Linux-Advocacy Digest #301, Volume #31 Sat, 6 Jan 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Deja No News ("David Brown")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2.4 finally made official (Glitch)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: RPM Hell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:10:01 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 4 Jan 2001
>> >> >Fine, Linux can't replace windows on the majority of users systems (yet).
>> >>
>> >> That's where your wrong. According to your own "any script on Unix can
>> >> be done on NT" logic, Linux is perfectly capable of entirely and
>> >> completely replacing Windows on every user's system. It just can't *be*
>> >> Windows.
>> >
>> >What???? Your logic is flawed.
>>
>> How so? You have stated that any script that can be written on Unix can
>> be written on NT (despite the falsity of this claim to begin with) under
>> the "its just software" argument, saying 'perl and bash are available
>> for Windows'. By the same token, of course, any OS is a complete
>> replacement for Windows. There is nothing incomplete about Linux.
>
>Virtually any useful software that's available for Linux is also available
>for Windows, the same cannot be said of the reverse.
Not that I agree with that statement at all; I thought we were talking
about the OS, not the apps? Because there is no MS-Office for Linux, it
is not an acceptable desktop? Any application, though not any
particular product, is available on Linux, or could be available if
there were any market demand, just as any script for Unix "could" be
written on NT.
[...]
>> And didn't have even a small amount of the success at monopolizing that
>> Microsoft did, and they've only been in existence for a bit over 20
>> years. IBM didn't *start out* monopolizing, as MS did.
>
>MS was in existance for over 6 years before IBM licensed MS-DOS from them.
And they were monopolizing with MS-BASIC in microcomputer ROMs the whole
time.
[...]
>> >If it was a detriment to the consumer, the consumer wouldn't buy the
>> >upgrade.
>>
>> So it is, so it must be. And you wonder why I bring up Microsoft's
>> constant efforts to force consumers to upgrade, despite their
>> reluctance.
>
>If they didn't want to do it, they wouldn't.
So it is, so it must be. If you didn't "want to" give the guy your
wallet, you won't. Whether he "wants to" put a bullet in your head is
your problem.
[...]
>> No, because the statement is not fact; it is supposition. You presume
>> that because there are some companies which ostensibly compete with
>> Microsoft, therefore Microsoft cannot be monopolizing.
>
>No, my statement is that MS is only a monopoly because it's competitors
>failed to compete. Given an alert and competant competitor, MS is too large
>to compete with it effectively.
If that were true, it wouldn't make a wit of difference at all. There's
nothing in the Sherman Act about "unless...". Monopolizing is illegal,
as is attempting to monopolize. If you just happened to "end up" with
an overwhelming market share, then its generally a trivial thing to show
your competitive efforts and how they resulted in your success, in
court. When it turns out that your internal communications all point to
intentional anti-competitive efforts, then it puts the lie to your
statement. You are entirely mistaken about the source and cause of
Microsoft's monopoly. It is a common mistake.
>> Its a vapid
>> assumption, not a statement of fact, that "competent competitors that
>> don't let MS get a foothold". In point of fact, it would seem that
>> *certain* competitors have not been entirely destroyed by the monopoly
>> (and more than adequate reasons can be seen in the characteristics of
>> their market themselves),
>
>"not completely destroyed" makes it sound like MS has nearly destroyed them.
One cannot tell what the world would be like in an alternate reality.
Given the importance of Quicken, I'd dare say that Intuit may well have
become a much larger company in a world without Microsoft.
>Intuit still holds 90% of the personal finance market. AOL still holds 70+%
>of the Online Information Service market. That's not "not completely
>destroyed", that's eating MS's lunch in that market.
That's pie-chart competition. How large are those markets? How large
would they be without an OS monopoly? You cannot know. ALL you know is
that they were, indeed, not completely destroyed. Neither seems to be
really thriving, by some perspectives; AOL just got bought, and despite
their "90% hold of the personal finance market", that market isn't
bubkus, the way Microsoft has things laid out.
