Linux-Advocacy Digest #469, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (.)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (.)
Re: More Linux woes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More Linux woes (mlw)
Re: More Linux woes ("Vann")
Re: More Linux woes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More Linux woes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 15 Jan 2001 02:05:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:15:25 +0100, Peter K=F6hlmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You and flathead are the two most unpleasant liars here in c.o.l.a, you=20
>>tell whatever lie whenever you feel like it.
>>Bring FACTS, not lies!
> FACT I installed Mandrake 7.2 with various different options including
> "everything".
Lie.
> FACT Install everything has a different meaning depending upon where
> you select it. IE: Under the first menu, or Custom->Install
> Everything.
Lie.
> FACT The install program has a mind of it's own, and selecting Expert
> and no hardware probing has no effect as it probes anyway, in fact if
> you watch the messages at the bottom of the screen you can see it
> probing for your mouse the minute you hit enter.
Lie.
> FACT Take the same options several times and you may or may not end up
> with the same packages installed.
Lie.
> FACT When it asks for the second CD if you don't move the mouse over
> the OK box and hit enter instead (we all know how much you
> Penguinista's hate mice, so you better watch this one) you will NOT
> install anymore packages even though the OK box is the HIGHLIGHTED
> BOX. The install just continues, but you will find out later that you
> missed a lot of packages off the second CD.
Lie.
> FACT Sometimes the left mouse button using Enlightenment brings up a
> menu and other times it does not, depending upon what the install
> program decided it wanted to do.
Lie.
> FACT Try installing Enlightenment after doing a standard install and
> see how many dependencies are missing and cannot be resolved without
> searching all over the CD's to find them. Funny, it works if you
> install Everything from the beginning, but then again that depends
> upon which "Install Everything" option you pick.
Lie.
> FACT I can either get 3d acceleration, or 2D but I take a performance
> hit on one or the other depending upon which XFRee I chose (3.x or
> 4.x)
> The Matrox card has only been out for a couple of YEARS or so,
> but maybe in another 3 years it might work correctly.
Lie.
> FACT 75dpi Fonts are installed by default, which make everything look
> painfully small. Increasing the font size only makes them look more
> jagged. Solution go and edit a config file and swap the order of 75dpi
> and 100dpi as they appear in the file. This doesn't include the time
> wasted scouring the net to find this wonderful "Font De-Uglification
> How-To".
Lie.
> FACT It screws up detection of my Matrox G200 as far as amount of
> memory is concerned.
Lie.
> FACT If you choose to set up network and later try and set up ICS it
> won't work.
Lie.
> FACT kppp, the default dialer that gets installed doesn't have a dial
> on demand feature, which kind of makes ICS useless unless you are on a
> cable network. BTW checking a single box under Win2k makes this work
> fine.
Lie.
> FACT Linux installs in the default with all kinds of ports open to
> attack.
Lie.
> FACT The SBLive STILL does not allow digital audio. Funny seeing as
> this card is at least 3 years old and Win2k shipped with drivers while
> Linux has been working on them for years.
Lie.
> FACT There STILL is no decent Web Browser for Linux.
Lie.
> FACT reading News offline is still a conglomeration of programs and
> their various set up files.
> PAN doesn't even stay up long enough without segfaulting to be
> useful.
Lie.
> FACT my Scanner doesn't work.
Lie.
> FACT my USB devices don't work.
Lie.
> FACT my Logitech Wheel mouse is mis identified and if I select
> Logitech from DrakConf it never works again and I am mouse less.
Lie.
> I could go on for hours with this but why bother. People try Linux,
> and they dump it just as quickly mostly because it is a joke compared
> to Windows.
> FACT The truth hurts and Linux sucks and that is the truth.
LIe.
> Conclusion: Linux in it current state is not fit for consumption by
> desktop Joe.
Conclusion:
Either you, claire, are a fanatical, pathological liar, or an idiot the=20
likes of which the world has never seen.=20=20
Pick one, claire, and get back to me on it.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:09:36 GMT
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:01:09 +1100, "Interconnect"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think what you should do is try reading the occassional man or HowTo.
