Linux-Advocacy Digest #887, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (kiwiunixman)
Does anyone know..... (mlw)
Re: Linux is awful (Brian V. Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:51:31 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:22:56
>"Anonymous" <T. Max Devlin> wrote in message
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 10 Dec 2000 02:34:15
>> [...]
>> >The guidelines to the registry were published long time ago.
>> >They always included putting *user spesifics* settings in the HKCU.
>> >Part of the reason is portability.
>> >Unless an application does a low-level job, it can quite easily be
>> >transfered between 9x & NT, assuming it was written correctly.
>>
>> You're still missing the point. The definition of "user specific" is
>> not fixed and unchanging, let alone universal; different application
>> have different concepts of a 'user'. The criteria you are using for
>> whether things were identified "correctly" is simply and merely whether
>> Microsoft decided to prevent what does work on 9x from what should work
>> on NT, and doesn't. The question isn't why the app developer put their
>> configuration in HKLM, the question is why that app can't access what
>> ends up being in HKLM, when it needs to. Crappy OS, that's why.
>
>You fail to understand the problem, do you?
No.
>HKLM is a read-only for all users except those with special privileges.
>There for, you need an admin to install the program, where s/he decide what
>would the machine settings would be, and then come Joe user, and open the
>program.
>The application read machine spesific settings from HKLM, and read & write
>user spesific settings from HKCU.
>The application can access the settings in HKLM, it can't change them unless
>the user have special rights.
Like I said; it all comes down to Microsoft's crappy design.
[...]
>> Because they're a monopoly. Interoperability and compatibility is
>> defined by the market, not by caveat of a monopolist.
>
>Irrelevent.
<*chuckle*>
>*All* the products from Microsoft at least *try* to follow those guidelines,
>you are aware of it, do you?
Excuse me, but this is Microsoft's guidelines, is it not? I would
expect that all of their product *do* follow them, not merely try.
(Well, I would expect it if I weren't aware that they're a monopoly, and
generally incapable of producing anything but crapware.)
>Hell, I used KernelToys 95 on 2K, and it worked. Those guidelines *support*
>compatibility and interoperability.
Excuse me, kid, but you obviously don't understand what either
compatibility or interoperability mean.
>We are talking about programs not following the rules to the platform they
>are being written for.
No, we're talking about platforms not following the rules of good design
and not supporting programs adequately.
>Give me *one* good reason to ignore those rules?
Personal preference is one perfectly valid reason, considering the only
reason those rules exist at all is because Microsoft monopolizes.
>And get that monopoly chip off your shoulder, it jump off there and press
>random keys of the keyboard too often.
Yea, yea, yea. Deal with it; Microsoft's not competitive, and because
of that their products are demonstrably crap. If you can't handle it,
that's not my problem.
>> >> >NT is a workstation/desktop/server.
>> >>
>> >> Yea, right. Now if only it didn't suck at all three, compared to Unix.
>> >
>> >Guffow
>>
>> I think you meant "guffaw". And get your own shtick, please. Mine is
>> copyright property.
>
>Copyright code?
No, copyright shtick. Guffaw.
>> >> >And you are wrong, applications configuration is part of the machine's
>> >> >configuration.
>> >>
>> >> Not if its user-specific stuff.
>> >
>> >Good, you are showing progress.
>> >If it's user spesific stuff, where do you think it should be?
>> >A> HKLM
>> >B> HKCU
>>
>> In a configuration file under the control of the application that
>> created it, uses it, and is solely concerned with it.
>
>Wrong answer, you can only choose <a> or <b>
OK, then I choose "null".
>And, while this is beside the point, there are several disadvantages to flat
>text files which the registry doesn't. Vice Versa is also true, but to a
>lesser degree.
Except the "disadvantages" of text files for configuration are just FUD,
and the problems with the registry are all too real.
>> >Hint:
>> >HKLM = The place where *Local Machine* settings are stored.
>> >HKCU = The place where *User Spesific* settings are stored.
>>
>> Yea, but they're both in the registry, so those labels are just that:
>> labels, not functional descriptions. You *do* know how a hierarchical
>> database works, don't you?
