Linux-Advocacy Digest #126, Volume #31 Fri, 29 Dec 00 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Herbert Rosenau)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:39:46 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, now, I'd say the right to bear arms might also have some small
> >> thing to do with why the USA has never been occupied.
> >
> >Allow me to illustrate my point re: credibility . . . I agree with you.
> >
> >Even though in most cases, I think you are a twit.
> >
> >Your statement stands on its own, even though you are the one who wrote
> >it.
>
> You don't seem to grasp the abstraction of "credibility".
Wrong. I don't share *YOUR* definition of "credibility".
> And let me
> point out that it does not increase my credibility, and might well
> detract from it, that you agree with me.
If so, then credibility is worthless. The universe does not care
how you *FEEL* about something. Disliking gravity won't save your
life in fall.
And if your credibility is somehow damaged by something *YOU* *CANNOT*
*CONTROL* (such as my agreeing with you), then "credibility" is worse
than worthless . . . it is actively and anti-intelligence memetic
infection.
> It has to do with whether you're talking about the credibility of a fact
> or the credibility of a person.
I was talking about the credibility of a fact, or line of discussion.
> They aren't quite identical, and are
> judged separately, if not independently.
The "credibility of a person" is simply a short hand way of justifying
prejudice.
If I did that, I would have plonked you long ago. As it stands,
I still read what you post, looking for that rare, occasional bit
of credible reasoning.
In fact, I never kill file anybody . . . "Even mine enemies have
uttered sweet reason" . . . and even the most obnoxious, idiotic,
twittering fool has occasionally uttered a valuable truth.
> >"Give it a try" . . . what "it" are you refering to?
> >
> >I'm not aware of any conservative "assailing" of liberals for "wanting
> >to give it [the free market] a try" . . . just the opposite, in fact.
> >Most conservatives I've listened to assail the liberals for wanting to
> >tear down (the popular phrase, lately, seems to be: "regulate to death")
> >the free market.
>
> I was referring to enforcing the rules of the free market. Liberals are
> generally more supportive of anti-trust, while conservatives don't like
> free markets.
8-o
Wow. I took guts to say something so incredibly false.
Conservatives LOVE the free market . . . so much so that they distrust
anti-trust proceedings. Anti-trust, you see, is anti-free market.
It's the liberals who don't like free markets, and therefore attach
so much idiotic regulation and put up so many roadblocks that they
actually do harm to the general citizenry.
See: California, power generation, and rolling brown/black outs for
an example of that.
> Generally, they prefer oligopolies, and figure its a
> God-given right to build one.
That is a misreprensentation. No such "preference" exists.
> >California's electrical power problems are a perfect example of what
> >happens when you let liberals regulate the free market to much.
>
> Guffaw. <*choke*>
You cannot argue the facts, so once again, you resort to this
kind of response.
> >Far to often, your writings are as clear as the above . . . if anybody
> >understood that, I invite them to volunteer for ESP research . . .
>
> Well, perhaps there's someone around with more brains then you've got,
> as it certainly is a sensible and grammatically correct statement.
Ooh . . . a personal smear!
I was afraid you were going to go for an entire posting without one!
Thanks, Max, I needed the reminder of who I was responding to . . .
> >If this were true, why would gun control be such a strong issue with
> >liberals?
>
> In the end, any given liberal is as likely to be a stupid moron as any
> given conservative, that's why.
He jinks wildly! Next, a high speed split S! Maybe, just maybe, he
can avoid this with a frantic disassocation combined with a fast
relabeling!
;->
> They believe that restricting private
> ownership of weapons increases personal liberty in a society, because it
> increases personal comfort in a neighborhood.
Yah, decreasing personal security and increasing crime rates always
make a neighborhood more comfortable . .
> You're arguing against your idealized assumptions about what liberals
> believe; you're building a straw man.
The facts prove you wrong. The liberals have *REPEATEDLY* turned to
the Federal government and requested the enactment of laws, the passing
of regulations and the outright seizure of property in a authoritorian
attempt to force their beliefs on others.
> Liberals recognize that society,
> and thus civilization, is dependent on an inherent sacrifice of adhering
> to the restrictions necessary to support society and civilization.
