Linux-Advocacy Digest #919, Volume #30 Fri, 15 Dec 00 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful (Brian V. Smith)
Re: the next user base ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why use malloc? (Steve Mading)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... ("[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... ("[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
Re: Why use malloc? (Steve Mading)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Why use malloc? (mlw)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Anonymous)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Terry Porter)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian V. Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 16 Dec 2000 00:41:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> "Brian V. Smith" wrote:
|> >
|> > I'm asking nicely again - please keep this stuff out of the linux newsgroups!
|> > Don't be jerks.
|> >
|>
|> that trick never works.
Tell me about it - Jerry Peters sent me an email telling me to "GO TO HELL!"
Why are these people such jerks? I'll have to tell his daddy to cut off his net
access.
--
===============================================================
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the next user base
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:02:39 GMT
LOL! Point-and-grunt caveman interface, indeed. For some reason while
reading this I kept imagining Tim Palmer using a CLI; now I need to
clean the coffee spray off my CRT, thanks to you.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use malloc?
Date: 16 Dec 2000 01:09:29 GMT
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This indicates that malloc does not zero out the memory block being
: allocated for use while calloc does. Is this correct? Also, calloc
: has the advantage of being able to allocate as many blocks as required
: while malloc is limited to one block per call.
On most modern systems, you can make an array of elements with
malloc by simply multiplying, as in malloc( num * sizeof(element) );
But this was not always the case, and it's a bit hardware dependant.
(For example, your machine might only address 32-bit words, in which
case if your element was 3 bytes in size, you might want to waste
an extra byte per element so they end up aligned on the word boundries.
calloc could be implemented to do that silently behind the scenes,
while malloc could not.)
But on modern archetecture, either way will work (even though I still
use calloc for arrays just in case some chip maker desides to subject
us to the hell of alligned memory locations again in the future.)
: Am I missing something here? Why would anyone want to use malloc if
: it does not zero out the allocated block of memory when calloc does?
Time. Imagine allocating several meg of memory at once. If you are
about to assign something else into them in a moment, then why spend
the CPU time clearing them to zero first? It's safer, but slower.
------------------------------
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:12:21 GMT
If patent can be one indication of invention, here is what I found
Microsoft patents from US patent database
==========================
Searching 1996-2000...
Results of Search in 1996-2000 db for:
AN/microsoft: 1349 patents.
Hits 1 through 50 out of 1349
==================================
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Seems like people are having trouble naming ONE THING
> Microsoft invented.
>
> So I'll try it again on it's OWN THREAD.
>
> Name one thing, just one thing Microsoft actually
> invented.
>
> You don't even have to give me a LINK to prove it.
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:14:46 GMT
Here is title of the patents in the first page
1
6,161,176
System and method for storing configuration settings for
transfer from a first system to a second system
2
6,161,130
Technique which utilizes a probabilistic classifier to
detect "junk" e-mail by automatically updating a training and
re-training the
classifier based on the updated training set
3
6,161,119
Hardware multiplication of scaled integers
4
6,161,084
Information retrieval utilizing semantic representation
of text by identifying hypernyms and indexing multiple tokenized
semantic
structures to a same passage of text
5
6,160,923
User directed dust and compact anomaly remover from
digital images
6
6,160,553
Methods, apparatus and data structures for providing a
user interface, which exploits spatial memory in three-dimensions, to
objects and in which object occlusion is avoided
7
6,160,550
Shell extensions for an operating system
8
6,157,942
Imprecise caching of directory download responses for
dynamic directory services
9
6,157,905
Identifying language and character set of data
representing text
10
6,157,747
3-dimensional image rotation method and apparatus for
producing image mosaics
11
6,157,618
