Linux-Advocacy Digest #417, Volume #32 Thu, 22 Feb 01 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft (Bloody
Viking)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Peter Hayes)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (CR Lyttle)
Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft (Bloody
Viking)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux web pads?
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Who said NT was stable ! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: State of linux distros
Re: State of linux distros ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Who said NT was stable ! (Bloody Viking)
Re: Business ("Edward Rosten")
Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft
Date: 23 Feb 2001 00:44:56 GMT
Joseph T. Adams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: There are tens of millions of Linux users in the Third World whose
: living standards do not begin to approach those of working-class people
: in the U.S. and other industrialized nations.
And a lot of these Linux users (who tend to not be counted) are IT people in
those countries. Techie students in India's colleges are an example. (and
compared to the rest of the country, they are "well off") And we import those
grads in droves with the H1-B programme that companies "upgraded" by buying
the added laws.
Russia et. al. are another Linux (and DOS virus) hot spot.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:42:01 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:57:54 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<...>
> I've never had any printing problems, even with GIMP. It seems to be a
> GIMP problem and it seems to be specific top Mandrake 7.2, so it might be
> worth reporting it to MDK, esp. if another GIMP (eg from the source) of
> the same version does work.
I'm going to d/l Gimp from Cooker tomorrow and see what happens. Might not
even install, or have so many dependency problems it'd be better getting
the source.
<...>
> -Ed
Thanks, Ed, for your helpful analysis of just what's going on.
We've actually got somewhere, unlike others that slagged people off as
trolls.
Peter
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:48:51 GMT
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> I wonder if we could have used that tactic at Desert Storm.....
> :>
> :> [.sigsnip]
>
> : Well, Actually, the Iraqi soldiers started surrendering to camera crews
> : precisely because the A-10's and B-52's WEREN'T shouting "BANG!" out the
> : window.
>
> : From an interrogation of an Iraqi POW:
>
> : Interrogator:
> : "Why did you and your friends surrender?"
> : POW:
> : Because of the air strikes.
> : Interrogator:
> : "There were no air strikes on your unit"
> : POW:
> : Yes, but we SAW the air strikes against the Republican Guards
> : units behind us.
>
> Has there ever been a war other than Vietnam in which air superiority
> was not decisive?
>
> Joe
In addition to much of WW II, Afghanistan. We forgot the lessons of
history in Vietnam, the USSR forgot them in Afghanistan. People with
personal weapons beat the super-powers with Nuclear bombs.
It appears that MS has forgotten the lesson too. People with cheap
obsolete computers defeat the giant monopoly with unlimited advertising
budget.
--
Russ
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft
Date: 23 Feb 2001 00:49:56 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I would love to see that supported by hard data ... Possibly true in Mexico.
: Probably not true in say India, China or anywhere in SE Asia.
Asia is Warez Country. You can go anywhere in SE Asia and for the price of a
musical CD buy an album of warez with thousands of dollars of warez on it.
Warez is popular there becuse of a lack of copyright laws and the general
poverty of the region.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 23 Feb 2001 00:48:08 GMT
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <973stg$giq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Steve Mading"
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : No, you don't. You've got GIMP sending raw postscript to the printer.
:> : It's a stupid default, but hey. If you remove that, you should be ab
:> eto
:> : preint PS level 1, 2 or 3.
:>
:> I don't get it - why is that stupid?
: I meant it's sending raw PS, ie it's passing the raw parameter to the
: spooler, which in turn doesn't apply a filter. This is a stupid default
: because it doesn't work unless you have a PS printer.
Ah. I hadn't known that second part (That it uses an option flag
to deliberately turn off the filter.) That *is* pretty dumb. If
they'd just leave well enough alone and not bother with any flags
at all, it would have worked just fine as-is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux web pads?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:52:21 -0000
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:06:04 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:41:32 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Karel Jansens wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >Until they learn to ask simple questions, such as "Why in the fuck
>> >would ANYBODY want to stand in front of the refrigerator to compose
>> >and E-mail message", they will remain "Popular Adolescent Fantasies".
>> >
>> >Like the hovercraft thing...how many of these shitheads ever
>> >ask themselves "Duh...would *I* buy one of those?...Is there
>> >*anybody* I know who would by one of those?"
>>
>> Is that with or without the Ferrari sized pricetag?
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Also, at one time a computer as powerful as yours
>> had a Ferarri sized pricetag...
>
>And yet, NOBODY at Popular Science ever wrote about the
>coming "personal supercomputer in every household"...did they...
That's a pretty broad statement.
[deletia]
--
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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:52:28 +0000
>> > The Home Guard was ill-armed because of the reactionary gun-control
>> > laws pushed through by the British elite around 1920.
