Linux-Advocacy Digest #932, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Mar 01 15:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: What is user friendly? ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Shades")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("spicerun")
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Shades")
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (WesTralia)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Peter Seebach)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Matthias
Warkus)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Craig Oshima")
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (WesTralia)
Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid. (Peter Seebach)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:14:16 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quantum Leaper wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Shades wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Unix has half a dozen GUI's that are so good that Mafia$oft
> > > > > copied (in their own, usual, less-than-elegant way) as much of
> > > > > this functionality as they could.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now....if Unix is supposedly soooooooooo difficult to use, then
> > > > > please explain why Mafia$oft is copying Unix ON THE BASIS OF
> > > > > EASE OF USE.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > I remember the Mac users were saying MS copied Mac with Windows 95, but
> > after I talked with alot of my friends who have used alot of different
OSs,
> > included Unix. The general feeling is MS copies EVERYONE but only tried
to
> > take the best parts. BTW you can run Enlightenment (clone) on NT4 as an
> > explorer replacement, might ever be available for 2K.
>
> M$ gives new meaning to the phrase "not invented here"...as there
> is not a single feature of an M$ platform which was invented by
> Microsoft.
>
> The only "inventions" M$ can be credited with is new ways to
> run a software corporation as a criminal organization.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Here's a Hint....
> > > Neither Microsoft nor Apple invented the GUI. In fact, even the total
> > > of their work COMBINED is only a small fraction of the work done on
> > > GUI development.
> > >
> > Debatable, but they have the 2 biggest selling GUIs out there.... Most
> > Unix boxes, I have seen are CLI.....
>
> The fact that Palo Alto Research Center invented the GUI is *NOT*
> a matter of debate--it is a HISTORICAL FACT.
>
I guess it comes down to what make a GUI, what it is.... If you call a GUI
"2-dimensional display editing", then Doug created the GUI in 1968, or if
you want all other junk most 'modern' GUI have then PARC created it. BTW
most computer people I know would consider Doug the creator. Since without
him, the people at PARC wouldn't have had the idea to begin with... If you
want I can provide more then enough URLs as references.
>
> >
> > > There have been GUI's for Unix going all the way back to early Sun
> > > Microsystems products in 1984.
> > >
> > Beat my GUI (GEOS) on my C64 by about year.
>
> Whoops...forgot that one from my list.
>
Just another mistake in a long list of them you create....
> >
> > > The first GUI was one that was developed in the late-1970's by the
Palo
> > Alto
> > > Research Corporation (PARC), which, at the time, was owned by Xerox.
> > > In the early 1980, morale at PARC was low, and Jobs was starting a new
> > > project at Apple...and wanted a GUI...most of the people at PARC left
> > > and hired in on the Macintosh project.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong answer..... GUIs started in the 60s by Doug Englebart who also
> > invented the Mouse. Xerox was the first to try to make it into a
product
> > but at 10K each, they didn't sell.
> >
> > > So..here's the timeline:
> > >
> > > PARC's gui circa 1978
> > > Macintosh 1983
> > > SunWindows 1984
> > > Atari GEM 1985
>
> Commodore GEOS 1985
>
> > > Commodore Amiga 1986
> > > XWindows protocol 1986
> > >
> > I'm not going to debate your timeline since I don't remember which was
> > first, but I though the Amiga was out in 1985, a very short time after
> > Atari. There are quite a few other GUIs out there you didn't mention.
> >
>
> They are far toooo numerous to make a complete list.
>
> I was merely giving a list of influential GUI's that were widely
> used...most all of which appeared LONG before Billy Trust-fund baby
> Gates III discovered them.
>
You do realize Billy got his start on the GUIs when he saw the Lisa at
Apple... So I would call the Lisa, more important the Mac, atleast for MS.
>
> > > > 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. Why it seems odd that if everything
works
> > so
> > >
> > > You have the EXACT same pointy-clicky functionality on Linux and
Unix...in
> > fact,
> > > it has been available on Unix for FAR LONGER...
