Linux-Advocacy Digest #794, Volume #31 Sun, 28 Jan 01 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Kevin Ford)
Re: C2 (Kevin Ford)
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push. (Kevin Ford)
Re: Kernel upgrade - not bad at all ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT (Marty)
Re: GODDAMNED STINKING PIECE OF SHIT THOLEN ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you guys suck and so does your os! (Michael Vester)
Re: How long does your box run for? (Donn Miller)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft is fired. ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (J Sloan)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ) (Bob
Hauck)
Re: help: partition resizing... (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:43:48 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:ERKc6.99$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:02:04 GMT, Chad Myers
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> When we install the 2.4.x kernal and associated libraries to enable
>> > >> >2Gb file support, we do *not* have to reformat any disk partitions
>> > >> to make the change effective.
>> >
>> > > What about the applications? Don't most of them have to be rewritten
>> > > to support the new method?
>> >
>> > No, they just have to be _recompiled_, nor _rewritten_. If you knew
>> > anything at all about computers or software, you would understand why.
>>
>> No, they have to be rewritten to use off_t and lseek, rather than fseek or
>> ftell. If the application was originally written to use lseek, then it's
>> possible to recompile, but few developers actually do that.
>
>One example that we always use (you know, since they claim that Linux is
>enterprise-ready) is Oracle on Linux. You can't recompile Oracle, so you'll
>just have to wait until the next version, and maybe, just maybe, Oracle
>will be nice and include its support for the >2GB files, but maybe not.
>I'm sure there are a dozen or so other applications that will have this problem.
>
>That's just the little piece that they never tell you when they say, "Linux
>supports >2GB files! You're an idiot for saying any less!".
>
www.scyld.com you fuckwit
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:47:38 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3a73729a$0$11937$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > >I believe NT is certified on several different hardware platforms,
>> > >all of which are available to the average joe (mainly through
>> > >Compaq). One could buy similar hardware to the boxes tested and,
>> > >while not technically C2, you could obtain the level of security
>> > >tested in the C2 certification because, as I stated before,
>> > >the OS is the main focus of the certification.
>> > >
>> > >-Chad
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > And as WE stated before. It's software and hardware.
>> >
>> > And now you finally admit it.
>> >
>> > That's a good boy.
>> >
>>
>> Charlie - C2 applies to the OS - only. Period.
>
>Well, Charlie's assertion earlier was that the OS had nothing
>to do with it, and that NT wasn't C2 certified, the hardware
>was.
>
>I never denied that hardware was a part, but a very
>insignificant part of it, contrary to what Charlie would have
>you believe. Of course, we all know now that Charlie was just
>FUD'ing to try to obscure the fact that NT has a much more
>trusted and industry accepted security model than Linux's
>cheesy permission bits scheme. Maybe they'll learn and put
>an pervasive DAC implementation in Linux and call it Trusted
>Linux or something, but that seems unlikely. They seem to be
>content in arguing that permission bits is somehow more secure
>or as secure than DAC. Oh well, let them keep their head in
>the sand.
>
NT4 got C2 in the UK; but not internationally.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:21:30 GMT
Edward Rosten writes:
> AAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
>
> Its going to be another Tholen vs. Malloy thread.
On what basis do you make that claim? I suggest you pay more
attention; I haven't responded to Malloy for several months.
> Why don't you start up a group:
>
> comp.tholen.vs.malloy
>
> And argue away on that?
Why would I want to do that?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:51:39 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mlw once wrote:
>Chris Clement wrote:
>> W2K is much more stable in an GUI environment.
>
>lol, you can say that, you can believe that, but that does not make it true.
>120 day MTTF proves that this statement is false.
>
The whole o/s crashes when one windows app crashes.
Linux just kills the offending app and carries on. This is what o/s's are
meant to do.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Kernel upgrade - not bad at all
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:23:21 GMT
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:43:16 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Of course this bozo can't get anything to work in Linux -
>
>It's against his religion!
Why should I have to "Get anything to work" under Linux?
I don't have to "Get anything to work" under Windows, my USB devices
just work.
Plug them in and they work.
I don't have to "Get anything to work" with my iMac.
I just plug my USB devices in and they work.
It's quite simple with Windows and Mac.
Same devices and 2 different platforms and they work fine.
Why don't the exact same devices work under Linsux?
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:25:43 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> You've been hiding in academia ever since you left mom and dad's house.
> Why is that?
You're presupposing that he's left "mom and dad's house".
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GODDAMNED STINKING PIECE OF SHIT THOLEN
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:28:54 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>> 12 years of YOUR GODDAMNED POLLUTION ON USENET.
