Linux-Advocacy Digest #492, Volume #33 Tue, 10 Apr 01 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (GreyCloud)
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis (Chad Everett)
Re: Windows in space...... (Chad Everett)
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis (Chad Everett)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (GreyCloud)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Peter Bismuti)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Chad Everett)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (GreyCloud)
Re: MS and ISP's (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (GreyCloud)
Re: Communism (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:16:51 -0700
Peter Hayes wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:38:51 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > WGAF wrote:
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Just written by another Moron thats a sucker for more glitz! He was
> > > > raised watching TVs' Madison Avenue garbage.
> > >
> > > As oppose to you who grew up God knows where watching Star Trek Voyager.
> > > Goldhammer must've been your neighbor....
> >
> > At least I don't watch your shows... TeleTubbies!
>
> Hey, that's an insult to the TeleTubbies
>
> Peter
:-))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Apr 2001 11:22:56 -0500
Please tell use again why the Army camoflauges their tanks?
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:14:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I've got a 500MHz K6-2, with 256MB of memory on board, connected to
>80 MB SCSI-II (Ultra-Wide) disks, and the disk drives are STILL the
>major bottleneck.
He forgot to add: running SuSE linux with a @home cable modem in
Royal Oak, Michigan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows in space......
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Apr 2001 11:44:58 -0500
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:31:40 -0400, Patrick McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I thought it might be a "new" OS they wrote with what looked suspiciously
>like code that was...oh....say stolen from M$ a while back....
>
>Just kidding of course, but didn't a lot of fingers point to Russia when M$
>was cracked?
>
Yes, and they're using that code for the yet to be announced "Vindows TNT"
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:03:19 -0700, tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >the russian portable looks like its running nt!
>> >tr
>>
>> Nope, sorry. It's linux with KDE desktop.
>>
>>
>> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:31:53 -0400, Patrick McAllister
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >Probably a duplicate post, but if not, makes for a
>> >funny....kinda.....read.
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,42912,00.html
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> This is worth a short quote, don't you think?:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2:00 a.m. Apr. 7, 2001 PDT
>> >> .....
>> >>
>> >> The space station, which has been operational for less than five
>> >> months, experiences almost daily computer glitches, according to
>> >> the commander's log recently published on the Web.
>> >>
>> >> Most of the problems appear to be related to Microsoft's Windows NT,
>> >> while Russian-made software seems to be more reliable.
>> >>
>> >> .....
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Apr 2001 10:56:09 -0500
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:49:44 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donn Miller wrote:
>>
>> WesTralia wrote:
>> >
>> > Well Aaron, the obvious has become VERY obvious. You my friend, are a
>> > Windows 98 only user. There is no camouflage, there is no security through
>> > obfuscation, there is no header string being changed, and there is certainly
>> > no truth to your shoddy claim.
>>
>> I don't understand it anyways. How does changing your headers to make
>> it look like you're running Windows 98 provide more security? If
>
>Ask the army why they camoflauge their tanks, and get back to me.
>
False analogy. Of course, the answer you want is: so their tanks
will hopefully blend into the background. The Army does NOT camoflauge
their tanks and then drive them around in public all day and night long
shooting off hundreds of rounds and they try and tell people that they
camoflauge their tanks so as to remain low key.
Donn is correct in being confused. There is absolutely no reason for
modifying your header with a phoney X-mailer line. An anonyomous e-mail
address, sure. It would make much more sense to use an alias as a name.
Your continued insistence that you modify your X-Mailer line as some sort
of security measure just makes you look really stupid, because it doesn't
provide any sort of security at all.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:28:45 -0700
Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ben L. Titzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> |> The question is, Will IA-64 suffer like many
> >> |> other ill-fated architectures? It's new and innovative, but perhaps too
> >> |> new, too innovative?
> >>
> >> No - definitely not. If it fails, it will fail because it is an old
> >> mistake being repeated. I am not joking when I say that too much of
> >> modern computer design is reinventing the wheel, but with a different
> >> number of sides each time ....
> >
> >Well there certainly are concepts in there that really haven't been put
> >through the crucible, so they might be considered "sufficiently" new.
