Linux-Advocacy Digest #884, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Another UNIX sight is doun! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Pan)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Linux is awful (Jerry Peters)
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Gary Hallock)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[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 23:54:14 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QEZZ5.43388$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:PRVZ5.14004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
> > > They stole Windows from apple.
> >
> > Actually Apple stole it from Xerox.
>
> I believe licensed is the correct term...
Plagerized is more the term I'd use.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:52:02 GMT
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.
It is if you keep trying to put the onus on me. Above you suggested
to me that I pay attention. I did pay attention. I know what Aaron
wrote. I correctly caught your error. Whether you want to blame
your writing or your reading is irrelevant; it's still your error,
and *not* a problem with my attention. Until such time as you
retract your unsubstantiated claim, I reserve the right to
substantiate my claim about your problem.
> 2. The problem you continued to accuse me of isn't the one I had.
The problem you continued to accuse me of didn't occur at all.
>> You repeated the same sort of error when you accused me of saying
>> that "hjkl isn't intuitive".
> False.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
>> Where haven't I been consistent?
> Here. This whole thread.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
>>> 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.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
> (Now I have to add this part because I'm dealing with Tholen the
> Pendantic: Yes, you use SOME qualifiers, but not adequete ones.)
Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
>>>>> 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.
You remind of several antagonists in this newsgroup who pretend
that their pontifications have been substantiated.
> [snip - I predict a lot of "note: no response",
Illogical, given that you responded to everything you retained.
> but that's because I've already given them the first time this
> crap was brought up (and the second, and the third, ...) ]
You're erroneously presupposing a lot of "note: no response", Steve.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[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 23:55:19 GMT
"Black Dragon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:57:35 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Chad C. Mulligan' said:
>
>
> :
> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:27:59 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > >
> : > >"Gary Connors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : > >> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> : > >> >
> : > >>
> : > >> > Since my own experiences do in fact coincide with TPC results and
do
> : > >> > contradict Netcraft results and do contradict your reported
> : experience I
> : > >> > must conclude that you do not understand the operating system and
> : > >therefore
> : > >> > have introduced the instabilities yourself. NOTE: I've done
that
> : > >myself on
> : > >> > test systems to find the breaking points but I don't do that on
> : > >production
> : > >> > systems.
> : > >> >
> : > >>
> : > >> Fascinating.
> : > >> I've always wondered about this type of reasoning and how it works.
> : > >> Blaming the user of the computer for it's problems.
> : > >>
> : > >> A well done OS, regardless of user, doesn't crash. End of story.
Just
> : > >> because Win2K allows the user to change the configuration in such a
way
> : > >> that the system will become unstable, does NOT mean it's the users
> : > >> fault. It means the OS is unreliable. Especially since you need
to be
> : > >> "trained" and "skilled" in it's management. Which usually is
double
> : > >> talk for you have to be "l33t". If I have to go out of my way to
learn
> : > >> a large volume of information that not only pertains to the setup
and
> : > >> security of the OS, but also covers which applications are "good"
and
> : > >> what order to install updates to keep an OS running, then the OS is
NOT
> : > >> worth my time.
> : > >>
> : > >
> : > >1. Were talking about servers not workstations.
> : > >2. Eunuchs users are just as capable of destroying systems.
> : >
> : > ...not unless they know how to crack the root account.
> : >
> :
> : Or some eunuch administrator set the user id bit to root on a damageing
> : script or program. Or they simply fill up swap with crap.
>
>
> Don't know much about Unix, do ya'?
>
More than you obviously.
>
> :
> : > [deletia]
> : >
> : > --
> : >
> : > Freedom != Anarchy.
> : >
> : > Some must be "opressed" in order for their
> : > actions not to oppress the rest of us.
> : >
> : > |||
> : > / | \
> :
> :
>
>
> --
> Black Dragon
>
> Sign The Linux Driver Petition:
> http://www.libralinux.com/petition.english.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:55:33 GMT
On 14 Dec 2000 16:57:15 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:07:27 -0500, mlw wrote:
>>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>>Just goes to show the quality of people that promote Windows.
>
>If "quality of people who promote" was a measure of the quality of
>the OS, you wouldn't catch me using Linux either. (See Charlie, 'bear,
>Templeton, ... )
>
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
>elflord at panix dot com
Interesting though. Despite the intensive marketing effort
on Cola, Linux still just grows and grows.
