Linux-Advocacy Digest #903, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Mar 01 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Jan Johanson")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (GreyCloud)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: 19 Mar 2001 18:53:11 -0600
"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:995c52$ic1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_changes.html
>
> : I guess this is where it'll be going... can't afford to keep leaking
money
> : out of every oriface forever...
>
> Assuming that RedHat == Linux is going to piss a lot of Linux users off.
That's their problem. It's the singular most popular distrib of Linux and
others tend to follow it's lead.
> In actuality, it's $19.95 for access to RedHat's premium auto-update
> facilities. If you don't like it, update by hand (rpmfind.net)
Didn't see that, sure looks to me like it's $19.95 for any updates.
> or switch to Debian. The distro and updates themselves are just as
> free as ever.
We'll see for how long...
>
> : So, this is like paying $19.95 per month to use Windows Update - MS
updates
> : have been, are and will always be free.
>
> So Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME are free? That's new.
Those aren't updates, those are new versions/upgrades. You DO know the
difference right? I'm talking about patches and things you find in Windows
Update like media player, messenger, IE, system updates, security updates,
new themes, new device drivers, etc.
>
> : Wonder what trojan's can be hacked onto the back of their subscription
> : agent... time will tell...
>
> Probably the same ones that are hacked onto the Windows updater...
Never happened
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: 19 Mar 2001 18:53:16 -0600
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jon Johanson wrote:
>
> >http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_changes.html
> >
> >I guess this is where it'll be going... can't afford to keep leaking
> >money out of every oriface forever...
> >
> >So, this is like paying $19.95 per month to use Windows Update - MS
> >updates have been, are and will always be free.
>
> How very naive.
Oh really? Your crystal ball shiny and new? How did predicting red hat's
stock prices look in that ball?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:56:40 -0500
David Masterson wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron R Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Shades wrote:
>
> >> I do not understand this statement. Where is MS copying Unix on
> >> ease of use? All the newest GUI's I have seen on Linux look a lot
> >> like something I have seen before.
>
> > Ah..more like what you've seen before were copies of Unix GUI's
> > already in existance. For example, the Windows2000 GUI is a
> > (faulty) implementation of the unix/linux-land Enlightenment GUI.
>
> Can you back up this claim? Not that I'm disagreeing about Unix/Linux
> having GUIs equal or better to Windows -- I've just never heard this
> particular claim before.
Go out and TRY enlightenment, and get back with us.
>
> >> Hmm.. you know almost all colleges send out Comp Sci majors and
> >> engineers that know Unix at some basic proficient level. If your
> >> statement is true then "why" is Windows still so damned popular.
>
> > Pointy Haired Bosses who *insist* upon buying Windows products
> > because they are heavily invested in Microsoft stock.
>
> Well, be nice. Up until the last couple of years with the rise of a
> strong Linux, those bosses had a *TON* of PCs on their desks that
> converting to a new O/S would've meant throwing out and they just
> didn't see enough to justify it.
"Don't blame me, I bought IBM" worked in the 1960's.
In this day and age, there is NO excuse for such lame reasoning.
>
> > Many of these middle managers are starting to find themselves
> > INDICTED for felonies, on the basis that they allowed their personal
> > financial investment in Microsoft to determine their (poor)
> > decisions to WASTE millions of their employer's assets on Microsoft
> > "solutions" that never work as advertise...not once or twice...but
> > as a systematic pattern of behavior.
>
> Interesting claim -- examples?
>
> >> I mean your statements do not have any empirical proof that you can
> >> base it on. For the case of Microsoft you have people from all
> >> over the world who have to focus on getting their job done(not
> >> knowing the intricacies of the OS) and they do it mostly on
> >> Microsoft Windows.
>
> > You have the EXACT same pointy-clicky functionality on Linux and
> > Unix...in fact, it has been available on Unix for FAR LONGER...
>
> True. Although up until PC systems could handle (well) the
> requirements of the UNIX interface (ie. X-Windows), not a lot of
> people could justify the expense of buying into it (ie. pre-1996).
>
That excuse doesn't wash either.
Hint fucking hint: 1996 was 5 YEARS AGO.
> >> Why it seems odd that if everything works so much better on Unix
> >> then where is it? Why is it not on everyone's desktops?
>
> > Because Dell, Compaq, etc. were specifically PROHIBITED by Microsoft
> > from offering operating systems sold by vendors other than
> > Microsoft.
>
> Also, because the dominant UNIX vendors were more interested in
> fighting each other over the workstation "niche" rather than band
> together and fight Microsoft over the much bigger PC market.
