Linux-Advocacy Digest #59, Volume #31 Tue, 26 Dec 00 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("Todd")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Todd")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Todd")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Donn Miller)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (DishDude)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows SUX ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 04:24:16 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> I think your missing the point in this post.
>
> More often then not, users have THE EXACT SAME problem with their Linux
> experiences. Their hardware is just not supported 100%, features and
> functionality are MISSING or not implemented yet.
>
> It's a typical example of Linux playing "catch-up" with Windows (on the
> desktop). Most people don't buy HARDWARE to accommodate their SOFTWARE .
> It's the other way around, and Linux may claim "support" but more often then
> not, true functionality is either not yet available under Linux, or is
> available in "beta form" in either test-kernel modules, Beta releases of
> XFree86 or some other questionable piece of software not included "out of
> the box".
Less often than not, you mean. You always exaggerate greatly to make
your point seem stronger.
In any case, Linux and the BSDs seem to be about the only systems
making any progress in catching up with Windozzzzzzz since Bill
succeeded in choking off almost all other competition.
> Most people evaluating Linux aren't in the mood to either learn the minutia
> of information needed just to UPGRADE the components (let alone compile
> them). But instead of creating a GUI based compiler which also tracks
> dependencies to compiled projects, Linux programmers just chalk the whole
> thing up to "learning curve", and do nothing about it.
There are GUI-based compilers. But there are great advantages to makefiles.
> Clearly you can claim the "functionality exists, you just don't know how to
> do it." Fine, claim it. Do they (The community) do anything to resolve it
> (see aforementioned recommendation)? No. How long will it be until Linux &
> XFree86 supports the same device interworkings that Apple's Quartz
> multimedia layer has? Months? Years? Never?
I know nothing about Apple. Maybe some day.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 04:27:49 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Gee, only functions off the Live filesystem on the CDROM.
>
> ISN'T THIS WHAT I SAID? IT's an EVAL version. You want functionality BUY
> IT.
Kyle, until Red Hat 7, their full Linux distribution fit on one CD-ROM.
Then they added OpenSSH and a large number of other utilities, as
well as a second (and ill-advised) version of gcc, and some other stuff,
so now RH 7 takes two CDs.
Suse's EVAL version is a live version. You can load it and run it
and essentially capture the whole Linux experience. You are then free
to find other packages and load them, but they are not necessary to
Linux system administration.
You're getting stuck on labels.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:30:23 +0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I saw a post that said Windows NT is not an operating system, but is an
> application, I thought about it and responded. However, I want to post a
> little bit more for debate.
>
> Windows 9x is a shell over DOS. There are those that argue that it is
> not on top of DOS but is in control of DOS, this making it an operating
> system, but I disagree.
>
> Windows 9x/ME is as much an operating system as DesqView's QEMM was, or
> as much as Pharlaps dos extender. The same techniques are used. So
> arguments that Windows 9x is an OS seem pretty much irrelevant. The fact
> still remains that real mode x86 DOS code which boots the machine
> remains after Windows is started, and therefor Windows 9x can not be
> considered as a real operating system like UNIX or VMS.
>
> Windows NT/2K is a different issue. Is it an OS, the easy answer is yes,
> but it isn't if you think about it from the point of view of a windows
> program. There are few, if any, actual NT programs.
>
> Windows programs on NT run in a "Win32 subsystem." The actual OS
> constructs are not available through the Windows API, and are emulated
> by the environment.
Since you seem to know about the NT architecture, you should know that many
of the Win32 calls are simply calling the 'K' series of internal APIs. The
Win32 API is considered 'the' API for NT/2000. As you mention, it didn't
use to be this way. Back in the NT 3.1/3.5 days, the Win32 API *was*
considered to be just a subsystem.
Now it is considered the primary API. Check the MSDN documentation on the
Platform SDK for more information.
>So a Windows program runs on NT in much the same way
> the Wine runs Windows programs under Linux. Windows NT most closely
> resembles VMS internally, and was originally planned to be a portable
> version of OS/2. It was not intended to be Windows, so it really isn't
> Windows either.
>
> So, one could say that there are no operating systems which run Windows
> programs.
Well, not really :) But it is an interesting history.
-Todd
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:44:43 +0800
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:50:45 +0800, Todd wrote:
> >
> >If you want to do it via the command line, you can use Telnet or for more
> >security, go with rcmd. If you want to use the GUI remotely, fire up
> >terminal services (administration, not user).
