Linux-Advocacy Digest #266, Volume #33 Mon, 2 Apr 01 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Multitasking (Barry Manilow)
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Microsoft has gone insane ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Formatting a floppy (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro ("green")
Re: Windows "speed" ("David Rheaume")
Re: Windows "speed" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ATTN: Outlook Express Users and Virus's ("green")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:08:37 GMT
Said GunnerŠ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 09:42:21
>Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>Tight regulation of the businesses,undercover agents.
>>
>Oh..so then Mathew..you are advocating a Police State then?
In a casino? Hell yes! When you pay for a hooker, you should get your
money's worth, and when you lose money gambling, you want to be sure
your cluelessness doesn't end up supporting the mob. Unless you're not
thinking very hard.
By the way, you *do* realize they already have cameras everywhere and a
great deal of security in casinos, right?
>Why am I not surprised.....
Because you assume you're so smart that you don't have any human
failings that will cause you grief. Or at least you pretend to. We all
do; I think that's how its supposed to work.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:09:27 GMT
Said GunnerŠ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 09:43:20
>Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>> Actually, brainwashing is much easier to accomplish than you
>>> might think.
>>
>>The military is quite good at it.
>>
>Evidently.. so is the DNC....
That's the DNRC, but now we're going to have to kill you, and everyone
who reads this message.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:13:26 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001
>billh wrote:
[...]
>> KuKuNut entered 890915. Held 16S as an MOS in the Indiana ARNG (Lafayette).
>> Assigned to HHC 1-125th in 940701, attached to A 1-125th in 950915.
>> Graduated SINCGARS operator AIT 900420. Has pretended to know what an
>> infantryman is since being assigned as a commo E4 in an infantry battalion.
>> Known to those he serves with as "the general". Care for more?
>
>They think that highly of me, eh?
Oh, Aaron. That is so sad.
I think most of us can guess why they call you "the general", and it
wouldn't be because they like you, or fear you, or anything.
You *are* a good person, Aaron. You just need some help, that's all.
Go find a therapist.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Date: 2 Apr 2001 04:22:20 GMT
Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: GreyCloud wrote:
: >
: > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: > >
: > > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > >
: > > : "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: > > : >
: > > : > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > > : >
: > > : > : Or try this. Open up more than 260 programs all at once and run them
: > > : > : and work on them at the same time on an ordinary PC system. U think
: > > : > : Win-anything can do this?
: > > : >
: > > : > : Yet there are OS's that do this all the time, and easily. And u can
: > > : > : buy and run them right now.
: > > : >
: > > : > Really? Please enlighten us, what OS would this be exactly?
: > >
: > > : OS/2 can run 250-300 programs at once without a lot of problems. I
: > > : know a guy who did it. And he did not have a lot of memory or a very
: > > : fast chip. Can Win-anything do that? No. And I know the Amiga can
: > >
: > > "I heard" usually means "it's bullshit".
: He's my friend you moron. That is more than "I heard". The guy told
: me. Did I see it? No. I don't have to.
* Stephen takes out his UltimateClueStickOfDeath(tm)...
*THWACK!*
He "told" you. Hence, you "heard" it.
: > > : run 110 programs at once on 50 MHZ and 16 MB, without even slowing
: > > : much. Can Win-anything do that? No.
: > >
: > > Again, prove it. Show me a resepctable
: > > source that has actually done this, and
: > > I mean something other than your own
: > > anecdotal supposition.
: One of my Amiga-using friends told me he did this.
You did the exact opposite of what I requested.
Can't you read? I asked for a "source" other
than some "friend" of yours.
: > > : BeOS can multitask better than Win-anything.
: > >
: > > Really? How exactly? Please explain exactly
: > > how well tasks are threaded in BeOS, and why
: > > they are better than threads under WindowsNT.
: Anyone knows Be can thread better than NT, anyone. BeOS is massively
: multithreaded. NT is not at all. Some friends of mine run a business
8<SNIP>8
*sigh* None of that stuff had an explanation in
it whatsoever. I didn't ask for more anecdotal
citations. I asked for a technical explaination
as to why BeOS's multitasking is better than
WindowsNT's. It's clear to me that you have
no idea why, so please, drop the pretense.
[snipped more worthless crap]
: Need any more examples?
None at all. It's perfectly clear to me now
that you are a clueless PC monkey.
[snipped rest of moronic crap]
You're like a wannabe biologist who claims
that he knows everything about sharks simply
because he saw them on television.
"Sharks are better than orca, because their
teeth are sharper... my friend said so!"
Bob, you are nothing but a lusing PC-monkey.
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 21:23:05 -0700
Les Mikesell wrote:
> > > Exactly how do you imagine a separate library that existed before
> > > the GPL'd component would become 'derived from' this GPL'd
> > > component if they happen to be linked together at some future date?