>> and you wish to presume that this is the
>> definition of competence, and by that pretend to "prove" that competent
>> competitors are not destroyed by anti-competitive monopolies, and
>> therefore all that are destroyed are simply incompetent. Its silly,
>> really. No, the continued existence of Intuit and AOL does not provide
>> any working support for hypothesizing, let alone concluding, that
>> Microsoft does not act anti-competitively, thereby raising prices above
>> competitive levels and excluding alternatives.
>
>Raising prices gives competitors more of a chance to compete. Hell, Corel
>lowered it's prices to ridiculous levels and still couldn't sell office
>software. People just didn't want it.
Therefore, raising your price can be a *competitive* act. Very good,
Erik. Now, can it also be an "anti-competitive" act? How might we spot
the difference? Would observing whether a raise in price was followed
by increased, lower-cost alternatives appearing indicate anything?
Raising prices above competitive levels means ripping people off, not
just increasing the pricetag. In a free market, competitors cannot
raise prices above competitive levels without decreasing their sales.
That's why they're called "competitive levels", and why active
competition is required for them to exist.
>> >> >The Amiga died not because of competition, but because it's parent company
>> >> >was incompetant. [...]
>> >>
>> >> Enough with the drivel.
>> >
>> >You're going to claim that Commodore was competant? Give me a break.
>>
>> It was popular. I leave all other speculation (outside of my own
>> opinion as an owner that it was a very good system) to those who prefer
>> to second-guess the incompetence of others, so that they may try to
>> convince themselves of their own competence, by proxy.
>
>Yet you don't mind making comments about how it's "drivel".
Yes, because it is drivel.
>> >> >Windows is in fact a reliable, efficient and effective for me. [...]
>> >>
>> >> I noticed the subtle yet glaring ad hoc qualification, there, Erik.
>> >> What's up with that?
>> >
>> >Because it's an opinion about my useage.
>>
>> Bullshit; its an "escape hatch" to make your opinion unfalsifiable. It
>> also makes it meaningless and arbitrary, but you would have to have some
>> intellectual integrity to care about that.
>
>Opinions, by definition, are unfalsifiable. I don't need to qualify one to
>make it so.
So why did you qualify it? My opinions, by the way are not
unfalsifiable. That they are my opinions is fact, but it can still be
falsified, and all of my opinions are, by conscious effort, available
for revision in the face of evidence.
>If I say, in my opinion, the sky is green. It could very well be from my
>perspective (I may have been taught that the color blue is green).
Such post-modernist bullshit is neither here nor there. You may have
been taught the *wrong word* for that color, but it wouldn't make it the
right word; just the word you use. You would be, as always, mistaken.
[...]
>> >No, Linux is more expensive than NT because of training costs. NT/2000
>> >costs more because it does more. It's a workstation level OS rather than a
>> >consumer level one.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha.
>
>So, you're going to claim that it's cheaper to retrain 50,000 employees in
>Linux than to maintain a Windows environment?
Yes; Linux is internally consistent and standards based, very reliable,
and logically, if arcanely, controlled. Windows is not any of these
things, except arcanely controlled.
>> >> I think its awfully shameful that people don't recognize NT pricing for
>> >> what it is; a complete sham. Its a scam; a way to increase prices. NT
>> >> software doesn't inherently *cost* any more to produce.
>> >
>> >No, but NT most certainly did cost a lot more to produce than Win9x did (by
>> >produce I mean R&D, and maintenance).
>>
>> Yes, but to even suggest that this is important is to bring up the idea
>> that a product's price is based on the cost of development. But that
>> would make the price scalable, so that WinDOS would cost about $2 today,
>> and NT would already be down into double digits. Oops. Maybe you
>> should try a different fib, er, I mean argument.
>
>You're forgetting the costs of marketing, advertising, distribution,
>printing, and a host of other things.