>>>> Liar.
>>> Are you contesting 12 years, or the assessment that you
>>> contribute nothing to USENET other than an ENDLESS STREAM OF
>>> the most GODAWFUL POLLUTION IN EVERY NEWSGROUP YOU INFEST.
>> Both.
> BzzzzzzzzzT! Wrong.
Classic pontification.
> Try again, retard.
Unnecessary. You're the one who needs to substantiate your
claims, Kulkis.
>>>>> JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP AND JUMP IN THE GODDAMNED VOLCANO, YOU MISERABLE
>>>>> SHIT SACK.
>>>> Practice what preach, Kulkis.
>>> THIS IS ABOUT *YOU*, THOLEN
>> My response is about you, Kulkis.
> The discussion is not about me, it's about YOU tholen.
My response is about you, Kulkis.
> Stay on subject, if you can, retard.
How ironic, coming from the person who didn't even bother to stay
on the subject that I was discussing previously (intuitive design),
choosing instead to respond with invective.
>>>>> YOU ARE A GODDAMNED WASTE OF SKIN.
>>>> How ironic.
>>> YOU'RE AND OXYGEN THIEF, TOO.
>> Classic ineffective invective. Not unexpected from someone who
>> lacks a logical argument.
> No...merely a display of my utter contempt for you.
Nice attempt at a coverup for the fact that you lack a logical
argument.
>>>>> Tholen, ***YOU***, personally, are 100% crap.
>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> Tholen admits that he's so goddamned stupid that he can't figure
>>>>> it out himself.
>>>> Liar.
>>> THEN PROVIDE CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT YOU CAN, IN FACT,
>>> FIGURE OUT HOW TO JUMP INTO A VOLCANO YOURSELF WITHOUT
>>> HAVING TO RESORT TO THE LOW-IQ "MONKEE SEE--MONKEY DO"
>> Unnecessary, Kulkis.
> Then why do you need a demonstrator,
Think about it, Kulkis. Maybe it will occur to you.
> monkey-boy?
Classic ineffective invective. More evidence that you lack a
logical argument.
>>> Then provide us with conclusive proof that you can, in fact,
>>> figure out how to jump into Muana Loa, or any other active
>>> volcano of your choosing, WITHOUT needing to resot to the
>>> low-IQ "MONKEE SEE--MONKEE DO" method of instruction.
>> Unnecessary, Kulkis.
> Prove it.
Unnecessary, Kulkis.
>>> Tholen, I'll bet you can't even picture in your mind what it would
>>> be like to travel up to the peak, walk up to the precipice, and take
>>> the plunge.
>> You lose the bet, Kulkis.
> Prove it.
Unnecessary, Kulkis.
>>> No...because to even imagine such a thing would require a modicum
>>> of intelligence...something which you are severely lacking.
>> Prove it, if you think you can, Kulkis.
> Your posting history speaks for itself.
Yes it does, Kulkis. So does yours. Mine involves logical arguments,
and yours involves invective.
>>> In the mean time, do the world a fucking favor, Tholen
>> I'm trying to do just that right now, Kulkis, but you won't pay
>> attention.
> Then follow through and go become one with Muana Loa.
What is "Muana Loa", Kulkis?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:29:51 GMT
Charlie Ebert writes:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>> mlw wrote:
>>>> I am having a bit of difficulty relating this thread to anything
>>>> having to do with Linux advocacy.
>>> Regard it as a pollution control technique.
>> Impossible, considering how much pollution you're depositing.
>>> I'm hoping to convince the walking toxic waste dump to remove himself
>>> from the human gene pool.
>> Talking to yourself, Kulkis?
> I think we've found a volunteer to test NASA's new space re-entry suit.
Who is it?
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: you guys suck and so does your os!
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:15:25 -0700
Christian Beaumont wrote:
>
> Reading this newsgroup it is quite clear that in general the *advocates* of
> Linux attitde to criticism is childish and your OS still has faults compared
> to others even if in some areas it is superior.
I think it more of frustration. Non technical management type
make decisions based on an aggressive Microsoft marketing
campaign. Microsoft has targeted middle management that have
signing authority but no technical knowledge. The biggest
marketing strategy is the famous TCO, Total Cost of Ownership.
Superficially, Microsoft does look like it can save money
until you factor in TCC (Total Cost of Crashing) and TCSTSTW
(Total Cost of Switching To Something That Works).
Anybody that has worked in the field for awhile, I am starting
my 16th year, has seen the entire Microsoft marketing blitz.
