Linux-Advocacy Digest #229, Volume #31 Wed, 3 Jan 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux Modems ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux Modems ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: mail reader (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:32:50 -0500
"Form@C" wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Did it ever occur to you that REGARDLESS of whether the majority of
> >users "care about" operating systems or not...anybody who uses a
> >computer has a de-facto responsibility to learn whatever is necessary to
> >do what they need to do.
> >
>
> The point that I was trying to make is that the OS is an essential part of
> the system but one which *should* remain invisible to the end user.
By that logic, the steering system and throttle should remain "invisible"
to an automobile driver.
The only systems where the OS is "invisible" is on embedded systems
like TiVo and web appliances (all of which, incidentally, are Linux-based)
> That
> particular individual has the obligation to learn how to use the
> application in question -
AND any other additional indicidental and ancillary tasks.
> after all, that is usually what they are being
> paid for when they use a computer at work. They have *no obligation
> whatever* to learn detailed operating system commands.
See above.
Or are you going to argue that someone who writes reports shouldn't be
required to learn how to use the copy machine...because they're not being
paid to run the copy machine.
Hint fucking hint: Employees are paid to GET THE JOB DONE, not to
stay within some inane and arbitrary "job classification".
Those who LEARN whatever skills are necessary to GET THE JOB DONE
are more valuable than whiners who whimper about how complicated
a simple command-line interface is.
> It is a skill which
> they should not need!
"should" != "do"
Maybe they "shouldn't" but, the reality is, here and now, those who
learn to use a CLI are MUCH more productive, and hence VALUABLE,
than those who CHOOSE to remain non-thinking idiots.
> In the days of MSDOS many users never learned what to
> do at a C:> prompt - everything was set up for them via text displays and
> batch files like 1.bat, 2.bat and 3.bat to select items from a menu
> (horrible idea now!). Why should they want to start now?
Spoken like a true techno-phobic Luddite.
>
> When you use Linux, as you are aware, you are actually interacting with the
> Linux kernel via your chosen shell.
And when you use LoseDOS, you are actually interacting with the LoseDOS
kernel via a shell in which you have NO choice.
> You don't actually see Linux itself.
Likewise with LoseDOS.
> Likewise a Windows 3.1 user interacted (indirectly, of course) with
> MSDOS.SYS. In both cases the user has a choice of interface with their
> chosen kernel program.
And with the release of LoseDOS 95, that choice was essentially taken
away.
> A mobile phone is an application running on a
> specialised microprocessor - which is probably running a kernel or micro-
> kernel of some type as this would make writing the interface easier across
> a range of similar hardware. The end result of all this is that the actual
> kernel, which I would regard as the principal part of the OS, disappears.
>
> In theory, at least, it should be possible to "plug & play" OS kernels as
> they have many of the simpler commands in common. You could, with
> appreciable work of course, run the Win98 GUI on top of a Linux kernel!
And it would be a hell of a lot more reliable, because the Linux kernel
is MUCH MUCH MUCH more stable than the LoseDOS kernal.
> If
> this was done correctly then you wouldn't see Linux (the kernel) at all,
> but you would have inherited its attributes. X also "talks" to the kernel
> and acts as a middle-man for the chosen desktop. Once again, much of the
> kernel is hidden from the computer user. Why, then, is it so bad to produce
> a simple, graphic, interface to the kernel for users who are happy to
> accept the reduced functionality that this may bring? Why should they have
> to learn a lot of additional skills - "just in case something goes wrong"?
> Surely, in a stable OS, there shouldn't be much going wrong at all!
All of which only supports my position.
>
> >Microsoft makes a lot of money on a BIG BIG BIG LIE that the amount of
> >"necessary" knowledge approaches zero.
> >
> >Nothing could be farther from the truth. The amount of inane, trivial,
> >"special case" information you need to know about a Microsoft system is
> >HUGE compared to a Unix or Linux system.
> >
>
> Hang on, you have mentioned both "necessary" and "special case" here. Isn't
> "necessary" knowledge that which is required to actually *use* the system
> and "special case" knowledge that which may be required to *maintain or
> modify* the system?
What I wrote is logically consistant.
I said that the Microshaft's line about a "non-need" to have necessary
knowledge about computers is a LIE.
What part of "LIE" do you not understand?
Reading isn't your strong point is it.