> >Branch predication (kind of a rehashed 68000 (?) PPC (?) conditional
> >instruction execution), VLIW which has seen few serious efforts (that I
> >can recall) by top players, and other wing-dings that the Intel engineers
> >dreamed up. Of course there are things that are new, but aren't new, but
> >what do you expect them to do? Trinary? :-P
>
> Both branch predication and VLIW have been carefully looked at in the
> past, though I can't give their detailed history. They were definitely
> used on the ICL DAP and IBM 370 microcode, respectively. The experience
> of the time (1960s and 1970s) was that they didn't solve anything,
> because the fundamental problem was that the compiler couldn't analyse
> general code well enough to optimise for such hardware; hand tuned
> and 'vectorisable' codes being the main exceptions. I.e. exactly the
> same as for vector machines and virtually every other specialised
> architecture.
>
> Back when the IA-64 line was first mentioned in public (1995?), I
> predicted that the thing that would block it would be this problem.
> In particular, there are some major problems in compiler technology
> that have defeated people over many decades, but which Intel and HP
> managers believed could be resolved by fiat.
>
> >IIRC, the spec scores for the Itanium on floating point (if true) were
> >outstanding. Maybe they really are on the right track?
>
> Good, but I doubt outstanding. It isn't hard to improve SpecFP2000
> results by a factor of two on most architectures, merely by increasing
> the cache sizes and cache bandwidths. It isn't done, because it is a
> lot of money for a small proportion of the market.
>
> It always has been clear that the problem for the IA-64 line would be
> the spaghetti C that is so critical on most modern workstations: GUIs,
> fancy data management, the base operating system and so on. And the
> rumours are that the Itanic 733 (the only one that any outsider has
> seen) will give a 266 MHz Pentium II a run for its money ....
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren,
> University of Cambridge Computing Service,
> New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
That's what I've read in other ngs as well. And it figures. What's
your opinion on the current RISC processors out there (including the
G4)??
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Bismuti)
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: 10 Apr 2001 23:21:06 GMT
There is something called slick edit which is a commercial product, but it
has most of the nice features and should be easy to use.
Knowledge Seeker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Hi,
:
: I am looking for a full-featured yet easy to use text editor to
: replace Notepad. Ideally, I would like a tool that is cross-platform
: or has versions for Win98 and Linux. The main platform requirement
: would be Win98 and the nice-to-have platform is Linux.
:
: There seem to be a plethora of choices that might work:
: UltraEdit
: TextPad
: EditPlus
: WinEdit
: Multi-Edit
: Zeus
: CRiSP
:
: Right now I am leaning to UltraEdit but I have not done a true
: rigorous evaluation. I would definitely like to hear from anybody
: that has done a true objective comparative evaluation of these
: products (or others that I have not listed).
:
: My actual requirements are:
:
: Must haves:
: 1. Syntax highlighting (with color and or font) for HTML and Java
: 2. Robust cut and paste including row, AND column AND block
: capabilities
: 3. Split and join functions based on margin or specified column
: 4. Ability to intelligently remove prefix characters (i.e. ">") and
: re-format text to new margins keeping paragraphs intact (i.e. fixing
: forwarded email text)
: 5. Ability to edit multiple files side-by-side
: 6. Ability to compare files and synchronize multiple similar files
: flagging differences
: 7. Robust search and replace capabilities (ideally supporting
: regular expressions)
: 8. Line numbering
: 9. Column numbering
: 10. Auto-completion (based on customizable template)of common
: programming statements
: 11. Ability to preview HTML pages (including Java applets) easily
: 12. HTML toolbar (I know I should know all the tags but I just cannot
: remember them all)
: 13. Can be used as a replacement for Notepad (so it must be
: relatively quick and have a small footprint)
: 14. Highlights URL and e-mail addresses and launches browser or email
: client in a separate window when clicked
: 15. Ability to change case for entire selected text
: 16. Auto indent based on user-defined templates for each programming
: language
: 17. Auto alignment (I.e. if I want a set of lines with the "=" sign
: or decimal point or comma aligned on multiple rows)
: 18. Undo capability
:
: Nice to haves:
: 1. Syntax highlighting for Perl, C/C++, and SQL. Also, extensibility
: for other programming languages based on easily customized syntax
: files.
