Linux-Advocacy Digest #341, Volume #33 Wed, 4 Apr 01 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What is user friendly? (GreyCloud)
Re: the truth about linux (GreyCloud)
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows "speed" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Baseball ("David Brown")
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 02:47:08 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > >
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote
> > > on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 01:56:48 -0800
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> soc.singles removed from followups. (Um....insert your own joke regarding
> > > >> weird crossposts here, folks. :-) )
> > > >>
> > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jan Johanson
> > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >> wrote
> > > >> on 24 Mar 2001 16:13:02 -0600
> > > >> <3abd1b3f$0$28213$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Which gets back to my main point:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Mafia$oft sticks you with code compiled for an 80486, and nothing
> > > >> >> better....even if you're running a Pentium III.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Wrong. There is Pentium specific code in NT as well as Windows 2000. There
> > > >> >are also processor specific speed ups for the PII and PIII OP sets, as well
> > > >> >as specific speedups for MMS, SSE and SSEII.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Linux installs an 80386 kernal and apps BUT, it lets you re-make the
> > > >> >kernal
> > > >> >> and apps, so that you are using executable code that was optimized for
> > > >> >> your CPU.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >So, can't run linux on a 286 without a recompile eh?
> > > >>
> > > >> Can't run Linux on a 286 at all; it requires a flat address space.
> > > >> At least, last time I checked. :-) Someone might have snuck in some
> > > >> detection code deep in the kernel, but it would definitely require
> > > >> a recompile with an intelligent compiler that can translate the
> > > >> flat address space into segment:paragraph form. (And that's assuming
> > > >> no code mucks with the translation tables and/or card registers in an
> > > >> incompatible fashion within the drivers or modules during something
> > > >> like DMA setup. Oy vey....)
> > > >>
> > > >> No, g++ isn't quite that intelligent, at least as far as I've
> > > >> looked at it. :-)
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >More intelligent than VC++6.0. I have the MSDN CD-rom set. VC has
> > > >trouble with multiple inheritance and the MSDN admits it by showing
> > > >possible work-arounds. g++ seems to handle multiple inheritance quite
> > > >well. As time goes on g++ will improve.
> > >
> > > Which is funny because ATL uses multiple inheritance (and templates)
> > > pretty heavily. Take a look at VC++ wizard-generated code sometime. :-)
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> Not sure if this is a bug or a feature or merely a reflection of the
> > > >> sad legacy of backward compatibility we've been saddled with
> > > >> because of the monopolistic tendencies of the software market -- said
> > > >> tendencies being created either by ourselves (because we like it that
> > > >> way?), or by a certain gigantic software vender that even now is still
> > > >> trying to dominate the market, explaining that it's doing so
> > > >> "for the sake of the naive user".
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, because Intel was first, Motorola second. The 68000 series
> > > >> was superior in terms of register usage and addressing capability.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Using the "register" specification in a C program is far more useful on
> > > >processors with orthogonal register usage than on Intel processors.
> > > >Wish I could afford better, but all I can do now is get used VAXens.
> > >
> > > Now there was a nice machine language. None of this weird r/m stuff
> > > or oddball bitmasking for different ops; one just has a byte opcode
> > > and a series of operands, which could be immediate, memory, PIC,
> > > register, offset(register), indexed (which even took into account
> > > the size of the operand)...compilers would be almost trivial.
> > >
> > > There was complete orthogonality of 12 of its 16 registers (R0 was
> > > dedicated to returns, but it could also be used), R12 = FP, R13 = AP,
> > > R14 = SP, R15 = PC, if memory serves; in a pinch, one could probably
> > > use AP as a scratch register, too). If one wanted to, one could
> > > also use the very powerful macro assembler. I forget the specifics
> > > of floating point (I think there was a separate set of registers for that),
> > > but it was also well supported, with the usual instructions for
> > > converting ints to floats/doubles, etc.
> > >
> > > Of course, the VAX does disallow certain instruction types; moving
> > > to an immediate operand or jumping to a register will most likely
> > > result in an illegal instruction exception of some sort
> > > (I forget the details, now). :-)
> > >
> > > It also had a well-engineered argument/stack frame, which everyone was
> > > expected to follow (and which was supported by CALLS, CALLG,
> > > and various PUSHes and POPs).