They always promise that this new version is so much better
than the last one. All the outstanding issues have been
addressed in the new version. After hearing it so many times,
I just ignore it.
>
> The fact is no piece of software is software is perfect and the truth is
> both Linux and Microsoft *want* to make a good os that is useful to
> everyone. The other truth is that for some reason people keep buying
> Microsoft products and it makes you wake up in cold sweats every night
> doesn't it?
>
Microsoft wants to make money. They only say they want to make
good software. I certainly do not wake up in the middle of the
night in a cold sweat. It is hardly an issue that demands
worry. People do all kinds of irrational things. I can only
control myself and show by example a better way.
I can carry on with my little Linux network with no regard to
what Microsoft is doing. My Linux skills were instrumental in
landing my latest contract in which I am developing dynamic
web applications on Solaris. I make a lot more money than the
MCSE drones that re-install applications or replace printer
cartridges. I am confident that my skills will still be
applicable 10 years from now. My 2 year experience with Linux
has changed my life. I can confidently work on any Unix system
as an application developer. Still learning the many details
of being an Unix admin but I like writing apps more. Not bad
for a refugee from the Dos/Windows world.
> So can you take some criticism, can you really take it when I say Linux
> sucks even though I don't qualify my statement?
>
So does Windows. Without qualification, the statement is
meaningless.
> I don't think you can. I believe you as "advocates" for linux will come
> back and flame me and probably use crude, bad language. Realistically I
> have little faith that you can ever bite your tongues for long.
> Unfortunately this is one of the places where you, the so-called figureheads
> of the linux community will seemingly always fall foul of reaching out to
> all of society. This is because apparently there are still many areas of
> contact with the general public within your movement that fronted by fascist
> bigots incapable of objective self criticism and rational thought.
> Seemingly this is in contrast to the major software developers of your
> movement who I truly believe have a solid grasp of the concrete tasks
> necessary to make Linux a true competitor to W2K and beyond.
>
Linux has being criticized by far more "qualified" people than
you. Criticism is a good thing if it reveals a deficiency that
should be dealt with. The infamous ++++flatfish (or whatever
they are calling themselves today) actually do some good. It
shows how setting up a Linux system looks to a complete idiot.
If Linux is to take the desktop, input from ++++flatfish is
important. So a word to everyone out there, "Please be a bit
nicer to ++++flatfish." (S)he is helping more than hurting the
cause.
> What say you - eh, you whining idiots, can you suck it up and take it in the
> ass? How about I make a speling mistake?
>
Hopefully, you can use a spelling checker. You do know that
Outlook Express has one? I know how to read and write so I
never use one except in resumes. In Canada, we have an
excellent primary education system. Most of us, from my
generation, can read and write when we graduate high school. I
can't speak for the nose pierced, purple haired generation
graduating now.
> By the way, the other question for you, reading my mail - do you think I am
> pro Linux or against?
Probably just a common troller with no real interest in the
subject. Just likes to stir up some trouble. I have seen your
kind many times before. Knock yourself out and troll away.
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to
vote" Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
> -chris
>
> -----= 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! =-----
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:34:06 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How long does your box run for?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have to switch off. My box is in my bedroom, and I can't sleep with
> it on.
> (Damn rented accommodation)
Actually, I'm just the opposite - I love the soothing sound of the power
supply and the CPU fan combining with a gentle HD whir. My HD's are
relatively quite. Makes for great sleeping with a fan in the room
blowing + the stereo on.
====== 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: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:38:32 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Actually, working with Linux gives me a view of where
> > microsoft is trying to take windows. For instance, I noticed
> > that with windows 2000 they have finally begin to take some
> > baby steps towards becoming a wee bit more like Unix.
>
> It seems Linux is trying too.
I see you are confused, let's start over:
Microsoft, having built a fortune on the "C:" prompt while
bundling a single user OS on just about every x86 box
sold for a number of years, is finally taking some baby steps
towards being a wee bit more like Unix.
Things Unix users have enjoyed, nay, have taken for
granted for years, microsoft is now announcing as the
latest "innovations" in windows -
For instance, not having to reboot any time a network
setting is changed, having things like filesystem quotas,
or filesystem links.
Of couse Unix systems (e.g. Linux) have had all these
things and more for years. So, could you explain what
you mean when you say that Unix is trying too?
>
> > Is it true that windows 2000 finally has filesystem quotas?
>
> Yes. Although there have been 3rd party quota implementations
> on NT4 for years.
Unsupported shareware, or extra cost add-ons?