: 2. Ability to use FTP
: 3. Spell checker
: 4. Ability to compile from within the editor
: 5. Keystroke save/execute (i.e. macro capability)
:
:
: --
: eCommerce Knowledge Seeker
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 Apr 2001 23:29:46 -0500
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:39:45 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> After that, I like CLI based commands because I know what I want to do and
>I
>> can type it. A GUI based system requires an added step of navigating the
>> various menus and dialog boxes that seem to get in the way of what I want
>to
>> do.
>
>Read the help files.
>You have to do it anyway for CLI applications.
>
Oh you mean the help files in Windows where you first have to answer all
these questions about whether you want it to create help file indexing for
minimizing this or maximizing that.. and you just go...Hey! I just want some
help...OK? Or the help files where this freaky little paperclip man comes
up and starts winking at you like some sort of a sex pervert and saying:
"What do you want to do today?" and "Just type in your question" and so
you type in something like: "I want to find all files that containa the
text: 'financial'" and the little paperback winking pervert says: "Wink, wink,
nudge, nudge....you're looking mighty fine today, big boy."
You mean those help files?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: 10 Apr 2001 23:20:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 8 Apr 2001, Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>> He can have a thing to say about it if the license permits this. The
>> BSDL does, so it can be and is used in GPLed projects. If the other
>> licenses do not permit this, then they too have restrictive distribution
>> conditions. Don't blame only the GPL if you use incompatible licenses.
>
><<Actually, the BSDL doesn't say anything about relicensing or
>interoperability with other licences. Only the GPL does.>>
The BSDL says literally: "Redistribution and use [...] WITH OR WITHOUT
MODIFICATION, are permitted provided [list of conditions, none of which
include relicensing or interoperability]". (emphasis mine)
This legally implies the ability to relicense as long as the original
conditions are met.
>>> For suitably small values of "free".
>> Small enough to pass all conditions of the DFSG.
>
><<Your point?>>
Guess what the F and S stand for...
>>> In the meantime, just how does M$ using the known working, debugged
>>> IP stack from BSD hurt you?
>> Their using it doesn't hurt me, their closing it up *does*
>> (hypothetically speaking, of course. I don't use W2K and I don't think I
>> will in the forseeable future).
>
><<Do me a favour, and seriously explain how MS's use of BSDLed code
>closes up the BSDLed code. It should at least be good for a laugh --
I never said that they close up BSDLed code. This would be impossible. I
said the closed up the "IP stack from BSD" and they did it in their
implementation of it. Is this clear enough for you? If a PoD or Teardrop
alike bug exist in the BSD tcp/ip stack which has been fixed for a long
time by {Free,Net,Open}BSD and not by MS, can you fix it yourself? Is
*that version* of the BSD tcp/ip stack closed or open?
>because it's as nonsensical now as it was the first time some GPL
>supporter claimed the same sort of thing. MS can't restrict your use of
>BSDLed code -- Wind River might be able to with future versions, but
>not MS.>>
/me thinks you have some serious parsing errors.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
c...because you can't build universes upon E = m COBOL^2
-- sigfile stolen from Bart Hanssens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: 10 Apr 2001 23:40:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 8 Apr 2001, Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>> For examples like this, read section 7 of the GPL. It is there for a
>> reason.
>> For other examples I'd say that it is entirely possible that you can
>> freely redistribute it under Non-GPL conditions but not under GPL
>> ones,
>> but then I state that those licenses are also encumbered in its
>> redistribution rules. Why only blame the GPL?
>
><<Look carefully at the reality, though, and it's 90% the GPL's fault
>these combinations cannot be distributed. The GPL doesn't allow
>*different* restrictions (e.g., rGPL + rOL !> rGPL). The restrictions
>on many licences out there are in fact LESS bothersome than the
>restrictions on the GPL, but because they are different, the sum total
>of restrictions is greater than those on the GPL alone and therefore
>the result cannot be distributed. This despite the fact that those
>licences have no problem playing with any other open source licence.>>
Why is that legally relevant? Nobody denies that there are serious
restrictions wrt distributing GPLed software or derivatives of it.