> I agree with the M$ goal here that the amount of
> knowledge required to *use* the system should be minimal.
That is NOT their goal. Their goal is to achieve and hold monopoly
status through the use of the "BIG LIE" method used by both the Nazis
and the Communists.
> The amount of
> knowledge required to *maintain and modify* a system should also be minimal
> if at all possible - I make no claims that either M$ or Linux is better in
> this respect as I am not experienced enough in the systems maintenance
> field. I have, however, installed,used and maintained my own computer under
> both OSs and my observations are as "a fairly knowledgable user".
I design systems for a living. I've even written a multi-user, multi-tasking
operating system, WITH inter-process communication....in 4 weeks!
Microsoft's MARKETING DEPARTMENT says that you don't need to know anything
to use a Windows machine.
IF that is the case...then how come the Windows help-desk for a 2,000-employee
facility is BIGGER than the Unix help-desk for 15,000 users?
>
> <completely irrelevent "winuser-bashing" comment snipped>
>
> >>
> >> For the end user anything which gets in the way of the application
> >> which he/she is using is *wrong*. In other words, if you need to
> >> control the OS directly to start, use or end an application then that
> >> OS is a bad one.
> >>
> >> Even installing and removing software is only acceptable as a function
> >> of the OS if it is carried out by someone trained for the task - not
> >> the application user.
> >
> >And yet, Microsoft ENCOURAGES exactly this. Why is that?
> >
>
> Eh? They put tools into the Windows GUI system so that the user can install
> and remove software *without* going "underneath" Windows to a "real",
> "command line" OS. (They actually claim that the W9x family *is* the OS and
> it doesn't run on top of DOS - is this what you mean?).
A distinction without a difference.
>
> >
> >> If desktop shortcuts to scripts on a GUI interface do
> >> this then fine, the user can do it. But those routines have to be as
> >> bomb- proof as possible!
> >
> >And your point is?
> >
>
> That if you are going to let the user install & remove software from the
> system then the mechanism for doing so should be as foolproof as possible.
rpm on Unix/Linux is far more "foolproof" than Windows is.
hint fucking hint: DLL version conflicts.
> The user should *never* be presented with system-related error messages,
> although these may be logged for later investigation if required.
That's your opinion...and a rather idiotic one at that.
Hiding error messages keeps the user UTTERLY HELPLESS AND CLUELESS
as to the cause and remedy of any error condition.
Observant users will eventually learn from error messages.
Your idea is to penalize Observant users because other users are
clueless dimwits who think that their computer is merely an alternate
form of TV.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Are you seriously saying that a business should train every one of its
> >> computer users to use a CLI?
> >
> >Strawman argument, and you know it, shit-head.
> >
>
> Nope. It's perfectly valid.
If you make up an argument, and attempt to attribute it to me,
that is a Strawman Argument.....shit-head.
> <quote>
> > Many of these people don't know what a CLI is remember, never
> > mind how to use one!
>
> That's their own fault.
> </quote>
On every facility I have worked at, users are free to learn the
Unix CLI to whatever extent that they care to do so.
In some places, it's promoted, in other places, management is indifferent.
But...those who *DO* learn the CLI tend to be more productive than those
who rely solely on GUI tools.
>
> From this I deduce that you consider that the employer has a duty to train
> their employees to recognise & use a CLI.
You write like a socialist. Why is that?
Employees are obligated to get the job done, by whatever (legal) means
necessary. Those who learn the CLI are generally more productive.
The employer *MAY* provide CLI training, but is under absolutely
no *obligation* to do so.
>
> >I'm saying that hobbling the CLI like Microsoft does CONSIDERABLY
> >LIMITS the maximum productivity of the average user.
> >
>
> It definitely limits the productivity of system maintenance personel, but I
> doubt if it affects the average user very much. I agree that all CLIs
You think that handcuffing administrators doesn't affect the
average user?????
Helllllooooooooo!
Earth to Mick!
If the Admins can't fix problems then the users suffer!
Is any of this getting through your thick skull?
> provided as part of M$ packages to date have been a shambles!
I've noticed that MS started degraded the CLI at about the same time
Unix started getting popular. This dovetails quite well with the
late 1980's/early-90's lie "unix is hard"...
MS is merely trying to make Unix as *unfamiliar* as possible.