>
>Yes, but you forgot something called *permissions*.
That's a secondary issue. The primary issue is a hierarchical data
store of configuration information. It is trying to put permissions on
top in the broken way that Microsoft does that screws everything up.
Bad design, like I said.
>Try again.
I wish Microsoft would try again. I find it rather odd that despite the
fact that it is the most common performance problem, reliability
problem, and compatibility problem, they've never even considered doing
away with that horrendous monstrosity called the Registry. That's what
happens when you monopolize instead of competing.
[...]
>> It is the argument. The problem you speak of is in the registry. The
>> registry sucks because its not competitive. Its not competitive because
>> its a monopoly. I shouldn't have to know how much the registry sucks,
>> because if it were competitive, it would be transparent. Instead, its a
>> barrier to interoperability.
>
>It is transparent, T. Max, as long as you write programs according to the
>rules.
Which is to say it is not transparent.
>When you break the rules, you can't expect the system to behave the way you
>want it to.
What rules? I don't know of any rules, only Microsoft specs.
Experience has shown, BTW, that you can't expect the system to behave
the way you want, period.
>And I must ask you once again, get that monopoly chip off your shoulder.
You're a little slow, aren't you? Get the monopoly off my computer,
then we'll talk.
>> I know that's probably another challenge, how a common data store for
>> configuration data, entirely 'voluntary' in usage, could be a barrier to
>> interoperability. But you need to broaden your intellect, Aryane.
>> Seriously.
>
>Check out the problems with Win3.X ini files, please.
>And you 'll see why it didn't work.
Didn't work? I used ini files quite extensively. I don't know of any
"problems" you could be talking about, seriously.
[...]
>> But what if you're on a local machine desktop, and you *want* the
>> application settings to carry over to the other 'user'?
>
>I'll export the program settings from HKCU to a reg file.
>Log on as another user, and import those settings.
>Simple, isn't it?
No, but it might work, if you don't mind wasting time making up for bad
design just so you can have the dubious pleasure of using crapware.
>> >> >Show me those settings that can't be clearly defined as HKCU or HKLM
>and
>> >> >needed to be update by anyone.
>> >>
>> >> <*chuckle*> How about you waste your time on this, and just let me
>know
>> >> when you're done. I prefer that market competition take care of
>> >> identifying requirements like this. It is an unassailable point,
>> >> however, that you are apparently satisfied with monopoly crapware.
>> >
>> >This has nothing to do with this arguement.
>>
>> Yes it does. Show me the settings that were in HKLM but "should have
>> been" in HKCU. Seriously: post them. I'm willing to bet that there are
>> functional considerations of these particular settings that actually
>> make them more appropriate to be used machine-wide on a desktop system,
>> even though they may be related or associated with a particular 'user',
>> according to the paradigm of the application (not necessarily coincident
>> with the concept of user in Windows).
>
>My dailer program, frex.
>It support multiply accounts, so basically you have somthing like this:
>HKLM
>|_Software
> |_<dailer company>
> |_<dailer name>
> |_<user name>
> |_<acount name>
> | - <value "name": username>
> | - <value "password": password>
> | - <value "phone": phone number>
> |_<acount name>
> - <value "name": username>
> - <value "password": password>
> - <value "phone": phone number>
>
>There are other values, of course, but those are the important ones.
>Now, I challange you to find a reason this should be in the HKLM.
I can't for the life of me figure why it wouldn't. After all, these
users aren't the system login users; they are dial up accounts. As I
anticipated, the problem is you are assuming that the concept of user in
the application matches the concept of user as Microsoft dictates it.
>Here two reasons why is shouldn't be on the HKLM:
>A> The password field is poorly encrypted one, thus allowing anyone that
>look for it to retrieve *all* my passwords for *all* my accounts, as well as
>all other relevent information.
These are dialer accounts, not login accounts. You *want* the passwords
to be accessible system-wide, as they are not at all related to you as a
user, but only to your Internet link as a physical connection, which
certainly seems like something you would want to be configured for the
computer (local machine). But I suppose that seems weird to you. In
the end, though, its a personal computer, and it would seem brain-dead
to me to have to reconfigure the PPP dialer for each individual user
account.