A high flow way of justifying a dictatorship.
Do you realize you just paraphrased part of a speech given by one of
the most murderous political figures of all time? (And no, I am not
refering to a sick little German man with a bad mustache).
> Conservatives believe the same thing, in different degrees and ways, and
> of the two, liberals are closer to being accurate, consistent, and
> practical.
Practical!? All I have to do to point out the flaws in that statement
is point, once again, to California . . .
> That every whiff of liberalism smells like Socialism to
> Republican reactionaries is a different matter entirely.
"Wiffs of liberalism" do not smell like "Socialism" to Republicans.
Whiffs of socialism (as per your society over the individual statements
above) are what smell like Socialism. Republicans have very few
problems with the true liberals: Libertarians. The only real complaint
the Republicans have about the Libertarians is: "They aren't being
realistic."
> >Of course, most liberals view this as being an *increase* in liberty,
> >not a decrease.
> >
> >How they arrive at that conclusion, is beyond me.
>
> Which means, conclusively, that you don't understand it.
No, it means that no matter how I try, I cannot escape seeing
the illogic, the unreasonableness inherent in their actions.
>
> >> and conservatives prefer the liberty of the business owner.
> >
> >A base canard! Give one clear example of this pattern of thinking, if
> >you can.
>
> Capital gains tax cuts?
I'm still waiting for an example . . . the capital gains tax does not
favor the liberty of business over the liberty of the individual . . .
putting aside, for a moment, the simple and obvious fact that there
is no such thing as a business. All businesses are composed of, is
individuals who chose to work together towards a common goal.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:42:20 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
>
> >Maybe . . . but his responses to you are also the same kind of response
> >you would make to someone who is deluded . . . a fixed, constant
> >repetition of a question or fact, one that encourages the recipient to
> >re-consider their delusion, is a common practice in certain kinds of
> >therapy.
>
> Its more often someone trolling.
You read minds, too?
Sometimes, habits stick.
> >Attempting to rephrase, or letting the point slip, encourages the
> >patient to find a way to hang on to their delusions.
>
> So acting moronic is a sign that the person you're talking to is
> deluded?
Straw man.
Aaron was being repetitious, not moronic.
> This isn't a clinical exchange, in case you were deluded for a
> moment on that matter.
Sometimes, habits stick.
> Aaron is wasting everyone else's time, and you're wasting it as well.
> You're a couple of trolls; go away.
Mirror time, Max.
Take a good long look in the mirror at . . . the troll!
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:49:50 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said LShaping in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:24:50 GMT;
> >> >"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> OTOH, saying that conservative extends to "conserving" something is
> >> entirely bogus.
> >
> >Were you trying to respond to LShaping, or me?
>
> It was in the original post; you must have snipped it,
No, I didn't snip it. The attributions are/were still right at the
top.
> I can't answer a question until you ask it. Which part didn't you
> understand?
I was not asking a question, Max. I was simply pointing out that
your response was probably off, as it was directed to the wrong poster.
> >I'll repeat: conservative is indeed partialy about conserving, your
> >beliefs not with standing.
>
> That's nothing more than a silly metaphor; ripe for perversion and
> useless for anything else.
More semantically null responses . . .
> Again, I'd ask that you let me know what in particular you disagreed
> with if you're going to bother responding.
I disagree with your policy of making bald assertions. If you have
no reasoned, thoughtful response to a posting, why post a response?
> >but you've yet to identify what specific issues you have with the
> >conservative agenda.
>
> That's because we weren't discussing what specific issues I have with
> the conservative agenda, but how wrong-headed a blow-hard Rush Limbaugh
> is.
But, of course, you totally failed to supply even one example to
justify your claims that Rush is wrong-headed, or a blow hard.
Two web site references were posted in this thread, yet not *ONE*
of you mindless Rush-bashers bothered to post even *ONE* word
of critical analysis about these articles.
Where are the "factual" errors? Where is the "wrong headedness"
in those two articles?
Unable to point out non-existent facts, you adroitly side step
the whole issue.
> Which parts of the conservative agenda would you like to discuss?
Pick one, Max. You are, as they say, ON.