> > >
> > > VMS wasn't too bad, athough it tried to do too much; the one thing
> > > I miss was the asynchronous service trap, which basically got called
> > > when I/O completed. It also had some funny notions regarding
> > > redirect ("ASSIGN SYS$INPUT filename" [*], as opposed to the simple "<").
> > > But it was robust and well-documented, complete with built-in HELP
> > > with a tree of topics. It felt like a very very heavy OS at the time,
> > > but the VAXes I used at my employment had all of 5 and 8 megabytes
> > > which means that compared to Win2k, it was a virtual featherweight!
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, as usual, we got the schlock x86 architecture which
> > > has got to have the weirdest set of registers I've seen in a micro,
> > > barring such oddballities as the 6502 (anyone else remember (22,X)
> > > and (22),Y indirect addressing modes? :-) ).
> > >
> > > At least the 386+ is usable now. :-)
> > >
> > > [rest snipped]
> > >
> > > [*] I might have the arguments reversed. There was also an option on
> > > the DCL ASSIGN command that could indicate whether the assignment
> > > was for the duration of the process, or merely for the next image
> > > (VMS differentiated between the two). However, I forget the
> > > specific flag.
> > >
> >
> > In DCL to make a variable local it was $ var1 := whatever...
> > Global it was $ var2 :== whatever...
>
> Sounds like a bug breeding factory.
>
Not really... it's security. It makes your intent clear. But it also
makes things difficult if one isn't aware of these nuances.
Basically as one vendor put it "VMS is a wordy O/S and more akin to
english, while UNIX is terse but more flexible." I learned VMS before
anything else, except old IBM fortran. Now I'm on my own trying to
learn UNIX and all its goodies. Being retired without any pressures
makes UNIX a fun project.
> >
> > I'm still waiting on the new License purchase (Hobbyist) for VMS 7.2
> > The CDs include Vax Fortran, Vax Basic, Cobol, C, Pascal for $40.
> >
> > > --
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> > > EAC code #191 56d:08h:46m actually running Linux.
> > > Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
> >
> > --
> > V
>
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the truth about linux
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 02:50:50 -0700
Don't Ask wrote:
>
> Brent R wrote:
>
> > In general, I find the Linux community so darn obnoxious and unlikable
> > (ie. Kulkis), or just plain religious like zealotrous (ie. Charlie
> > Ebert) at times it actually serves as a deterrant to me using the OS.
>
> In general, I find the Windows community so darn obnoxious and unlikable or just
>plain religious it
> actually serves as a deterrant to me using the OS. That, and the fact that it
>crashes all the bloody
> time.
>
> > Is this flaimbait? Probably, but the truth is the truth.
>
> Actually, the article is full of opinion with very little "truth". I wouldn't
>recommend that anyone
> waste their time.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
There seems to be a difference between the "Windows community" aka
"Bothell MSCEs" and "Corporate trained" or "College Trained with
Degrees" UNIX experts. A very large difference.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 03:00:58 -0700
667 Neighbor of the Beast wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Apr 2001
> > >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >: Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Apr 2001
> > >: >Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >[Stephen sighs, as he must address yet another well-known idiot]
> >
> > >: >: 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.
> > >
> > >: How revoltingly rude. You called it bullshit. THWACK, hence you
> > >: ultimately are clueless, as he has more information than you do over
> > >: whether it is true.
> > >
> > >His proof was "he heard it from someone else". He
> > >even admitted that he hadn't seen it done, and
> > >that he was merely "told" that it was done.
>
> You know, this is all just a little bit silly here. The claim was
> that OS/2 could run over 255 programs at once. The fact that it can
> run 255 programs at once is apparently not open to dispute, as this is
> what IBM testing found. However, what is being attacked here is the
> heretical notion that OS/2 can run *more* than 255 programs at once,
> which is based on anecdotal evidence. *Note that there is no argument
> that OS/2 can indeed run 255 programs at once!* Isn't Stephen being
> silly here?
> >
> > >: >: > > : 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.
> > >
> > >: Go do it yourself. Is he on your payroll? Give us a single reason why
> > >: it wouldn't be so, how about that, maybe?
