Linux-Advocacy Digest #578, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 15:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (aflinsch)
Re: Linux Mandrake in VMware in Windows 2000 - HELP!
Re: Benchmark tests - who cares? (Steve Mading)
Re: I just can't help it! (Donn Miller)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Cliff Wagner)
Re: Poor Linux
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Re: Why Hatred?
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Poor Linux (.)
Re: Poor Linux (.)
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Poor Linux
Re: Poor Linux (.)
Re: Poor Linux (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:39:26 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:45:53 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> Nope. It's not there.
>
>What's not there? The TCP/IP definitions? They're all there. What are
>you talking about?
>
>
>> It's accessed through Control Panel->System->Network Identification
>>
> ->Properties.
>
>Yes, and they're all together. What are you talking about?
>
>
>> The control panel that has been in Redhat since 4.0 or earlier.
>
>I'm using Linux Mandrake 7.2. Besides, what applies to Redhat doesn't
>apply to anything else, like SuSe or Debian etc. (unless they all use
>the same tool?)
>
>>
>No, I've just actually RUN Windows 2000 and don't just ramble
>> on about it cluelessly. You're not just ingorant about the OS
>> you bash but about the one's you promote.
>
>From reading what you've just said, you've just agreed with my
>statement. So what on earth are you on about?
>
>> Advanced TCP/IP Settings Has
>> IP Settings - IP number list
>>
> Gateway List
>>
>> DNS - Nameserver list
>> Resolver configuration
>>
>> WINS - nameserver list
>> SMB host file configuration
>> netbios routing
>>
>> Options, IP Security - Toggle for IPSEC
>>
> Several Policy choices
>> Options, TCP/IP Filtering - port lists for udp/tcp
>>
> protocol list for IP
>
>Like I said, they're all together.
Give it up clueless.
There is nothing there to set your domain name or your hostname.
[deletia]
It's quite pathetic when Linux Zealots have more current
Windows experience than the local WinTrolls...
Mebbe we should advertise for better quality whipping boys...
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:29:47 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Finally a call to support and after the initial script jockey couldn't
> solve the bug I was switched to a "Win2k Specialist". Yea right, was
> my initial thought. Well this lady knew her stuff down cold and fixed
> the bug in about 3 minutes. It was my swap file which was screwed up.
>
Probably fixed it in 3 minutes because she had seen the same problem
before.
Just curious, but why would a screwed up swap file prevent printing?
hmmmm, it must be a windows thing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake in VMware in Windows 2000 - HELP!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:45:25 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:12:14 GMT, rnwalker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well now, if this newsgroup the biggest waste of intellect I've seen in some
>time. Aaron, are you sure you aren't depriving some small village in
>Scotland of their idiot?
Hehe.
I know a Scott that has a t-shirt like that...
"Your village called. Their idiot is missing."
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> rnwalker wrote:
[deletia]
OTOH, if one is running a completely virtual PC, one should
not expect to use drivers for one's bare hardware inside of
that emulator. Furthermore, I can't imagine VMWARE creating
a virtual machine that is quite visibly advertised as being
targeted at running Linux AND would not be a no-brainer
install.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Date: 19 Jan 2001 18:40:49 GMT
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip post with a good point - a few percent difference won't
sway anyone either way, espeicially since benchmarks don't
necessarily reflect the kind of usage *you* will be doing.]
I think another thing that benchmarks don't properly show
is what happens when the machine is doing more than one thing
at a time. It's one thing to show that a machine can perform
a single task fast, but something else entirely to show that
when you add a few other tasks into the picture it doesn't
change the result much. *This* is why I prefer Unixes to
Windows. It has nothing to do with the performance of a
single application, but the average performance of all the apps
added together on the machine. Unix is really good at doing
lots of unrelated I/O intensive tasks on the same machine.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:51:20 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Donn Miller wrote:
> > Really? Hmmm. It would depend on what energy saving mode the monitor
> > was placed. For example, there's standby, suspend, and off.
>
> And the difference between "standby" and "suspend" is ????
I get a "NULL pointer exception" when I try to process that one.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 19 Jan 2001 19:00:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:46:37 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly unscientific
>> > misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is counted
>> > as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
>>
>> Websites are websites, and should be counted as such.
>
>Right. 500 "My Cat Fluffy" websites vs 500 e-Commerce Fortune 500
>company web sites means the same thing.
Please provide proof of this statement.
>From my experience, most "My Cat Fluffy" sites are hosted
on places like geocities and homestead and places
like that because people generally don't want to
pay money to host something so inane.
