Linux-Advocacy Digest #685, Volume #33 Wed, 18 Apr 01 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux = CHOICE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Communism
Re: Communism
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("JS PL")
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Re: Communism (Rob Robertson)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Grant Fischer)
Re: What's the point ("cat cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("z0ck")
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Dreamspinner3")
Re: hmm getting tired of this! ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:9 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (Chad Everett)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Chad Everett)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Chad Everett)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Re: What's the point (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:04:38 +0100
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Hmmm... how about the Sams books? I have one and has quite a bit more
> meat in it.
> Also, seeing as its free anyway, I just go to sun.docs.com and download
> the sysadmin manuals. They've got a lot in there. I read these thru
> adobe acroread. Download the solaris 8 versions.
Actually I don't have Linux for Dummies. I have something else. I
checked Linux for Dummies and found it has absolutely _no_ mention of
DHCP.
Fat lot of use then.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux = CHOICE!
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:08:28 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Although, I cannot but comment on two little errors in your statement:
> you misplaced "just" and made a rather poor choice with another word.
>
> Corrected, your sentence reads as follows: "That's because with Windows
> it works, just, and there's no possibility to hop vendors."
I believe I was right the first time. Please don't correct me according
to your dogma.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:28:30 -0600
In article <MldD6.4565$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
[ ... ]
> The debugger is mostly x86 oriented, not Windows oriented. In fact, MS
> didn't even write their own debuggers at first, but rather licensed them
> from NuMega.
At one time, CodeView for Windows required a second monitor to
display its output. Nu-Mega wrote an add-on call CV/1 that allowed
you to run CodeView with only one monitor, with the debugger output
as a text overlay in the display. Shortly after that, Microsoft
licensed the code to CV/1, so you could use CodeView on a single
monitor withOUT having to license a separate product.
> What does that tell you about how difficult it is for a third
> party to write a debugger for Windows.
Not an awful lot, really.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:30:42 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> Read the Cato (fairly libertarian) report on Corporate Welfare. The
>> >> >> GOP is in it as big as the democrats were when they were in power.
Aaron> And this absolves the Demoncrooks of guilt how exactly?
>> >> In no way manner or form. The democrats are as bad
Aaron> Then why do you keep voting for them?
>> I don't, liar.
Aaron> When are you going to do the right thing and vote Libertarian???
Aaron> HMMMMMMMMM?
>> I do, liar.
Aaron> Then why do you advocate all that statist, socialist nonsense?
I don't, liar.
Aaron> Hmmmmmmmm?
>> Still going around forging posts to cowardly cover up your own
>> failure to read your own words?
Aaron> what a maroon.
Nice excuse for your lying, cowardly forgery.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:32:41 GMT
>>>>> Rob Robertson writes:
Rob> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip>
>> what a maroon.
Rob> Stop playing "More Libertarian than thou". It's unseemly.
Kulkis is not vaguely libertarian. He repeatedly calls for the
murder of people that disagree with him.
He is also deeply dishonest, stooping to forgery (of his own words
no less) to cover up his own disability to read his own words.
He is a worse excuse for a libertarian than Mark Gibson.
And he lies, regularly.
He is the moral equivalent of the weasels.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:41:49 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Brent R wrote:
> >
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > >
> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I see you failed to do as I challenged. You are a liar.
> > >
> > > JJ, I hardly think that Aaron should feel compelled to go
> > > through an edit-make-post-edit-make cycle just to prove
> > > to a prick-headed little troll such as yourself that he
> > > can obtain and modify source code on Linux.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > Because he has never posted with anything other than a Win 98 header,
> > NOT EVEN ONCE! He could make one post on a non-modified *nix newsreader,
> > just one, and this whole thing would stop... now.
> >
> > But that's not going to happen.
>
> I described in enough detail how to modify the headers so that THREE
> seperate people could replicate my results.
>
> That is sufficient.
Too bad you can't do it yourself, since your running Windows 98.
Someday (when your not running Windows) you might get to try it out for
yourself to see if it works, huh Kulkis?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:50:45 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
Aaron> Rob Robertson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Rob Robertson wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Henry Glenworthy wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > "Rob Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > "Let's take a nice, Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon style pure-democratic
>> >> > > > > vote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > All for putting Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon up against the wall, and
>> >> > > > > filling him full of lead, say "AYE!" All opposed, say "NAY"
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > Let's see how much Sliverdick likes democracy now."