In doing so, they have made their own product MORE DIFFICULT to use.
This is the very antithesis of innovation for the customer's sake.
>
> >the Microsoft UI is aimed at the novice user. For exactly how many
> >years (decades now) is a user supposed to be treated as a newbie????
> >
> >Denying the user a CLI basically means keeping the User in a state
> >of novice-dom forever...
> >
>
> And this, of course, is a "bad thing" when you are employing someone to
> type in huge amounts of data... It doesn't matter to the employer what the
> typist's computer experience is - as a matter of fact, "just above basic
> newbie" is probably about right in most cases!
What's the difference between a tool & die man with 10 years experience
and an assembly line worker with 10 years experience?
The tool and die man has progressively gained skills with each year
of his 10 years on the job.
In contrast, the assembly-line worker has 1 year of experience, repeated
10 times.
>
> The M$ UI is aimed at the computer *user*, not the *administrator*.
Wrong. it is aimed at the computer *novice*, to the detriment of
those with above-novice experience.
This is a long-understood "taming" technique. To breed a "tame"
form of an animal, specifically select those specimens which are
more juvenile/dependant
> It is
> designed to make running applications as simple as possible.
Unix and Linux have the EXACT SAME EASE of running application, and
the EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH utility CLI is still there.
> That is why a
> GUI is used - people tend to think in images, not in words.
Speak for your self. *I* do not suffer from your arrested state
of intellectual development....retard.
> Anyone who
> wants a decent CLI for KERNEL32 is quite welcome to write it - AFAIK there
> is plenty of information available!
Where?
At what cost?
It Linux and Unix, all of that documentation comes with the system.
By the way CLI documentation is NOT Kernal documentation.
How much does CLI documentation cost?
How much does Kernel documentation cost?
How much does Microshaft specifically EXCLUDE from said documentation?
How can any rational person claim that they not getting screwed
by Microshaft
>
> I'm not defending NT or W2K here as I don't believe that they are
> particularly good products! They may be, but that is for others to argue
> since I don't regularly use either. The *usability* of the Windows GUI,
> though, is *very* good by anyone's standards.
The GUI is *NOT* the problem....the problem is that (1) the GUI is welded
into the kernel, and (2), that the CLI, rather than being improved to
the same level of functionality as other systems, has instead, been
destroyed.
The ONLY reason I can see for doing this is to keep users from developing
algorithm-design/development skills, so that they will remain perpetual
"newbies".... in the same way that the Democrats make sure that inner
city schools are fucking lousy, so that blacks living in the ghetto
plantations will remain uneducated and helpless to do anything other
then look for handouts....just like slaves on a plantation.
>
> >
> >Are you seriously saying that a business should deploy an OS that allows
> >ANY untrained user to fuck around with the system, as if he/she were an
> >admin?
> >
>
> It obviously depends on the business and the particular situation. I know
> of many cases where the users do not have *any access at all* to any
> software on their machine other than their designated application.
Yes. You do this with the lowest-level employees who are paid to do,
not think. In this case, the computer is merely used as a tool to
keep these in-duh-viduals from making mistakes like miscounts, or
dumb-ass attacks like 5 + 4 = 7.
The reason that they are not given access to other applications is
simple: They are not trusted.
> These
> machines usually don't have any removable storage either. I also know of
> cases where the user is *encouraged* to carry out limited experimentation
> on the system (e.g. trying new software etc - nothing ridiculous!). I'm not
> completely defending either view, but they both have some merit.
That's because these employees are not trusted. They are paid merely
to execute the decisions of management, as relayed to them through
their team leaders
Ours is not to wonder "why?"
Ours is but TO DO....or die.
-- Rudyard Kipling, commenting on life as a private during wartime.
>
> Where a business is using a network, with or without servers, then it is
> obviously better to have system security as there is the potential for much
> more damage than with a single machine. Security is something which all
> versions of Windows up to 9x are particularly poor at!
Another great failing of Microshaft.
>
> IMHO a sensible business would balance several issues:
> a) how easy is it for the employees to carry out their tasks?
Depends on your software. The limits of the software's capabilities
are determined primarily by the kernel.
> will we need to provide specialised training?
EVERY computer-operations task requires specialized training.