>>
>> That is BS. Even if people had personsal weapons, they would not have
>> been much use against Panzers.
>
> Panzers go "blub blub blub" without a dock to land them on. Beachheads
> are not docks.
You can land tanks on beaches with the right landing craft.
>> Secondly, there was no guns in England
>> because there were not enough guns to go round the army. That's why the
>
> You make my point for me.
No. Whether the UK had guns in the home or not, by 1941 they would all
have been long gone. There was not enough metal to go roung for making
weapons.
>> guovernment confiscated every scrap of metal (iron fences, the lot) for
>> use in weaponary. Any personal weapons would have been taken away and
>> used.
>
> Conversely, in the United States, we were able to provide the British
> with more service-quality rifles and shotguns from PRIVATELY DONATED
> firearms than out of the combined stores of our armed services.
See my above point. Don't forget that the US has a much bigger population
and didn't have essential imports being cut off.
>> > Gun control is ALWAYS about implementing feudalism.
>>
>> I disagree.
>
> Then you truly have no understanding of how the elitist power-brokers in
> government view the average citizen like you and me.
>
> They want you to be a conformist little robot who offers ZERO resistance
> to any of their decisions.
Me having a gun would make no difference to a single decision the
government has made in recent times. The only way it would have made a
difference would be through armed uprising which is too extreme for
anything that they've done recently.
> You see...incidents like Dunblane are HYPED so as to brainwash you into
> surrendering your BASIC HIMAN RIGHT to self defence.
I didn't own a gun anyway. The new legislation stopped nutters getting
guns. Almost noone in the UK (barring criminals) owned hand gund. The
legislation won't affect criminals and it won't affect non gun owners, so
it has affected almost noone. Besides, if you still are hell bent on
protecting your home, then you can get a shot gun, since they are still
allowed.
>> > This is a bit out of date, of course. The events of Dunblane resulted
>> > in further further hysterical legislation that was equally
>> > misdirected....
>>
>> I disagree.
>
> Disagree all you want. You're still wrong.
Well I think your wrong. Why don't you admit that I'm entitled to my own
opinion?
>> > and inneffective. If British readers of this don't get the point by
>> > now, I hope that American readers will, at least.
>>
>> I get the point, I just disagree. One problem you have is an
>> unwillingness to see why other people hold a different point of view.
>
> My point of view is based on a thorough study of history and the actions
> of both common criminals, and those who infect government.
>
> Trusting EITHER type of criminal to treat you with courtesy is a foolish
> thing to do....foolish enough that it may cost you your life.
I don't trust either to treat me with courtesy. But I don't think guns are
the solution.
> Remember...in the period 1900-1999, the LEADING cause of violent death
> among people has been attack by their own government.
>
> There is no escaping that fact.
>
> You say, Oh, someone like Hitler or Stalin could never come into power
> here....and at the same time, set up all the same conditions which usher
> such bloodthirsty tyrants into power.
What help could a hand gun possibly be against government forces? An
artillery gun could quite easily drop a high explosive shell on my house
from 60 miles away. I wouldn't stand a chance, guns or no guns.
If the government wanted to turn on us and guns were legal, it would cut
off the supply first, as well. Any stocks of ammo wouldn't last very long.
Again, having a gun wouldn't help much.
And the government forces have avaliable guns of far higher precision and
power than I would be able to afford. I may as well just use a bow and
arrows for all the help a hand gun would be against trained army forces
with fantastically expensive weaponary. Again, me owning a gun would do
very little against a dictator coming in to power.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:53:07 GMT
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : you can do that. [] and {} are available for user use. you can
> : fairly easily hack the lisp reader to accept any of () [] or {} as
> : parentheses.
>
> It would have helped greatly if the person who taught it to me had
> actually mentioned this. That would have gone a long way toward
> improving my opinion of the syntax.
1) lisp syntax is bizarre if you're used to other languages. like
most things, it does get easier when you get used to it.
2) lisp syntax is ridiculously simple. this is an advantage when
writing macros (programs that generate programs).
i think people who use lisp a lot feel that feature 2) outweighs 1).
indentation is used to make it easier to read for a human. i think
the instructor neglected it because you are supposed to ignore the
parentheses and follow the indentation. it might help to use a font
with tiny parentheses to make them easier to ignore. since the syntax
is simple, an editor can more easily indent it accurately than for
many other languages. of course using an editor which doesn't have
good support for indenting lisp would make writing lisp hell.
there is also something called "dylan" which is essentially lisp with
a more standard syntax.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:54:42 +0000
In article <9740il$if6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Steve Mading"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Parts of WWII. The Nazis had complete air superiority over the Soviets
> : because they knocked out the Soviet air fields. However, the soviets
> had
> : huge resources (and a nasty winter) to throw at the Nazis, so they
> : eventually won. In fact if it wasn't for the commies we'd probably all
> be
> : speaking german by now.
