 Dec 2000 22:09:28 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.
: The distance is quite relevant to your usage of the term.
Get with the program, and try to actually read my posts for once.
I already refined what I said when I realized I was dealing with
a pendantic twit. I refined it to not 'as much', rather than not
at all. That was several days ago.
[rest deleted, as it is irrelevant in light of the above]
------------------------------
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: 14 Dec 2000 22:19:05 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.
: Stop pretending that it isn't your problem.
1. Something that happend once in the past isn't still a problem
after the error has already been admitted.
2. The problem you continued to accuse me of isn't the one I had.
: You repeated the same
: sort of error when you accused me of saying that "hjkl isn't intuitive".
False.
: Where haven't I been consistent?
Here. This whole thread.
:> You claim you think intuitiveness is all relative,
: Very good, Steve.
:> but then don't act like it.
: Where have I allegedly acted otherwise, Steve?
When you fail to give adequete qualifiers to statements about
intuitiveness. (Now I have to add this part because I'm dealing
with Tholen the Pendantic: Yes, you use SOME qualifiers, but not
adequete ones.)
:>>> 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.
: Still no evidence. No surprise there.
You remind me of young-earth creationist idiots who still claim
there is "no evidence" for an old earth, merely because they
disagree with the evidence presented, then act like it was never
even presented in the first place.
[snip - I predict a lot of "note: no response", but that's because
I've already given them the first time this crap was brought up
(and the second, and the third, ...) ]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unuther UNIX sight doun!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:10:05 GMT
And Chad Myers spoke unto the masses...
>
>What?
>
>You mean that EFNET doesn't run on the Internet server? You know,
>because the whole Internet runs on that one Internet Server.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Well duh! It all runs off this tricked out little TI82 I put together. Fitting
that 56K in there was a bitch though :).
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Woody]
2.4.0-test9-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.1|nVidia.95 Drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:16:02 +0200
"Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > "Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Andres Soolo wrote:
> > >
> > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad C. Mulligan
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
> > > > >> They stole Windows from apple.
> > > > > Actually Apple stole it from Xerox.
> > > > One bad doesn't make another one good.
> > > >
> > > > >> They are stealing the operating system very slowly
> > > > >> from UNIX.
> > > > > Now using open standards is stealing the operating system.
> > > > It wouldn't if they'd done it the proper way, calling the OS an
Unix.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Unix is a trade marked term. OS-X is not Unix. Linux (for hte most
part)
> > is not
> > > Unix. NT is not Unix. All three of these can be made into a Unix
system by
> > adding in
> > > missing parts. Linux, NT and MacOS X can be made 100% posix certified
and
> > all three
> > > can run X. At that point there are only a few other things that need
be
> > added for a
> > > system to be "Unix". However the inclusion of a few open standards
will
> > not make an
> > > OS "Unix" anymore then adding a PDF layer to Linux would make it MacOS
X.
> >
> > IIRC, NT is already 100% posix certified, it doesn't mean anything
useful,
> > though.
> > Posix is too vague to be Unix.
>
> I thought that NT (like BeOS) was missing some of the Posix network
calls.... I
> could be wrong however.
Even if it did, how hard would it be to add those calls?
And would it suddenly make NT into a Unix?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:30:47 -0800
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > "Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Andres Soolo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad C. Mulligan
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
> > > > > >> They stole Windows from apple.
> > > > > > Actually Apple stole it from Xerox.
> > > > > One bad doesn't make another one good.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> They are stealing the operating system very slowly
> > > > > >> from UNIX.
> > > > > > Now using open standards is stealing the operating system.
> > > > > It wouldn't if they'd done it the proper way, calling the OS an
> Unix.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unix is a trade marked term. OS-X is not Unix. Linux (for hte most
> part)
> > > is not
> > > > Unix. NT is not Unix. All three of these can be made into a Unix
> system by
> > > adding in
> > > > missing parts. Linux, NT and MacOS X can be made 100% posix certified
> and
> > > all three
> > > > can run X. At that point there are only a few other things that need
> be
> > > added for a
> > > > system to be "Unix". However the inclusion of a few open standards
> will
> > > not make an
> > > > OS "Unix" anymore then adding a PDF layer to Linux would make it MacOS
> X.
> > >
> > > IIRC, NT is already 100% posix certified, it doesn't mean anything
> useful,
> > > though.
> > > Posix is too vague to be Unix.
> >
> > I thought that NT (like BeOS) was missing some of the Posix network
> calls.... I
> > could be wrong however.
>
> Even if it did, how hard would it be to add those calls?
> And would it suddenly make NT into a Unix?
Not hard at all. That was my point. In fact the install of NT 4 I'm using has
full posix, bash and X.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:37:19 -0500
JoeX1029 wrote:
>
> >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.
Go get the "blue book" by Kernighan and Ritchie...
it's the one with the giant, blue letter C on the cover
--
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]>
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:38:08 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> 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
Win-fucking-this
Win-fucking-that
When in reality, anybody who buys the crap is a LOSER.
> 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.
--
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]
Subject: (C++ > C) = Red Herring?
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:34:28 GMT
Just saw this on www.linuxtoday.com ...
http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/12/advocacy.html?wwwrrr_20001213.txt
I thought maybe it might be pertinent to people who were heavily
involved in that "C++ phobia in Linux" thread. I don't have an opinion
one way or the other (C, baby! YEAH!!!!) so I thought I'd just throw it
out there...
-ws
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