Even using a word processor (ever notice how every community
college has courses on how to use such "intuitive" programs
as "Microsoft Word". IF such 'intuitive' software did not require
training, then why are people forking over $150 a pop to take
classes on how to "File -> Save as" ???
> b) how easy is the system to maintain?
> will we need to employ specialised personnel?
This second question is utterly rediculous. Name any high-tech
equipment that doesn't require "specialized personnel"
> c) how secure (from the operators) is the system required to be?
Microsoft fails at this.
Linux and Unix make the grade.
> how secure (from other sources) is the system required to be?
Microsoft fails again.
Linux and Unix make the grade.
> These are not in any particular order. I have probably over-simplified, but
> you get the point.
>
> From a home user's point of view, the only security which is really
> necessary is a good firewall for internet access and an up-to-date virus
> scanner. Anything else just gets in the way.
Let's see... Linux w/firewall... $100, and you can install it on as
many machines as you want....even your neighbors' machines.
Windows w/firewall software... about $1000.
>
> --
> Mick
> Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:34:03 -0500
JM wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:54:35 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)) wrote:
>
> >Are you seriously saying that a business should train every one of its
> >computer users to use a CLI? That if those users can't use a CLI then they
> >are in the wrong job because "That's their own fault"? Just think beyond
> >your own, blinkered vision in your ivory tower. There are *millions* of
> >computer users out there! Microsoft has produced a nice, comfortable
> >interface to the OS for them. How do you expect to entice them away from it
> >and back to a command line? Do you really think that businesses care *how*
> >their word processors work as long as the *do*, as cheaply as possible and
> >with the absolute minimum of training?
> >
> >CLIs are great for servers. Currently you *need* the control that they can
> >give - a GUI can help with the more mundane tasks though. Please don't take
> >us back to the time of DOS though, when everything was done through a CLI
> >and batch files. We have progressed a long way since then, lets *use* the
> >technology to its best advantage, by *improving* the user interface and
> >hiding the OS as much as possible.
>
> What??? You'd rather lose gigabytes of software and data whenever your
> operating system fucks up than learn to use a simple CLI?
shows where his priorities are...."avoid thinking at all costs"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Modems
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:38:05 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm curently a new linux user and I'm using Mandrake 7.2
> Can anyone suggest to me an easy to configure external modem that I can
> find at CompUSA or Best buy? All insight is appreciated.
You don't have to configure external modems.
They are ALL THE SAME to Unix and linux.
You can swap one external modem with another brand of external modem
on a Unix/Linux machine, and you will not need to do any configuration
changes....
In other words...ANY external modem will work just fine with Linux.
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Modems
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:39:15 -0500
Adam Fineman wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'm curently a new linux user and I'm using Mandrake 7.2
> > Can anyone suggest to me an easy to configure external modem that I can
> > find at CompUSA or Best buy? All insight is appreciated.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
> Have you checked the hardware compatibility databases? As a general rule,
> avoid anything that is classified as a 'winmodem'.
Losemodems require direct control from the system CPU, which means they
must be in a PCI-bus slot.
The serial port is WAY to slow to use the LoseModem architecture.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:41:14 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The C/C++ skills you know now can be used on UNIX/LINUX/BEOS and any
> > other OS that conforms to the C/C++ specifications.
>
> Do you include GUI skills as well?
Whiner.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:41:58 -0500
Nick Condon wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > I'm not a VB programmer. I use Visual C++, Borland Delphi and C++ Builder.
> > I know C and C++. As for programming for cross platform using C, why would I
> > want to castrate my applications by going that!
>
> Because you're working in a cross-platform environment? Or does your sig contain
> terminological inexactitudes?
>
> > Really? I thought that was true of the UNIX zealots, they don't want to let
> > their UNIX evolve any further that the '70s.
> >
> > In case you hadn't noticed, Windows API is always changing as Microsoft
> > introduce new stuff.
>
> If you genuinely knew anything about programming, then you would realise that an
Nobody has ever accused Pete Goodwin of knowing *anything*
> API that is "always changing" is a *bad* thing.
>
> > --
> > Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
> Or is he?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: mail reader
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 03:43:41 GMT
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:12:56 -0500, Adam Fineman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, everyone, for the responses. It looks like my best bet will
> be to use fetchmail.
> Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I can best divide the
> incoming mail into separate folders based upon which of my accounts to
> which the mail was originally sent?
Why, procmail of course <g>.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