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > > AYES:3
>> >> > > > > > NAYS:0
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > ABSTAIN:1
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > An example of the dangers of pure democracy is all well and good,
>> >> > > > > but I reject pure democracy even if Glen advocates it and wouldn't
>> >> > > > > vote either way on the matter; there is no moral justification for
>> >> > > > > the action or the mass decision behind it.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > >>>>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > What!? You don't believe in "one person - one vote", even if
>> >> > > > the result is the trampling of individual rights? Tsk, tsk. Shouldn't
>> >> > > > the easily swayed, fickle general public get to determine the fate
>> >> > > > of minorities it has suddenly grown to dislike? Shouldn't people
>> >> > > > who drive while using a cell phone and drinking their Starbuck's
>> >> > > > latte be shot on the spot?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Heavens, no! That's just,... it's immoral, first of all, and entirely
>> >> > > incommensurate with the actual crime. What if we just firehosed them,
>> >> > > instead?
>> >> >
>> >> > Should not the murderer be subjected to the loss of his own life?
>> >> >
>> >> > Therefore, someone (like Sliverdick) who advocates democracy (mob rule),
>> >> > should be subjected to mob rule.
>> >>
>> >> I agree completely that Glen should be responsible for his actions, but
>> >> I wanted to point out that since *I* don't believe in mob rule and view
>> >> it as an abdication of moral responsibility, I'm not voting 'aye' -- I'm
>> >> not voting at all on the question.
>> >>
>>
Aaron> I think Sliverdick should be made to serve as an example to all others
Aaron> who believe in his idiotic shit.
>>
>> Yes, by mocking his views and exposing his lies.
>>
>> Killing him for his ideas, as you advocate, is the
>> act of a totalitarian, which you have often shown
>> signs of.
Aaron> Those who seek to enslave others forfeit their right to life.
If they act on it sure. If they just run off their mouths,
they deserve to be mocked and refuted.
Only a totalitarian would kill somebody for running off their
mouth.
>> Even when you are not making lying cowardly forged
>> posts.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:54:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>>> Rob Robertson writes:
>
> Rob> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> what a maroon.
>
> Rob> Stop playing "More Libertarian than thou". It's unseemly.
>
> Kulkis is not vaguely libertarian. He repeatedly calls for the
> murder of people that disagree with him.
When reason fails, weapons prevail. I think his trip-wire temper
works against him, but for the most part I understand the attitude.
> He is also deeply dishonest, stooping to forgery (of his own words
> no less) to cover up his own disability to read his own words.
What did he forge?
> He is a worse excuse for a libertarian than Mark Gibson.
>
> And he lies, regularly.
About what?
> He is the moral equivalent of the weasels.
I'd like to see you make the case for that.
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
_
Rob Robertson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:07:16 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:04:38 +0100, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Hmmm... how about the Sams books? I have one and has quite a bit more
>> meat in it.
>> Also, seeing as its free anyway, I just go to sun.docs.com and download
>> the sysadmin manuals. They've got a lot in there. I read these thru
>> adobe acroread. Download the solaris 8 versions.
>
> Actually I don't have Linux for Dummies. I have something else. I
> checked Linux for Dummies and found it has absolutely _no_ mention of
> DHCP.
>
> Fat lot of use then.
Maybe it will help you understand the basics about the boot process.
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: "cat < nonsense > cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:14:17 -0400
"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9bk2m7$3p1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "cat < nonsense > cola"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >People in this group have been spreading BS for years about the ease of
> >linux as an inducement to potential new users. They mention this
'learning
> >curve' from time to time, as if it was nothing for the average computer
> >using individual to give up hours a day just to setup and use email and
the
> >web, pull their hair out when adding hardware, or even trying to get the
X
>
> What BS are you sprouting here? It's incredibly easy in Mandrake 7.2
(under
> KDE for instance) to set up email and web access. Far easier than trying
to
> configure Dial-Up Networking under Windows. The average user will have no
> problems when placed in front of a pre-installed box.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees. 30 million people connect to the
net via AOL, many more through ISP's that provide setup software that
enables a complete point and click interface with no inputting of dns
information, configuration of protocols, etc., The poster who inspired this
thread had taken the time to actually get a linux box up and running with
most of the sundries operable. He was questioning the payoff of his effort.