> Not being a conservative, but a moderate, I'm sure I'll be able to
> identify some specific issues we could argue about.
Totally bogus! You are not a moderate, any more than I am.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:51:04 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> I was a card-carrying libertarian at that time, in fact. It wasn't so
> much the convention, as silly as it was, but my partner's comment, that
> the whole place was filled with flakes and rich middle-aged white guys
> who didn't want to pay any taxes. I've refused any party affiliations
> since then, though I'd have to default to the Demos if I needed to
> choose one, but only because they're powerful enough to matter under
> whatever circumstances would force me to choose. That, and they're not
> Republicans.
Yet another indication of "the liberal mindset" . . . fear of
commitment.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:55:43 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
> > >
> > > Good, one more fruit wombat distracted by Rush's blatherings.
> >
> > Interestingly enough, they guy whose in Rush's seat while he's on
> > vacation discussed just exactly the tactic you use here: personal
> > attack.
>
> Hey, I learned a lot listening to Rush!
;-)
> > > I went to his web site, and came back very disturbed by the
> > > type of paranoia and bigotry I found at alt.rush-limbaugh.
> >
> > But the racism, paranoia and outright calls for revolution that 'ole
> > Rev. Jackson regulary spews don't bother you at all, do they?
>
> Whenever he spews it, yeah. Which seems to be pretty infrequently.
Only every time he gets the microphone on a national issue . . . if
I hear "Dred Scott", or "Selma" from his lips one more time, I'm
going to give him the signal honor of being the first living person
in my life, that I refuse to listen to.
I have an empty kill file. I regularly read even the most rabidly
anti-intellectual Democratic columnists, I listen to both sides on
the political talk shows . . . but Jackson is just to much.
> You know what's a really funny trick? Forwarding porno
> to a fellow's company e-mail. I did that to a friend of
> mine at Lucent, and he expressed worry about the monitoring
> by the local Gestapo-soft. But, actually, the stuff I sent
> him was pretty mild (e.g. "naughty nuns").
What's funny about that? Nobody can be responsible for what
other people send them . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:59:42 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Sensible is a matter of boolean algebra applied to known quantities.
Ah. That's a new definition of sensible, all right.
> The algebra is easy, finding the known quantities is not so easy.
So . . . show me the algebra that proves that Rush has nothing sensible
to say. I mean, after all, you attacked him pretty visciously . . .
you do have some rational, objective reasons for your stance, right?
Some specific incident or exposition of stance that proves that
Rush is not worth listening to?
Two references to his web site were posted here, yet so far, the
Rush-bashers have failed to post even one sentence of critical
commentary pointing out "factual flaws" that "invalidate his
position". . .
So, C'mon now, where are they?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:05:22 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
> 16:20:32 -0700;
> >Did it ever occur to you that people just as intelligent as yourself
> >could listen to Rush, think about what he says . . . and agree with him?
>
> It is evident that intelligent people listen to Rush and agree with him;
> all else is conjecture, though we might suppose they think about what he
> says, though obviously not enough if they agree with him.
Fine, right up to: "though obviously not enough if they agree with him".
Do you have anything, except bigotry and prejudice to back up that
statement?
"Anybody who agrees with a blithering twit like T. Max obviously isn't
thinking enough."
S'Ok . . . right? Since you are so eminently fair and reasonable, you
will agree that that statement is just as valid and fair as yours is,
re: Rush, right?
> I'm not
> second-guessing them, but it is not evidence of their intelligence that
> they agree with him, no.
To relate listening to Rush to a persons intelligence, either positively
or negatively is pure ignorance.
As I've already pointed out . . .
> Coincidence, more often; even Rush says
> something that isn't false, every once in a while.
You have yet to point out any false statements that Rush has
made . . . at all. And he has a whole web site to pick and choose
from.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herbert Rosenau)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 30 Dec 2000 00:11:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:27:26, "Brad Wardell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Heh, we could talk about the known data-loss problems of a >95% full HPFS
> partition on OS/2 2.0 through OS/2 Warp 3 to around FP 38 in which if the
> system was improperly shut down that files *would* often be lost (not the
> entire system, just certain files).
Please declare from what you're talking!
I've running HPFS since 1993 on different devices - as developer!