> > >
> > True but at a much great cost, until recently. Most users don't like
to
> > dump all their software and start new again...
>
>
> If they wouldn't invest so much of their money purchasing software
> which stores data in proprietary formats, they wouldn't have that
> fucking problem, would they?
>
So far most systems I have seen have alot of proprietary formats, the Amiga
had the most standardized formats. Every format is proprietary until
someone copies it and use it in there programs. Star Office had no problem
loading the word files, I had, currently I am not using Star Office.
> Users who complain about the high cost of switching away from Microsoft
> have nobody but their own POOR judgement to blame.
>
True, but when I asked a friend what he wanted as an OS on his new
computer, a crashy Win98SE or a stable Linux. He asked me how many games
could run on Linux other than Id software, he then picked Win98SE. I know
people who pick Windows over other OSs, simple because they can get the
software they want off the shelf. Linux has a real or imagery shortage of
quaility Games and Education titles, atleast thats what I hear from friends
who have thought about switching.
> And then they foolishly trust that SAME poor judgement which tells
> them to continue suffering the thrice-yearly bloodletting from
> Microsoft rather than bite the bullet and free themselves from
> Redmond's biggest drug pusher once and for all.
>
I find interesting most of my friends don't have nearly 1/2 as many problems
as the Linux users had with Windows and that includes some people who can
barely use a computer. BTW if any of them have the smallest problem, they
call me.
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:18:58 -0500
>
> you KNOWINGLY LIED, and there's no squirming out of it...JACKASS!
>
>
Let me ask you a question. Could a large office full of secretaries easily
used a multitasking OS using the command line? Or a CEO of a company. I
admitted it was technically possible to do it but given that apps ran so
damned slow on an old 8086/88 why would they?
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:19:48 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quantum Leaper wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Shades wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You obviously haven't worked on any HP, Sun, or SGI machines with
> > > > > version 1990 or later versions of Unix.
> > > > >
> > > > > The learning curve for these systems is SHALLOWER than windows.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well then I suppose Sun/HP and SGI are going to be winning the
desktop
> > > > anyday? Hmm?
> > >
> > > In the same way that the gasoline engine ripped the guts out of
> > > steam-powered automobile manufacturers.
> > >
> > The reason is gasoline engines are alot better than a steam power auto.
>
> And likewise, Linux is a FAR better desktop OS than anything sold
> by Microsoft AND ALSO a far better server OS than anything sold
> by Microsoft.
>
Most businesses around here still want people who know Microsoft or Netware,
very few want Unix/Linux. Also the local college is offering alot more
classes based on Microsoft (I'm not talking about Application short classes,
like Word or Excel) then they are Unix/Linux, but they are thinking of
adding a couple Linux classes, soon.
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:28:50 -0600
In article <997r3b$p1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I agree there are NT wackos out there too but at least from working with
> people from both camps, I have found that the NT wackos "generally" are
> a lot less wacko, or at least a lot less vocal about it.
My experience is completely different from yours. I have been in 2
companies with 2 different NT machines....The machines both lock up
whenever the network is interrupted. In both places there have been a lot
of 'NT' experts telling me that NT doesn't lock up, although there it is
locking up in front of their own eyes. But they're adamant that it is a
machine problem...not an NT problem.
When I put on Linux and the same machines, and actually start pulling the
ethernet cable during file copies...and show that the machine handles it
with no lockups, These NT goons start insulting my me, my family, etc.,
etc and become those wackos you talk about.
Amazing how I've always run into those whackos....and all I have to say is
that I don't run Windows. It was that way when I ran an Apple II Plus in
the old days, and I knew people running Amigas, Ataris, whatever that were
constantly badgered simply because they didn't run an MS Operating System.