It's not an "occasional" How-To, it is a constant battle that ends in
running an OS that has inferior applications IMHO.
>I have run many different flavors of Linux no problem. Mice detected, video
>detected, printers up and running, httpd server, sendmail, Perl, servlets,
>jsp, java, C, C++, KDE, Gnome, Bash, gimp, MySQL, awk, ftp, StarOffice,
>Netscape, Freeciv, GNU Chess, ISP connectivity, PROGRESS, tar, rpm and many
>other programs and services. ALL working relatively EASILY!!!
Some of those worked fine for me as well under various distributions,
but no distribution had all of them working at the same time. It is
always a compromise. For example SuSE seems to be cutting edge as far
as Xfree is concerned, but yet Mandrake ships with kde 2.0.
>OK I had to read some documentation to get the printers going, pick up the
>extra ram, tweak my video display, update the occassional system library
>etc.. etc.. but my point is if you know a little about computers how hard is
>it to READ the documentation and get involved in some productive on-line
>forums and discussions to make it work for you.
I don't have to do any of that to make the exact same hardware and in
fact even more hardware some of which Linux doesn't even support work
under Windows.
I don't think I have ever opened a manual for Windows, yet my
bookshelves are lined with Linux books, and I am not talking about CLI
stuff, I am talking about basics here.
>I get the impression people such as yourself really want a PS2 or X-Box with
>Word2K running on it, I mean you really come across as lazy, whiny people
>that have no interest in computers at all.
No.
We represent the other 95 percent of the public that wants to run
applications and not have to worry about dependencies,
compatibilities, paths or installation woes. We are applications based
and the OS is just a nasty evil necessary to run out applications.
My tweaking days ended with Win 3.1 and QEMM version 6.0 and I have
never looked back.
I never tweak Windows with the exception of setting up a theme and
trashing anything that installs spyware in the startup group or sets
the Run key.
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:24:03 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Beyond attempting to confuse low level wire protocols with something
>> > that an application level facility should muck about with, you
>> > really haven't demonstrated anything.
>>
>> You must sit for hours conjuring up statements that are circular,
>> never address the point and rarely provide a solution other than "it
>> works for me".
>>
>> You talk in rhymes and riddles, almost like DR. Seuss,
>> spewing forth paragraphs of words that while lengthy, don't really say
>> anything?
>>
>> I think you have the gift of being a Poet.
>>
>> Have you ever thought about writing a book?
>>
>> Flatfish
>> Why do they call it a flatfish?
>> Remove the ++++ to reply.
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: 15 Jan 2001 02:11:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:55:05 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>>And a collection of applications which if all of the version numbers
>>>were added together collectively, you wouldn't get 1.0 in total.
>>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> More empty rhetoric.
>>
>> It really doesn't matter what version numbers are on the product.
>> Microsoft demonstrated this to be the case rather long ago. If you
>> have specific grievances against specific Linux applications and
>> can articulate how specific WinDOS applications do any better,
>> please feel free to proceed.
> When I run Windows 2k I don't have applications trapping and dying all
> over the place like I do when running Gnome.
You dont have that happening, because you dont run linux, let alone gnome.
> I have Gnome "timebomb icons" all over the place. What kind of garbage
> is that?
Thats you not reading the instructions claire, for a hunk of software
that youve never even seen.
> How about help systems that aren't there?
Theyre all there, and youd know it if youd ever actually used gnome.
> Come on already, kde and Gnome have been out worked on for years.
> Can't they come up with a decent help system?
You wouldnt know, having never seen it.
I now believe that you dont have the brains to install any sort of
linux at all. You therefore must be lying about all of your expiercience
and thus, have nothing to say at all.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:14:07 GMT
On 15 Jan 2001 01:55:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>You read the documentation, you goddamn retard. For once.
>
>Just read the fucking instructions already and stop being an idiot.
So why don't you enlighten me a little?
You know Mr. ".", you prove your ignorance more and more with every
guttural uttering that emanates from your mouth.
If I were a Linvocate I would be ashamed to say you were advocating
for my side.