At least here is a WARP4 running since 1995 in 24h/7d week - Oh no, NO
server simply a WARP4 Client with peer + tcp/ip.
This computer starts as i486 ISA with only 16 MB RAM. Then changed the
mainboard to P100 with 64 later 96 MB RAM. In it#s livetime the disks
are growing from a single 0,5GB HD to
- 0,5 + 1,0 GB
- 0,5 + 1,0 + 2,0 GB - mainboard gone to P100, controler changedfrom
AIC1742CF to AHA2940
- 0,5 + 1,0 + 2,0 + 4,0 GB
- 0,5 + 2,0 + 4,0 + 4,0 GB - the 1,0 disk goes lost because the drive
itself died, controller change from AHA2940 to AHA2940UW
- 2,0 + 4,0 + 4,0 + 4,0 + 16,0 GB - controller change from AHA2940UW
to AHA2940 + CI-45000U2B
All years that computer is running in 24h/7d - except for quarterly
maintenace. In that time monthly power lost on flash on lithenig into
the transforer on our street - or the power staion goes down for a
second.
All times chkdsk has worked fine - 0 byte data lost.
Until 1997 this computer was a developement mashine too - means
unwanted system hung because of debug problems occures as well -
nowhere - and sometimes with a disk with up to 99% full (moth before
I'd found money to buy next disk) - NO data lost.
Since a2 years here was running a P133, 64MB RAM with only 1 4GB disk
- and because on lack of money for an better controller - the
AIC1742CF hungs itself in high traffic. Sometimes so hard that the
disk was NOT cleanable by standard chkdsk - a little trick - and
chkdak /F:3 - and 0 bytes lost.
In total here are running
CPU OS last install
P100 WARP4 FP12 1995
P133 WARP4 FP12 1997
P300 WARP4 FP9 1998 notebook - some repartitioning (without PM) to
become Win/Linux installed
respective deinstalled
PII 450 WARP4 FP12 1998 developement mashine, bureau!
AMD K6 300 WARP4 FP12 1997 test environment
AMD K6 400 eCS preview 1999 test environment
Since 1998 ALL computers are running 24h/7d week - because on SETI at
home. Some times unwanted power off because flash on lithening. NO
bytes on data lost - but some partition have less than 10% free.
--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert
--
Member 53 of Team OS/2 Germany
FIDONET : 2:2476/493 LinuxNet: 44:4968/65 OS2Net :
81:497/830
MxBBSNet: 256:4960/345 SOLINET : 49:114/2000 WiPostNet:
777:4918/9090
Mailbox : 49-7273-93072 analog + ISDN
Visit my Homepage: look at: http://www.was-ist-fido.de
http://www.dv-rosenau.de/ home of SQED/32: http://www.sqed.de
OS/2 is the more effective way to utilize your computer.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:10:35 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
> 17:05:40 -0700;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Tim Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Dec 2000 16:37:31 -0800;
> >> >Let's check Win95 against these:
> >> >
> >> >Scheduling: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
> >>
> >> DOS doesn't have scheduling.
> >
> >Actually, it did.
> >
> >DOS was designed to be a single tasking OS. IOW, DOS scheduled one and
> >only one task (or, "process", if you prefer), allocating it 100% of all
> >non-kernel cycles.
>
> That is not scheduling.
Yes it is. It's single process scheduling.
> And at the highest, most practical level,
Ooohhh . . . more of T. Max's "I, and I alone, determine what is
practical".
Yeesh!
The "definitions" you make up are worthless for technical discussion.
Which this is.
You insult me for "redefining" . . . then go right ahead and do
it yourself.
> it is a box with a name, and
> possibly a price tag.
Wrong. A box is not an operating system.
Go ahead. Put the box on top of your computer, see how well it works
as an operating system.
> Everything in between is the point of contention,
> which would include an understanding that the nature of "software" is
> somewhat amorphous, but that does not invalidate all discussion of
> rational engineering and product design.
Not everything is a point of contention, and trying the ole'
"wining by redefinition" trick simply makes you look silly,
here.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 19:18:34 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> IBM makes GREAT hardware.