Distributed internet user experience monitoring system
12
6,157,383
Control polyhedra for a three-dimensional (3D) user
interface
13
6,154,843
Secure remote access computing system
14
6,154,767
Methods and apparatus for using attribute transition
probability models for pre-fetching resources
15
6,154,762
Fast system and method for computing modulated lapped
transforms
16
6,154,736
Belief networks with decision graphs
17
6,154,572
Table based compression with embedded coding
18
6,154,220
Rectilinear layout
19
6,154,219
System and method for optimally placing labels on a map
20
6,154,205
Navigating web-based content in a television-based system
21
6,154,010
Battery charging docking cradle for a mobile computer
22
6,153,821
Supporting arbitrary beat patterns in chord-based note
sequence generation
23
D434,422
Icon for a computer screen
24
D434,421
Icon for a computer screen
25
D434,420
Set of icons for a computer screen
26
6,151,708
Determining program update availability via set
intersection over a sub-optical pathway
27
6,151,632
Method and apparatus for distributed transmission of
real-time multimedia information
28
6,151,618
Safe general purpose virtual machine computing system
29
6,151,607
Database computer system with application recovery and
dependency handling write cache
30
6,151,585
Methods and apparatus for determining or inferring
influential rumormongers from resource usage data
31
6,151,022
Method and apparatus for statically testing visual
resources
32
6,150,599
Dynamically halting music event streams and flushing
associated command queues
33
6,148,325
Method and system for protecting shared code and data in
a multitasking operating system
34
6,148,304
Navigating multimedia content using a graphical user
interface with multiple display regions
35
6,148,296
Automatic generation of database queries
36
6,148,149
Automatic image rotation in digital cameras
37
6,147,685
System and method for editing group information
38
6,145,003
Method of web crawling utilizing address mapping
39
6,144,964
Methods and apparatus for tuning a match between entities
having attributes
40
6,144,378
Symbol entry system and methods
41
6,144,377
Providing access to user interface elements of legacy
application programs
42
6,144,291
Bit encoding in home control systems
43
6,141,722
Method and apparatus for reclaiming memory
44
6,141,705
System for querying a peripheral device to determine its
processing capabilities and then offloading specific processing tasks
from a host to the peripheral device when needed
45
6,141,696
Secure decentralized object exporter
46
6,141,641
Dynamically configurable acoustic model for speech
recognition system
47
6,141,018
Method and system for displaying hypertext documents with
visual effects
48
6,141,003
Channel bar user interface for an entertainment system
49
D433,076
Portion of a game controller
50
6,138,128
Sharing and organizing world wide web references using
distinctive characters
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> If patent can be one indication of invention, here is what I found
> Microsoft patents from US patent database
>
> --------------------------
> Searching 1996-2000...
>
> Results of Search in 1996-2000 db for:
> AN/microsoft: 1349 patents.
> Hits 1 through 50 out of 1349
> ----------------------------------
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > Seems like people are having trouble naming ONE THING
> > Microsoft invented.
> >
> > So I'll try it again on it's OWN THREAD.
> >
> > Name one thing, just one thing Microsoft actually
> > invented.
> >
> > You don't even have to give me a LINK to prove it.
> >
> > Charlie
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use malloc?
Date: 16 Dec 2000 01:15:25 GMT
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This isn't really advantage. It could be called convenience.
: It means that calloc can multiple two numbers to get the block's
: length; but when you write the multiplication part in calling malloc()
: (like malloc (node_count * sizeof (struct node)) ), the compiler can
: optimize the multiplication (by replacing it with shifting, for example).
: Which is not possible with calloc().
Now wait a second. If calloc.c was compiled with the same compiler
you are using, and presumably it has such a multiplication inside it
somewhere, couldn't the same shift-optimization have been done there
too?
: Contrariwise, that sort of `implicit clearing' might hide serious coding
: errors, which is a Bad Thing.
I prefer "implicit bogus values", like setting everything to
0xFF ahead of time. That is much less likely to mask programming
errors than clear-to-zero is, and you can usually tell when you
are looking at the unitialized parts of it in the debugger. (all
bits off is a common random garbage value, but all bits on is not.)
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:38:40 GMT
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > [snippage]
> >
> > You're a paranoiac.