>> Your logic is flawed here. If one part of the system is "most
>> restrictive" (i.e. GPL), then why couldn't you distribute the whole
>> system as GPL? There really are only two possibilities here:
[snip point 1]
>> 2. It was legally impossible because you could not apply the GPL to
>> the
>> other part(s). This means that like the GPL, the other parts were
>> licensed under equally restrictive conditions (i.e.: you can only
>> redistribute this software under license A, B or C).
>
><<Sorry, but you're not getting it. BSDLed software in Linux is *STILL
>NOT* GPLed. The work as a whole is GPLed, but the licence on the
Of course! The term "BSDLed software" implies that it is not GPLed. Bind
in Linux is still BSDLed. But BSDLed code *is* reused in GPL projects
where the result as a whole, /including the previously BSDLed code/, is
GPLed. man-db is an example of this. I'm sure there are many more. This
was not possible in Les' example because *besides the GPL* and unlike
the BSDL the other code had serious redistribution restrictions which
made it incompatible to the GPL.
>individual source modules used in Linux aren't change. The third
>reality -- not possibility, but reality -- is that rGPL + rOL > rGPL,
rGPL + rBSDL == rGPL
rGPL + rMIT == rGPL
>which means that the clause preventing "extra" restrictions is invoked.
>The restrictions on the parts that Les has been talking about are
>likely less restrictive than the GPL -- I don't know, because I haven't
>seen those restrictions or the parts in question. One need not look far
>to see how it could have been done better: look at the LGPL or the MPL
>for good examples. Other ways would have included specifications of
>"acceptable classes" of restrictions -- but that may run into a
>slightly larger problem.>>
I agree with you here. I even think such a license is better than both
the BSDL and the GPL, because it eliminates the possibility for closing
up copies of the software itself, but allows the code to be reused in
combination with other licenses. Best of both world IMHO.
>> Bzzt, wrong, thanks for playing. The distribution is prohibited *by
>> default* via copyright law. The license *allows* distribution and
>> sets
>> the conditions for such allowance.
>
><<Correct. And the GPL allows distribution with greater restrictions
>than many other open source licences -- this is NOT freedom.>>
It is not (complete) freedom OF SHARING. Even the FSF admits that. They
even said so in the preamble of the GPL:
<start quote from GPL>
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
<end quote from GPL>
It *IS* COMPLETE freedom of USING.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you. Then you win.
-- Gandhi
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:54:13 -0700
Rob Robertson wrote:
>
> silverback wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:33:15 -0400, Rob Robertson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >silverback wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:02:33 -0400, Rob Robertson
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >silverback wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 09:16:29 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> ><snip>
> > >> >
> > >> >> >What part of Islamic theology specifies the vertical integration of
> > >> >> >industry within the country.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> fascism is corporate rule dummy. Maybe you should educate yerself and
> > >> >> find out how many of those Iranian corporations are controlled by the
> > >> >> religious allyotahs.
> > >> >
> > >> > So if the Ayatollahs who constitute the ruling *state* power control
> > >> >those Iranian corporations, how does that support your "fascism is
> > >> >corporate rule" thesis, Glen?
> > >>
> > >> [Scott Erb = disingenuous fraud] is playing dum.... err forgot who I was
> > >> replying to there folks excuse me. [Scott Erb = disingenuous fraud] doesn't
> > >> have to play dumb he is dumb. Gee [Scott Erb = disingenuous fraud] you
> > >> might do a little checking and when you do you will find that the
> > >> Ayatollahs own and control those corporations.
> > >
> > > Right. Fascism is characterized by the *state-directed* control of
> > >the economy, not societal control by corporations. You and I have had
> > >this conversations several times in the recent past, but only now do
> > >you recognize that it is the state rulers controlling businesses that
> > >constitutes fascism, not rule by corporations.