> > How about filesystem links, I understand that microsoft
> > has finally taken a crack at that as well.
>
> NTFS has had hard links since NT4 was released. Win2K adds
> reparse points which are symlinks for directories.
So, you're saying that windows 2000 has finally gotten
a few of the basic Unix type facilites added.
>
> Also, because of this, hard disks can be mounted as directories
> in the directory path of another hard disk. In example, the
> F: can now be mounted as C:\BigDrive instead of F:\.
No explanation neccessary - any Unix savvy person knows
all about hard and soft links, except that Unix doesn't have
the silly pc drive letter thing.
> Catchup to what? See TPC.org, it's the Unix vendors who are
> playing catchup.
I think you're getting too excited over the results you can get
with recent x86 class hardware. Just wait til you see what results
can be achieved with non microsoft OSes on the same hardware.
>
> <SNIP quoting specweb in which Linux did marginally better than
> Win2K (3% IIRC)>
Actually you have the scenario all wrong.
Linux smoked windows 2000 - at least double the performance.
Then after several months of effort, microsoft pulled out all the
stops and ran with their "benchmark buster" solution, with faster
hardware than the Linux submission, and going over the top by
putting a special web cache in front of their web server. Even
with all those advantages, the best they could do is to come close
to the stock Linux benchmark.
> "proven Linux solutions" ROFL. You mean the one with the crappy
> DOS-like filesystem and the rediculous kindergarten security
> model and the home-grown enterprise application solutions? ROFL
Your ignorance is showing again. A few paragraphs above, you
admitted that windows 2000 has finally taken a first crack at
adding some of the filesystem features that Linux has had for
years, then you say that Linux has a dos-like filesystem?
Listen to yourself.
jjs
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:39:19 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>> THOLEN!
>>>> KULKIS!
>>>>> 1) Get off your retarded ass...
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I have a "retarded ass" to get
>>>> off of, Kulkis.
>>> You're sitting on it, retard.
>> Still making the same erroneous presupposition, even after I called
>> your attention to it.
Note: no response.
>>> Thank you for demonstrating that, in fact, you ARE A retarded piece of
>>> shit.
>> How ironic, coming from the person who is still making the same
>> erroneous presupposition, even after having had his attention
>> called to it.
> Your failure to recognize truth doesn't constitute error on my part.
Your failure to substantiate what you call "truth" does constitute
error on your part.
>>>>> 2) Take your maggot-infested brain to the rim of Muana Loa
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I have a "maggot-infested brain",
>>>> Kulkis.
>>> Hey, Tholen...here's a fucking clue...when someone offers you an
>>> excuse for your stupidity...TAKE IT.
>> Yet another erroneous presupposition involving my alleged stupidity.
> Your failure to recognize truth doesn't constitute error on my part.
Your failure to substantiate what you call "truth" does constitute
error on your part.
>>> Since you deny having a maggot-infested brain, then I can only conclude
>>> that you're stupidity is an inborn trait, rather than the result of
>>> an unfortunate insect infestation.
>> Still making the same erroneous presupposition.
> Your failure to recognize truth doesn't constitute error on my part.
Your failure to substantiate what you call "truth" does constitute
error on your part.
>>>>> 3) JUMP IN THE GODDAMNED VOLCANO, ASSHOLE.
>>>> Practice what you preach, Kulkis.
>>> You're stupid shitsack
>>> I'm not
>> I'm not the one relying on foul language.
> Just demonstrating my utter CONTEMPT for you,
Demonstrating that you don't have a logical argument to offer.
> shit-head.
Classic ineffective invective, as expected from someone who lacks a
logical argument.
>>> You are an utterly worthless piece of shit
>>> I'm not
>> I'm not the one relying on invective.
> Just demonstrating my utter CONTEMPT for you,
Demonstrating that you don't have a logical argument to offer.
> shit-head.
Classic ineffective invective, as expected from someone who lacks a
logical argument.
>>> You can't hack it in the private sector,
>> Prove it, if you think you can, Kulkis.
> You've been hiding in academia ever since you left mom and dad's
> house.
Prove it, if you think you can, Kulkis. A second unsubstantiated claim
does not substantiate the first unsubstantiated claim, Kulkis. More
evidence of your illogic and your lack of a logical argument.
> Why is that?
You're presupposing that I've been hiding in academia, Kulkis.
>>> so you hide in academia.
>> Who is allegedly hiding, Kulkis?
> You are, Mr @AntiSpam.ham.
On what basis do you make that claim?
>>> I don't.
>> You just change jobs every couple of years. I can understand why.