I'll bet you have done far more harm to Linux than any Windows
supporter ever has simply by your ignorance and total lack of sound
factual support of your misanthropic arguments.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:15:49 GMT
On 15 Jan 2001 01:54:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>You're an idiot, chad.
Well at least I am in good company.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [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: 15 Jan 2001 02:17:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93t5k1$5c7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:3rns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
>> >> In article <usj86.2348$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:Rrj86.2343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
>> >> >> Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
>> >>
>> >> Why do I feel this is just a downright lie?
>> >>
>> >> > Bottom Line:
>> >> >
>> >> > Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
>> >> > the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
>> >> > tasks.
>> >>
>> >> Strewth, are we living on the same planet? Linux has proven that it is
>> >> enterprise ready.
>>
>> > Not really. Scalability is an issue, and still is.
>>
>> Oh I see. Tivo to S/390 isnt good enough for you? Tell me, exactly how much
>> does windows scale?
> Ah yes. A token linux installations runs in a virtual machine on S/390 and
> suddenly Linux is hugely scalable. In fact, they have to run thousands of
> them to accomplish what S/390 or Win2K Datacenter Server could do by itself.
Thats not true at all, and id like to see all kinds of evidence, from you
please, to validate it.
> The top 4 and 5 of the top 10 slots for performance (which is the real prize)
> are held by Windows 2000. Linux... nowhere to be found.
> The only real contenders are Windows 2000, HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and OS/400.
> Linux couldn't hold a candle to any one of those OSs.
You wouldnt know, because youve never actually used any of them.
>> > Performance is an issue
>> > especially with the brain-dead ext2 filesystem.
>>
>> Chad is lying again; he has never been able to come up with any evidence to
>> support this.
> Hmm, doesn't support >2GB files,
Actually it does, and has for quite some time. You're misinformed again.
> doesn't even journal meta-data,
Yes it does, and has for quite some time, youre misinformed again.
> has no
> concept of transactions and roll-backs, flakes out with even the smallest
> glitch or power outtage,
Oh it does? Lets see some evidence.
> must be continually fsck'd because consistency
It does? Lets see some evidence.
> routinely goes out of whack... what more do you need?
Id like some (ANY) evidence of your claims. I'm sure everyone reading
your posts would as well.
>>
>> > There is no enterprise-level
>> > journaling large-file-capable filesystem for Linux
>>
>> There are three.
> None of which is released, tested, and ready for prime-time.
As ive said, one of them is.
>> > (except for a few beta ones).
>>
>> One of them is out of beta.
> Which? Reiser? Please post URL(s).
You first, chad. Lets see some evidence.
>>
>> > Linux's security is laughable with the elementary permission-bits scheme.
>>
>> You forgot about chattr, but you wouldnt know about that, having never, ever
>> used linux once in your life.
> It's still not DAC. Linux uses a 30-some year old security scheme which is
> non-flexible and not very secure.
Yet HP/UX, Solaris, AIX, and all the other unices of which you are constantly
singing praises use the exact same scheme. Spot the inconsistency.
> In fact, DAC is a requirement for the
> enterprise and for highly secure installations. Linux couldn't be considered
> even if it tried.
Neither could W2K, which is why people that have such installations use things
like AIX and trusted solaris.
Which also suck.
----.
(out of your killfile again, weenie)
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:21:46 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:05:37 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> l
> >Depends on the player and the hardware configuration.
>
> No it doesn't.
> Standard 40x CDROM player and a SBLive card.
>
> >If your problem is with pure digital audio, i.e. the digital stream off
> >the back of the CDROM, than pay $2.99 for a wire to go from analog out,
> >to analog in to the SB card, and configure this in the sound panel and
> >or player. However, you will not get the advantages of the digital audio
> >stream.
>
>
> 1. Standard IDE CDROM (40x Acer if that matters) connected to IDE
> controller #2.
> 2. Little $2.00 cable with Berg Connectors conected to Digital out on
> CDROM and Digital In on SBlive.
> NO ANALONG CABLE CONNECTED!!!!
Yes, and the newest Microsoft Media Player that you download does this.