A valid question, I believe, for the needs of the average computer user.
> What average user would be setting up X windows? The same kind of user
that
> rushes out to buy the latest version of Windows and install that on their
> machine? Hint - that is not an average user.
I've installed every version of windows more times than I want to think
about. Linux, 6 times or maybe more. Granted, the installation routines of
the popular linux distros have improved by leaps and bounds. A credit to the
programmers working for those companies. I still find windows installation
almost a pop in the cd and forget it proposition after the serial is
entered, and until the time zone setting is requested.
Hint - this isn't really the topic of the thread.
> I've placed a neophyte user in front of Mandrake 7.2, set up the internet
for
> them (as I've done many times for "average" users on Windows) and left
them to
> it. This was a person who'd not used the web before, had trouble with a
mouse,
> and types at approximately 10wpm. So how that can that be called
difficult?
> They can now boot up, log in and get themselves on the net with no
> intravention at all from me.
I ran Mandrake 7.1 install a few weeks ago. It died with a perl script error
two minutes in. How many users do you think have the wherewithall to deal
with that? Or even know what a perl script is?
It's still the same mis-matched argument. Linux users, and people who use a
computer more as an information appliance don't belong in the same room
discussing anything on the topic of computers.
The 'user' just wants a working device that communicates with what his\her
peers\school\work use, and the ability to say 'hey, that digital camera
looks cool!, that mulit-function fax, printer, copier, scanner is just what
i need, I really like <insert friend here>'s new cd burner & software, it's
SO easy!'
With Windows, go out, purchase it, hook it up, follow the wizard
instructions, and more times than not: and this last statement is very
important, the device(s) work just fine for all intent and purpose. Is it
Linux's fault that this isn't the experience on linux? No, of course not.
But, it is the current state of the world of computer hardware\software.
Like it or not.
A linux 'guru' just wants to tell the 'user' what's wrong with what they're
using because only they have the intellect to understand what it is in
everyone elses best interest. Does anyone see the similarity between this
logic and that of BG's and company?
> You're living in a fantasy world if you think new users of any system
don't
> need help from more advanced users. I'm constantly having to help out my
> Windows using friends with problems installing software or hardware, and
this
> from a supposedly easy to use system.
Granted, there will always be problems with any system. Requests will
continue to come for help from those more knowledgeable than the caller.
Once again, the post was someone who had taken the time to setup the box to
a working state. After having done so, and then taken a survey of the
effort, the question was 'what do I have here?' The answer, being that this
person is not a programmer, is not much. --if expense is taken out of the
equation.
------------------------------
From: "z0ck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:21:09 GMT
You're a mighty big fellow behind that keyboard.
If you were to do that, I would expect that you might at least be man enough
to accept the consequences and not complain that "its for the kids". I
certainly would not complain to you on the basis of having kids. We might
end up going fisticuffs over something like that, but I somehow doubt that
it would be "for the good of the kids".
To restate:
I have no kids because I don't want to deal with it. I don't expect to have
to deal with yours. Its about acting like an adult and taking
responsibility for your own actions. Neither I nor anyone else in this
thread has defended the action of using foul language. If you have a
problem with something someone says or does, at least have the spine to
either suck it up and deal with it or say something to them. Don't hide
behind your kids. Don't weasel around about it.
That was my original point. This has gotten WAAAAY off topic, even within
the thread.
Ya'll have fun.
Boyce Endertois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KdgD6.686$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Snipped: Complaint about F word in subject line.
>
>
> > Next time, just kill-file the guy and don't complain about it. I don't
> want
> > to hear it. Raising your kids is your problem
>
>
> You uncultured, drooling fool. Perhaps I can walk up to you in a pub and
> pass gas in your face. Then I can tell you not to complain, as I don't
want
> to hear about it.
>
------------------------------
From: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:36:34 -0500
Reply-To: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ditto. Enough said. Okay?
"z0ck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FhiD6.1320$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're a mighty big fellow behind that keyboard.
>
>
> I have no kids because I don't want to deal with it. I don't expect to
have
> to deal with yours. Its about acting like an adult and taking
> responsibility for your own actions. Neither I nor anyone else in this
> thread has defended the action of using foul language. If you have a
> problem with something someone says or does, at least have the spine to
> either suck it up and deal with it or say something to them. Don't hide
> behind your kids. Don't weasel around about it.
