Linux-Advocacy Digest #155, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Feb 01 18:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Peformance Test (Mike Martinet)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone? ("Vann")
Re: Answer this if you can... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Laptop and linux. Which one??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Answer this if you can... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Answer this if you can... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Laptop and linux. Which one??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Answer this if you can... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
OT: Hey ("Robin Kauffman")
Re: Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone? ("Duane Healing")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:49:31 -0700
Mike Martinet wrote:
> > You're right, I don't understand. The 'test' required setting up mail
> > servers on identical 486s using a Linux distro and (amended to) whatever
> > software necessary to get W2k running.
> >
> > It was mostly a joke - I didn't think W2k would run AT ALL on a 486.
> > You're telling me it can, but you have to use 3rd party software to
> > shoehorn it in, but at the time, you didn't install Sendmail. So you
> > didn't have a mail server. So what is your point?
> >
> > Are you telling me that you *can* configure W2k on a 486 with less than
> > 32M of RAM and it will operate as a useful mail server?
>
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Yes.
>
Mike:
> > I understand you don't have a machine to verify with, but please
> > describe in detail how this is accomplished. I'm interested now.
>
Erik:
> I already told you, I used TargetDesigner to do so, this allows the
> selection of virtually any subsystem for use. For instance, I removed the
> GUI subsystem, Security subsystem, All the various management subsystems,
> etc.. Then built a target for use in CD-ROM driven system with no hard
> drive. All it would have taken was to add Sendmail to it, and it would have
> worked fine, though I would have had to increase memory to handle the extra
> load of Sendmail (since there was no swapfile) or I could have added a hard
> drive to give it a swap file.
>
> I have no idea how it would perform, since I don't know how well sendmail on
> Windows performs.
Okay. Well, learn something new every day.
Let's take a look at our phantom-server tote-board so far. Seeing as
how we're not really testing these servers, all we can do is go by the
proponents' claims that they will, in fact, handle mail for 25 users.
(All amounts in US dollars)
/////////////////////
Sponsor: Mike Martinet
Machine: 486-50, 32M RAM, 2.5G HD, 16-bit Intel EtherExpress ISA NIC,
keyboard, 16-bit ISA VGA
Software: Redhat Linux 6.1
Price:
Machine - (Including nifty tubeaxial fan bolted to front of 8088 desktop
case) $50
Software - $39.95
Linux Total: $99.95 Takes it home!!!
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
////////////////////////
Sponsor: Erik Funkenbusch
Machine: 486-?, 16M RAM, no HD, NIC?, keyboard, mouse, VGA?
Price:
Machine - $50?
Software - Target Designer for NT, $395 (Source:Venture Com press
release, 9/1999). Windows 2000 Server 25-seat license, $3995
(Source:Microsoft.com SRP)
W2k Total: $4,440.00 - A steal!!!
Hey, Windows HAS to be better - it costs 400 times as much as the
competition!
MjM
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:48:15 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Which brings up one of my pet peeves --- how *do* you print a postscript
> file to a postscript printer under Windows? Note: Under *Windows*. Not
> under DOS.
Unless your printer understands postscript, you can't. You could use
Ghostview, I suppose.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:49:19 +0000
Donn Miller wrote:
> Maybe Linux abilities are stored in a different part of the brain than
> the part responsible for composing usenet messages. See, maybe he was
> referring to the part of the brain where Linux abilities are stored.
But in order for that part to be dead in me, I would have to have had them
in the first place, no?
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:51:58 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And you then sent the Epson's command language to a queue that expects
> Postscript. And it didn't work. Big surprise!
Then I would expect garbage, not a picture with red lines on it.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:49:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Zsolt Zsoldos"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> 5. Some of the missing packages are not even on the CDs, e.g. cvs does
> not come
> with Mandrake 7.2 Complete. It was in 7.1...
When I got Mandrake 7.2 I noticed that as well. It rather upset me. But
I no longer use it, so I'm fine.
<snip>
> On the other hand, old timer developers like me should stay away from
> it!
>
> Is this a new trend or I just picked the wrong distribution ? Anybody
> care to comment on RedHat 7.x or other distribution's newest versions
> from the developer's pont of view ? Are they also stripped down ?
If you're a developer, RedHat 7.0 will be worse! Argh! They include, by
default, a devel glibc and gcc. Since they are 'in between' official
specs, and not intended for any sort of popular use, many programs
developed for RedHat 7.0 won't work with any other version of linux.
It's insane. There are also 200MB worth of patches, or so, for RedHat
7.0. I tend to shy away from RedHat as it, more than any other distro,
tends to be riddled with bugs and security holes, too.