Again, so what? Turn it off.
>
>
> 3. System runs real sluggish playing atandard audio CD's with either
> kde player or xmms or whatever.
>
> 4. Turns out the CD / Soundcard is doing DIGITAL AUDIO EXTRACTION over
> the IDE bus. NOT digital audio transfer over the $2.00 cable. If I
> unplug the $2.00 berg connector cable, meaning all that I have
> connected is the IDE cable and their is NO PHYSICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN
> THE CDROM AND SOUNDCARD, I still get audio because Linux has decided
> to transfer all of my audio over the IDE bus instead of using the
> $2.00 cable.
This has nothing to do with Linux. NOTHING, it is a player issue. If you
want to use the cable, you can find the setting that disables this
behavior.
I am running redHat Linux, and when I unplus the audio cable from the
back of my system, the music stops.
It is, once again, an application issue.
>
> 5. No setting change in the mixers or players changes this.
>
> So how do I change it because it grinds my system to a crawl?
>
> It's easy under Win2k by checking the "use digital audio" option for
> the CDROM, which is DIFFERENT than using the digital audio cable. It
> really should say "use digital audio extraction" for this device,
> meaning use the IDE channel NOT the $2.00 berg cable.
>
> Get it NOW?
I always got it. Read below, carefully:
>
> >If your problem is the digitization of IDE datapath, similar to the way
> >a ripper works, disable this in the player.
> >
> >Again, this has nothing to do with Linux, it is an app issue. If you
> >make the IOCTL call under Linux, or DeviceIoControl under Windows to
> >start the CD player playing, it plays. You then use the sound card to
> >drive the speakers.
> >
> >Many CD player applications (these days) on the PC do not do this
> >because the IDE hardware design does not allow extensive monitoring, so
> >they decide to treat the data stream from an audio CD as digital media,
> >similar to how they play MP3s.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:22:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip ramblings>
Here, sir, is a simple solution to all of your linux woes:
Don't use linux.
Now wasn't that hard?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:26:04 GMT
I give up. You are just to dense to understand this..
Consider it closed.
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:21:46 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:05:37 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> l
>> >Depends on the player and the hardware configuration.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>> Standard 40x CDROM player and a SBLive card.
>>
>> >If your problem is with pure digital audio, i.e. the digital stream off
>> >the back of the CDROM, than pay $2.99 for a wire to go from analog out,
>> >to analog in to the SB card, and configure this in the sound panel and
>> >or player. However, you will not get the advantages of the digital audio
>> >stream.
>>
>>
>> 1. Standard IDE CDROM (40x Acer if that matters) connected to IDE
>> controller #2.
>> 2. Little $2.00 cable with Berg Connectors conected to Digital out on
>> CDROM and Digital In on SBlive.
>> NO ANALONG CABLE CONNECTED!!!!
>
>Yes, and the newest Microsoft Media Player that you download does this.
>Again, so what? Turn it off.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 3. System runs real sluggish playing atandard audio CD's with either
>> kde player or xmms or whatever.
>>
>> 4. Turns out the CD / Soundcard is doing DIGITAL AUDIO EXTRACTION over
>> the IDE bus. NOT digital audio transfer over the $2.00 cable. If I
>> unplug the $2.00 berg connector cable, meaning all that I have
>> connected is the IDE cable and their is NO PHYSICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN
>> THE CDROM AND SOUNDCARD, I still get audio because Linux has decided
>> to transfer all of my audio over the IDE bus instead of using the
>> $2.00 cable.
>
>This has nothing to do with Linux. NOTHING, it is a player issue. If you
>want to use the cable, you can find the setting that disables this
>behavior.
>
>I am running redHat Linux, and when I unplus the audio cable from the
>back of my system, the music stops.
>
>It is, once again, an application issue.
>
>>
>> 5. No setting change in the mixers or players changes this.
>>
>> So how do I change it because it grinds my system to a crawl?
>>
>> It's easy under Win2k by checking the "use digital audio" option for
>> the CDROM, which is DIFFERENT than using the digital audio cable. It
>> really should say "use digital audio extraction" for this device,
>> meaning use the IDE channel NOT the $2.00 berg cable.