>
> I thought rcmd was mush like rsh, in which case it isn't terribly secure ?
err... no :)
Not your fault though, MS built in 'extra stuff' into rcmd so that it would
authenticate remotely via user domains... in other words, proprietary
encryption and stuff.
But, if you are only connecting to NT/2000, it is far more secure than
telnet.
-Todd
>
> >There are more powerful tools to remotely update more than one machine
> >automatically if you are administering many computers (say an IT job),
but
> >that would be way off topic... what is on topic is that with Linux, it is
> >hard to install stuff period.
>
> I think this has just been discussed. It actually isn't very hard at all.
>
> > Forget remote capabilities... it is hard
> >enough to use when you are directly on the console!
>
> For a competent user, it is quite easy from the console, and the marginal
> difficulty of doing it remotely is negligeable.
>
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:49:27 +0800
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:58:48 +0800,
> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Zane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:7KK06.250$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> At work we use Windows NT on workstations and the other day people got
> >> email with an attached virus. The virus reformatted that persons
hardrive
> >> if they clicked on the attachment.
> >>
> >> I thought the purpose of NT was to protect the workstation from being
> >> manipulated either from the user of that workstation or from an outside
> >> source. Isn't that why you have an administrator login versus a login
for
> >> a user?
> >
> >If NT is set up appropriately for security, you can configure NT for
> >multiple users -- giving access to that user's files - nothing more.
> >
>
> This is presuming you can keep it up long enough to do anything.
tsk. tsk.
I know how to do it. Why aren't you smart enough?
> >If you insist on being logged in as Administrator, well, you take your
> >chances.
> >
>
> BTW for the clueless, Administrator is something they introduced with
> the NT series. Before that they had no concept of a super user.
> The Super User concept was indeed stolen from the Unix arena.
Actually, no.
Using Windows, you have always had direct access to the software, your
files, and the hardware.
What is new with NT/2000 is the concept of multi-user - and those users
having *less* access than normal.
> And YES, as any moron would know, using Unix as the super user all
> the time will lead to disaster.
>
>
> >> Is Linux or Unix vulnerable to this?
> >
> >First of all, most of the Linux hackers are the ones making viruses for
> >Windows machines because they hate Microsoft and Windows so much. So you
> >won't find many Linux viruses... hmmm... maybe I should start :)
> >
>
>
> This is incorrect. The Phillipines kid who release I-LOVE-YOU didn't
> even run Linux. He was majoring in writing Windows software and
> was using Visual Basic. The I love you VIRUS was created using Visual
> Basic and Windows 98. It was not created using Linux.
>
> Those are the facts....
>
>
> >Secondly, if you are logged in as root all of the time, you are again
taking
> >your chances.
> >
>
> Notice how the typical Windows user has to emphasize and RE-emphasize the
> obvious to the Unix user. This is because in his windows world the
concept
> of a super user is NEW to him. It is a NEW experience for the Windows
user
> to have any control over his environment at all.
See above. You are backwards.
> It is like a 5 year old child who's just found his fathers gun.
> He triumphantly carry's the weapon all around the house showing everyone
> his new found power.
>
> >I wouldn't worry about viruses using Linux... most of us Windows
programmers
> >need to get real work done and we don't sit around trying to destroy
other
> >peoples' computer files.
> >
> >-Todd
> >
>
> Notice how the typical Windows user has to emphasize and RE-emphasize
everything
> to his reading audience. It's like his reading - target audience has no
> brain. They MUST have this information BEATEN INTO THEM before the
learning
> experience begins.
>
> In reality this beating is wrong, his ideaology is wrong, his foundations
> are wrong. There is nothing right about the Windows world.
>
> And it should be obvious to anybody with 1/2 a brain can see, going the
> Windows way is the wrong way. If you consider yourself intelligent
> then Linux is the way to go. Don't go the Windows way.
Well, I was simply responding to a post regarding someone's *question* - ie.
they didn't know.
> Your a grown adult now. Your not some wimpering 5 year old in his fathers
> back yard sandbox with your tonka toys. You are a BIG BOY NOW!!!!
>
> Use Linux and quit acting like a 5 year old.
I use what gets my job done in the most efficient and highest quality
matter. That is Windows 2000, *not* Linux.
-Todd
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 Dec 2000 15:23:03 +1100
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:926u8o$h0a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >funny, that I had win95 for 5 years before I upgraded, and in
>> >all that time, never had an application not install becuase
>> >it needed something else to be there before it installed.