>
> The germans also failed to take out all the airfields like they thought
> they had. The russians were experts at "muskrova" - the word they use
> to mean roughly, "illusion and camoflague". The Germans wasted a lot of
> time bombing fake airstrips, with fake buildings and aircraft. The real
> airfields put the planes in dug-out foxholes with tarpulins over the top
> covered with dirt, so they didn't look like actual airstrips. Granted,
> not a lot of planes were saved this way, but enough were that the
> germans were rather surprised when they kept encountering more planes
> than they thought the russians had.
Yes, the Russians had enough resources to loose most of the planed and
still have a formidable air force.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:55:56 +0000
> Germany's foray into Yugoslavia. US/British bombing of Kosovo (part of
> Yugoslavia).
>
> Basically, the effectiveness of air superiority is at its maximum in
> flat, open desert terrain.
And the sea, which is why a sea based invasion is difficult with out air
superiority.
-Ed
> Conversely, the effectiveness of air superiority is at its minimum in
> forested mountian terrain (like Viet Nam, Yugoslavia, Switzerland,
> parts of Spain, etc.)
>
>
>>
>> Joe
>
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Who said NT was stable !
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:57:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andy Walker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:20:37 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Had an interesting problem yesterday, I tried to load an Excel spreadsheet
>from a floppy which appeared to be corrupt. Every time I tried to load it,
>the entire machine dumped out !
>Would you take this seriously as an operating system in a critical
>enviroment when it can't even cope with a dodgy floppy disk (and no, there
>was no virus on it).
>This isn't the first time this has happened and I doubt it will be the last
>but if they can't even correct bugs like this I'm not surprised most
>internet servers use Linux!
That's a hardware problem. :-) :-) :-) Can't blame the OS for that.
Of course, one *can* blame the app for doing stupid things. I've had
a vaguely similar thing happen to me, only the floppy was not corrupt.
It's just that I had an ASCII text file with a suffix of ".doc".
Didn't dump the entire machine, but it didn't do the right thing, either.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 17d:22h:27m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:57:40 -0000
On 22 Feb 2001 23:53:38 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>:>A Christian theocracy is impossible, because Christianity and
>:>theocracy are mutually exclusive. Jesus said that His kingdom was not
>:>of this world.
>:>
>:>However, for an elected leader to express some tiny bit of a moral
>:>backbone, with regard to abortion, infanticide, etc., does NOT
>:>constitute the establishment of a "theocracy."
>
>: When that "moral backbone" is motivated solely by religious
>: dogma, then it is indeed theocratic.
>
>No, it is not. Look up the definition of "theocracy."
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by
officials who are regarded as divinely guided
How does this not describe people who view their sense
of right and wrong as mandated by god?
>
>
>: If it can't be justified
>: based on purely secular grounds, then it's place in a republic
>: is suspect.
>
>
>Morality can be justified on a variety of grounds, some of them purely
>secular, as evidenced by the fact that both religious and secular
>belief systems tend to come to very similar conclusions at least on
>the more important points.
That still doesn't address the issue of religiously motivated
public policy. If the policy is not ultimately theocratic,
then a secular motivation should be trivially available.
--
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: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 23 Feb 2001 00:52:58 GMT
Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 22 Feb 2001 20:25:11 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
:> Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : it will print garbage. You ***still*** have to go to "setup" and select
:> : your printer instead of the default "PostScript Level 1", then save
:> : settings. Then it does a reasonable, but not outstanding, printout.
:>
:> If the printer is set up right in the first place, "Postscript level 1"
:> WILL work.
: I'm sorry, but that is just plain WRONG, pure and simple. I've just spent
: the best part of an hour checking everything out.
[snip]
Edward Rosten pointed out something in another part of this
thread that clears things up. Gimp is apparently going out of
its way to *deliberately* turn off the the printer filter when
it tells the system to print, by mislabelling its job as "raw data",
when it is not. That's pretty silly. If it would just do things
the 'dumb' default way, they would actually have worked better.
I probably didn't see the problem because I'm not using CUPS. Here
my "raw" data is filtered just like everything else is. Everything
I print gets filtered on my setup, whether it is tagged as "raw"
or not.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 23 Feb 2001 00:55:45 GMT
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The inconsistency was not in the gimp. It was in your choice to
: not set up the filter program ('driver') on the default print
: queue, and instead put it on some other queue, and let the default
: print queue remain driverless. The same exact problem would have
: happened had you tried printing to the default queue from, say,
: netscape or anything else.