>
> There standards for software (usability and efficiency), on
> the other hand, tend to be quite low.
>
> Ever use VM/CMS?
> XEDIT
>
> Bleaaaaaaaah!
For an editor that runs on a non-graphical 3270, xedit is quite powerful,
especially with its rexx macro support. I've used it for many years,
long before it became part of the product. There are even a number of
Unix based look-alikes.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:16:04 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
> >> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> >> As a result, they naturally envision Windows as
> >> being the "dominant" OS in the mix, even though, in reality, it's
> >> being used as a dumb terminal and not much else.
> >
> >Ah. I get it.
>
> I don't think so.
The word "so" could be safely left off of your response, Max.
> >Yeah, most people don't realize that they are connecting to, and using,
> >one of the most powerful computer systems in the world, when they pick
> >up their telephone handset and dial a number.
>
> But most people don't mistake a telephone for a telephone network,
Wanna bet?
> just
> as Mark pointed out you are doing.
??? Mark did not respond to me . . . you did. So Mark pointed out
nothing about my statement.
> As for the computing power of the
> telephone network, it may be big, but its anything but powerful.
Wrong. You don't know much about the telecommunications industry,
do you?
> Pretty
> much capable of only a very few specific tasks.
The number of tasks performed is irrelevant when discussing power.
> It does them very fast,
> of course, and incredibly reliably, but that's not power, that's just
> speed.
More "argument by redefintion", Max? The telecommunications companies
buy a large number of some of the most powerful machinery built . . .
Do you have any technical training at all?
In anything?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:21:33 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 24 Dec 2000
> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Memory: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
> >> First accounted by himem.sys (a DOS driver, try removing it!)
> >
> >However, Schulman proves through the version numbers returned by the memory
> >managers that Windows replaces himem.sys.
>
> Then whatever they replaced it with is part of DOS, isn't it, since
> himem.sys is part of DOS?
No.
Your statement is akin to calling Linux "part of DOS" . . . simply
because
you can boot into Linux from DOS, and Linux replaces DOS, does not
make Linux "part of DOS".
> Isn't that why they call it a "DOS Extender"?
himem.sys is not a "DOS Extender".
> Which explains why Windows programs don't need help accessing DOS
> filesystems,
Windows programs do need help accessing DOS filesystems . . . no
Windows program directly accesses a disk drive, it always goes
through a file system.
> since DOS is the OS to begin with,
Wrong. DOS is not the "OS to begin with".
> and the Win32 middleware
> just acts as a redirector.
Win32 is not "middleware". Win32 is the interface specification.
> The "Windows 386 executive" runs on DOS.
Wrong.
Do you have any technical training?
In anything?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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, 30 Dec 2000 00:29:39 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:06:24
> [...]
> >What I'm trying to get across is that, by extending recounts past
December
> >18th would have disenfranchised the entire state. Election law supercedes
> >any decision the Florida courts might have made. The deadline was
statutory.
>
> You still seem to be unaware of the fact that it is the very purpose of
> the Supreme Courts to determine whether statutes themselves are being
> lawfully and Constitutionally followed.
Fully aware of that fact. Also aware that the process isn't immune to
political activism on the part of the justices. That's why the bar is as
high as it is where intervention is concerned. Its' why they were slapped
down not once but twice by the US Supreme Court.
>
> >All of this is moot anyway. Had the Florida Supreme Court stuck to their
> >guns, the Legislature would have sent the electors anyway as is their
legal
> >responsibility.
> >
> >All I can say is that I'm glad its over!
>
> That last sentence summed it up; the previous paragraph was an
> aberration of reasoning.
How are obvious facts an aberration of reasoning?
I think it more accurate to say that they are an aberration to your
perceptions.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:29:20 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> I have another suggestion. On your same machine, run a copy of
> NT and use IE 5 for about a week.
I had to run Windows 2000, not NT . . . good enough?
> Then go back to Linux and
> see that you've built up a tolerance for slow speed, and won't
> mind netscape navigator.
I was *GLAD* to get back to Linux and Netscape!
Faster, less application crashes, NO OS crashes at all . . .
Mind you, only one under W2K a week, but that's infinitely more than
I've gotten under Linux with Netscape.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