>B> There are other values there, which need to be written to registry, thus
>causing the program to crush unless I've admin privileges or changed the
>privileges to the node.
>
>If it was moved to HKCU (a simple matter of changing HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE to
>HKEY_CURRENT_USER in the code), would eliminate those problems, users don't
>have access to other users HKCU, and the files which contained HKCU are
>stored in their home directory, thus making them inaccessible to them even
>if they want to read the file itself.
How many other people use your computer to dial up your ISP, huh? Are
you saying you want the system to use a different dial-up account
depending on who logged in to the system?
>Admininstrators has access to all HKCUs, of course.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:51:37 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:04:29
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:913e0l$bng$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : We are talking about programs not following the rules to the platform
>they
>> : are being written for.
>> : Give me *one* good reason to ignore those rules?
>>
>> You two are talking about totally different problems. He's talking
>> about the rules being ambiguous, so you can't tell if you are following
>> them or not (what is "user stuff" and what isn't changes according to
>> personal opinion). You are talking about the case where the rules are
>> clear, but get ignored.
>
>I already asked him to state some places where it isn't clear where it
>should go.
>He refused to answer.
>Normally, it's clear answer.
Three pitches, three swings, three misses.
>And defaulting to HKCU isn't bad either.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:51:47 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:54:21
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:913j3v$4re$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> : news:913e0l$bng$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :>
>> :> : We are talking about programs not following the rules to the platform
>> : they
>> :> : are being written for.
>> :> : Give me *one* good reason to ignore those rules?
>> :>
>> :> You two are talking about totally different problems. He's talking
>> :> about the rules being ambiguous, so you can't tell if you are following
>> :> them or not (what is "user stuff" and what isn't changes according to
>> :> personal opinion). You are talking about the case where the rules are
>> :> clear, but get ignored.
>>
>> : I already asked him to state some places where it isn't clear where it
>> : should go.
>> : He refused to answer.
>http://x61.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=702461261&CONTEXT=976574077.1839
>595588&hitnum=0
In case you weren't aware, not answering to your satisfaction and
refusing to answer are not the same thing. Confusing the two is a sign
of intellectual dishonesty.
>> : Normally, it's clear answer.
>> : And defaulting to HKCU isn't bad either.
>>
>> That might be the case (I started reading this thread late into it), but
>> in any case it is still dishonest to attack him on a position he doesn't
>> actually hold. You're doing a strawman fallacy. If you don't agree with
>> the premise that the documentation is unclear, then attack his position
>> *there*. Don't make up this bullshit position to make it look like he
>> favors the act of ignoring the spec. Whether he's right or wrong about
>> the situation, THAT wasn't his stance.
>
>You really should read the thread (at least my & T. Max arguement, as this
>thread itself is *huge*) before saying this.
You really should stop being such an arrogant cuss; so far as I can
tell, Steve's understanding of the conversation is quite a bit more
accurate than yours, despite your ability to provide deja urls (a
practice I abhor to begin with; if you can't quote, you shouldn't
pretend to.)
>http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/dnquery.xp?ST=QS&svcclass=dnyr&defaultOp=%26&;
>DBS=&LNG=english&subjects=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=score&maxhits
>=25&groups=&QRY=Windoze+2000+-+just+as+shitty+as+ever&x=49&y=9
>List 17,000 results.
>
>What documentation are you talking about which isn't clear?
These would be these "rules" you keep prattling on about.
>The registry structure is well documented, and the rule about putting
>machine spesific settings in HKLM and user spesifics settings in HKCU is
>five or six years old if not more.
For all the good it does. Documenting the structure of a hierarchical
database is a dubious prospect, BTW. Microsoft, I'm told, provides a
"file format", which is entirely worthless, as the importance of a node
in a tree is entirely independent of the "registry structure", and
Microsoft's implementation assumes some bogus "rules of inheritance",
for no reason but their own incompetence.
