Linux-Advocacy Digest #551, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 07:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... ("2 + 2")
Re: [OT] .sig (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Breaking up is so very hard to do... ("muppet")
Re: why open source software is better (Craven Moorehead)
Re: [OT] .sig (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: why open source software is better (Sam Holden)
Re: why open source software is better (Nick Condon)
Re: why open source software is better (Craven Moorehead)
Re: why open source software is better (Nick Condon)
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Ian Pulsford)
Railroads (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 05:35:07 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:46:25 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>
>>The desktop monopoly may be a thing of the past.
>>
>>However, to the extent, that it is still a monopoly, the DoJ/Jackson
remedy
>>leaves the OS monopoly intact.
>
>The fact that they have a monopoly is not the problem. The fact that they
>are alleged to be an abusive monopoly is. The remedy makes it harder for
>them to leverage their monopoly.
>
>I don't see any way to get rid of their monopoly, and I don't think they
>should even try to do so.
Well, the Windows consumer would be better off with the divestment of the
desktop OS and competition for that market from the remaining Microsoft
server OS (basically the same).
That way, the competition in the server markets that the Microsoft server OS
could be maintained.
It is competition that benefits the consumer that the antitrust law
encourages.
>
>>Per processor licensing was banned.
>
>Until very recently, it was nearly impossible to buy a laptop with paying
>the Microsoft hardware tax. The laptop manfucaturer would preload it, so
>the vendors were stuck with it.
I'm talking about the consent decree. You are talking about OEM marketing
decisions.
>
>>>Microsoft is attempting to corner the internet with .NET!
>>>If you don't run .NET your not going to use the internet!
>>
>>A web developer is more likely to be trapped into using the Java Platform.
>>.NET is in beta.
>>
>>Without the .NET Platform, there is no competition to the Java Platform.
>
>Depends on how you define "competition". If you define "virtual machines"
>as a market, then that's probably true.
I'm talking about the idea that a modern OS is a framework and execution
engine.
The Java and .NET Platforms are new web middleware based OSen.
>
>>Sounds like the Java Platform, except you are stuck with using the
language.
>
>Not exactly. You can run python on java, for example.
See http://www.sdmagazine.com/articles/2001/0103/0103a/0103a.htm by Jim
Farley:
Java's true potential is realized by a development team and its surrounding
organization only when a critical mass of development (or all of it) is done
in Java. If, for some reason (legacy system, third-party requirements,
component availability), a subset of a given system falls outside of the
Java environment, things get complicated, and you have to turn to CORBA or
JNI or other ways to bridge the gap.
This language-centric approach is also limiting strategically. It's easy to
imagine some powerful improvements to the Java core environment that would
be best accomplished by making changes to the syntax of the Java language,
and these changes are very difficult to make because there is a vertical
dependence, from the JVM to the J2EE application services, on the fact that
everything happens in Java bytecodes.
A good example is the explicit declaration of properties on JavaBeans. Given
Java's preexisting syntax, the JavaBeans specification was defined so that
component properties are implicitly defined by the presence of methods of a
particular signature (setXXX and getXXX) on the bean's Java class. A better
solution would be to have a way to explicitly declare properties, keeping
the method namespace independent. Doing this, however, would require
altering the syntax of the Java language to include a scheme for declaring
properties explicitly, and changing the Java language itself would cause
changes to ripple upwards through the APIs and specifications, and downwards
into the JVM in some cases. Given the success of Java and the number of
vendors coding to its specifications, this would be a herculean task in
concensus-building and making provisions for migration and
backwards-compatibility.
2 + 2
>
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
>elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 05:35:38 -0500
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:01:38 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >When I'm overseas, I blend in very well with the locals. I observe
> >the local customs for behavior, and observe local laws.
>
> Why, then, can you not apply this principle to your participation in
> Usenet?
At the moment, I am not in Norway, Great Britain, nor Saudi Arabia.
I'm in the United States of America, and abiding by the laws that
govern the jurisdictions which I currently occupy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "muppet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Breaking up is so very hard to do...
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:30:31 -0000
> > and "intellectual property" legislation.
>
> Thankfully, they don't get to write legislation.
Unfortunately the "American way" is that those with the largest bank
accounts get to make whatever laws they want. Admittedly this is a view from
outside the country, but it does seem that American law making is very much
money oriented.
Also unfortunately, since the majority of the internet is assumed to be
contained in the US (at least by Americans) there will probably be an
assumption that their laws will apply throughout the rest of the world.