Having worked at an ISP before, I can say that there
are more then a few virtual sites on large boxes that
are typical small AND mid sized business. Given,
most large businesses go with dedicated machines,
however, this isn't always the case. Also, what's
worth considering is the number of the eCommerce Fortune
500 systems that are using server farms to handle the
load. I suppose if each of those were counted, that
would help the MS count ;)
>Well, if you look at it, IIS has the lead (or iPlanet according
>to some lists) in the business sector which gets much more traffic
>than the "My Cat Fluffy" web sites which Apache seems to have the
>stronghold in.
Please back up your claim for the number of "My Cat Fluffy" sites
other then your say so. Small and medium size businesses are
still business sites. And please, give a reputable source
of information on this.
>> The crux of your complaint is this:
>>
>> Many windows pc servers are combined to power a single
>> website, while a single Unix server is capable of powering
>> many websites
>
>Many low-traffic low-visit web sites. IIS can do this to, but
>it's typically not used for that because you're wasting a lot
>of power of IIS by using it on these low-traffic web sites.
>
>However, Apache is perfect for this.
Please provide further information about IIS hosting
thousands of sites on a single machine. While it might
be a "waste" of IIS power, however, I'm sure it would
be in a hosting facility's best interests to do this,
since people would gladly pay a decent monthly fee
to do this. By stating that IIS can host "many" (we'll
set a nice low minimum of 300 virtual hosts), please
provide some information on where this is being done.
I look forward to hearing some further statistics on
this from you, as I'm genuiunely curious on this.
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:03:26 -0000
On 19 Jan 2001 16:24:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:21:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>> Ebert) wrote:
>
>
>>>It is fully supported under Linux.
>>>See their web site.
>
>> I can see how much support Creative has for Linux.
>> Linux isn't even listed in the operating systems box when you try to
>> download drivers.
>
>> http://www.soundblaster.com/drivers/
>
>> So where did they hide them?
>
>> Oh, now I see it:
>
>> "The driver section here only contains drivers for our Sound Blaster
>> line of audio cards. If you are looking for drivers for our other
>> products, e.g. graphics cards, please visit the driver section"
>
>> Gee I thought the Live was an Audio card?
>> Funny they even have drivers listed for OS/2.
>
>> Golly gee, I just found them, buried in the Beta driver section with a
>> date of 4/30/99.
>
>>
>http://www.creative.com/support/files/download.asp?prod=sblive&OS=Beta®=0&select=Get+Files
>
>> I can see how committed Creative is to Linux... :(
>
>> Ha! Ha!
>
>Yes indeed claire, your logic sure does hold up:
>
>Creative does a half assed job on their drivers and then hides them in
There's specs for the 10K and there's source for the 10K.
There's really not much else anyone needs. Whining that the
end users did all of the work isn't really meaningful.
>some obscure part of their site, then they release the source so that
opensource...
Obscure eh?
Are you on CRACK?
That's gotta be the second most well known "buzzword" when
it comes to Linux. It might not exactly be your first choice
of where to look but the name does make a remarkable amount
of sense.
>people who actually know what theyre doing can fix everything and its
>all LINUX's fault.
>
>Thats some fascinating logic youve got there.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:08:59 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:00:02 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>I said:
>
>> >> >I never said "Linux sucks". I did say "Linux lags behind Windows
>> >> >(desktop)".
>
>To which you replied:
>
>> >> You don't even know what that is.
>
>What are you talking about here?
>
>You then go onto say:
>
>> >> You're just an ignorant liar.
>
>I've never said "Linux sucks". I may have said it in response to
That doesn't matter.
You still lie about linux. You can't get the details about
NT5 right either. You're simply clueless and making
disparaging remarks while falsely representing that you
actually have a clue.
[deletia]
You lie about stupid little details that are trivial to verify
(like whether or not knode supports message filtering).
You just aren't a liar, but you're a BAD liar.
You're not just dishonest, but incompetent at it.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:12:02 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:02:24 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >>I shall ignore you from now on. Of course, I'd killfile you, but KNode
>> >>doesn't have that feature.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=knode
>> http://knode.sourceforge.net/
>> http://knode.sourceforge.net/docu.php
>> http://knode.sourceforge.net/doc_en_0.3.2_online/index.html
>>
>>
>http://knode.sourceforge.net/doc_en_0.3.2_online/using-knode.html#KNODE-FILTER-SETTINGS
>>
>> >
>> > You're probably wrong about that too.