>
> Yet more "net-psychoanalysis"?
>
> You realize you are being a flaming hypocrite here, don't you?
>
> Either that, or you owe an apology to the guy you lambasted for doing
> the same thing you are doing here . . .
Well, I don't feel I really owe an apology to a guy who says things
like:
:: Not really. A casual look at the facts would reveal that liberals
:: use deceit, lies, and misrepresented facts to prove their claim.
and
:: Ad homonym, deny the truth, insult, insult, insult. Typical liberal behavior.
:: It's right out of the standard playbook. Look at what they do to G. W. Bush
:: every night. [Note that he can't even spell "ad hominem"--Chris]
and
:: Wrong. Liberal implies bending and stretching the rule of law and the
:: foundations of this country (as seen recently in Al Gore's Election Debacle).
::
:: Moderate implies moderate. Liberal implies eco-wacko, red commie (Jane
:: Fonda, et al), baby killer (Barbara Boxer who believes that a baby isn't
:: the Mother's until she's released from the hospital and a slipped-up
:: partial-birth abortion in which the baby is fully delivered and then
:: killed after birth is still legal), etc.
and
:: Hmm, that's a self-fullfilling prophecy. A liberl who thinks
:: he's unique =)
::
:: You are typical, highly typical.
::
:: > God threw away the mold when he made me,
::
:: So you tell yourself. Suprising to hear such a left-wing
:: liberal talking about God.
and another fairly noisome declaration that, fortunately for
him, has scrolled off the newgroup list.
Makes me want to call myself something safe, like "freethinker".
On the other hand, I've merely said I believe he was crazy,
paranoid, full of it, or a troll. Having said all those things,
I'm done interacting with him.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:42:59 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91e0mk$in8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <GG9_5.6917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:91alhm$ouh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bottom line: The numbers are available from the network!
> >
> > The numbers MAY be available from the network, depending on a number
> of
> > factors.
> >
> > > Bottom Line: I always believed that the numbers were availble from
> the
> > > network.
> >
> > What you believe is irrlevant.
> >
> > > Bottom line: I did and do believe them to be reasonably accurate!
> >
> > Because it suits your argument.
> >
> > > Bottom line: I do not need to prove every thing about netcraft to
> quote
> > > netcraft.
> >
> > No, but you can quote idiots in the desert that claim to have been
> visited
> > by UFO's as well, that doesn't mean you're suddenly credible.
> >
> > > Bottom line: In all the people who cried that it was impossible to
> get
> > > the numbers from the network were, in fact, just plain WRONG.
> >
> > I don't think anyone claimed it was impossible to get it from the
> network,
> > but they did claim it was impossible to get it from the header. That
> was
> > true.
> >
>
> Sorry, They claimed it was impossible to get the uptime BECAUSE it was
> imposible to get it from the header.
>
No they didn't. They asked you to show them how to do it. But you
couldn't. The numbers are still unreliable due to random factors.
> I used and will continue to use the numbers because I believe them to be
> true. I have seen all the proof that *I* need.
>
>
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use malloc?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:44:54 -0500
Aaron Ginn wrote:
For all practical purposes calloc is this:
void * calloc(size_t size, size_t count)
{
size_t cb = size * count;
void *p = malloc(cb);
if(p)
memset(p,0,cb);
return p;
}
You use malloc if any of the above procedures do not make sense in your
application.
Even C++'s 'new' operator is usually:
void * operator new (size_t size)
{
return malloc(size);
}
Lastly, malloc somewhat slow, so its use should be weighed against local
variables. For instance:
function(int param)
{
char buffer[1024];
/* Do something here */
}
Is a lot easier to write and faster than:
function (int param)
{
char * buffer = malloc(1024);
if(!buffer)
return error_in_function();
/* do something here */
free(buffer);
}
As long as you can garentee that the stack can handle the size you need,
local variables are much more efficient and easier to track.
Why use malloc?