------------------------------
From: Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:49:15 +1100
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:11:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
wrote:
>>>The only thing i use Windows for is playing games. I will only use
>>>it for programming when someone pays me to do so at my normal
>>>consulting rates.
>>
>>You expect someone to write your OS for free though. Or at the very
>>least give you all his source code. Good one, Do you live in a trailer
>>park ?
>
>Do you completely misunderstand the concept of a community? You get the source
>code, and can acquire the OS for free (though can easily pay for it if you
>want a nice box and extra documentation), but can contribute back to the
>community by coding (or paying for the software, or writing documentation, or
>providing help/support to others). The internet was built on free software,
>and without it you wouldn't be sitting here typing now.
Aren't you getting confused now? Open source does not necessarily mean
free, But that is what it is associated with it most of the time.
As for community, 99.99% of the population can't or wont do the
contributing you suggest. Why should I do work for my OS when I get it
free with my next PC ? Even if I had to pay directly it would be
preferable for me.
You suggest a situation where 0.01% do the work and the rest enjoy the
fruits of the labour. BTW that didn't work in Russia even when 100%
did the work or at least pretended too.
We no longer live in the 19th century, you want something, you buy it.
No-one makes their own ketch anymore. We buy it.
>However this is mute as a lot of people do get paid to work on the OS.
The vast majority work for MS and if they started in the 80's are now
retired and sitting pretty.
>>People should be rewarded for their work and intellectual property
>>should be protected. Why should I give people my fancy highy optimised
>>code ? What's in it for me, a warm feeling in my loins ?
>
>People should have the right to do what they want with their "intellectual
>property", including giving it away. There are lots of different reasons why
>people want to do this. Because they agree with the free software philosophy,
>want to contribute back to the community, want to start a open project that
>they feel they'll need help completing, because it's a hobby or to gain
>experience. Too many to list here, and the reasons can either be selfless,
>selfish or somewhere in between.
Maybe they do it when they are young and out to change the world. Then
they get married, have kids and suddenly find there is no free lunch,
especially in the US.
Craven
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 05:50:50 -0500
Brent R wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > Brent R wrote:
> > >
> > > chrisv wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I'm an American too, and sadly I'd have to disagree. America breeds more
> > > > >immature, online, shit-talkers than any other country online.
> > > >
> > > > Idiot. That's only because there's more of us online. That, and we
> > > > DO have the freedoms that many countires don't.
> > >
> > > Yeah we have so many more rights than Britain, Canada, France etc. etc.
> > >
> > > Dude, in America you can't even get a beer if you're under 21, but you
> > > can be drafted into the military. You can ever buy a gun! Now that is
> > > ridiculous!
> > >
> > > But, yes, I understand what you're saying, but still we have too many
> > > parents that don't know what to do with their money so they give it to
> > > their kids. This country is breeding spoiled little brats like flies.
> > >
> > > My mom is a teacher. She sees evidence of parents coddling their kids
> > > everyday. She's runs into parental hostility every time she even
> > > criticizes a kid. Do you think it's easy being a parent when most
> > > parent's attitudes are "my little Jimmy would NEVER do that"?
> > >
> > > Well, most of these kids end up on AOL or whatever talking shit about
> > > how America is the best country on earth because it can nuke every other
> > > country on earth. I've seen it, and I'm embarrassed by it. And you
> > > should be too.
> >
> > The difference between them and me is
> >
> > 1) I've worked for ALL of my money since the age of 10 years old.
> > 2) I'm a combat veteran.
>
> I'm really having trouble trying to remember how you being a veteran had
> anything to do with this.
>
I've earned my way in this world.
> I never said you were one of them. Originally I stated my opinion that
> the US tends to breed more online "bastard kids" than other countries.
> That still doesn't mean that you never exhibit some of their undesirable
> traits, most having to do with self-righteousness and immaturity. I'm
> sorry but I have to say it.
>
> --
> Happy Trails!
>
> -Brent
>
> http://rotten168.home.att.net
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: 28 Feb 2001 10:56:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:37:31 +1100, Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:58:03 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>
>>The only thing i use Windows for is playing games. I will only use
>>it for programming when someone pays me to do so at my normal
>>consulting rates.
>
>You expect someone to write your OS for free though. Or at the very
>least give you all his source code. Good one, Do you live in a trailer
>park ?
Maybe he would only use it for programming when being paid is because he
doesn't like using it and thus needs compensation in order to do so. Just
like I won't paint your house unless you pay me, since I don't enjoy it.
Saying he will use it for programming if being paid seems to indicate the
decision to not use it for programming is based on the usability of the
platform and not on ideological grounds.