This has NOTHIGN to do with Unix. Microsoft's contracts explicitly
stated that EVERY machine sold would be charged for a copy of
a Microsoft operating system...regardless of whether a Mafia$oft
product was installed or not.
To sell even ONE machine without charging for Mafia$oft products kicked
in an immediate doubling of OEM license prices.
Microsoft knew full well that this is illegal, and hence "swore
to secrecy" all of the OEM through the use of NonDisclosure Agreements,
which specified that even conversations with law enforcement personnel
must be
a) cleared with Microsoft beforehand
b) the subject of discussion must be cleared with Microsoft beforehand
c) that the Microsoft attorney can call for the end of the meeting
with law enforcement at *ANY* time
etc., etc., etc.
For years, Microsoft got over, because the various OEM's were
completely unaware of the specifics of the contract between
Microsoft and other OEM's.
Now that it has gotten out...well, that's why Microsoft keeps
getting CONVICTED FOR CRIMES.
>
> >> I mean Unix has been around for a long time you would think people
> >> would be using it like crazy? I know one answer everyone says and
> >> that is MS is a monopoly, yada yada yada but Unix had a lightyear
> >> start. It never made much of a dent. I am not trying to be a dick
> >> I just want you to answer it honestly with some real empiracal data
> >> as proof.
>
> > The one sentance answer: Microsoft is a criminal organization, which
> > uses racketeering, extortion, and other techniques of intimidation
> > to keep competitors products OUT of vendors' catalog pages.
>
> Too simple. Microsoft was able to sneak into this position for
> several reasons:
>
> * Microsoft was "annointed" by IBM in 1981 (the billion dollar deal).
> * Apple couldn't compete with IBM in hardware sales in the 1980s.
> * AT&T did not know how to compete with UNIX or hardware.
AT&T was PROHIBITED from competing in the computing industry
at that time.
> * UNIX vendors couldn't push UNIX onto the PC successfully.
> * UNIX vendors were more interested in selling UNIX hardware.
> * Commodore/Atari couldn't grow out of the game machine market.
> * Apple lost its focus in the 1990s and lost a lot of support.
> * Microsoft started using their monopoly hold over PC vendors.
> * New OSes in the '90s didn't have the clout to hurt Microsoft.
> * ...probably a few I've forgotten.
M$ Windows was not "well established" in the early 1990's.
There were a large variety of GUI's available that ran on top of DOS.
They all faded within a year when Microsoft INSISTED that Windows 3.1
^^^^^^^^
be bundled with DOS, to the EXCLUSION of all competing products.
Such practices are illegal. It is called "leveraging a monopoly
to gain another monopoly" It is illegal because it is completely
anti-thetical to the concept of a free marketplace; it denies
consumers who want alternatives, and other vendors who are providing
those alternatives the opportunity to engage in legal trade.
This is why Microsoft spends so much time on the FEDERAL docket.
>
> > This is why these contracts have been deemed CRIMINALLY
> > anti-competitive, and which is why Gates and other Microsoft
> > officers spent so much time squirming and COMMITTING PERJURY in
> > their testimony before the court.
>
> Yeah, and they're setting up to do it all over again with .Net. If
> they can bring out .Net successfully, then the court decision may not
> mean anything in the long run.
>
It's time to start putting Microsoft officers (President, etc.)
in JAIL.
> > Does the phrase "illegal leveraging of a monopoly" mean anything to
> > you?
>
> You know something. If Microsoft converts its applications to Linux,
> then it stands the best chance of "monopolizing" that platform too...
Not really.
Once people are exposed to TRUE choice (not the conjuror's choice
of "Bill's productA or Bill's productB"), Microsoft will die.
Microsoft's revenue is HIGHLY dependant upon *FORCING* people to
upgrade.
First...they upgrade one of your applications...usually by giving
a "demo version" to company officers (president, treasurer, vice
presidents, etc.)...which produces files which are incompatible
with previous version of that product (example: Word97 vs previous
versions of Word), even for files that are a simple as a string
of text with default formatting.
Effect: Nobody can read what "the boss" wrote and sent out
as an e-mail attachment.
Oh, did I tell you that the recipient of this "demo" has no
way to restore the program to it's previous state without
formating the disk (killing all of his saved files), and
rebuilding the whole system from the ground up....
This format change forces the ENTIRE company to upgrade to the
new version of [Word or whatever]. Of course, the retail
version is functionally equivalent of the demo version, but
is written so that it doesn't work exceedingly well with the
current version of Windows....