And these are more expensive for NT... why?
[...]
>> Per-processor licensing agreements are not "volume pricing". Microsoft
>> has been in the habit of referring to them as "volume discounts" since
>> they were shown to be illegal, but the term you're looking for is
>> "cliff's-edge pricing", which refers to the actual cost to the OEM of
>> providing monopoly crapware, without which they would go out of
>> business.
>
>No, MS doesn't use per-processer licensing. They use either per-model
>pricing for large OEM's, or volume "pack" licensing through distributors to
>smaller OEM's.
Per-model per-processor licensing agreements are per-processor
licensing. Are you suggesting that OEMs pay only once for each model of
PC they make with Windows? No, it is each computer they pay for. The
rates are set per-processor. These rates are negotiated separately for
each model line, but they are nevertheless per-processor, and until
recently every major OEM had such an agreement for EVERY model line they
had. Recently, all the major OEMs have started biting the bullet, and
providing Linux. It costs them money, but they know its what the
consumers want.
>> They pay less because if MS tried to charge them any more, it
>> would break their pre-load lock-in, which is a fundamental support for
>> Microsoft's illegal monopoly.
>
>Oh, so you admit that MS can't raise prices for fear of losing market share.
>There goes the monopoly theory.
That there is a ceiling and a limit to how indefinitely a monopolist can
hold prices above competitive levels without adversely reducing their
number of sales, does not change the fact that only a monopolist can
ever do it at all. So there are still potential market pressures
preventing, for instance, MS from charging $3000 for WinDOS and $17,000
for W2K. That doesn't in any logical way 'rule out "the monopoly
theory"'.
[...]
>> No, it doesn't. Because it already was; the "profits" from DOS alone
>> were more than enough to pay for them. Its a scam, you putz. The cost
>> to develop is not related to the price of the product, or else the cost
>> would go down over time, and it hasn't.
>
>There are fixed costs, and remember that MS continues development for quite
>some time.
Could you provide us with some numbers, indicating that these fixed
costs are an appreciable component of the sale price of NT?
>Something has to pay for new versions of DirectX, Windows Media
>Player, etc.. which are all downloadable free even by users of the original
>Windows 95.
Microsoft's other criminal activities are not my immediate concern. Do
these costs accrue specifically to NT for any reason?
[...]
>> >You certainly had no problem second-gussing the market when making your
>> >original comment.
>>
>> No, that was probably double-checking. The difference is potentially
>> subtle and always abstract, so I'm not sure you you'll be able to
>> understand it. I'm not at all sure what you're pretending to refer to
>> as my "original comment", though, so if you'll be more explicit, I'll
>> try to explain it to you.
>
>Ok, since you have to be so thick headed. You said :
>
>"Perhaps sufficient users wouldn't agree with you that they'd appreciate
>the choice. Perhaps it really does fill you with... discomfort, to
>contemplate people learning how to use computers, and being free of
>Microsoft and its software and their dependency on paying someone else
>to gain value from their own property."
I don't understand how you think my proffering possibilities is
second-guessing. I don't need to second guess anybody to recognize that
Linux is growing greatly in popularity; merely double-checking the Dell,
Compaq, and IBM web sites will make that clear. You'll notice that I
specifically avoided insisting that this must be *why* this is
occurring, but I am allowed to speculate. That's not second-guessing.
Second-guessing is saying that Microsoft's competitors are
'incompetent', or that 'users don't want to have to learn anything'.
>> >> >The vast majority of people who use computers don't want to know
>> >> >how or why it works. They just want it to work.
>> >>
>> >> And here we get to the problem.
>> >
>> >Most peoples computers do work, be it Windows, MacOS, or Linux.
>>
>> You can say that some of the peoples computers work all of the time, and
>> all of the peoples computers work some of the time, but you can't say
>> that all of the peoples computers work all of the time. So designing
>> computers around the premise that they will usually work, and thus have
>> no capability of continuing to function adequately if anything at all
>> should go wrong in the slightest, is, well, only fit for monopolists.