I have to retract this. I got a better description of the problem
from someone else, and in that description it was more clear what
was going on. Gimp is mislabelling its data as 'raw', when it isn't,
confusing the printer queue into turning off the filter program.
I don't have the problem on my system because my print spool is
filtering all data even if it is marked as 'raw'. (I'm not using CUPS).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:00:28 -0000
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:48:45 GMT, Reefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>news:973qo7$7dg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> A superior OS can make do with whatever hardware platform it is installed
>> on, and can utilize every ounce of power from that hardware, and not just
>> run with mediocre performance on greater hardware requirements.
> >
>> Especially when a Linux/UNIX box at 133mhz can out-perform a P-II Win2k
>> server in terms of stability, uptime, and performance.
>>
>> Windows will never push hardware to its full potential. It is a superior
>> platform only when you want to bog down powerful hardware with incredible
>> bloat.
>>
>>
>
>ah, but C'MON.....like i said before; this is the year 2001, and anyone
>running a 'puter with less than a PII 300 (or compatible) and 128 MB RAM in
>it, need some serious reality check, u cant wip a dead horse like that for
Not everyone has money to piss down that particular drain.
We Linux Zealots can realize that not everyone is obsessed
with their computer hardware, why can't you?
>ever ...but then again; Win2kpro works just fine with a P133, just make sure
>to have 'nuff memory in it...
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:02:10 +0000
In article <xzhl6.637$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Reefer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:973qo7$7dg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> A superior OS can make do with whatever hardware platform it is
>> installed on, and can utilize every ounce of power from that hardware,
>> and not just run with mediocre performance on greater hardware
>> requirements.
> >
>> Especially when a Linux/UNIX box at 133mhz can out-perform a P-II Win2k
>> server in terms of stability, uptime, and performance.
>>
>> Windows will never push hardware to its full potential. It is a
>> superior platform only when you want to bog down powerful hardware with
>> incredible bloat.
>>
>>
>
> ah, but C'MON.....like i said before; this is the year 2001, and anyone
> running a 'puter with less than a PII 300 (or compatible) and 128 MB RAM
> in it, need some serious reality check
No. I have a P133 w/ 72M. It does everything I need (it can actually do a
damn site more than I need in most cases). Why do I need a reality check?
Why should I spend more money on something that does not need more money
spent on it? Why should I have a faster computer for the sake of having a
faster computer? I think you need the reality check.
>, u cant wip a dead horse like
It ain't dead. Its going as strong is it did 5 years ago.
> that for ever ...but then again; Win2kpro works just fine with a P133,
> just make sure to have 'nuff memory in it...
And as long as you don't run any apps.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Who said NT was stable !
Date: 23 Feb 2001 01:02:57 GMT
Ralph Miguel Hansen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: always funny. This superduper miracolous OS gives me about 2 crashes a
: week. And I am doing nothing else than Excel-, Word- and Access-Jobs.
An OS with a shorter uptime than a bad INSOMNIAC! I thought I was joking in my
"you know you're really an insomniac" thread when I said I had a longer uptime
as a human being than NT Server. Humans making for more reliable servers than
NT is hilarious. Maybe if Gates is the Antichrist, maybe he could use his
supernatural clout to steal some code from HumanOS to make NT more reliable.
: I am forced to laugh when I read the postings of some winsuckers whining
: about the Linux-Hardwaresupport. Never had problems with NT when installing
: cutting-of-the-edge Hardware ? Oh no, they tell me, blame the manufacturer
: who doesn't ship NT-drivers with his Hardware. And have you ever tried NT
: as a printer-server for about 30 PC's ? Uarrrgh! Now a tiny Linux-box (133
: MHz, 40 MB) does the job without mistakes. I hope you understand this
: letter because my english is as buggy as an OS made by M$.
Your English parses just fine on my copy of HumanOS with GNU English. You
should upgrade to GNU English. It supports American and Australian in my
implimentation.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Business
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:03:31 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Hey, Drestin
>> >
>> > Still pimping out your wife?
>>
>> Aaron: People who live in glass houses...
>>
>
> Do I have a website devoted to selling nude photos of my wife like
> Drestin does his?
>
> a) yes B) NO
>
Was it his wife or some random model?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:10:25 -0500
I just noticed I have 1000 times more ram than my first PC/XT, it is a dual
processor 600 MHZ system which is a an aggregate 250 times faster. My first
hard disk was 20Meg, I have an aggregate 2300 times more disk space.
It has been an amazing 16 years of computing.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