If calloc does more work than you need. Remember, many malloc
implementations promise memory but do not initialize it. Calloc would
force the memory to be allocated on the spot by initializing it, this
could be a perfomance hit.
If you are using the memory right away why would you zero it? This would
be a big waste of CPU cycles.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:46:05 GMT
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> >
> > "red commie" applies authoritarian, but "liberal" implies a non-authoritarian
> > government.
>
> So-called American Liberals are far to intolerant, to authoritarian, to
> be properly called "liberal". One need only have listened to the spew
> of innuendo, race baiting, misrepresentation, demonization and out right
> lies that was broadcast on national television during the late election
> protest and contest phases to learn this.
>
> So-called American Liberals have dispensed with the old definitions of
> murder, to allow for abortion on demand and early infanticide.
>
> No. Democrats are not liberals. They consistently stand for the
> restriction or elimination of individual liberty. They stand for
> conformity . . . if neccessary, conformity by force. There is very
> little respect for individual liberty in their stance on abortion.
> There is very little respect for the most basic human right: life, in
> their attitudes about abortion.
>
> Simply put: the true liberals in the American political system are the
> Libertarians.
>
> The Democrats are authoritarians, the Republicans are a mixture of weak
> liberal and sickly-conservative, and the Greens are, at heart, thinly
> veiled socialists.
Long ago, the political spectrum
o----------o---------o----------o--------o---------o----------o-------------o-----------o
Anarchists Communists Radicals Socialists Liberals Moderates Conservatives
Reactionaries Fascists
Today, the political spectrum (taking the mean values of the conservative and "liberal"
view, haw haw):
o-------------o-------------------------------------------------------------------------o
Anarchists Moderates
Conservatives
Communists
Reactionaries
Radicals
Fascists
Socialists
Liberals
What a wacky world.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:43:41 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:23:39 -0500, glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I read in my newest Maximum PC magazine that Whistler will actually have
>the TAB completion function for the console that Linux has had for who
>knows how many years.
NT4 has it too, but you have to enable something in the registry (I
forget the setting and I'm not at work to check). But it isn't really
very useful on NT, because it is quite broken.
For one thing, it doesn't do multiple matches. It just expands the
first thing that matches rather than giving a list as bash does. Also,
it substitutes the full path name of whatever matches, which is a bit
annoying.
I guess it just took them a few years to fix the bugs for Whistler.
Well, I hope they're fixed anyway.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:49:18 GMT
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:30:52 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > >Likewise, slavery could not prevail because it went against one of the
> > >founding principals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
> >
> > Not at all. The authors of the constitution knew of and accepted slavery.
>
> Partially incorrect. They knew of it, but not all accepted it.
> Unfortunately, the neccessity of politcal compromise required them to
> "delay that issue to another day".
>
> > That's right, Lincoln went against tradition, radically re-interpreted
> > the constitution in a way that would make a modern republican cry
> > ("activist judge"),
>
> Excuse, but your history lessons may be a bit old: Lincoln was a
> President, not a judge.
>
> > and then based on his radical interpretation, he
> > pressed this view on the states. I don't see anything "conservative"
> > about this at all.
>
> It may help to realize that "conservative", as a political label, does
> not conform exactly to the dictionary definition of the word.
>
> "Conservative" does not mean: "resists all change", it refers to a
> political philosophy that accepts only particular kinds of change.
>
> > >Conservatives are willing to violate States Rights in the favor of upholding
> > >founding principles of the Constitution.
> >
> > Lincoln went beyond this and re-interpreted the constitution.
>
> So much so that to make it stick, they had to Amend the Constitution.
Reminds me of the old joke about Abraham Lincoln going off on a bender and
waking up the next morning with one hell of a hangover. Someone hands him
a newspaper, and he reads the headline, and groans "Oh my God!!!! I freed --
the what!?!?!?!?"
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:01:47 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 16 Dec 2000 00:16:24 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>: It isn't anti-trust law, you see, which prevents a company from gaining
>: a dominant market share. It is a free market; free markets do not allow
>: monopolization, because the more valuable the opportunity, the greater
>: the competition.