And in camp #2, Windows hasn't grown at all.
Newsgroups are not where people go for their OS
information. It's where people go for entertainment.
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:00:15 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> "Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > > The rest of these responses were largely idiots explaining how to
> falsify
> > > registration info or people just up in arms over a simple and true
> > > observation.
> >
> > You said that there has been no further development on the GPL version,
> > which is false: There have already been 3 build versions in the last 3
> > months are no fewer than 20 teams moving the Open Office project
> > forward, and parts of it have already been integrated into the gnone
> > project's office suite.
> >
>
> Links please.
www.openoffice.org, again.
>
> I just did a search on SO and found one, repeat one, hit that pointed to Sun
> who cliamed to own SO.
You must be using a crappy search engine. Try a real SE, like google.
> I don't care about Wildebeest licensing I was
> looking for allegedly free software and found it owned by one of the biggest
> whores in the industry.
When was the last time M$ released a product under the gpl?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[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 23:58:06 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "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.
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > > E.g. if I print web pages, it will bluescreen every once in a while.
> >
> > This means you have a poorly written printer driver. Contact the
> > manufacturer.
> >
> > I have printed thousands of pages from the web and everywhere else
> > and have never had a bluescreen from it. However, I had a client that
> > had a cheap-o printer and had this problem. The solution was getting
> > the latest drivers.
>
>
> A printer driver can crash a Windows box?
>
Actually No.
> Under UNIX, print jobs aren't even run by root -- each user owns their
> own job and an lpd user/group handles all user-agnostic actions.
>
Same under NT.
> A major bug in lpd (lprng, cups, etc.) would, at most, crash the
> printing system.
>
Same.
> > > Of course, at the moment, I can't get it to connect to any of our
> > > printers
> >
> > So you admit that you're incompetent then? What room, then, do you
> > have to criticize anything?
>
> You have to admit that this is broken.
>
Admit what the idiot is lying.
> A root-access video driver? Yes, that is a necessary evil.
>
> A root-access printer "driver"? No thanks.
>
Me neither.
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Jerry Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:00:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ahxZ5.12$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:0AdZ5.25390$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:hIyW5.2834$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:BieW5.5326$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Then let's discuss the registry, another stinking pile of dung
>> > from
>> >> >> >> >> MS. The same information repeated multiple times under
>> >> > indecipherable
>> >> >> >> >> keys with little or no documentation. I'll take text format
> files
>> >> > any
>> >> >> >> >> day.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > The registry is hard to deciphere.
>> >> >> >> > You aren't suppose to work with it directly, not unless you've
> a
>> > good
>> >> >> > level
>> >> >> >> > of understanding about it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Oh yeah, little things like software that puts run some crud at
>> >> >> >> startup in the registry that you want to get rid of.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > msconfig.exe
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > As for it to be undocumented, this is *false*.
>> >> >> >> > There are *plenty* of resources to find out what each key or
> node
>> > or
>> >> >> > value
>> >> >> >> > does.
>> >> >> >> > Take a trip to *any* good NT/2K focused site, and you'll find
>> > plenty
>> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > tips on what the registry does, how it does it, and how to
> change
>> > it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But I shouldn't have to read anything or know anything to admin
> my
>> >> >> >> computer, recognize the quote? At least the old *.ini files made
>> > some
>> >> >> >> sense, the registry is just crap.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > No, if you want to use the registry directly, you need to read.
>> >> >> > If you use the tools that the OS/Application supply, you generaly
>> > don't
>> >> > need
>> >> >> > to use the registry directly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ecxept that the OS and applications have a habit of doing things
> that
>> >> >> I don't want, and the only way to fix them is to edit the registry.
>> >> >> The typical windows mentality, BTW, "we know what's best for you".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My major reason for editting the registry is to remove all of the
> junk
>> >> >> that various apps add to startup. If they would only just add the
> damn
>> >> >> things to the startup folder so I could remove them.
>> >>
>> >> > Why are you doing this via the registry?
>> >> > msconfig.exe, the last tab.
>> >> > You can disable/restore/delete programs that run from startup.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps because I don't have a program called msconfig.exe?