>People should be rewarded for their work and intellectual property
>should be protected. Why should I give people my fancy highy optimised
>code ? What's in it for me, a warm feeling in my loins ? You can get
>the same effect by pissing in your pants.
What does that have to do with anything. I saw no mention of IP or demanding
something from others.
People are rewarded for their work (in the computer industry anyway) and
IP is protected. What planet are you from if you think it is any other way?
If you have no sense of the common good, community, and helping your fellow
man, and doing something for other than financial reasons that is your loss.
--
Sam Holden
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: 28 Feb 2001 11:05:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craven Moorehead) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 04:11:47 GMT, Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>George of the jungle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Personally, I am in favor of open source BMWs.
>>>
>>> Too bad, BMW is not.
>>
>>You can't really take it away from BMW, they really do a lot of metal
>>bending, painting, die-casting etc to build a car. If you had a
>>complete technical readout of the Death^H^H^H^H^HBMW 850i it still
>>wouldn't help you much in getting your own.
>>
>>If you have a complete technical readout of software, then you have
>>that software, unless the software has been altered to refuse to work
>>in certain cases, say the absence of a license key.
>>
>>Big difference.
>
>Personally, I am in favour of open source Beatles music.
>
>Too bad Paul, George, Ringo and the demon lady want to get paid and
>increasingly so.
>
>Craven
Michael Jackson owns all the Beatles copyright, IIRC.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:07:52 +1100
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:52:06 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil
hunt) wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:11:02 +1100, Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I find this thread curious. Open source is better the closed ?
>>
>>What it REALLY means to most people is free is better then paying for
>>something.
>
>No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.
>
>
>NNNNN NNNNN OOOOOOOO
>NNNNNNN NNNNN OOOOO OOOOO
>NNNNNNNNN NNNNN OOOOO OOOOO
>NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN OOOOO OOOOO
>NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN OOOOO OOOOO
>NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN OOOOO OOOOO
>NNNNN NNNNNNNNN OOOOO OOOOO
>NNNNN NNNNNNN OOOOO OOOOO
>NNNNN NNNNN OOOOOOOO
>
>
>No. Do I make myself clear?
>
>You have totally missed the point of the argument.
Technically yes.
Read the originator of this tread he quoted Ralph
Levien. I read one line then stopped
"Background: free software and proprietary software"
"Free software, by contrast, is written for lots of different reasons,
including a simple desire for the software on the part of the author,
education, and being part of the free software community. However,
getting the job done expediently is almost always an overriding
concern. Thus, free software tends not to be much more complex than
necessary, and making use of existing modules and protocols is often
more appealing than reinventing things from scratch."
He is confused too.
>>50 million people use Napster, how many would if they had to pay
>>commercial rates for the songs ? 1-2 million MAYBE and they would be
>>very choosy in what they downloaded.
>
>Napster isn't open source. Napster has *nothing* to do with open source.
Same principle by the same rabble.
>>What do you hear all the time ? Linux guys downloading the latest ISO
>>of Linux, clogging up the net with downloads.
>>
>>Would they do it if they had to pay a fee ? No, most would not.
>
>It just goes "thud" very loudly.
>
>>All Linux has got really going for it is that it is free.
>
>I've bought several boxed sets of Linux, costing GBP 20 to 50 each.
>Have you ever tried downloading several CDs worth on a phone line?
That is all the (few) Linux guys I know talk about. "The next one will
kill MS" "The next one will kill MS"
None of them like paying and don't, I have never seen a Linux boxed
set.
>>You can crap on about the "AUTHOR him/herself agreeing to give out the
>>source" rubbish.
>
>Since when has the truth even been rubbish?
>
>> If everyone had to pay for Linux and the price was
>>the same or more then Windows (the price of Windows could be very
>>elastic if MS wants) it would be as dead as a Dodo from a popularity
>>perspective.
>
>1. Red Hat, Suse, etc, sell many boxed sets.
Not *anywhere* near enough to be sustainable.
>2. because of the "Microsoft tax", Linux often does cost the same as windows,
>if you have a laptop for example
Linux costs more and Redhat still is a basket case.
>3. the cost of Linux or Windows is typically a lot less than the cost
>of the computer that it runs on
Eh ?
>So, your argument is complete and utter bollocks.
>
>The only question that remains, is why are you talking so much crap.
>Is it:
My system of software development is proven, sustainable and creates a
good living for everyone involved.
Yours is unproven, has no business model, is creating a bunch of
companies existing on hype alone.