>I made passing comment about bad programs putting user spesific setting in
>HKLM, and T. Max started raving how this was MS fault and how it was only
>this way because there is no competative alternative.
I've been discussing these issues for three years, and you made a
passing (and rather bogus) comment about how it is the market (in this
case, application developers), not the monopoly, that does things wrong.
Pity there's no competitive alternative. Bigger pity you're having such
trouble understanding the issue.
>I'm sure he would respond to this post saying something along those lines.
>
><Qoute: T. Max replying to my post>
>>And if you do, you should get the other's user settings.
>>Because that it how it should work.
>
>Precisely; you should get the other user's settings. Which is why app
>developers put them in local.machine instead of local.user. You see how
>that works?
[...]
>After this, what a, I supposed to think?
That you didn't understand the context of the discussion, nor the
comment you are responding to.
>My initial point was that I couldn't understand why programmers put
>user-spesific data in HKLM, instead of HKCU.
And you have repeatedly ignored, argued, or simply denied the reasons
I've provided you, prattling on about how I'm ranting and raving, just
because you don't like the explanation.
>Putting user-spesific settings in HKCU doesn't limit the application in any
>way, and it provide the programmer with an easy way to make his/her program
>a true multi-user one without any hassle.
Other than the fact that not even Windows is "true multi-user", thus
resulting in many hassles.
>T. Max jump on this and started using this as a proof that Windows is
>"crapware".
No, I jumped on this and continued, as I have since probably before you
learned what RAM is, to use it as an example of Microsoft's faulty
design.
I think the answer to one of your other messages was lost (since the
crapware system failed me at a crucial moment, unsurprisingly), so I'll
point out that your example supported my hypothesis entirely. The
dialer you were whining about is saving ppp dialer accounts in
local.machine. Which makes perfect sense, of course, since such network
connectivity would not generally be considered tied to a specific
desktop login. In case you weren't aware, they call these systems
Personal Computers for a reason, and you will not get very far arguing
that a ppp dialer should require every login account to entirely
reconfigure the networking configuration necessary to provide Internet
connectivity. As I pointed out in anticipation of whatever examples you
could provide, this is an issue of the application (the reason computers
are used) differing with the operating system (which only exists to
support applications) on the concept of what "a user" is, and because
the OS is a monopoly, you declaring that Microsoft is unequivocally
"correct" and the application developers therefore "wrong". The fact
that a ppp dialer "user" is simply an account for Internet access,
entirely unrelated to the desktop login account, escapes both you and
Microsoft. It appears that Steve, as well as I, realize that this is a
fallacy; the distinction between machine-wide and user-specific settings
on a PC platform is far more ambiguous than you seem to understand.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:58:48 GMT
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:21:10 +0200,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:r3d_5.21690$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:919k7i$f2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:2QVZ5.13988$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:38:14 +0200,
>> > > > Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:09:47 +0200,
>> > > > >> Ayende Rahien <[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.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >Show me the OS that can't be taken down by an applicaiton having
>> > root
>> > > > >> >privileges.
>> > > > >> >This is what we are talking about.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
>> > > > >> >> application in itself.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >I still have to run into an application that will crush Win2K.
>> > > > >> >Application do crush, and sometimes (rarely, btw) it's bad
>enough
>> > that
>> > > > >I've
>> > > > >> >to log off & on to recover from the crush, but that is about it.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> At least *nix has a root. What is Windows excuse.
>> > > > >> Anybody, any common user can take down their system.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >We are talking about Win2K systems here, if you want to talk about
>> the
>> > > Win9x
>> > > > >problems, I'll be more than happy to join the conversation.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Then why do you keep refering to NT all the time.
>> > > > And your statement is incorrect, see below.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >> This is the point. And it's a point which is totally
>> > > > >> un-arguable.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Win2K/NT/Whistler protect the system from users unless they are
>> running
>> > > as
>> > > > >administrators.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Not true, see below.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >> True, You CAN cripple a *nix to emulate the same thing.