>> Anyone who might require that their products be able to compete with
>> alternatives and still provide profits are generally going to recognize
>> that they sometimes fail, and attempt to make such failures as minimally
>> problematic for the consumer as possible. This is generally why
>> obfuscation of software code, for instance, is generally considered a
>> bad thing, even as developers make jokes about 'job security'.
>
>Try to bring a Television in for repair. It will cost you 3x the cost of a
>new TV to fix it.
Oddly enough, televisions don't used standardized modular hardware and
general purpose software components.
>The notion that products are disposable is quite common.
The notion that a PC is disposable is entirely derived from the
Microsoft monopoly.
[...]
>> Consistency does not mean everything must work identically; it means
>> everything must work according to the same fundamental mechanisms. This
>> is the argument that Unix people have for avoiding krufty "bolt-on"
>> development the way Microsoft practices it.
>
>Really? So KDE works in the same fundamental mechanism as GNOME? Not.
As far as I know, 90% of a user's actions would be entirely identical in
either one. They are just GUIs; pointing and clicking doesn't change
that much. An icon is an icon, a menu is a menu, a button is a button.
>Consistency means things work the same way all the time.
Well, they don't. So I consider consistency to be more related to
whether or not you can figure out how they will work, this time.
Windows fails this test, utterly, in several ways.
>> Microsoft's approach is to
>> pretend (in addition to pretending that nothing ever fails, as stated
>> above) that the fundamental mechanisms of how a computer works is
>> unimportant to successfully using a computer. Its delusional, but it
>> serves the monopoly well. Also, despicable people like you that trumpet
>> the value of ignorance in order to promote the monopoly.
>
>Actually, that's Apple's philosophy.
No, Apple's philosophy is proprietary computers which are all but
appliances.
[...]
>> Library conflicts are only theoretically related to DLL hell. They are
>> problems which affect related parts of an OS. The cause of library
>> conflicts is free market development; the correction is knowledge. DLL
>> hell is caused by design deficiencies in the Windows platform; the
>> correction is limited to ignoring it (the Microsoft way) or abandoning
>> Windows, and potentially all monopoly crapware, entirely.
>
>It's also a design deficiency of most Linux distro's and their apps.
Well, I would certainly want to avoid any distro that includes bundled
apps that have, within the set, unresolved library conflicts. But it
does depend on how large the bundle would be, I think. I'm getting the
Deluxe RedHat 7.0 package, I'll let you know if there's any library
conflicts (though I'm getting it pre-loaded, so I might not be aware of
all of them.)
[...]
>> No, I said it doesn't have the class of problems you were referring to.
>> I said that the problems you experience weren't Linux problems, but Erik
>> problems.
>
>Of course. Yet the problems you have with Windows are not Max problems.
You are correct, sir. Mostly; some of the problems I have with Windows
are "Max problems", in that it is only my style of use which makes them
real problems, and to anyone else they would merely be annoyances.
[...]
>> >Automatic transmissions outsell manuals by an order of magnatude today.
>>
>> Yet you see no manufacturer of automatic transmissions plotting to
>> destroy manufacturers of manual transmissions in the marketplace. Go
>> figure.
>
>That's because an automatic transmission cannot compete with a manual one.
>They are two different markets by their designs.
Then whether one "outsells" another is entirely irrelevant, and it was
rather bogus of you to bring it up, eh?
>> >It's because most people don't WANT to be concerned with the details of
>> >shifting gears. Likewise, people don't want to be concerned with the
>> >details of their OS.
>>
>> You can double-check some of the people all of the time, and you can
>> double-check all of the people some of the time, but you can only
>> second-guess all of the people, all of the time. Again, the fact that
>> manual transmissions are still widely available, and widely purchased,
>> proves the falsity of your understanding.