> > >
> > >The burden of proof is on the person making the
> > >claim.
>
> Once again, this is just a bit silly. Get 100 or 1000 Amiga users
> together, tell them that my friend ran 110 programs on a 50 MHZ 16 MB
> machine, and ask them if he is a liar. I am sure that most of them
> would say something like, "Well, of course the Amiga can do that".
> "Anybody knows that." Note that this is the anecdotal evidence that
> is being attacked here. Notice Stephen's silly behavior.
> >
> >
Any computer that has a multi-tasking O/S can run over 255 programs...
Its a matter of if you want the results today or sometime next year.
> > >: >I didn't ask for more anecdotal
> > >: >citations.
> > >
> > >: No, you asked for evidence. These anecdotal citations are the evidence.
> > >
> > >No, hair-brain, they aren't.
> >
> > Sorry, putz, they are. They may or may not be proof, but they are
> > evidence.
> >
> > >Evidence is something
> > >that I can verify.
> >
> Notice here that Stephen continues to insist that all evidence showing
> any OS is better than NT at anything, much less multitasking, is
> "anecdotal". Note that Stephen refuses to comment on the c't Magazine
> benchmark test of last August or the test this individual did on this
> page.
>
> http://www.macarlo.com/warpfp12win2k1002.htm
>
> Why the silence, Stephen? Cat got ur tongue?
> --
> Bob
> Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
> today!
> Why do you think you are being flamed?
> [ ] You crossposted
> [ ] 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
> [ ] Your stupidity is astounding
> [ ] You suck
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:35:22 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BDwy6.606$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Yep... something that has nothing to do with me, apparently ;)
> >
> > I wasn't talking about *you*.
> > I was talking about the level of conversation and research on the side
of
> > linux advocates around here.
>
> I'm a linux advocate of sorts, but not a hardcore one. I don't look for
> more excuses to prove it's better than NT - I already 'know' that ;)
:->
> > Now, why did you have to wait for me to tell you about it?
> > You *see* what I'm complaining about.
>
> No, I still don't. You posted a link, I commented on it, you complain
that
> I never brought this up myself, and this behaviour is rampant.
I complain about *no one* posting it.
Mainly because the level of discussion in those groups (at least the ones I
follow) has deteriorated. Maybe I could do something about it.
> So you're
> effectively complaining that the linux advocates aren't bashing windows
> under their own momentum, but rather we have to wait for the pro-MS side
to
> hand us ammunition (which they apparently do because their subconscious
> wants to be honest?).
Actually, I would like to start some discussions in more on topic
conversations.
> So, for it to be a valid complaint against windows, I need to bring it up
> myself? I can't read a link that you offered to the group, and then post
my
> opinions on it?
Ha? When did I said that? All I said that I was disappointed by the level of
discussion in this group.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:17:10 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>
>>The players
>>all wear so much armour instead of being smart enough and fast enough to
get
>>out of the way. They then need five minute breaks every two minutes of
play
>>to recover. Rugby, on the other hand, is a game of speed and skill as
well
>>as strength.
>
>Well, in response to the guy who thought it was "all that" to have a big
>Samoan charging them, I'd suggest that its worse if he's armored. And
>not being armored yourself is more a sign of stupidity than manliness,
>in such a situation.
Part of the skill in rugby is dealing with the big charging Samoans without
getting hurt yourself, and (this is, I gather, where rugby differs
substantially from American football and Australian rules football) without
hurting the other guy either.
>
>It's like the barbarians whining at the "pansy Romans" with all their
>silly armor.
Note that when the "barbarian" Celts (they were only barbaric in the Romans'
eyes) battled the Romans with similar sized forces, they flatened them. The
Celts terrified the Romans, and were the only enemy of the Romans who could
cause Roman legions to drop their sheilds and flee. The Celts did have a
very big problem with organization and concentration, however - they were
far too busy fighting each other to bother with the Romans!
>You have a little game with a funny looking ball (so you
>can't kick it like soccer, I guess, as I can't see any other difference
>in the games), we have a sport testing the brute strength, skill,
>cunning, and intelligence of a team of warriors.
>
I would of course say exactly the opposite.