>>
>> You don't install many games, do you? DirectX seems to be legendary for
>> always being one version behind what your software actually wants...
>FUD.
>I use my Windows 2000 Advanced Server box for all of my work *plus* games.
>I installed DirectX 8.0 from the 'windows update' menu item.
So by using the very latest MS OS *and* updating it to the very latest
release of DirectX, you can get current games to run. Whoopeedoo, big
surprise!
Now, how exactly does that relate to Steve's amazing story about using
Win95 for 5 years and never having an application requiring upgraded
components to install?
>Now let's get back to how difficult it is to install stuff on Linux...
I take it that, to level the playing field, we will use the very latest
Linux distribution, and apply all the upgrades that are available? Oh,
wait, that doesn't sound like what you suppose to "get back" to....
Bernie
--
A thick skin is a gift from God
Konrad Adenauer
First Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany
New York Times, 30 December 1959
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:10:36 GMT
Well, this label boots and runs off my CDROM drive, I'll take the one that
works on an ext2 partition, thanks.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > Gee, only functions off the Live filesystem on the CDROM.
> >
> > ISN'T THIS WHAT I SAID? IT's an EVAL version. You want functionality
BUY
> > IT.
>
> Kyle, until Red Hat 7, their full Linux distribution fit on one CD-ROM.
> Then they added OpenSSH and a large number of other utilities, as
> well as a second (and ill-advised) version of gcc, and some other stuff,
> so now RH 7 takes two CDs.
>
> Suse's EVAL version is a live version. You can load it and run it
> and essentially capture the whole Linux experience. You are then free
> to find other packages and load them, but they are not necessary to
> Linux system administration.
>
> You're getting stuck on labels.
>
> Chris
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:18:21 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Probably so since "Mein Kampf" was required reading for the German
poplace.
> > Fortunately, its' American audience is confined to run-down trailer
parks
> > and is of no consequence.
>
> We can hope it stays that way. Keep your wits about you.
>
> > I find Al Franken far more irritating than Rush. Mostly because he is an
> > painfully non-funny comedian. He, David Brenner, and Garry Shandling set
my
> > teeth on edge.
>
> He writes some pretty good stuff for Soldier of Fortune, I hear. I read
> a nice parody of Rush, Gingrich, George Will, in Vietnam. Very funny!
>
> Perhaps you've become insensitive to subtlety and nuance in comedy?
> Maybe I just find everything too funny!
Garrison Keillor does subtlety and nuance far better, IMHO. I hear Jesse
Ventura doesn't agree, though..<g>
Some of Al Franken's early stuff on SNL was pretty good, i'll admit that.
You'll never convince me that Brenner or Shandling have any talent, though.
PS: Papa Sun didn't show up...<sniff>
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
>
> Chris
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:32:41 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Bob Lyday wrote:
> You are obviously an idiot. NT, 2000Pro, 2000Server, 2000Advanced
> Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux do not whip OS/2 ass in any way
> whatsoever, really. The MS choices are only better in better
> compatibility with 2000 client (surprise) and SW/HW support, Linux and
> the BSD's are better in stability only. NetBSD and Linux have been
> ported to more platforms. All the MS OS's are among the worst server
> OS's on the market. OS/2 has a better GUI than any of the above by
> far. OS/2 can multitask and multithread better than any OS on the
> list. OS/2 is faster and manages resources better than any OS on the
> list. OS/2 is more secure than any OS on the list except maybe Open
> BSD. All of the BSD's and Linux are excellent OS's but OS/2 is
> better.
Uh huh. And just how are you going to back this up? Never used OS/2,
so I wouldn't know. So, how exactly is OS/2 better at multi-tasking
than BSD or Linux? As far as being faster, well then, I suggest you
should get busy writing a benchmark program, compile it under FreeBSD,
Linux, and OS/2, and average the results together. Prove to us that
it's faster. As far as having a better GUI, well, that remains to be
seen as well.
> You are an idiot. All of the BSD's and Linux are based on technology
> from the mid-70's to the mid-to-late 80's. NT is from the same
> time-frame as OS/2. OS/2 is based on technology from the late 80's to
> the mid-90's. OS/2 is one of the most modern OS's on the market today.