> Have a good day,
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:56:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com>
wrote
on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:51:14 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>John Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Now please don't get me wrong, I WANT to like Linux, I want to tell
>>everyone how good it is, that they are silly to stay with Windows,
>>that Linux is faster and better, but...
>
>Um, this starts to sound a lot like other posts I've read. "I want to like
>Linux but...".
>
>><Examples>
>
>>I want to copy a line of text from my xterm window (or browser window)
>>to another app ... forget it! EVERY Windows app can cut & paste to
>>another app, why not Linux? This is CRIMINAL!
>
>CTRL-C CTRL-V do work in certain apps.
Only if one uses it for straight insert, not replacement.
The sequence:
app1: select region
app1: control-C
app2: point cursor
app2: control-V
works fine. However, the sequence
app1: select region
app1: control-C
app2: select region
app2: control-V
does not. (Apps in X have had this problem for a long time; basically,
most apps and widget sets deidentify selected text region if the
widget or app gets a SelectionClear event, and the identification of
the selected text region is considered a request to own the selection,
which is display-wide.)
>However, the middle button copy-
>paste is the X standard, and it works.
That it does; its main problem is that it can't be used for
replacement, unlike Windows.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 7d:14h:09m actually running Linux.
The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Laptop and linux. Which one???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:01:21 GMT
Likewise
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:11:31 +0100, Karel Jansens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:12:54 +0100, Karel Jansens
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Translation: "Mommy! That big bully boy dared to disagree with me! I
>> >don't know what to say anymore! Boohoo!!"
>>
>> If you followed the thread you would realize that mlw was the first
>> one to tell people to get lost, not me.
>>
>> I'd suggest he get lost as well, but I believe he has already done
>> that already.
>>
>
>You erroneously presume I am engaging in dialogue with you while I am
>merely laughing at you.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:03:31 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Not consistant between applications. Try using a combination of menues
> and the mouse with Netscape and kedit and see what happens.
I've already said that elsewhere.
> That may very well be their (MS) downfall.
> If that turns out to be a reality, I will switch to Mac.
Which is based on FreeBSD? Is that right?
> >>Because Linux sucks.
> >
> >No it doesn't.
>
> Yea it does, and you know it because you are trying to maintain some
> credibility around here with the Linonuts.
I've never said Linux sucks. You have, several times. In any case, I'm not
maintaining any credibility, from what I can tell. I get called a Wintroll
just like you do.
> Me?
> I tell it like it is.
Well, you do seem to exaggerate a bit.
> No, it's because Linsux misconfigures itself from the start by using
> 75dpi fonts instead of 100dpi.
Well, that's not that hard to change now is it?
> And you have your computer on the net?
Yes.
> Are you crazy?
Can you guess my passwords?
Can you get past that simple gate?
> >Ah, device drivers, an Achilles Heel of Linux.
>
> I look at it as hardware/software support.
>
> Linux fails miserably, which is why I say it sucks.
Linux sucks because hardware manufactures see no profit in Linux and do
nothing to help it, is that it?
> >>Talk to SuSE.
> >>They seem to have beaten you to the punch :)
> >
> >Depends on which article you read.
>
> Talk to TurboLinux, Corel, or Penguin Computing or the next Linux
> vendor to go belly up.
>
> Maybe we should have a pool going here to pick the next one?
But SeSE haven't gone belly up have they?
> Win2k has never crashed on me and Win98SE properly set up is highly
> stable.
Microsoft themselves say it has a MTTF of nine days.
> At least they have applications to run.
True.
> Maybe if Linux had some applications to run there could be a
> meaningful comparison of stability.
Take a look around, smell the coffee. How many web servers are out there?
How many are running IIS? How many are Apache?
> >You exaggerate.
>
> I don't think so.
I think you do.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:05:34 +0000
Edward Rosten wrote:
> Not only that, but you'd have fired any of the staff in your company
> (FTSE 100, naturally) who even dared to think about Linux.
Or had been within 100yards of it. I can tell you know.
--
---
Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Laptop and linux. Which one???
Date: 12 Feb 2001 22:10:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Likewise
Nuh uh! YOU are!
Wit like bales of cotton, that claire.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: 12 Feb 2001 22:13:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Not consistant between applications. Try using a combination of menues
>> and the mouse with Netscape and kedit and see what happens.
> I've already said that elsewhere.
>> That may very well be their (MS) downfall.
>> If that turns out to be a reality, I will switch to Mac.
> Which is based on FreeBSD? Is that right?
Wrong. All other MacOSen besides MacX arent based on anything; theyre
their own form.
MacX is based on the BSD 4.4 kernel, which is also what FreeBSD is
based on. But MacX is NOT based on Freebsd.