>
>Or at least that's the way I'd put it if I were serious about such a
>pissing match. As it stands, I don't watch sports, and I could care
>less whether they wear pads in any particular one or not.
>
I'd have to agree with you there - I played a little rugby as a youth, but
I've never really been very interested in sports.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:26:15 -0400
Michael Vester wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> > >
> > > Chad Everett wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2 Apr 2001 18:43:06 -0500, Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > > > >> > Really now. I would also ask how in the hell
> > > > >> > you've determined that Microsoft has merely
> > > > >> > implemented some 4.4BSD code in order to
> > > > >> > get Windows2000. Do you have access to the
> > > > >> > WindowsNT v4.0 and v5.0 source trees?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> the "strings" command finds embedded strings in ANY file, including
> > > > >> compiled executables and dll files.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Copyright (C), Regents of the University of California" strings have
> > > > >> been found in Mafia$oft's DLL files.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hope that helps.
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't believe you. How about showing us one?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey Everybody! It's Jon! Hi Jon!
> > > >
> > > > You asked, so here ya go:
> > > >
> > > > Here are some files from a Windows 2000 Professional system along with
> > > > the copyright strings that are contained in them:
> > > >
> > > > C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\finger.exe
> > > > @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
> > > > C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\nslookup.exe
> > > > @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
> > > > C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rcp.exe
> > > > @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
> > > > C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rsh.exe
> > > > @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
> > > > C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\FTP.EXE
> > > > @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
> > >
> > > I wonder if MS pays royalty for this.
> >
> > What part of MAFIAsoft do you not understand?
> > :-)
> Microsoft, the repackagers of 21 year old software. My finger is a mere
> 10 years old, 4th Berkeley Distribution, July 27, 1991. I don't know why
> losedos even has a vintage collection of Unix utilities? Everyone knows
> to replace them with share/free/whateverware. Obviously, not the
> "innovative" part of losedos.
>
> Since we already know that open source is better than losedos code, Bill
> will simply incorporate open source into losedos and lag a few months
> behind open source projects. Then Bill will present "new products" based
> on incorporated open source code. The Microsoft marketing machine (far
> more talented than their development department) will market the hell out
> of it. They will make billions.
> There is very little we can do about it, Bill has demonstrated that he can
> out lawyer the United States government.
Maybe..but outside US borders, I expect to see a series of humiliating
defeats for Mafia$oft.
>
> Seeing the losedos advocates proudly state official Microsoft doctrine
> without any care to our future concerns me. Are they that stupid and
> unaware of events that effect all of us? Bill is a Napoleon. He must
Bad analogy.
Napolean destroyed feudalism and brought the concept of civil rights
to most of Europe (the reason Russia lags so far behind the rest of
Europe in this regard is because the Russians defeated Napolean).
In contrast, Bill is trying to build a digital dictatorship.
> dominate all things digital. His business conduct using NDA's and
> multi-tired pricing structures to exclude competitors proves how
> determined he is. This is very bad. Bill could leave us entrenched in a
> hardly usable IT infrastructure for decades. All the great dreams we had
> about this technology will be gone. Bill will do the dreaming for us.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > V
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > ICQ # 3056642
> >
> <snip>
>
> Michael Vester
> A credible Linux advocate
>
> "The avalanche has started, it is
> too late for the pebbles to vote"
> Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
--
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: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:27:29 -0400
none wrote:
>
> >Yes; When I mentioned this before, people misunderstood what I meant by
> >it...so I'll be careful in my phrasiology this time...basically, M$ use
> >"drug-dealer" tactics...now, last time I said that people were totally
> >misunderstanding me...what I mean is that they give away free "tasters" and
> >such to get you "hooked" (that is, all your data in Excel, Media Player or
> >Word formata :) then make you pay through the nose later when you have no
> >choice left...
>
> You mean Microsoft is in the business of MAKING MONEY??? HOW DARE
> THEY?! Why don't they just follow the lead of the .coms, give
> everything away, and go out of business in a year?
>
It's one thing to make money selling cars.
It's another thing to go around getting new additives put into the fuel
which cause the rings in the cars you sold last year to burn out.
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With Seven Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
--
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
******************************