I've simply found that the Windows users are the second most arrogant
bunch of users I've ever seen. ( The number 1 arrogant group I've seen is
the OS2 crowd.......I refuse to get involved with OS2 to this day, not
because of the OS, but because of the users and their crappy attitudes).
> Both camps
> do have both good professional people it is far easier for MS to tell a
> customer on the fence about moving over to Linux why they shouldn't.
They sure can't do this truthfully. People really do get 'miffed' when
they find they have been lied to.
> Especially if this company got burned in the past by similar types of
> people...
1. I think you're a Win-troll pretending to be sensible when all you're
really doing is pushing the MS agenda. Perhaps one of the MS Fudsters.
2. I have worked in many Unix shops, and almost all of the Unix people
I've met in my 20 years of experience have been very curteous and
knowledgeable -- in fact, most times I have a hard time to get a
recommendation out of them as to which OS is the best ... usually I just
hear the "stay away from MS Systems" advice.
.3. Visit one of your local Linux Users Group. I think you'll find that
they promote Linux very professionally. I know by the growth of ours in
this area that they are very successful....as many members are those who
converted to Linux after getting professional help and advice from the
Linux Users group.
4. Using pan's terminology, You are now bozoized, and the Bozos Rule is
now in effect. (ie - I have killfiled you).
5. Where do you want to go after your BSOD?
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:26:43 -0500
>
> Basically, we're goddamned fucking SICK AND TIRED of donkey-raping
> shit-eaters like yourself who continously LIE about Linux and Unix.
>
> Now, be a good little retard and go fuck yourself, JACKASS!
>
Really. Wow... all I said was it would be nice if some Linux people acted
more professional for the sake of getting Linux in the door at certain
places. Actually I never said anything about Unix and Linux, I was talking
about the people who represent it. I also was attempting to give some
advice on how some corporations percieve Linux as a good technology but not
enough in the overall solution.
If these comments are detrimental then you can point out why.
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:24:54 -0600
Shades wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Yep... thanks.
> >
> > Sounds like something a Mafia$oft JACKASS would write.
> >
>
> You know... I haven't once called you a name nor have I said anything
> negative towards you personally. In your .sig you say that: "The wise man
> is mocked by fools." I am neither saying I am wise nor you a fool but
> unlike you, I wasn't trying out for the part.
>
> So far all I did was make a statement regarding the professionalism of Linux
> people. For some reason you may think I am pro MS but I am pro competition
> and I was simply stating that actions like these makes MS's job easier to
> do. Ranting and raving with somewhat uncontrollable anger isn't going to
> prove your point to anyone and is only going to help repeat history.
Shades, save your breath on this guy. You are arguing with a sys admin
for Kinko Kopiers who oversees a Wintendo98 network.
-wt
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:27:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Pretend for a moment that I create the NPPL -- the Non-Political Public
>>Licence -- as an almost identical copy of the GPL, except that it
>>didn't have the political stuff attached (it DOES, however, have the
>>viral nature).
>What are you talking about, then? The viral nature *is* "the political
>stuff". You'll have to put some thought into your thought experiment,
>it seems.
The manifesto, which is *required* to be included with GPL'd code.
>>If I licence package A under the NPPL, then neither I
>>nor anyone else can combine A with any GPLed package out there. It
>>doesn't matter that the effects of the licences are identical.
>If the effects of the license are identical, then what is the reason you
>didn't GPL your stuff?
To stop having the manifesto attached.
>You'll have to clarify what you mean by "a political manifesto". Are
>you simply mischaracterizing the fact that you can't combine the GPL
>with other licenses? Saying your NPPL license effects "are identical
>except how they're different" seems to beg the question, doesn't it?
Read the GPL. See that thing starting "Preamble"? Imagine a license
which does not contain it, and starts at the point where the GPL says
---
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
[...]