> >
> > wrong again [Scott Erb = disingenuous fraud] under fascism the corporations
> > are the government.
>
> Oh dear, this really is getting 'complex' now. Up above you say that "those
> Iranian corporations are controlled by the religious allyotahs [sic]", which
> to me means that the *political* leaders (the allosaurus's, or whatever) are
> in control of the *business* leaders, not the other way around. That's what
> I'd said to you many times, as noted in the replays which you deleted (leftist
> censorship in action again, eh Glen?).
>
> You repeat the claim that "the Ayatollahs own and control those corporations",
> and at the risk of being redundant and repetitious, I'd note that Ayatollahs
> are the *political* leaders. Now you contradict *yourself* (while leaving in
> the evidence of the contradiction in your response, oddly enough) when you
> claim that "the corporations are the government".
>
> > > Do you remember this exchange, Glen?;
> >
> > i remember yer a lying [Scott Erb = disingenuous fraud].
> >
> > remainder of this lying [Scott Erb = disingenuous fraud]'s tripe snipped,.
> > He doesn;t have a point and is prone to lying.
>
> Au contraire, mon frere. The point I've been trying to make all along has
> been that fascism is the state-directed *control* of the economy as opposed
> to communism's state *ownership* of industry. You echoed my sentiment above
> with your 'fascist Iran' claim, and I'd also note the irony of your calls
> for the government takeover of the California electricity industry, which
> is much more like fascism than my calls for laissez-faire capitalism.
>
I wonder who received all of Californias' slush fund for the electrical
rate charges?
An interesting audit trail would disclose where the money went. I
suspect it was planned.
> Thank you for the pleasant discussion.
>
> > ***********************************************
> >
> > GDY Weasel
> > emailers remove the spam buster
> >
> > For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
> >
> > http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
> >
> > *********************************************
>
> _
> Rob Robertson
>
> Got freedom?
>
> http://www.lewRockwell.com
>
> http://www.free-market.net
>
> http://www.mises.org
>
> http://www.hazlitt.org
>
> http://www.antiwar.com
>
> http://www.unionsquarejournal.com
>
> http://www.libertocracy.com
>
> http://www.unknownideal.com
>
> http://www.self-gov.org
>
> http://www.lp.org
--
V
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS and ISP's
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:56:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 10 Apr 2001 02:54:57
> [...]
> >The only thing Microsoft has a monopoly on, it seems, is the brain
> >power, the succesful management, and the competency to create a world-class
> >OS in a corporate environment WHILE making money at the same time.
>
> You know, if it weren't patently obvious to computer professionals that
> this "world-class OS' is an unreliable piece of crap, you might have a
> point there, Chad. As it stands, though, it kind of blows your theory,
> big time.
Well, T., he got the part about making money right, big-time. Microsoft
is very good at what it does, just like Philip Morris or R.J. Reynolds.
Chris
--
I recommend booting only to Linux and other
UNIX-style operating systems.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:56:59 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Chad Everett wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:41:28 GMT, sliverdick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >too bad you forgot to mention the fact that it was the large
> > >corporations that wrote the laws under the Nazis. It is capatailism.
> > >
> >
> > Hey...you just proved that the Nazi system wasn't capitalism. Thanks!
> >
> > >
> > >fascism has nothing to do with socialism buttfuck
> > >
> >
> > True, but you're comparing apples and oranges. A fascism buttfuck is
> > pretty much the same thing as a socialism buttfuck.
>
> Notice who sliverdick didn't even reply.
>
> Probably because he has first-hand experience with both fascist
> buttfucks AND communist buttfucks....
>
> And can't figure out any way to distinguish between the two.
>
Capt'n Kirk! You have a Klingon at 6:00!
> --
> 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 Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> 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.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:08:36 -0700
billh wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin"
>
> > >> Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:18:13
> > >> >And there you go! You finally figured him out.
> > >> >
> > >> >Roger
> > >> >AIRBORNE!
> > >>
> > >> Fuck off.
> > >
> > >that was pretty funny
> >
> > Fuck off.
>
> That's a mighty puerile sentiment.
I wonder whats got him so sore?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