> >
> > It does not.
>
> Then by what claim can the FSF say that separately distributing a
> 'user-does-the-link' kit where the usr obtains his own copy
> of the GPL'd material is in any way a violation?
I've said many times that in my opinion the FSF's claim has no basis
whatsoever in copyright law or in the GPL itself. If people want accept
this restriction, then they're doing so on the basis of a "spirit of the
GPL" justification only.
> > Exactly. The GPL's terms apply to the GPLed code, not to the separate
> > library. If you want to distribute the GPLed code, you must also
> > distribute the source code to the entire program under the terms of the
> > GPL, including any libraries used by the program (ignoring the GPL's
> > exceptions).
>
> What if you don't want to distribute GPLed code, but you want the
> user to obtain his own copy and use it by linking it with another
> component under either less or more restrictive terms?
As far as I'm concerned, you are free to do this. Of course, you are
also free to get hauled into court by whomever holds the copyright for
the software in question. Without legitimate basis, in my view, but it
might still be unpleasant.
> > This is an obligation on the distributor of the GPLed
> > code, nothing more. If he can't meet this obligation, then he can't
> > distribute the GPLed code.
>
> That alone is enough to make the 'free' label a clear deception
There is no deception, since the FSF clearly defines what it means by
the term. There may be some confusion, and that's unfortunate, but
easily remedied by reviewing the FSF's definition of free software.
> but
> the FSF's claim of control over things that do not contain a copy
> of the covered material is even more problematic. How can
> anyone believe these people are reasonable?
The derivation of their viewpoint on this issue -- which is that telling
the user to link it himself is effectively the same, even if
mechanically different, as distributing a linked version yourself -- is
not clearly unreasonable, even if their conclusion is wrong.
------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 21:23:41 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stephen S. Edwards II
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on 31 Mar 2001 20:46:00 GMT
> <9a5fm8$qei$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >8<SNIP>8
> >
> >: The Amiga was definitely an impressive machine -- and I still hear rumors
> >: of it coming back. :-) (Maybe it's because Microsoft hasn't ported NT
> >: to it yet...)
> >
> >Sadly, I've been reading about those same rumors since '94.
> >
> >They never came to fruition, so I wouldn't get my
> >hopes up if I were you. :-(
Stephen is wrong, as he often is. There is a new company being run by
Fleecy Moss and other long-time Amiga fans. Gateway is history. They
have money and backing and are probably going to follow thru on their
plans. They are presently making a "developer's machine" which will
have 500 MHZ and 64 MB of upgradeable memory. They are presently
selling their Amiga SDK for $100. What they are planning is rather
confusing. It has something to do with Tao (an OS) and Java. The
Amiga OS will be able to "run on top of" most any other OS out there,
including Windows and Linux. The Tao OS is supposedly
"hardware-independent", that is it will run on most anything. I
believe the OS is embedded in the chip somehow and there is emulation
for most CPU's in there. To get it to run on a different chip, all
you have to do is a recompile. It is all very confusing and I wish
someone would explain it to me better. They also say present Amiga
users would be able to "upgrade".
I now have an Amiga 3000 running Linux,
> which is good enough -- although I rarely fire it up anymore.
Didn't know Linux would run on an Amiga. Interesting.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Date: 2 Apr 2001 04:23:56 GMT
Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BTW, for a person who hates Microsoft software
so much, you sure don't seem to have much of
a problem using Windows98 and Netscape. Don't
try to deny it... the info's in your headers.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft has gone insane
Date: 2 Apr 2001 04:24:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: They're getting desperate.
: Mozilla is getting pretty close
: to being a viable substitute for
: Internet Explorer.
: When this happens, this will eliminate
: the need for me to startup windows
: just to use a silly web browser.
: (Netscape 4.7x crashes too often
: with Java applets)
: The only reason I need to use
: Windows now is to start a web browser
: because most sites only support
: Internet Explorer.
Web sites, by definition, support Web standards. Anything that
requires IE, or any other specific browser, isn't a Web site, and
isn't worth my time or my business. And I'm very quick to let the
owners and developers of such sites know that. Sometimes they give a
shit. Usually, they don't. But their more ethical competitors end up
with my business instead.
http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign
http://w3.org
Joe
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:27:24 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr
[...]
>I was merely trying to make a point -- and probably failing miserably. :-)
I guess. Sorry for being brusk.
>>>[2] What's the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful"? Perhaps I'm
>>> of a naive, non-lawyerly mindset, but I'm curious. :-)
>>
>>Something is "illegal" when it is specifically stated in the law, and
>>"unlawful" when it is still not. For example, "monopolization" is
>>illegal. "Anti-competitive business strategies", which are, in fact but
>>not in name, monopolization, is merely unlawful. Generally speaking,
>>"illegal" means it is prevented by law, while "unlawful" means it is not
>>supported by law.