>>
>> Get it NOW?
>
>I always got it. Read below, carefully:
>
>>
>> >If your problem is the digitization of IDE datapath, similar to the way
>> >a ripper works, disable this in the player.
>> >
>> >Again, this has nothing to do with Linux, it is an app issue. If you
>> >make the IOCTL call under Linux, or DeviceIoControl under Windows to
>> >start the CD player playing, it plays. You then use the sound card to
>> >drive the speakers.
>> >
>> >Many CD player applications (these days) on the PC do not do this
>> >because the IDE hardware design does not allow extensive monitoring, so
>> >they decide to treat the data stream from an audio CD as digital media,
>> >similar to how they play MP3s.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:18:56 +0100
In article <pxZ76.759$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ah... so the falacy comes to light.
>
> ReiserFS itself isn't shipping. It's still in beta, and it's
> still not stable.
>
> Suse, however, has been including the beta version in its
> distributions for people to mess with, but it's, in no way,
> the default FS because, of course, it's not stable.
>
> Why don't you just tell the truth, J Sloan?
He is telling the truth. SuSE have been including reiserfs with
several distributions. They have contributed extensively with
reiserfs devolpment. They have used reiserfs on their own servers
for a long time. SuSE support many companies using their OS,
visit www.suse.de to find out, and it was because of this they
spent a lot of resources helping reiserfs development as their
customers wanted it. Now why don't you just play with your toy
OS and stop posting crap all the time Chad Myers?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:21:57 +0100
In article <Cs286.1140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Perhaps your time would be better spent finding cases in which
>> ReiserFS fell over in the last 9 months (if you can).
>
> Why isn't it the default OS on all distributions if it is
> so much superior to ext2fs, and it's stable, as you claim?
Why don't you look up the kernel mailing lists archives and find out
why reiserfs isn't part of 2.4.0? It has nothing to do with the
stability of reiserfs. Come back when you can answer the question.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:32:11 +0100
In article <z1E76.28046$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> It's more of a DoS than a security issue. Was security compromised? Were
> non-priveleged users able to obtain a privleged state in the system? No.
> It just crashed and rebooted. Yes, annoying, and yes an issue, but not
> like glaring security holes and root exploits ever-present in Linux.
Microsoft hit the tun for security bugs in 2000. The worst application
was IIS. Now they are putting some of it in the kernel. Fun times
ahead I think. Of course no one in their right mind uses Windows / IIS
for mission critical / e-commerce applications so only the foolish
will suffer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:36:45 GMT
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:22:52 GMT, "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
><snip ramblings>
>Here, sir, is a simple solution to all of your linux woes:
>Don't use linux.
>Now wasn't that hard?
And the solution to yours:
If the heat is too hot in advocacy groups find something you can deal
with.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:34:33 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93tm8m$3p5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > When I run Windows 2k I don't have applications trapping and dying all
> > over the place like I do when running Gnome.
>
> You dont have that happening, because you dont run linux, let alone gnome.
Sure he doesen't.... He just has a valid point without ever using the
product.
> > I have Gnome "timebomb icons" all over the place. What kind of garbage
> > is that?
>
> Thats you not reading the instructions claire, for a hunk of software
> that youve never even seen.
Your going to denial yourself into a hole.
> > How about help systems that aren't there?
>
> Theyre all there, and youd know it if youd ever actually used gnome.
GNOME's help system needs a lot of work before anyone can call it
comprehensive.
> > Come on already, kde and Gnome have been out worked on for years.
> > Can't they come up with a decent help system?
>
> You wouldnt know, having never seen it.
"Linux doesn't suck for ME, so YOU must be lying". This just about sums up
your reply in a single sentance.
> I now believe that you dont have the brains to install any sort of
> linux at all. You therefore must be lying about all of your expiercience
> and thus, have nothing to say at all.
No, LINUX IS PERFECT!!! YOU'RE LYING!!! IT'S ALL YOU!!!
Did I already suggest denial, let me suggest it again.
Your in denial.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