>
> That was my original point. This has gotten WAAAAY off topic, even within
> the thread.
>
> Ya'll have fun.
>
>
> Boyce Endertois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:KdgD6.686$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Snipped: Complaint about F word in subject line.
> >
> >
> > > Next time, just kill-file the guy and don't complain about it. I
don't
> > want
> > > to hear it. Raising your kids is your problem
> >
> >
> > You uncultured, drooling fool. Perhaps I can walk up to you in a pub
and
> > pass gas in your face. Then I can tell you not to complain, as I don't
> want
> > to hear about it.
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hmm getting tired of this!
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:36:30 GMT
[snips]
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> course. I wonder how many frontend servers they need? With an uptime
> of < 23 days for www.microsoft.com
I wonder how, exactly, this is determined. For example, assume I have five
servers which I maintain and update regularly - including applying security
patches requireing reboots. As long as I reboot them one at a time, my site
_never_ goes down. The uptime tools I've seen so far, however, typically
don't take this into account; rather they examine the uptime on a particular
server. This would seem to suggest that the claim of the _domain_ having <
23 days uptime is questionable - barring the occurence of catastrophic
failures which can and do happen under any system.
So, is that 23 days an average? For one server? For the domain? For
something else? I suspect not for the domain; I have a single standalone
server which averages better than that; surely with their resources they
could keep the domain up longer than that, as the usual case.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:9 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 18 Apr 2001 10:26:10 -0500
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:23:41 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> "Gunner ©" wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:08:44 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Hehehehhehe
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm not registered to vote in this precinct, but since I'm a registered
>> > >> Democrat does that matter? <G>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >Since Democrats don't care about such niceties, you are allowed
>> > >to vote AYE in the election, regardless of where you live.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > In fact Sue... you can even vote more than once. Feel free to fill out
>> > the form in your hometown, and again while visiting Fresno.
>> >
>>
>> In the spirit of the Democrat Party, I'll make that 5 AYEs for Sue
>> 4 in her home town, and one in Fresno.
>
>As a Democrat I suppose I should demand some money for my votes, but
>I've reformed over the last few years so you're welcome to 'em.
>
You must not be associated with any labor unions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 18 Apr 2001 10:35:47 -0500
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:25:16 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>GreyCloud wrote:
>> For all concerned here on this topic: If you know don't talk... If you
>> are a contractor for the Navy or U.S. Gov. you have some form of
>> clearance... don't talk.
>> You could lose your clearance status and hence your job(s). Heads up
>> fellows.
>
>Correct.
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>
Like you'd know Aaron. You've previously made claims that you have a
security clearance and stated "I'd better cause I have the code books".
But if you actually HAD a clearance you'd know that even cleared
people can't "have" code books.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 18 Apr 2001 10:39:52 -0500
On 18 Apr 2001 10:35:47 -0500, Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:25:16 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>GreyCloud wrote:
>>> For all concerned here on this topic: If you know don't talk... If you
>>> are a contractor for the Navy or U.S. Gov. you have some form of
>>> clearance... don't talk.
>>> You could lose your clearance status and hence your job(s). Heads up
>>> fellows.
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>>--
>>Aaron R. Kulkis
>>
>
>Like you'd know Aaron. You've previously made claims that you have a
>security clearance and stated "I'd better cause I have the code books".
>But if you actually HAD a clearance you'd know that even cleared
>people can't "have" code books.
>
Not to mention that fact that telling people you have any classified
material is in itself a security violation. Oh, but I forgot, you've
got that modified NNTP header to protect you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:02:01 GMT
On 18 Apr 2001 10:39:52 -0500, Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Not to mention that fact that telling people you have any classified
>material is in itself a security violation. Oh, but I forgot, you've
>got that modified NNTP header to protect you.
>
cite?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:06:49 GMT
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:10:51 GMT, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After wasting 2 solid weeks of vacation time accomplishing half of what I
> could do in a few hours under windows (even with the crashes and GPFs) I
> wiped my hard drive slick and threw on Windows ME.
Of course, none of this really happened. The mention of a digital
camera does tie in quite nicely with an ongoing thread here, but
overall I found it to be quite derivative, with little that was new or
interesting compared to other trolls of the genre. I give it a 2.3 out
of 10 on the troll-o-meter.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