>
>Which means anything not specifically mentioned in the law is unlawful?
>Would this include out-of-wedlock sex, for example? :-)
If there is a law that says "you may not have sex out of wedlock", then
it would be illegal to do so. If a law says "you must be married to
have sex", then it would be unlawful to have sex out of wedlock, as well
as being illegal. But it would merely be unlawful, not necessarily
illegal, to have sex with someone you are not married to. Its not
always such a subtle shade of meaning, but I was once told that it is
not, in fact, illegal to rob a bank according to federal law, it is
merely unlawful. I may have it discombobulated, I've never verified it,
but you might agree it *could* be true, right?
So in the same way, "monopolization or attempted monopolization" is what
is illegal. "Having a monopoly" is unlawful, because having a monopoly
requires monopolizing, or at least attempting to monopolize and a spot
of luck. I usually don't bother shaving such hairs, and just say "yes,
having a monopoly is illegal". But I always get shit for it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:32:30 GMT
Said Joseph T. Adams in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Apr 2001 01:56:17
GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: After all, property is the only human right which matters, eh? Funny
>: how they left it out of the Constitution, substituting "pursuit of
>: happiness" for the right to property.
>
>Hint: check out the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Clue: they left it out of the obvious enumeration of Lockean rights.
>You may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence. It however is
>not the law; the Constitution is.
I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about the country. And thus
obviously the ideals upon which the Constitution, in all its glory,
rests. I never suggested for a moment that US Citizens did not have a
right to property.
So, could you explain to me why they left it out?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:37:33 GMT
Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:26:47
>Just for fun, can we skip the word games on democracy and republic? The
>word are normally used interchangeably when discussing our political system.
>Only PoliSci geeks worry about the difference between the two. This is like
>aaron worrying about communism vs socialism.
I like that; we should consider it a rule for the thread, if we even
bother continuing. And for the record, it was me that "worried" about
the distinction between communism and socialism, but only to illustrate
that Aaron is generally ignorant about what constitutes either.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Formatting a floppy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:43:36 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 1 Apr 2001
11:24:21 +0200;
>
>"Barry Manilow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> Not at all. Win-anything typically skips when playing MP3's if you
>> are doing much of anything else.
>
>Again this blanket nonsense ? On my Celeron 400, *.mp3 playing takes tops 2%
>of my CPU. Try to enable UDMA one day.
What does CPU loading have to do with stuttering? This is Windows we're
talking about, not some consistent solid OS with peer review and a
reputation for stability.
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> Just speaking from experience, friend. You Win-users are so isolated
>> you have no idea what some other OS's can do. Windows is not the only
>
>Again with the blanket statements. how do you know that Win-users don't know
>anything else ?
We assume they are rational. They either hate the monopoly but use
Windows anyway, or they pretend it isn't a complete piece of crap. We
likewise assume they are honest, as well as rational, and so wouldn't
tell anyone else that they pretend it isn't a complete piece of crap.
So that leaves us on Usenet with those who must be ignorant of
everything else.
A few pretenders still leak through, of course, most of them being sock
puppets, though many suspect there are at least some genuine shills.
>> OS out there. You guys need to get out once in a while.
>
>To use OSes ? Sorry, when i get out it's not to spend in fron of a computer.
>Your mileage obviously varies.
Its not how far you drive, but whether you know the country.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Date: 2 Apr 2001 04:52:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy mmnnoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I really prefer the response to be *before* the quoted material,
: since many readers have just read the previous message and
: shouldn't need to scroll down, while those coming along after
: the fact or reading the message in isolation can still get the
: context of my comments.
Usually if my response can stand alone it goes on the top, but if it
requires quoted text to provide context, which is usually the case,
then it goes underneath that text. News articles aren't guaranteed to
arrive in any particular order, or to still be around when the reader
has gotten around to reading a particular response, so providing the
context needed to understand a message is usually a good idea.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:00:36 +1000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Rick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > WesTralia wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Warren Bell wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With all the stuff I'm hearing about Windows XP and the WPA,
that will
> > > > > > > require you to have MS activate your PC after makeing any
hardware
> > > > > > > changes, makes me wish there was somthing out there to compete
with
> > > > > > > Windows. I mean really compete.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Linux is a great OS and is getting better all the time, but
the average
> > > > > > > computer user won't want to use it. What I think Linux needs
is a
> > > > > > > light, user freindly version that anyone can use. Somthing
that's
> > > > > > > stripped of most of the server functions and is made for a
single or
> > > > > > > multi user home system. Somthing that even the untechnical
user can use
> > > > > > > without too many problems. Here are some things that I think
would be
> > > > > > > needed to make this work:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - A standard GUI that all Linux distros could use.
> > > > > > > - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
> > > > > > > - All the most used admin (root) functions available from
point and
> > > > > > > click.
> > > > > > > - All makers of the lighter distro to follow standards so all
the
> > > > > > > distros are similar.
> > > > > > > - Of course, more programs that people need for everyday use.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to see Linux come out with somthing that would really
compete
> > > > > > > with windows and give people who arn't tech savvy a choice.
Any
> > > > > > > thoughts on this? Any distros that are trying to move twards
an OS like
> > > > > > > this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds to me that you are describing the Mac OSX. I haven't
used it or
> > > > > > even seen it in "person" but I like the idea of the Aqua GUI,
Unix kernel,
> > > > > > and the fact that you can use either the command line or the GUI
for real
> > > > > > work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wish the Mac people would port OSX to the PC and sell the
OSX separately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact, that's my quiestion for the day: why don't they?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Apple can't get out of the obsolete Hardware <--> OS permanently
tied together
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^
> > > > > mode of thinking.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As usual, you are wrong about Apple.
> > >
> > > Then I suppose you can name a long list of Apple software products
that aren't
> > > tied to Apple hardware....
> > >
> >
> > Um, MacOS runs on Macintosh. It is a hardware/software combo, at least
>
> That's what I said. See the line I underlined with "^^^^^^^^" above.
>
>
>
> > for now. When will you recognize that and quit bitching about it? Apps
> > for Macintosh run on, um Macintosh.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > Now tell me what non x86 or x86 clone amchines Windows runs on. Or
> > Solaris.
>
> Solaris runs on Sparc and on x86. Maybe more.
>
> Besides, Solaris is merely ONE member of the Unix family.
> If you want, you can go to Sun's website and download Solaris for x86.
>
win ce for embedded devices not necessary x86.
i.e. 5 for Mac. (going on i.e. is a core part of the Os ... crap)
------------------------------
From: "David Rheaume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:59:07 GMT
Your sysadmin friends, eh? So that translates to, "Hi, I have no experience
with the OS, but I'll go ahead and trash it because that's the hip thing to
do."
And no, Redmond ITG would nor preconfigure the OS on a donated machine. The
software and hardware would be donated, and then the library most likely had
some high school kid install it.
You obviously have no grasp of the OS's capabilities (or antitrust law, for
that matter). Do me a favor - install the OS. Read a book. Check it out
for yourself, and don't spout generic anti-MS crap. It showcases your
ignorance.
"Barry Manilow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> David Rheaume wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, but where do you purchase your crack? NT4 absolutely *flies*
on
> > a P3/600.
> >
> I didn't purchase any crack. I was using it at the public library.
> These were machines "donated" by Bill "Dogshit" Gates to the library
> for the purposes of brainwashing and indoctrinating the innocent,
> ignorant masses. All SW on the boxes was MS SW, of course. There is
> an illegal, criminal provision in the contract which forbids the
> library from installing Netscape on any of the boxen.
>
> Since the boxes were donated by MS, I assume they were set up
> correctly by Redmond. They are 600 MHZ 128 MB 2 GB NT4 boxen and they
> are slow and lumbering like drunken rhinos trying to climb out of a
> slippery muddy slope. Depressing!
>
> >It flies on a P/200 with 32 MB RAM.
>
> Haha. My sysadmin friends say that OS/2 server serves 200 clients on
> the above configuration while NT will not serve even one. What gives?
> --
> Bob
> Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
> today!
> Why do you think you are being flamed?
> [ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
> [ ] You started an off-topic thread
> [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
> [ ] People don't like your tone of voice
> [ ] Other (describe)
> [ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 05:02:16 GMT
Said LShaping in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 01:09:40 GMT;
>Now, would whoever
>keeps crossposting to or from alt.destroy.microsoft, please stop and
>also stop changing the subject line. This is not a Windows advocacy
>group :o)
I've crossposted one or two threads from cola into adm (because they are
relevant and of interested to me, a regular poster), but never the other
way 'round. And though cross-posts into ms advocacy groups were
preserved, I only ever extended them from cola. I haven't changed any
subject lines, either. Perhaps someone else is doing much more, but
frankly I don't mind the traffic in adm.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATTN: Outlook Express Users and Virus's
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:06:41 +1000
> > The Young One (I know, I know, its old, but its a classic)
> > Monty Pythons Flying Circus
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<Gob Smacked>
> > The Ali G Show
>
> Never saw it.
>
> > One Foot in the Grave
>
> That ones fairly funny, especially when you get tied up in caregiving
> issues.
>
> > Father Ted
> > Vicar of Dibbly
even seen is australia! on abc (australian broadcasting ....)
fairly good though.
don't know if their to recent though, they are in aust.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