So, this in turn forces the company to pay for an upgrade of
Windows for this machine....of course, the latest version of
Windows is MUCH more bloated and an even bigger CPU hog than
the previous version...with idiotic animation that can't
be turned off, but which takes MILLIONS of CPU cycles to
execute, which cause irksome delays when run on older CPU's.
So, now, our "upgraded" corporate Windows machine has been
turned into a pile of shit, all due to the president foolishly
allowing himself into being DECIEVED, by the Microsoft sales reps,
into allowing them to install what is effectively a trojan horse
program onto his system.
The only solution, so that all of those droids at their desks
can become productive again....is to order BRAND NEW COMPUTERS
...with..that's right....license fees for a NEW copy of the
same OS version (which they just paid to upgrade to), and
a NEW license fee for M$-Office (which they had just paid to
upgrade to).
Anybody who thinks that Microsoft products are cheaper to use
than Unix hasn't been paying attention to all of the numerous
and substantial expenses in the lifetime of the typical Windows
box....nor how short a lifespan it has before being unusable
in a commercial environment.
And yet...an 80386 running Linux is still very usable for a
VERY large number of purposes, INCLUDING AS A DESKTOP machine
(provided you're not running a graphical java apps that are
running in interpreted mode rather than having been compiled
and distributed as executables).
>
> --
> David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
--
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: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:58:31 -0800
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:45:42 -0800, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Chad Everett wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:47:52 -0800, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> GreyCloud wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > J Sloan wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Dave Martel wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
> >> >> > > > By: John Lettice
> >> >> > > > Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
> >> >> > > > plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
> >> >> > > > according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
> >> >> > > > Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
> >> >> > > > the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
> >> >> > > > access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
> >> >> > > > read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
> >> >> > > > computers used in sensitive areas..."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This makes me quite proud of my German ancestry.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > j
> >> >> > To all... no one is safe from NSA's equipment! Go ahead and encrypt
> >> >> > ... you can't hide anything from those guys. They are a very scary
> >> >> > organization!
> >> >>
> >> >> That's what THEY WANT you to think.
> >> >>
> >> >> The truth is less fearsome.
> >> >
> >> >I used to work for them. I know. They make their own chips for their
> >> >own computer designs. Believe me, even if you shred a document they
> >> >have ways to put it back together again. Their custom computers can
> >> >decrypt any message that uses current encryption schemes and do it in 3
> >> >seconds, where it would take a Pentium III several thousand years to
> >> >do.
> >>
> >> This is simply not true. It would take "geological" time to break
> >> a decrypted message that uses a modern encryption algorithm..unless you
> >> have the key or the encrypted message along with its plaintext.
> >>
> >> The NSA is NOT the agency that they used to be. Technology is rapidly
> >> surpassing them.
> >>
> >
> >You can think that, but they've been doing decryption work for several
> >decades now.
> >I sure wish I could say more, but even DSC had a show about what little
> >the agency was willing to show, and one building had a great many of
> >their own super-cooled super computers of their own design. NSA has
> >always acquired all commercial and non-commercial encryption algorithms
> >and found the necessary holes or weaknesses in them. Believe me they
> >know how and are far more advanced in technology that a lot of people
> >think they are.
> >
>
> My point is the NSA of the past (as in when you say "has always") is not
> the NSA of today. They can cool their computers all the way to absolute
> zero and still not be able to decrypt a modern encryption algorithm.
> There are certain mathematical foundations of modern crypto that the
> just can't be ignored. You might as well tell use that the NSA has
> super secret techniques for "breaking" gravity.
>
> Here is a GREAT article about that appeared in The New Yorker about a year
> or so ago that describes the real problems that the NSA has with modern
> crypto and technology:
>
> http://cryptome.org/nsa-hersh.htm
Yes, a very interesting article... written by a journalist.
Unfortunately, it is hard to tell if the journalist is spreading
disinformation, misinformed, or making most of it up from rumours.
Propaganda is a method to persaude one into believing things your way.
To get past the propaganda one has to have a means of cross-referencing
to truly ferret out the truth. It appears that it does look formidable
and an unsolvable feat. But I also suspect that the agency isn't
sitting idly by and has other means to circumvent the problem... As
I've posted earlier in this thread, I won't get into this particular
area anymore as I like to keep my pension.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:04:29 -0500
Anonymous wrote:
>
> aaron wrote:
> > Anonymous wrote:
> > >
> > > T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:10:08
> > > > -0700;
> > > > >"Masha Ku' Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >> You know, the really scary thing about Charlie's enthusiasm is that it feels
> > > > >> so much like the "You GOTTA be saved, Jesus LOVES you!.." enthusiasm of some
> > > > >> religious sects.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Or is "Linus loves you," more accurate?