>
>I don't live in that utopia where that's true. I live on planet
>Earth.
Sorry, game over. If free markets didn't work, in the real world,
neither you nor I would by typing these words.
--
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: 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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:55:55 GMT
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > Donovan, don't try arguing with this guy. He's quite crazy.
> > It is common in schizophrenia to apply meanings to words that are
> > quite outside the accepted norm.
> >
> > Delusional talk is a tough meme to argue against, since it
> > isn't based on rationality.
> >
> > I give up. This guy is an automaton. Or else he's one huge troll who
> > is greatly enjoying this thread.
>
> Wow.
>
> You attack someone for daring to "know all about you after just a few
> UseNet posts", then proceed to psychoanalyze someone after . . . (get
> this!) just a few UseNet posts.
Actually, I do think he's quite crazy in a small area of his life,
but probably quite normal otherwise. Sounds like schizo to me!
Or, as I mentioned, he could just enjoy trolling me and watching
me shoot off like a rocket.
> Do you, by chance, have a degree that at least in some minor way
> qualifies you to make these kinds of diagnosis?
Of course not, this is a newsgroup, not a hospital board! How many
of you guys have a degree that allows you to talk about why a
"liberal" is a "communist" and a "baby killer"? Sheeesh.
> Just curious, mind you . . . I have a tendency to believe that your
> description (re: delusional, automated, schizophrenic troll) is
> self-referential, but that's just my opinion.
It could well be true. How will you ever know? <smile>
> "The easiest way to enslave a man, is to convince him that he is
> a free thinker."
Cute. But you need to remove the space between "free" and "thinker".
Makes a big difference -- just ask Bertrand Russell (consult his
autobiography, since currently he's dead.)
At least, John Stevens, you are clever and obviously very good
at thinking on your feet, quite unlike that other fellow. And you're
spelling is very good, too.
Oh, by the way, HP device drivers suck! <just a joke!!!!>
Chris
>
> --
>
> If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> John Stevens
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:57:00 GMT
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
>
> > Yeah, that's it! But wait, if I were a king, I could
> > have all the free love I want, and then have her executed.
> > That's the ticket! But then the peasants would be revolting,
> > and storm my Bastille!
>
> Go for it. The guillotine awaits.
And I'm sure there are plenty of "conservatives" willing to
drop that blade.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 16 Dec 2000 01:55:06 GMT
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:26:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
>> It's easier to run than Windows . . . I've got a seven year old who runs
>> Linux.
>
>but what does your seven year old run on linux exactly?
Probably what mine used to run, xevil, koules, asteroids, tetris etc.
>
>or is staring at a bash prompt all the enjoyment you'll allow your child?
I'm always amazed at the lack of knowledge some people display about Unix,
usually its the Windows crowd, but this time its an Apple user.
>
>poor bastard.. -kK
On the contrary, the happy child can play to his hearts content while dad
doesnt have to wory about his system being trashed, Linux has ***security***
but you wouldnt know about that would you ?
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 14 hours 29 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 02:04:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >>>>>> When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> >>>>>> remember to slit lengthwise.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano
> >>>>>> gods.
>
> >>>>> No need to anger them.
>
> >>>> Superstitious, Marty?
>
> >>> Take that up with Aaron.
>
> >> You're the one who thinks they can be angered, Marty.
>
> > Do you know of any volcano-based deities which can't be angered?
>
> I don't know of any volcano-based deities that exist, Marty.
That doesn't mean that there aren't any volcano-based deities.
> Just more evidence that you are still playing your "infantile game".
Rather, it's more evidence of your pontification.
> Enjoying the absurdity, Marty?
Certainly. That's not evidence of playing an infantile game, however. For
example, I can enjoy the absurdity of Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life"
simply by watching it on TV.
> I can make it even more absurd,
Prove it, if you think you can.
> if that's what you want.
What I want is irrelevant.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