>>
>> > what version of windows are you using?
>>
>> > It is on 98.
>> > If you are using older version or NT/2000, get it from here:
>> > http://www.techadvice.com/files/w98/msconfig.exe
>>
>> > It took me 5 seconds to find it "download msconfig.exe" in google.com,
> and
>> > clicking on the first result.
>>
>> > You may also want to get:
>> > http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml
>>
>> > To have something similar on your control panel
>>
>> Thanks, but no thanks. I have exactly what I need on the system and
>> have enough problems with it. Since I now have it configured, I tend
>> to leave it alone & hope that it keeps working.
>>
>> I tend to not tinker with the w95 system as windows is just too
>> fragile. Due to MS's poor design of LFN's plus their idiotic registry,
>> it's just too hard to put back together again after it breaks. And I
>> have full backups on DAT. Linux, OTOH, is not fragile, & if I really
>> screw it up, can restore from it's backup tapes without having to
>> reinstall the OS and all of the applications.
> Restoring Win9x from backup is about the easiest thing you can do.
> You copy all the files (except win386.swp, which refused to be copied, and
> doesn't matter anyway) to another HD/CD/Zip dirve/Backup tape.
> Then you copy them back, worst case scenario, you will need to fdisk/mbr &
> sys.
Have you ever tried that? What about LFN's? With dos & win3.x I could
do that just fine. I could also copy from one disk to another with
xcopy. With Linux I can copy from one disk to another with cp -a.
With w9x, the LFN's make that risky. Since the short alias is
determined by the order files are created, you can easily get the
wrong alias for any given LFN. I have also been told that w9x puts the
short alias into some registry entries, leading to problems. Do a
search on xxcopy, IIRC it's www.xxcopy.com for further explanation.
If it's so easy, why does NovaStor have NovaBoot? Watching NB backup
w95 is interesting, one of the first steps it takes is to us lfnadmn
to backup and remove all of the LFN's; you can see the effect on the
desktop as the various folder names change from the LFN to the short
alias. As one of the last steps of the backup it then restores the
LFN's.
The best I've been able to to with backup/restore is to restore my
data files. An application re-install over the restored app fixes any
registry issues.
Jerry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:01:04 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:13:40 -0500,
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:919g33$t46$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Even cooler, they've already spent that much already. IBM has 1500
>> > Linux developers on the payroll now. That's committment.
>>
>> Wow... 1500 developers... doing what? They don't seem to have contributed
>> much of anything back into the source pool.
>
>You must be joking. How about Linux for S/390 and AS/400. How about AFS?
>How about JFS? Then there is Jikes, EVMS, and lots more. Take a look at :
>
>http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/
>
>Gary
>
Allow me to clarify EF's comments.
See, EF believes Microsoft has a running embedded product,
that Microsofts TCO is actually acceptable, and that
the majority of Windows developers using GCC to produce
Windows development.
So, as you can audit, EF is in his own little world out
there.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:01:03 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91bbls$7i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:07:58 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
<trimmed>
> >
> > If you want to be able to "administer the server", you'll need "root
> rights". Fine. But if you
> > don't know what the fuck you're doing, and you kill the install, then
> that's the fault of the
> > moron in question.
>
> That is *my* point, actually.
>
> > (would you hire an admin that could conceivably "kill the system" that
> runs, say, your
> > business?)
>
> I can't hire an admin that can't kill the system, I *can* hire an admin
that
> know what he is doing, so he wouldn't kill the system.
>
> > My point stands. "Don't give just anyone free reign over a server,
duh..."
>
> Yes, but that isn't where the sub-thread started, it started with
complaint
> about Win2K needing skillful administrators in order to work correctly.
>
Actually it started with some idiot claiming he couldn't keep Win2K running.
I pointed out to him that if you take due diligence in the care and feeding
of any OS it will be stable, if you let a moron run it it won't be.
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:04:14 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > "Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > >
> > > > The rest of these responses were largely idiots explaining how to
> > falsify
> > > > registration info or people just up in arms over a simple and true
> > > > observation.
> > >
> > > You said that there has been no further development on the GPL
version,
> > > which is false: There have already been 3 build versions in the last 3
> > > months are no fewer than 20 teams moving the Open Office project
> > > forward, and parts of it have already been integrated into the gnone
> > > project's office suite.