---
This license *MUST* be free, because it's precisely the same terms as the
GPL... but you can't distribute a program which contains code under this
license, and also code under the GPL.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:29:50 GMT
Said Shades in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:05:51 -0500;
>Can anyone imagine, let's say a CTO of a large multinational company,
the
>kind Linux advocates would love say they beat MS in, jumping into one of
>these newsgroups and reading the "professionalism" expressed in this
>group(see below)? Unix people have always been touted as being this
>arrogant and narrow-minded and I have had my fair share of the
>unprofessional manner.
What a dumb-ass.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:12:09 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 14 Mar 2001 14:44:11 +0100...
...and Bruce Scott TOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know what the situation in
> general in Europe is, but I suspect that at least in Germany the
> property rights of a simple citizen are stronger than that.
Yup. The process to take away someone's ground takes years and implies
a vast (over)compensation, i.e. if there's coal under your cottage,
and the cottage plus the ground it's standing on is worth DM 50,000
total, chances are that Rheinbraun (or whichever company will dig
there) must pay you a compensation of DM 400,000 or more bevore the
excavators come.
mawa
--
Never trust anybody whose arm is bigger than your leg.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:32:39 GMT
Said Shades in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:07:44 -0500;
>> >
>> > Can anyone imagine, let's say a CTO of a large multinational company, the
>> > kind Linux advocates would love say they beat MS in, jumping into one of
>> > these newsgroups and reading the "professionalism" expressed in this
>> > group(see below)? Unix people have always been touted as being this
>> > arrogant and narrow-minded and I have had my fair share of the
>> > unprofessional manner.
>
>Where else would a Microsoft sales rep tell a corporate client to go to see
>the loving Linux adminsitrators and programmers in their natural habitat?
Where else but alt.destroy.microsoft? What are you, stupid?
>Sorry, I was just giving you all a fair warning that if MS wanted to prove
>that Linux people were insane little turd men many of these postings would
>prove it.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. "Fair warning".... "MS wanted to prove..." "insane
little turd men..."! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>You can say what you want but it doesn't change a thing.
And apparently the thing it cannot change is how badly you got your ass
kicked, to come up with nonsense like this.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:33:36 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > aaron wrote:
> > > Quantum Leaper wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Shades wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You obviously haven't worked on any HP, Sun, or SGI machines
with
> > > > > > > version 1990 or later versions of Unix.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The learning curve for these systems is SHALLOWER than
windows.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well then I suppose Sun/HP and SGI are going to be winning the
desktop
> > > > > > anyday? Hmm?
> > > > >
> > > > > In the same way that the gasoline engine ripped the guts out of
> > > > > steam-powered automobile manufacturers.
> > > > >
> > > > The reason is gasoline engines are alot better than a steam power
auto.
> > >
> > > And likewise, Linux is a FAR better desktop OS than anything sold
> > > by Microsoft
> >
> > yet as far as the vast majority of desktop users are concerned they
can't
> > give it away.
>
> Because Microsoft had shills writing for YEARS about the supposed
> "problem" of the Unix command line being more difficult than the
> DOS command line. [In reality, the Unix command line is easier because
> it is more consistant....example: all wildcard characters are handled
> the same way....not only that, but you can do specificiations like
> *sept* to specify all files with the string "sept" anywhere within
> the name. DOS's pattern matching never did get sophisticated enough
> to handle even this still relatively SIMPLE method of wildcard matching.
>
Amazing I just tried your list test, not *sept* but with 'dir *in*' in the
Window directory, and had a long list of files. Which if I read your
complant correctly, Windows should NOT have done correctly. Sorry can't
test it with Dos6.22, since I don't have access to it.
> Since few people at that time had any experience with Unix, the
> LIES stuck.
>
Unix people seem to the same about Windows, see example above....
> And then there are people like you, who go on with your silly comparisons
> between the learning curve between late 1990's windows vs mid 1980's Unix.
Learning curve all depends on the person's experence.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:28:22 -0800
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, the x-windows based gui's that were available in 1988 were
> fairly primative...however, by the early 1990's, they were VERY
> much more sophisticated.