>>
>> ...and I wasn't disappointed.
>
>And you're right.
>
>There isn't a killfile in KNode. There doesn't need to be - there's a
>filter instead.
[deletia]
It's the same thing you clueless slandering twit.
slrn has a character cell 'wizard' triggered by a certain
keypress, knode has a graphical dialog box triggered by a
pulldown menu. Both manipulate a list that is not exposed
to the end user that controls the pre-emptive removal of
unwanted content.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:16:58 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:33:04 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >No "issues" eh?
>> > >
>> > >Let's take file sharing. Setting up your system to share with someone
>> else
>> > >(outside of ftp and such). If that's a Windows machine, you use Samba,
>> and
>> > >configuring this isn't too bad, but way out of reach of the average user
>> of
>> > >today. God forbid they should want to change what they share.
>> >
>> > Since when is pointing and clicking on menus outside of the
>> > reach of today's users?
>>
>> Have you actually tried to setup and configure nfs or samba through those
>> interfaces?
Yup. It's quite easy. It doesn't drag you through the file
system like the Windows scheme does, but thre is no
difficulty in manipulating the smb options or creating new
shares.
>
>Actually yes, I introduced a marketing manager to samba
>and he therafter adminstered the "shares" for his department
>through a webmin interface -
>
>If a marketing guy can handle it, you mean to tell me that
>a computer "stud" like yourself can't cope?
>
>> They're not much better than configuring the files manually.
smb.conf is quite well configured.
If your random PHB did well on his SAT's he should be able to
manage. Just cut & paste an example that should be easily
recognizable as like what you want to do and match up the
patterns found in the example to the various parameters you
would like to tweak.
>
>Really? "click to add a new share".
>
>Hmm, rocket science?
>
>> There is virtually no help and there are a number of parameters that most
>> users wouldn't even have a clue about.
>
>There is indeed help, and the defaults are sensible, so one
>really doesn't need to change a parameter if one doesn't
>know what it does...
I think SWAT has a working help button for just about every
widget/parameter that you can manipulate with the interface.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:20:56 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:33:00 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> ...perhaps even Datacenter.
>>
>
>Wintrolls brandish this word like a 5 year old triumphantly
>parades around his parents empty house with a loaded .357
They think they are going to get into the glass room
by renaming their product. The wintrolls love it
because it reinforces the notion that they are part
of the "in crowd".
>
>
>Clearly, the words Data and Microsoft don't mix well.
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:24:34 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> sfcybear wrote:
>
> > Oh, look. Pete shows, again, that when it comes to computers he does not
> > know what he is talking about. The first sentance of the artical say
> > that this is a worm, not a virus. It also only affects the Redhat
> > version of Linux. It would not be able to use the same methods on
> > Mandrake if it were installed with security level set at "high". Thus it
> > is a Redhat issue and not a Linux issue.
>
> A worm, a virus, either way damage is down to a system.
>
A sledgehammer does damage...
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: 19 Jan 2001 19:28:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2001 16:24:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:21:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>>> Ebert) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It is fully supported under Linux.
>>>>See their web site.
>>
>>> I can see how much support Creative has for Linux.
>>> Linux isn't even listed in the operating systems box when you try to
>>> download drivers.
>>
>>> http://www.soundblaster.com/drivers/
>>
>>> So where did they hide them?
>>
>>> Oh, now I see it:
>>
>>> "The driver section here only contains drivers for our Sound Blaster
>>> line of audio cards. If you are looking for drivers for our other
>>> products, e.g. graphics cards, please visit the driver section"
>>
>>> Gee I thought the Live was an Audio card?
>>> Funny they even have drivers listed for OS/2.
>>
>>> Golly gee, I just found them, buried in the Beta driver section with a
>>> date of 4/30/99.
>>
>>>
>http://www.creative.com/support/files/download.asp?prod=sblive&OS=Beta®=0&select=Get+Files
>>
>>> I can see how committed Creative is to Linux... :(
>>
>>> Ha! Ha!
>>
>>Yes indeed claire, your logic sure does hold up:
>>
>>Creative does a half assed job on their drivers and then hides them in
> There's specs for the 10K and there's source for the 10K.
Uhhmmm...I know.
> There's really not much else anyone needs. Whining that the
> end users did all of the work isn't really meaningful.
Uh, thats not what im doing.
>>some obscure part of their site, then they release the source so that
> opensource...
> Obscure eh?
> Are you on CRACK?