>
>My statements are not false. Manual transmissions are popular with a small
>subsection of the population, that doesn't mean that the people that drive
>automatic transmission think "I wish I knew exactly how this worked".
In fact, those who use manual transmissions don't, either. The point
remains, insisting that you can determine what people want by
second-guessing how little effort or knowledge it requires is
self-serving, and bogus. It is an abrogation of the whole idea of a
free market; there is no reason that everyone needs to buy the same
thing, nor does monopolization become competition by simply saying it is
so.
[...]
>> Oh, you read ahead, did you? You'll notice that most people pump their
>> own gas, a good number of people change their own oil, and there are no
>> licensing agreements necessary to understand the inner workings of the
>> engine, if that is your desire. You don't see the auto manufacturer's
>> changing the specifications of their cars routinely in order to
>> discourage such behavior, though it wouldn't entirely surprise me if
>> certain professional mechanics might think that would be a good thing.
>
>BMW prohibits you from installing any car stereo other than a BMW one in
>their cars or you warranty is void.
Your stereo warranty, maybe.
>Why do you think Ford and GM make so many special tools to work on parts of
>their cars. To discourage you from doing it yourself.
Generally, I expect that it is because it is more efficient to engineer
the parts without considering whether they use the same as the
competitor's parts, since there aren't isn't really enough efficiency in
using no special tools to make the consumer care.
>And most people don't change their own oil. Hell, I could change my own oil
>but i'd rather pay someone to do it for me. I just don't have time to deal
>with the mess.
Whatever. Did you miss my point? I guess you must have.
[...]
>> On the contrary; you seem to expect that knowing the turn signal from
>> the accelerator is knowledge only fit for mechanics.
>
>Not at all. Knowing where your power switch, and how to click a mouse is
>equivelant.
According to you, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have
spent more than a decade teaching people to use computers, and you are
mistaken. I should have remembered why I don't get into car analogies.
[...]
>> That would explain the wide adoption of Windows ME, and the popularity
>> of W2K.
>
>60% of IT managers say they will be installing Win2k this year.
Are you trying to suggest that W2K is being widely implemented? Of
course you are, but the best you can do is post that statistic. Lord
knows; sales figures aren't going to do it.
>> >> >> No, we gripe about Windows. That's not FUD; that's being stuck with
>> >> >> monopoly crapware.
>> >> >
>> >> >Stating things that are untrue is FUD, or lying. Take your pick.
>> >>
>> >> We gripe about Windows; we don't state things which are untrue.
>> >
>> >That's a lie. You yourself have said many untrue things.
>>
>> Only in your rather bogus opinion, or by mistake.
>
>So you admit that you just lied when you said you don't state things which
>are untrue?
No. I wasn't even mistaken; I just didn't realize you were trying to
play schoolyard games.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Deja No News
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 20:12:02 +0100
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I'm posting this message to point out that I am stripping that annoying
>petition request from my signature. This should be the last post
>showing it. I know its annoying,
Can you persuade other posters to drop their absurd, meaningless and overly
long signatures too? Your's at least had a point, although it got a bit
tedious after a few months. There are others who have far longer, and far
less meaningful signatures - perhaps Deja should delete old archives, or at
least those with a high signature-to-content ratio.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:12:29 GMT
On 6 Jan 2001 17:06:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>No, you havent, since the SB Live has not existed for "years". This
>is an outright lie. You are an outright liar, just like all of your
>previous incarnations on this group, and doubtlessly all of your future
>ones.
SBLive is at least 3 years old. Do some research before you show your
ignorance.
>No, ext2fs is actually absolutely nothing like XFS or UFS. If you knew
>as much as the guy who used to write your posts for you about things
>like this, youd know that.
Permissions work exactly the same. Duhhhhh...
>Word perfect for linux is actually not a wine port, since it predates wine
>by at least two years. Another lie.
It is therefore a native Linux program?
So it doesn't need wine to run?