Uh, well, BSD and Linux are being actively worked on, and have seen
numerous continual improvements. So, an OS is "more modern" if it has
been founded at a later date? Sorry, this is stupid. Most unix
variants were founded years before OS/2, but they have seen continual
improvements to this day. Tell us whether or not OS/2 has been
continually developed and actively worked on since its inception, and
then let us know what is more modern. Besides, NT is based on VMS,
which did not appear at the same time as OS/2. Threading was unheard of
when unix was born, but it has it now. So your argument based on how
advanced technologically an OS is based on when it was "born". The
inception date of an OS only influences the underlying founding
principles of that OS. For example, unix is extensively CLI-based,
because that's pretty much what all OSes were at the time of inception.
But, that doesn't mean it is "outdated", because numerous enhancements
were added over the years. Threading is one such thing, and I'm sure
there are numerous other examples. I think that where an OS is headed
is more important than where it has come from.
> OS/2 is faster.
At making idiots like you come out of the woodwork and calling other
people idiots.
====== 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: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:35:56 GMT
Only gaming enthusiasts buy hardware to accommodate their ridiculously
demanding software. Linux doesn't claim to be a specialty platform, it
claims to be a comprehensive platform. Linux isn't locked into using the
hardware provided by commercial UNIX vendors (like Solaris, and Sun's SPARC
platform).
Linux claims "support", period. Distro makers (the largest source for Linux
on earth) claim to support products. To the consumer, this means that
"it'll work". This may be a somewhat naive assumption, but distro makers
are somewhat (gasp) responsible for making good on their overly generic
claims.
Linux hardware support is pretty bad. (THIS IS WHY I ALWAYS FULL QUOTE:
YOU'D KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL POST WAS) Which was the point of the original
post! Linux's desktop level hardware support is terrible!
Hence, this is why Linux 'sux'.
My second point, compilers are REQUIRED in the Linux computing world because
precompiled binary distro files (rpm, deb) are not as popular as source code
files are for independent programmers, making the end users need to deal
with compiling the software.
GUI compilation tools aren't a solution either. Until you can execute the
"KDE Application Manager" which will locate tarballs, decompress and
automatically compile AND install them, the aforementioned process has GOT
to be simplified.
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:15:57 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> >It's a typical example of Linux playing "catch-up" with Windows (on the
> >desktop). Most people don't buy HARDWARE to accommodate their SOFTWARE .
>
> You are dead wrong here. How many Windows users buy SPARCs ? Why do gamers
> buy fancy gaming hardware and spend money on powerful video cards ? The
> hardware performs the same function as the operating system --
>
> * It is a platform on which to run applications *
>
> Buying a Windows machine so that you can run Linux is almost as stupid as
> buying a SPARC based machine so that you can run Windows.
>
> >It's the other way around, and Linux may claim "support" but more often
then
> >not, true functionality is either not yet available under Linux, or is
>
> You are claiming that "Linux" is somehow lying here, but in practice, the
> level of support is usually made fairly clear.
>
> >Most people evaluating Linux aren't in the mood to either learn the
minutia
> >of information needed just to UPGRADE the components (let alone compile
> >them). But instead of creating a GUI based compiler which also tracks
> >dependencies to compiled projects, Linux programmers just chalk the whole
> >thing up to "learning curve", and do nothing about it.
>
> (1) Compilers are for developers, not for end-lusers. Windows end-lusers
> would whine if they were expected to buy and use visual studio to
> compile their software. For developers, well it's not like the idea
> of using make, and having required headers installed should be overly
> confusing.
>
> (2) GUI tools for software installation are and have been available for at
> least 4 years.
>
> (3) For developers who want tools designed to make compiling easier, there
> are GUI tools such as Kdevelop.
>
> >Clearly you can claim the "functionality exists, you just don't know how
to
> >do it." Fine, claim it. Do they (The community) do anything to resolve
it
> >(see aforementioned recommendation)? No.
>
> Bullshit. Typically, new functionality requires work if it's not enabled
> in a distribution, because the user has to worry about doing a job that
> the distributor would normally handle. The distributors try to resolve
> these issues as quickly as possible.
>
> > How long will it be until Linux &
> >XFree86 supports the same device interworkings that Apple's Quartz
> >multimedia layer has? Months? Years? Never?
>
> Not sure precisely what functionality you are referring to, but the
> comment does beg the question, if Apple's quartz is so good, why not
> just use that ?
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:42:33 GMT
Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean all
the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day. But
now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
getting better. On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
support.