> > > > >
> > > > >windows is a pretty cool system. easy to install and easy to use. i like
> > > > >it just fine.
> > > > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> > > > >
> > > > >men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> > > > >more even than death
> > > > >- bertrand russell
> > > >
> > > > When I recently changed my .sig, I received several lame comments about
> > > > how I wasn't following my own advice, using such a sig while flaming
> > > > trollers rather callously. But that's nothing compared to "Jackie"
> > > > here; one must presume he hasn't even managed to read his own sig, let
> > > > alone understand what it says and its applicability to his own comments.
> > >
> > > what part of my comment do you dispute?
> > > that i think windows is cool?
> > > if so, how can this be considered evidence of fear of thought when it
> > > expresses nothing more than a subjective response - ie 'that's pretty
> > > cool'
> > > or do you have a dispute that windows is easy to use and easy to install?
> > > if you do i suspect you define 'easy' in an idiosyncratic way which makes
> > > the byzantine world of unix look good - such as 'it won't crash'
> > > ignoring the fact that a system which doesn't crash but which requires
> > > more investment in time and effort than most people are willing to make
> > > just to get started with is, for most people, effectively useless.
> > > or perhaps you think liking windows is itself evidence that i fear thought?
> > > well, that may have an element of truth if you define 'thought' strictly
> > > as human cpu cycles. my observations indictate that learning to use unix
> > > well requires an immense amount of what is for most people (myself
> > > included) tedious and unpleasant mental work. this is the underlying
> > > reason for the high value placed on unix savvy people by the market in
> > > that it tends to restrict the supply. (the other side of this is, of
> > > course, increased demand)
> > > now it may be that you, like a lot of people on usenet, love working with
> > > computers. but you should not let this blind you to the fact that for most
> > > people working with computers has only been made just barely tolerable by
> > > things like windows.
> > > and until this is fully understood by the linux evangelists bill gates
> > > needn't lose any sleep fretting over microsoft losing thier total desktop
> > > enduser market domination.
> > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> > >
> > > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> > > more even than death
> > > - bertrand russell
> >
> > .....which explains why you have such a fear of using Linux.
>
> do you speak japanese?
> if not, why not?
A little.
> do you fear thought?
Demonstrate how Japanese would give me productivity increases
over English, and how English-language documents suffer from
periodic corruption and loss, within a few short YEARS, but
Japanese-language documents don't suffer from this, and you'll
have me convinced.
Until then, any attempt to draw a parallel between langauges
and technology come off as ill-considered as they actually are.
> also, why didn't you ever get your degree?
Lack of $$$ at the time....and the fact that since I'm classified
as a senior, I can't transfer credits...which means, even though
all I have left are any assortment of electives which I must choose,
I *must* return to W. Lafayette campus.
To do so makes absolutely no sense. Every job I've applied to which
required a bachelor's degree...had that requirement waived.
> do you fear thought?
don't be silly.
> for that matter why don't you have a ph.d.?
Because in my industry, the forefront of methodologies and
technology are IN INDUSTRY. They don't start college courses
on the subjects until AFTER it's already well-established
within the industry.
Getting a PhD in computer systems engineering means that
you are now thoroughly well-versed in 10-year old techniques
and methods.
Paying tuition for out-of-date information is the height of folly.
> do you fear thought?
Don't be silly.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> jes axin
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:06:55 -0500
Shades wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Well this is all true but creating a multitasking OS and having hardware
> to
> > > support it on was way too expensive for companies to put on someones
> desktop
> >
> > You are truly and idiot.
> >
> > I wrote a multi-user, multi-tasking OS in FOUR WEEKS...BY MYSELF
> > on a lowly mid 1970's Motorola 6809 system.
> >
> >
> >
> > > in even the early 80's. The 8086/88 were not really made to be
> > > multitasking at all. Also MS developed OS/2 which WAS a multitasking
> OS in
> >
> > It was a hell of a lot more powerful than a 6809....
> >
> >
> >
> > > late 80's. I am not sure any of you statements mean anything though.
> We
> > > all stand on the shoulders of giants in some way or another and Unix
> itself
> > > learned a lot over the years from other endeavors that it copied and
> use.
> >
> > You really are fucking clueless about how little effort it takes to
> > create a multi-tasking operating system.
> >
> > I suggest you shut your pie-hole until you have taken the relevant
> > systems programming course at a university.
>
> No I have and I played with the Tannebaum code quite a while ago. True, I
Then you know FULL WELL that your claim that multi-tasking is difficult
to develop and support is an outright lie.
GAME
SET
MATCH
Thank you for playing....JACKASS!
--
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
******************************