> More often than that...Because people keep luring me away with higher
> and higher salaries which I would foolish to ignore.
Wouldn't happen to be anything else, would it?
>>> Your writings are not only tiresome, but utterly annoying to all who
>>> have the misfortune to come across them
>> Prove it, if you think you can, Kulkis.
> So, Tholen disagrees that Tholen's writings are tiresome and utterly
> annoying. Alert the media.
I see that you didn't even attempt to substantiate your claim. No
surprise there.
>>> Mine aren't.
>> On what basis do you make that claim? I've seen plenty of people
>> complain about your tiresome sig.
> Clue for the clueless...a .sig is NOT the body of a message.
> Hope that helps
Irrelevant, given that I never claimed that a sig is the body of a
message, Kulkis. Doesn't change the fact that many people find it
tiresome, yet you persist with it.
>>> Hope that helps.
>> It helps me identify more of your lies, Kulkis.
> What lies would these be, shit-for-brains?
See above. In case you can't manage that simple task:
"You can't hack it in the private sector,"
"You've been hiding in academia ever since you left mom
and dad's house."
"Your writings are not only tiresome, but utterly annoying
to all who have the misfortune to come across them"
>>>>> 4) RIGHT NOW! OXYGEN THIEF!
>>>> After you.
>>> What's wrong...too stupid to figure it how to accomplish the simple
>>> task without using the "Monkey See--Monkey Do" method.???
>> Not at all; I have something else in mind.
> Namely, shit.
Not at all, Kulkis.
> You should have a doctor remove that...or something.
Another erroneous presupposition on your part, Kulkis.
>>> No wonder you're scared shitless of leaving academia.
>> Prove it, if you think you can, Kulkis.
> You deny that you haven't spent the last decade hiding at your
> university in Hawaii?
Yes I do deny it, Kulkis.
>>> Goddamned miseserable shit for brains.
>> Typical invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
>> argument.
> No...merely justifiable contempt for a miserable shit-head like you.
Typical invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: 28 Jan 2001 21:40:09 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> > > Don't you think the hackers would be gloating over their finds if they
: did?
:> >
:> > What, and blow their cover?
:> >
:> > No, when they find holes in the fence, they don't
:> > really want them closed, unless they're "white hat"
:> > types.
:>
:> Simply AMAZING how many Windows viruses out there take advantage
:> of undocumented behavior of Windows code.
: Name one. Just one.
I was never aware that the extension .SHS was always hidden by the OS
even if you told it never to hide file extensions.
Where exactly is that behavior documented, and was it documented prior
to ILOVEYOU?
Joe
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:44:12 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> The obvious question is, why isn't Linux on the TPC?
Because no distributions have shipped with the 2.4 kernel yet?
> Surely,
> if it was the best, IBM would be looking for any reason to
> oust MS from #1-#4 on the tpc.
Excellent point - If that's the case, it's just a matter of time.
> The answer is, Linux isn't
> anywhere near ready.
You just admitted that Linux smoked windows 2000, as
well as AIX and all others, in specweb 99 results.
How does that translate to "not ready"?
> Likewise, there's no high-caliber database for Linux.
Oracle, DB2, Sybase, Informix, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.
IOW, every database that matters, has a Linux version.
> There's
> Oracle, but from what I've heard, it doesn't perform anywhere
> near the way it does on Win2K and Solaris.
Well, you've heard wrong then.
> What about a transaction processor? Is there any enterprise-class
> transaction processor for Linux?
OK, Chad, since you are the acknowledged expert here,
please explain for us newbies what a transaction processor
does, and why you think Linux could not run such an app.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:45:17 GMT
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:18:19 GMT, Raymond Patitucci
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didnt write anything in this post originally, but I would like to
>explain why Linux is unfeasable as a workstation platform. There are no
>good wordprocessing, spreadsheet or database programs for linux.
You are vary much mistaken.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: help: partition resizing...
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:46:11 GMT
On 27 Jan 2001 20:42:05 GMT, Aleksandar V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I apologize in advance to those who consider my question
>off-topic;
comp.os.linux.{misc,setup} would be more appropriate than advocacy.
>I need some more space for Linux - and I'd like to keep my current
>partitions without deleting them. I just want to shrink Windows
>FAT32 partition and expand my ext2 file system...
Try Partition Magic to shrink the FAT32. Then create a new ext2 and
mount it someplace.
>(The reason for this is just that I want to try out StarOffice,
>and I'm short of space on my ext2fs.)
Why not just mount the FAT32 and install StarOffice there?
--
-| 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
******************************