I test Linux releases. Constantly, waiting for one to crop up and say "I'm
different, Really!" so far, the results have been pretty disappointing.
As for Bill choking off the competition, I'd love to see the competition
come up with something as impressive as Windows 2000, let alone Windows 98.
As far as getting things done went, the products are superior.
GUI based compilers won't solve the problems plaguing Linux, or the software
installation system. It'd be nice to have a uniform package format,
something that all Linux's would have. From uniform packages would
inherently come simpler software installation.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > I think your missing the point in this post.
> >
> > More often then not, users have THE EXACT SAME problem with their Linux
> > experiences. Their hardware is just not supported 100%, features and
> > functionality are MISSING or not implemented yet.
> >
> > It's a typical example of Linux playing "catch-up" with Windows (on the
> > desktop). Most people don't buy HARDWARE to accommodate their SOFTWARE
.
> > It's the other way around, and Linux may claim "support" but more often
then
> > not, true functionality is either not yet available under Linux, or is
> > available in "beta form" in either test-kernel modules, Beta releases of
> > XFree86 or some other questionable piece of software not included "out
of
> > the box".
>
> Less often than not, you mean. You always exaggerate greatly to make
> your point seem stronger.
>
> In any case, Linux and the BSDs seem to be about the only systems
> making any progress in catching up with Windozzzzzzz since Bill
> succeeded in choking off almost all other competition.
>
> > Most people evaluating Linux aren't in the mood to either learn the
minutia
> > of information needed just to UPGRADE the components (let alone compile
> > them). But instead of creating a GUI based compiler which also tracks
> > dependencies to compiled projects, Linux programmers just chalk the
whole
> > thing up to "learning curve", and do nothing about it.
>
> There are GUI-based compilers. But there are great advantages to
makefiles.
>
> > Clearly you can claim the "functionality exists, you just don't know how
to
> > do it." Fine, claim it. Do they (The community) do anything to resolve
it
> > (see aforementioned recommendation)? No. How long will it be until
Linux &
> > XFree86 supports the same device interworkings that Apple's Quartz
> > multimedia layer has? Months? Years? Never?
>
> I know nothing about Apple. Maybe some day.
------------------------------
From: DishDude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:57:09 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > Probably so since "Mein Kampf" was required reading for the German
> poplace.
> > > Fortunately, its' American audience is confined to run-down trailer
> parks
> > > and is of no consequence.
> >
> > We can hope it stays that way. Keep your wits about you.
> >
> > > I find Al Franken far more irritating than Rush. Mostly because he is an
> > > painfully non-funny comedian. He, David Brenner, and Garry Shandling set
> > > my teeth on edge.
You can add Dennis Miller to that list as well, AFAIAC. :)
> >
> > He writes some pretty good stuff for Soldier of Fortune, I hear. I read
> > a nice parody of Rush, Gingrich, George Will, in Vietnam. Very funny!
> >
> > Perhaps you've become insensitive to subtlety and nuance in comedy?
> > Maybe I just find everything too funny!
>
> Garrison Keillor does subtlety and nuance far better, IMHO. I hear Jesse
> Ventura doesn't agree, though..<g>
>
> Some of Al Franken's early stuff on SNL was pretty good, i'll admit that.
> You'll never convince me that Brenner or Shandling have any talent, though.
Agreed. Typically whiny humor that only New Yawkas/Yiddish really
appreciate. Doesn't translate well to the rest of the country though.
--
"I am sorry I ever invented the Electoral College" -Al Gore.
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:52:24 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 25 Dec 2000 15:49:57 GMT, Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> its' predecessor too. Hell, Charles Manson is more stable than NT.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is one of those VERY TRUE statements found right here on COLA!
>
> If you want stability, you will use Linux.
>
> If you want a very naughty, unstable OS, you will go the
> Microshaft WAY!
>
And, yea verily, I beam with pride for having uttered it! <g>
The ironic thing is that the phrase was entered on an NT development box.
The box crashed shortly after posting.
NT may have AI capabilities after all...
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows SUX
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:54:23 GMT
"Richard J. Donovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Linux doesn't run it only b/c MS won't port it.
>
> But if MS did port Office to Linux, who would use it anyway? Office
> isn't any good in Windows; would portage eliminate the dancing paper
> clip and introduce Reveal Codes?
Nahh, they'd probably replace the clip with an equally annoying penguin.
Something sacrilege.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