Claire will no doubt have a terrible time understanding MacX, as it
shares all of the look and almost none of the functionality of Real
Unix.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 12 Feb 2001 22:15:02 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Ive been posting to COLA for yea unto 4 years, you pasty
>> bitch.
>>
>> YOU go away.
> You've had your proof. Now, you could be gracious about it and concede, or
> you could be a complete prick and continue as you are.
Concede what? I forgot what we were arguing about. Reminders are due.
> Which is it?
Remind me about what we were arguing about and ill tell you.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:17:01 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:44:35
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No, you're making an invalid presumption. Despite your unstated
>> premise, computer users are not entirely ignorant of reality, and don't
>> expect that every piece of software installed on a system is from the
>> same original source.
>
>That's in direct contradiction to everything else I've seen posted here
>about the majority of computer users. I see, you adjust your stance
>accordinging. Not very convincing, I must say.
Bullshit; you made it up, to support your prejudice.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:17:11 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:50:34
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Have you tried OS/2?
>
>I tried installing it once. My machine hung.
Well, it doesn't sound like your very serious about your quest for a
better OS, then. If everybody rejected anything they had a single
problem with, nobody would be using Windows.
>> That's because it became competitive before it became a product.
>> OpenVMS might have lasted longer if it had been more Open and maybe less
>> VMS.
>
>I don't think it had anything to do with being "open". After all, what
>took over wasn't open, but a closed propietary system called Windows.
No, what "took over" was a criminal monopoly. Pretending that it was
the Windows product which was responsible for that monopoly is
brain-dead.
>> If you're trying to avoid instability, is going with the cutting edge
>> everything really what you want to do?
>
>Well, XFree86 4.0.x is the only one that supports my Voodoo 5500;
>ReiserFS doesn't do a fsck on boot up (not that it took a long time);
>KDE2 is so much better than anything else - although it's got a few
>problems.
So apparently stability is not your goal, either, then. Is *anything*
you say to be trusted?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:17:16 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:53:14
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> It uses exactly the same 'model', Pete. It didn't have the same default
>> configuration, because, being a graphics program with demanding
>> requirements, it defaulted to a raw mode, which you neglected to notice
>> when you clicked on the OK button in the print dialog like a mindless
>> Windows idiot.
>
>Get it right. As a reasonable minded person, I clicked on the OK button
>expecting the application to follow the sane rules.
I "got it right". As a mindless Windows idiot, you didn't look at the
dialog you were clicking OK in, and realize that Gimp uses raw mode by
default.
>Instead, the
>application had a different assumption, and I ended up with sheets of
>ASCII.
Sounds like another Goodwin "Oopsie"!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:17:22 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:56:42
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> And did the queue have the correct configuration?
>
>Since it printed a test page with graphics, what should the answer be?
A yes or a no, depending on whether the queue had the correct
configuration for anything other than the test page. Specifically, in
this case, whether it had the correct configuration for printing in raw
mode (the default in Gimp.)
>> About what? Did I suggest it was because I advocate Linux, rather than
>> that you're a pathetic passive aggressive idiot, that we don't care?
>> Why should we care what a moron lies about?
>
>When have I lied? I've just demonstrated to someone else who called me a
>liar that I'm not. Care to demonstrate how I'm lying here? Difficult,
>since other people have found exactly what I've been pointing out.
It isn't whether its there, but how you describe it, that reveals that
what you would like to believe is the truth is actually a fabrication.
>> No, you didn't print the test page from the application. The dialog box
>> would be in the Gimp, and the answer is "no". Putz.
>
>So every application needs a test page.
No.
>How dumb. On Windows I print
>_one_ test page, and it works.
Well, the test page does, sure. It worked on Linux, too. As did
printing, if you do it correctly.
>On Linux, I need to print a test page
>once, then again for each application that doesn't quite follow the
>model. How backward can you get?
But you don't need to cross your fingers EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU PRINT, as
most users with Windows do. You have to use the correct application
settings to get the print to work correctly in every application, be it
Windows or Linux, of course.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:17:24 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Feb
2001 15:15:11 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001
>> [...]
>>>> Satisfied? Really Erik, you should think twice before challenging
>>>> someone.
>>>
>>>Not even close. All you've mentioned was the Initial boot sequence. This
>>>is what happens *AFTER* windows has started loading, not before it. Adding
>>>a dual boot would not interfere with the windows boot sequence as defined by
>>>MS.
>>
>>That a lie; the 'initial boot sequence' of Windows disables any
>>dual-boot configuration set up by the OEM, purposefully.
>>
>>>You should understand what you're quoting before you jump to conclusions on
>>>it.