Who would you rather be Bill or Linus ? One is wealthy,the other has
to take a second job in the real world to make a living.
The most successful Linux company Redhat is derided by most hardcore
Unix guys as a heap of crap. The AOLer of Linuxes. It is the most
successful and is still an economic basket case.
Craven
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: 28 Feb 2001 11:08:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craven Moorehead) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I find this thread curious. Open source is better the closed ?
>
>What it REALLY means to most people is free is better then paying for
>something.
Are going to argue the opposite?
Must open wallet ... must hand over ... hard-earned ...
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:18:40 +1000
Tor Slettnes wrote:
>
> Great answers if you want flamewars. But hey, these _are_ advocacy
> groups after all. :->
>
> >>>>> "Masha" == Masha Ku'Inanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
<cut>
>
> Most, but not all. Typically, it runs those Linux binaries for which
> the source is available anyway, but fails with VMWare, StarOffice,
> Win4Lin... These utilize features of the Linux kernel.
I have run StarOffice 5.1 on FreeBSD. There is also a VMWare port, part
of which is a Linux proc filesystem addon.
>
> Masha> You'll also get to see two different "open-source"
> Masha> licenses. Linux requires your source code be made
> Masha> publically available, if it is GPL'ed, whereas the BSD one
> Masha> does not. In that sense, the BSD is considered by some to
> Masha> be the truly "free" license, because it does not tell you
> Masha> what you should or should not do with your work.
>
> Those "some" tend to be somewhat uninformed, and see only the surface
> of things.
>
> The BSD license will allow you to enhance someone else's publicly
> available program, and then redistribute the ehancements in binary
> form only (without providing the source code back). This tends to
> result in:
> - Code forks, because someone else will be forced to re-invent
> the wheel. This is why there are so many BSD flavors.
All four of them! (I would not count Solaris as a BSD, but might have
to start counting MacOS X.) Can't blame people for wanting to make
money from software. Forks came about because of philosophical
differences not closed source code.
> - Commercial hijacking, with all associated woes (code obsolescence,
> hidden bugs..)
Have nothing to do with the free *BSDs. You can't hijack that which is
freely given.
>
> In contrast, the GNU license guarantees that all software you use
> today will be available (and supportable) forever. If the author goes
> bankrupt (in the case of a company) or gets hit by a truck (in the
> case of a person), the software doesn't disappear with them.
And neither will the *BSDs. All BSD code that's already in the wild is
not going to magically disappear.
IanP
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Railroads
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:21:57 -0500
Marten Kemp wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > Marten Kemp wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > > <<snip>>
> > > >
> > > > Diesel-electrics were NOT introduced to solve a fuel-consumption problem:
> > > > they were introduced because they provide better torque from a dead stop
> > > > than steam...allowing an increase in the gross tons per locomotive ratio.
> > > >
> > > > Also, they can be remote-controlled from one cab by electrical hookups,
> > > > allowing ONE crew to harness the power of three or four engines. With
> > > > steam, you would still need 1 or 2 people in each engine, and the
> > > > linkage would probably (in those day) have to have been mechanical,
> > > > not electrical.
> > > >
> > > <<snip>>
> > >
> > > Steam engines are rather more maintenance-intensive than diesels, IIRC.
> > > There is a lot of plumbing inside a steam engine's boiler, all of which
> > > has to be kept leak free.
> >
> > These days, that's fairly simple. Just use stainless steel, or
> > [steel electro-plated with copper] electro-plated with chrome.
>
> The larger the number of pieces, the higher the construction and
> maintenance costs. Moot point, since steam is gone except for nostalgia.
When I was in Russia in 1997, I noticed that long-distance passenger
service is still based on steam technology.
Russian short-range passenger service (between city to suburbs, i.e.
St. Petersburg and Gatchina) is electrified rail.
Oh..for those interested...according to a Soviet/Russian/CIS railway
site (http://pavel.physics.sunysb.edu/RR/index-eng.html), the name
of a English language mailing list on the subject is "dubbed 5FEET
(guess why :-)" So, evidently, Russian railroad guage is 5 feet
(which sounds right to me...when I was at one of the train stations
in Moscow, the guage looked rather wide to my American eyes.)
Here is an extensive list of railroad guages:
http://turksib.com/gauges/index-e.html
> >
> > >
> > > How did we get on this topic, anyway?
> >
> > Who knows
> > Who cares
> > Discussions are like that.
>
> True. They go in odd and interesting directions, don't they?
>
> >
> > > -- Marten Kemp
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