> That's gotta be the second most well known "buzzword" when
> it comes to Linux. It might not exactly be your first choice
> of where to look but the name does make a remarkable amount
> of sense.
Alright look, brainiac. I know you like looking for arguments wherever
you go, but realize that in this case IM AGREEING WITH YOU.
Christ, irony and sarcasm are simply lost on some people.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: 19 Jan 2001 19:28:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2001 16:24:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>Creative does a half assed job on their drivers and then hides them in
>>some obscure part of their site, then they release the source so that
>>people who actually know what theyre doing can fix everything and its
>>all LINUX's fault.
>>
>>Thats some fascinating logic youve got there.
> Logic?
> What logic?
Indeed.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:32:38 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:30:27 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:23:20 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:54:09 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:30:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:04:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:33:43 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You are generalizing for a random large collection of
>> >> >> >> >> individuals.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >No I am saying ANYONE who hunts around a typical Linux system and
>> >> >> >> >clicks on help will be more than likely be greeted with a message
>> >> >> >> >along the lines of "Help not Written Yet".
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> This is assinine and trivially absurd.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >It sure is considering how long kde and Gnome have been in
>> >> >> >> >development.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ...compared to what? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Compared to what Windows was like 2 years after it's
>> >> >> >> inception, GNOME is a bloody masterpiece.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That comparison makes no sense.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >GNOME uses Linux or some other Unix, that have been around for years.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However, the various GUI's haven't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, windows is its own OS, so this is a muddy area. If you just
>> >> >intend to compare GUIs, then you must compare to only the GUI.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then you could say that Windows (the GUI) in its current incarnation
>> >> >exists since about 1995. Windows 3.x was too different to consider it
>> >> >the same thing. Or you'd have to say that the linux GUIs date back to
>> >> >twm.
>> >>
>> >> The 'versions' may have changed, however the company
>> >> remained the same. To be comparable, Miguel would have
>> >> had to have been the driving force behind twm or CDE.
>> >>
>> >> Infact, someone else was.
>> >
>> >Then you might consider thinking GNOME started in the early 80s. At that
>> >time, some of the guys currently doing some important chunks of GNOME worked
>> >at Apple on MacOS.
>>
>> That's not GNOME, that's a higher level application.
>
>Then we need to define what we are comparing.
>To be exact: What's windows? What's Gnome?
Programmer services.
End user services.
>
>Because we obviously are using different definitions.
[deletia]
Mine's consistent with 20 years of Unix design
philosphy. I'm not quite sure where you're
getting your ideas from.
Nautilus is an APPLICATION. Similarly, so is winfile and explorer.
They don't provide the services that the rest of those nifty
Winapps are built on. The like of explorer are the least relevant
and most replaceable parts of the system.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:42:07 -0000
On 19 Jan 2001 19:28:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2001 16:24:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:21:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>>>> Ebert) wrote:
[deletia]
>Alright look, brainiac. I know you like looking for arguments wherever
>you go, but realize that in this case IM AGREEING WITH YOU.
>
>Christ, irony and sarcasm are simply lost on some people.
...especially in a context limiting enviroment.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: 19 Jan 2001 19:57:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2001 19:28:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On 19 Jan 2001 16:24:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:21:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>>>>> Ebert) wrote:
> [deletia]
>>Alright look, brainiac. I know you like looking for arguments wherever
>>you go, but realize that in this case IM AGREEING WITH YOU.
>>
>>Christ, irony and sarcasm are simply lost on some people.
> ...especially in a context limiting enviroment.
Ignorance is no excuse. If you really loved me, youd have known what
i meant.
I want a divorce.
=====.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:58:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Tell me how you get digital output from the SBLive via spd/if
> connectors?
For me, that just worked. The exception is line and analog CD inputs,
which aren't routed out that way by default. Just like Win98, btw.
I managed to set it up with "dm" (digital mixer, a rather byzantine
utility downloadable from Creative), but then they changed the
drivers, and I never figured out the new tool. It's no big deal for
me, I mostly play mp3's anyway.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:04:20 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's the same thing you clueless slandering twit.
And you're the first person to get on it, with language like that.
"Slandering"?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:06:41 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That doesn't matter.
I see.
The fact that I've demonstrated you are wrong doesn't matter.
OK.
Fine.
Bye bye!
> You lie about stupid little details that are trivial to verify
> (like whether or not knode supports message filtering).
I did not lie. I made a mistake.
> You just aren't a liar, but you're a BAD liar.
PAH!
> You're not just dishonest, but incompetent at it.
Look who's talking.
Anyway, you no longer matter.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