Again do your research before you reveal your ignorance.
>>>> Why doesn't Knode remember it's settings like Window size?
>>>
>>>It doesnt need to.
>
>> Programs under WIndows do...
>
>Neat. Windows also has a 'kill' button on every window that doesnt actually
>kill anything.
What?
>This is not semantics, this is fact. You have your terminology all
>screwed up, and you do not know what youre talking about.
Terminology has nothing to do with the behavior of an object of thing.
In this case behavior of the "thing" that looks like a window.
Stop trying to sway the discussion toward semantics..
>>>> How about PM firewall? Well this one is a real gem if ever there was
>>>> one. Simple to set up and it works very well. It should have prompts
>>>> for possible selections though as it took me a while to figure out
>>>> that my external interface was ppp0 and I doubt Joe Sixpack will ever
>>>> figure it out.
>>>
>>>Joe sixpack doesnt need a firewall for linux. There are other, much
>>>easier ways to secure a box.
>
>
>> Name one......
>
>Edit /etc/inetd.conf. Any retard can do it.
yawnn..
Go help all of those "retards" in the firewall groups because they can
sure use a genius like you.
snip.....
Yawnnnn...
I'm bored with you because it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:14:34 GMT
Said Form@C in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 10:43:39 GMT;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>
><snip>
>>engine, if that is your desire. You don't see the auto manufacturer's
>>changing the specifications of their cars routinely in order to
>>discourage such behavior, though it wouldn't entirely surprise me if
>>certain professional mechanics might think that would be a good thing.
>
>Not too sure about this... When did you last try to buy a wing mirror or
>rear lamp lens? Why do they change the shape, size and fixings when they
>only needed to change the surround to accomodate an existing part? Could it
>be that "clone" parts are becoming available?
Well, you did nail that point, I guess. Auto manufacturers DO routinely
change the specifications of their cars. Yet they all use the same oil,
the same gas, and a small set of generally consistent parts, despite the
fact that such visual "trim" as wing mirrors and rear lamps change. I
would think your answer would be obvious; people don't want to buy a car
that looks like every other car. Perhaps the auto industry might find
efficiencies in re-using such components more often, but I doubt it
greatly.
>Why are the settings within the engine management controller only
>accessible by their own particular dealers? Could it be that they are quite
>simply hiding their engine design specifications from other developers?
No, because there's nothing to prevent other developers from reverse
engineering them. They are accessible "only" to their own dealers
because only their dealers need access to the "engine management
controller", I would guess. But I don't really know what that is, so
how about we drop the car analogies.
>Looks to me as if they are protecting their own investment in a mighty
>anti-competitive way here! <stir-stir grin>
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:14:49 GMT
On 6 Jan 2001 17:10:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>This entire post is a lie.
Prove it.....................
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:21:21 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Re: 2.4 finally made official
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> No, it's still there running on IIS
>
> Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >
> > Glitch wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >http://www.msnbc.com/news/512189.asp
> > >It's about time.
> >
> > Surprising to find this on a MS sponsored site especially the
> > mention of it being an alternative to windows - better read it
> > quick before MS get the page removed ;-)
really, Windows advocates probably thought the page was hacked
considering what was said. :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:17:16 GMT
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:47:00 GMT, * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>haha. you sure showed them. yuppies think too much!
>
>of course. then. they do go on to hamptons. to beautiful houses. and
>celebrities like you say.
I live in the Hampton's.
Duhhhhhh.
And as a locals who live here year round, we can't stand the likes of
Speilberg, Puffy Combs and their hanger-on's and such.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:19:25 GMT
On 6 Jan 2001 17:18:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
I'm not going anywhere idiot.
He, how about I send you the Mandrake Update CD so you can screw up
your system as well?
Doesn't take much.
Slap in CD->select LiveUpdate from DrakConf and wait about 5 minutes
or so.
On the next reboot, instant vegetable. Much like your brain....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