> > >
> >
> > Links please.
>
> www.openoffice.org, again.
Where's the production releases?
> >
> > I just did a search on SO and found one, repeat one, hit that pointed to
Sun
> > who cliamed to own SO.
>
> You must be using a crappy search engine. Try a real SE, like google.
>
> > I don't care about Wildebeest licensing I was
> > looking for allegedly free software and found it owned by one of the
biggest
> > whores in the industry.
>
> When was the last time M$ released a product under the gpl?
>
Again, who cares. I don't give my product away and I see no benefit in
doing so. You want to run my applications, pay for them.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:03:02 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> This is a point I just responded to in another two posts. I won't
>>> repeat it here.
>> Too embarrassing?
> No, there's just no need to repeat the same damn thing 20 times.
Try substantiating your claims about me allegedly not paying attention
just once, Steve.
>>> (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.
> Which would have made the cocky asshole called "Dave Tholen"
> put up a "note: no response" in there,
Liar. I have not put up "note: no response" to something that wasn't
there.
> which, if you could read, is exactly what I said.
Liar. You did not delete all the discussion leading up to it.
Your reliance on invectice is telling, Steve.
> But, it's clear that you are winning the "more free time" game
> here, so I'll just have to accept that.
You're still erroneously presupposing a game on my part, Steve.
> I've already dealt with the points you brought up,
Arrogantly assuming that because something is faster for you, it
must be faster for me.
> and the argument has devolved into you denying my evidence
What evidence? You claimed that I wasn't paying attention. You
presented no evidence for that. Meanwhile, I presented evidence
that you weren't paying attention, by comparing what Aaron
actually wrote with what you claimed he wrote. You then tried
to spin doctor that by saying it wasn't a problem with your
attention, but rather with your writing. Yet you arrogantly
presume that my alleged lack of attention (to which I will not
admit) couldn't be a writing problem.
> so that I have to say the same damn thing over and over.
Where have you said even once what the alleged inadequacies are
about my qualifiers? You started out by erroneously claiming
that I hadn't used any qualifiers.
> [snip]
Figures.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:02:53 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
>
> Sun et al. are siphoning off resources without paying for them, then
> reselling the results, eventually even you twits will get tired of working
> for free and quit.
>
You can hardly use Star Office and Sun as an indication of the end of Open
Source. Like I said before, IBM has given a lot back to the Open Source
community. These "chicken little" predictions of the death of Open Source are
getting quite boring.
Gary
------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:04:58 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> Ahem - I wasn't trying to defend his interpetation, just stating
>>> that this is what it looks like it is to me.
>> So it looks to you like Aaron is being illogical?
> I don't care.
You should, given that you're arguing with someone who agrees with
you that something about computers can be intuitive, rather than the
person you disagree with. Most interesting.
> YOU are being illogical.
Where, allegedly? Yet another one of your pontifications.
> It doesn't matter if someone else is too.
It should, given that you're arguing with someone who agrees with
you that something about computers can be intuitive, rather than the
person you disagree with. Most interesting.
>>>>> since that is often what it means when someone leaves a qualifier
>>>>> off on a statement like that.
>>>> Evidence, please.
>>> 28 years of context as a speaker of English.
>> Is that all?
> Yes, that's all.
That could explain things. Somewhat.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:07:47 +1300
<snype>
> Interestingly, the new Chinese dam on the yellow river is going to be
> worthless in about 20 years because of all the silt. The project is
> behind, and they may only get 10 years of power out of the
> monstrosity. Any sane person would agree that these kind of projects
> need to be stopped, just as other dams make good sense.
If the dam is designed and implemented properly, you shouldn't
experience any problems with silt. There are 3 large hydro dams in New
Zealand, and none of them experience silt problems due to regular
maintenance, which, in theory, may result in more expensive power,
however it does allow the hydro dams to be viable in the long-term.
ECNZ (Electric Corp. New Zealand (SOE) ), are no longer building more
dams (due to the large capital expenditure needed, and legislation), but
instead are investigating the use of wind power (in cities like
Wellington), steam (via "Hot Rock" Technology), and burning methane
collected from rubbish dumps to produce electricity, all have little or
no adverse effect on the environment.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