>>
>>You should stop being a Microsoft sock puppet and disrupting discussions
>>about Linux with your silliness.
>>
> I noticed that he only answered after I pointed out the "approved"
> response in another post.
I thought that point was a bit too cogent for Erik to come up with on
his own. I just figured he got it from the sock puppet briefings.
Imagine my surprise to find out he got it from you! ;-D
> Alright Erik, you have me convinced that you *can* learn so it just
> a matter of trying harder to not make a fool of yourself.
Well said.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:17:25 GMT
Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 06:45:27
[...]
>> That you can reverse
>> engineer hardware by reading, as opposed
>> to reverse engineering, source
>> code is a bogeyman that denies the
>> whole reality of producing hardware
>> at a profit.
>
>The very nature of a competitive market is to get a large a market
>as possible with as little investment/cost as possible.
Imagine my chagrin at correcting you, Rex, but the nature of the
competitive market is to get as *profitable* a market as possible.
Either the number of units OR the amount of profit can be increased past
the break-even point in order to overcome costs. Using the term 'large'
misses the point too broadly, and leads to the false theory that every
business attempts to monopolize in selling their product. It is value,
not lock-in and profiteering, which provides opportunity for profit;
there's nothing wrong with a large market, but simply purposefully
attempting to grow your "market share" is inevitably just monopolization
and attempted restraint of trade. Use of lock-in and profiteering is
illegal, and therefore can't be considered any more "business activity"
than extortion or racketeering.
[...]
>I have actually sat in on meetings with Microsoft's marketing people
>where I questioned them directly about fraudulent statements, claims
>of exclusive information exchange between the OS division and the
>Database division, and numerous other illegal activities. Eventually,
>it came down to "Where's the wire?". The were absolutely convinced
>that I had been asking them questions under electronic servellance.
>I pulled out my cell-phone just to prove that it wasn't on.
Oh, I'd have killed to be in on that meeting. If only you *had* been
wired!
>It was during
>the defense phase that Microsoft experienced the full pain of obediance to
>the law. Of course, since the prosecution had already rested, they could not
>add new charges. The key concern was to get Microsoft to admit to some of
>these criminal activities during the defense phase to assure that the
>appellate court didn't overturn the entire verdict.
A very interesting analysis.
[...]
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:17:06 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:47:12
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Because you posted the experience of what some people might do, until
>> they learned better, under the subject line you did. That doesn't make
>> you a reasonable minded person; it makes you a brain-dead poser.
>
>If I were "brain-dead", how I could I write this reply?
>
>However, I see where this is going. You're doing exactly what you did
>before. Nothing changes I see.
If by "what I did before" you mean spanking poser trolls, you are
correct; that will never change.
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:15:27 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:41:08 GMT;
> >"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> To you, sir, I say, "wake up and smell the coffee".
> >>
> >>BLACK HELIOCOPTERS! HERE THEY COME, RUN FOR COVER!
> >
> >Yep, we're all paranoid. Microsoft doesn't really want to monopolize
> >things. They don't want to maximize the amount of money they make.
>
> Maximizing the amount of money you make is a matter of competing, I'm
> afraid, whether they cover this in Business 101 or not. Monopolization
> does not maximize the money you make; it is a form of theft, so one can
> hardly say one 'makes' the money one gets away with.
>
> >Sheesh. Isn't this what all businessmen do? Isn't this business 101?
>
> No. To compete is the opposite of monopolizing. This is anti-trust law
> 101.
I agree with this post.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:22:51 GMT
Said Jerry McBride in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:11:04
[...]
>> IBM got lots right with OS/2, their marketing sucked big time.
>
>That, I totally agree with. If IBM had BIGGER BALLS and pushed a lot harder
>when MicroSoft started their BS, I think all this crap with the DOJ and MS
>would never have been an issue. IBM missed this target, BIG TIME. But then
>again maybe Linux wouldn't be the same as it is now.
This is where I jump in and point out that no amount of competitive
action will counter anti-competitive actions. If the would-be
monopolist has enough market power to wield monopoly power, they win; no
amount of marketing or technical development will counter this.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Robin Kauffman" <robink@@vortex.bainbridge.wednet.edu>
Subject: OT: Hey
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:26:22 GMT
All those alt.sex.* sites don't actually have topic-oriented pr0no?
What's with all these b0ring porno site ads?
I thought information was free!
-Robin K.
------------------------------
From: "Duane Healing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:21:49 -0800
One word will instantly releive all your pain... Debian.
--
-Duane
-DNAware SofLabs
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Zsolt Zsoldos"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I was an enthusiastic linux user for the past 5 years, but now Mandrake
> 7.2 got me really frustrated, so that I have to tell you about it...
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