>
> Such as multiple desktops (still not implemented in Windows), implemented
in
> the CDE GUI in the early 1990's, and is standard in ALL modern Unix GUI's.
Do you have real evidence that this is an important feature? I had a
utility to do this with Windows back in the 90s...and I never used it. Not
that my opinion is more important than yours, but your opinion is no more
important than mine either. I have never missed multiple desktops on Mac or
on Windows.
> icons for frequently used tools on a task bar (not until Windows98,
implemented
> in CDE in the early 1990s', and is standard in ALL modern Unix GUI's.
I concede this point. But there were plenty of freeware/shareware apps that
provided this capability so it's really not that big of a deal
> symbolic links....implemented in Windows98....implemented in Unix in the
> early 1970's.
Useful, but not really a GUI function.
>
> Pre-emptive multi-tasking. Implemented by Microsoft in windows
1995....implemented
> in Unix in 1969.
Useful, but not really a GUI function.
> Need I go on...
Please do. And include some justification for your claim that Unix GUIs
have shallower learning curves than Windows or Macintosh. You throw this
"fact" around like it's common knowledge, but I doubt you have any reliable
data to that effect.
> > why, if that is the case, are they so much easier to use?
>
> Probably because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Oh, that's very constructive. Thanks for the insight.
--
Craig Oshima
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:35:23 GMT
Said Shades in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:16:07 -0500;
>> As long as you keep LYING, I will continue to call you a LIAR AND A
>JACKASS.
>>
>> You're just pissed off because you're being identified for what you are.
>>
>> Now, fuck off and die, you cretin.
>
>
>Hmm.. if I am pissed off do I "sound" like it? No.
Says who? As far as I am concerned, a person has to be pretty pissed
off before they start trying to "shame" whoever kicked their ass by
saying how "unprofessional" it all looks.
>That is the
>difference between acting professional vs. not.
No, the difference is whether you are *being* professional. We call
whatever that looks like "acting" professional, but as you have so well
illustrated, it is something you can't actually fake. Those of us who
are professionals do not get all self-concious and defensive because
some lame-ass like yourself threatens to expose our opinions. Christ,
you think we're just *playing* at this?
>I have pretty thick skin
>and nothing you have said so far has upset me except for the fact that few
>people seem to think about what I am saying and instead just a nice old
>simple flame.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:28:29 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> "." wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Shades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > 8<SNIP>8
> >
> > > First of all, Aaron R. Kulkis is considered a
> > > blithering idiot by both COLA and COMNA
> > > participants. Secondly, if you think that
> > > there are no irrational, childish, idiotic
> > > NT advocates, then you might want to lurk
> > > about on some of the various IRC nets.
> >
> > Actually, kulkis and chad meyers are almost exactly the same person. Substitute
> > "linux" for "windows" appropriately, and you absolutely cannot tell them
> > apart.
>
> Wrong.
>
> I know what the fuck I'm talking about. I have the university
> education AND the real-world experience to know what the fuck
> I'm talking about.
You are wrong about YOUR university education. You never finished. You
are a high school graduate, nothing more, nothing less.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:41:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Colquhoun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've never used FreeBSD, so I don't know how the ports system works.
Basically, it downloads source, applies patches, compiles, and installs.
>I will have to bring myself to try it some time. (Currently my BSD
>experience has been soured by exposure to BSDI)
Ahh, the tragedy of people making money selling software. ;)
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:44:23 GMT
Said Shades in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:01:51 -0500;
[...]
>I am a little tired of watching year after year great technologies go down
>the shitter because the company making them doesn't have a much of a clue
>about anything else and because so many people are so damned self righteous
>that they MUST win by shear will. Steve Jobs proved that to be wrong as did
>so many others that MS went after. MS may be a bunch of assholes but they
>don't seem to be as big an asshole as their competition can be.
What a moron.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