>> > > > >> You can also pretend your dick is a pogo stick and go
>> > > > >> bouncing down the sidewalk for all I care.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> But Windows has no protection from this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Actually, WinME tries to protect the user without going to true
>multi
>> > > user
>> > > > >enviroment, it does this by basically reducing the user to non-root
>> > > level,
>> > > > >with no way to access root level privileges short of hacking its
>own
>> > > system.
>> > > > >It's one of the main complaints that I've against WinME.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >The NT line offer this protection, and this is the one that we are
>> > > talking
>> > > > >about here.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Wrong again buddy.
>> > > >
>> > > > I can log into any W2K box as a common user, write a program
>> > > > which can corrupt the Win/system directories, run the program,
>> > > > and cripple the system. Why? Because they have no sense
>> > > > of program ownership for software YOU write.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Wrong answer, on a properly configured system with rather simple
>> > protections
>> > > set, a user written program will not have access to those directories
>or
>> > > even the registry.
>> >
>> > This is incorrect, actually, the program would've the user's rights,
>> > therefor, assuming default configurations, the program could read HKLM &
>> > System dirs, but wouldn't be able to write to them.
>> > They have access, but not write/modify/delete access, which you need in
>> > order to cripple the system.
>> >
>>
>> A user can be denied read access to critical areas of the registry if
>> desired.
>
>Of course, but that is not the default install, hwich is what we are talking
>about here.
>Since Charlie claim that he can write a program that can corrupt NT sys
>files as user, I'm sticking to defaults here, in showing him how it is
>impossible to do so.
>
>
A famous Chineese actor of the 20th century once said on
one of his many movies, "Man who not listen to Charlie is Dumbass".
Charlie
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:00:05 GMT
LOL, my uncle is the best example of a person who has two degrees, yet
he is socially impotent and lacking the logic to apply his skills to
every day work. Degrees aren't everything. If you don't have the skills
to apply the knowledge, the degree is as useless as the piece of paper
it is written on.
kiwiunixman
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:30:48 GMT...
> ....and kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Matthias Warkus wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It was the Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:03:53 GMT...
>>> ....and kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> <snype>
>>>>
>>>> From the sounds of what is happening here, there is a giant paper war
>>>> brewing. I have a BIT (Bachelor of Information Technology) and I am on
>>>> my last year of completing a Bachelor of Music, and I am not swinging
>>>> from the chandeliers whilst declaring "I am the best because I have 2
>>>> degree's". When I hear this type of debate happening, I really question
>>>> the mentality of those who run around declaring that those with degree's
>>>> are superior to those who don't.
>>>
>>>
>>> What your posting proves is that people with two degrees are as likely
>>> not to grasp grammar and consequently get their apostrophes totally
>>> wrong as any average bloke.
>>>
>>> mawa
>>
>
>> Mawa, first of all, did you actually read the post.
>
>
> Yeah. However, annoying you is fun.
>
>
>> Second, this is only a news groups, if I were to write an essay, I
>> would read and modify it until it is perfect.
>
>
> Oh really.
>
>
>> Second, when hunga rorohuri, such as yourself
>> invite yourself into a hui, and expects the participating members to
>> give you koha, yet you show the maturity of a tamaiti.
>
>
> Hm... "When <NOUN>, such as yourself invite yourself into a <NOUN>,
> and expects the participating members to give you <NOUN>, yet you show
> the maturity of a <NOUN>."
>
> Even in the most favorable interpretations, this sentence demonstrably
> contains several syntactical and semantic errors which lead me to the
> suspicion that it's actually made of two crippled clause stumps which
> have been Sellotaped together into something that superficially
> resembles a meaningful phrase.
>
> mawa
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Does anyone know.....
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:02:46 -0500
My guess is that this is an eclectic group, and perhaps someone would
know of a large public domain database which I can use for testing?
I am thinking in the range of millions of records.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian V. Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 15 Dec 2000 00:56:08 GMT
I'm asking nicely again - please keep this stuff out of the linux newsgroups!
Don't be jerks.
--
===============================================================
Brian V. Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www-epb.lbl.gov/BVSmith
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
I don't speak for LBL; they don't pay me enough for that.
Check out the xfig site at http://www-epb.lbl.gov/xfig
To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the
glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big
as it needs to be.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
