Linux-Advocacy Digest #787, Volume #33 Sun, 22 Apr 01 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Mathew)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Windows 2000 Rocks! (Nils Zonneveld)
Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Mathew)
Re: Windows 2000 Rocks! (Nils Zonneveld)
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What's the point ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security (Nigel Feltham)
Re: What's the point (Bob Hauck)
Re: What's the point (Bob Hauck)
Re: Y'all should be happy about this (or maybe not, I dunno) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Y'all should be happy about this (or maybe not, I dunno) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 08:17:31 +1000
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Gunner=A9 wrote:
> Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>=20
> >
> >
> >Slavery;child labour
> As opposed to a 16 yr old working at Burger King?
A 16 year old at Burger King, where they can only work part time,is=20
hardly comparable to 12-14 hour work days of children as young as 6.
>=20
> >Supporting dictatorships that killed opponenets,
> How about supporting democracies that killed opponents?
> Think WW2
Who?
Right, we should learn from the past.
> >enslavened workers to=20
> >live on wage that keeps them malnourished and hungry.
> How about employing workers that live on a wage that is better than
> no wage at all? Mexico comes to mind, as does India.
And you have seen the good wages that these countries give their workers?
Nothing wrong with employing people,like American companies,Nike,Reebok=
=20
and others do,if it fair,but this has not been the case.
> gunner
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
> invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
> a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
> the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
> solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
> a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
> gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
>=20
>=20
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 23:31:26 +0100
> (And then there's Orifice 97, Orifice2000, Weird 2.0, Weird 6.0,
> Weird97, and Weird2000...)
>
You forgot HexHell 95, 97, and 2000 and Hexes 95, 97 and 2000.
Not to mention moony 2000 or Pubelicker 2000.
------------------------------
From: Nils Zonneveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Rocks!
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:22:42 +0200
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> I have the balls to use my real email address, do you?
>
You do attract a lot of spam that way. I'm in the position to know since
I use my real email addy too (silly me).
Nils
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 23:41:48 +0100
> the electrical resources to keep the PCs running. Terminals do not
> have Hard drives, Big fat power consuming monitors, Floppy drives or
> at least on mine rodents, nor soundcards or CDroms. This is becoming
Terminals may not have big fat monitors but they still often have a 14 or
15 inch monitor - many newer ones also have sound cards and mice. I am
currently working in the repair dept of a multinational computer company
and I am currently repairing Wang Terminals - these all have colour 14 inch
CRT's and the plugin logic boards all have Mouse connectors (some also have
soundcards and run on Windows CE).
I do agree that they take a lot less power than a PC though and are a lot
more stable in use (with possible exxception of WinCE based units).
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 08:28:34 +1000
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Michael Ejercito wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 07:17:21 +1000, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:08:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> (silverback) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:50:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael
> >> >Ejercito) wrote:
> >> >> So are you implying the US government committed murder on a mass
> >> >>scale for the past fifty years?
> >> >
> >> >yup fucking raygun did it in Central America. Tricky Dick in Chile.
> >> Proof?
> >
> >The U.S. admits that to killing Allende of Chile.
> Was the killing ordered by the government?
Nixon had the CIA set it up.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
------------------------------
From: Nils Zonneveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Rocks!
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:28:36 +0200
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
[SNip: quite correct observation]
> And with such things as KDE and Gnome, Linux et al has a number
> of choices of pretty GUIs -- and the Linux ones tend to be
> more useful, if one has half a clue. Or one can roll one's own,
> albeit that takes a bit of work. (I'll admit I'm weird; Athena
> looked extremely ugly but was reasonably easy to work with.
> Modern variants have improved on its appearance, though.)
>
On the issue of GUI's: once you've worked on Mac, you even dare to call
the X-windows junk that ships with Linux a GUI.
Nils
--
Mac desktop, Linux server
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:47:52 +0100
> So, show me a Linux browser that, when queried, claims to be either NS
> or IE, and supports the full set of plugins available for Windows, and
Uh... netscape claims to be netscape. It also has plugins for the major
software (flash, real*, and PDF, though I prefer to launch an external
viewer for this).
-Ed
> I'll be a happy camper. Until then, no matter how easy it may be to set
> up web access, it remains in large part unusable for me.
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:50:54 +0100
> Caveat: I don't lose sleep over not being able to view IE-only
> "content," or any other content requiring proprietary add-ins (Flash,
NS for Linux supports flash, but personally I prefer text only sites
because they load fast. Actually, I prefer gopher anyway...
> etc.). If they want my business, they will comply with RFC, W3C and ISO
> standards, AT LEAST as an option.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:52:39 +0100
> This is what's called a "stack machine", because all work is done
Stack machines don't always work like that. They can have the stack
inside the CPU. See below...
> through the stack-pointer. There have been good stack machines, but the
> TI-99/4 was not one of them.
The transputer was one of the best.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:57:33 +0100
>> no upgrade treadmill
>
> <snip>
>
> That's not my experience.
Well, it sort of is actually. To run newer versions of windows, you will
need newer hardware to get good performance (XP needs at least 128M of
RAM). You may have to upgrade the software to run the latest software
(kind of makes sense) but you don't have to upgrade the hardware to go
with it: I'm running pan 0.9.2 on a P133 with no problems at all.
Secondly, there also tends to be equivalent packages avaliable that don't
require upgrades as well.
Personally, I was happy to run PAN and upgrade to the latest GNOME (at
the time) because I had a RH6.2 CD and newsreaders are one of the few
things I like shiny-happy GUI's for.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:59:11 +0100
>> What's the
>> advantage?
>
> Advantages! My hardware, at the time, that Windows said was obsolete
> suddenly worked better than it ever did with Windows, The speed increase
> of my 133Mhz, AMD-586 suddenly increased when running programs, I could
I still have a P133 and it still works perfectly well.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 01:25:07 +0100
>> Windows is a complete joke, my man. You mean you
>> really think that DOS-based piece of crap is better than Linux? LOL!
>
> Hell no... I have almost never used 9x... My path was OS/2 -> NT 3.5/4.0
> -> Windows 2000.
>
> Never have a really *used* 9x.
Then you are very, very lucky.
>> So, Todd. Are you enjoying the speed and reliability of the excellent
>> FAT filesystem?
>
> I use NTFS 5.0 which supports encryption (128bit) and compression built
> into the filesystem.
>
> Again, I am using Windows 2000... formatiing a floppy is nothing.
> (Actually, my computers don't even have floppy drives :)
Is there something wrong with floppy drives? Floppy drive + bzip can
store larger documents than I'm ever likely to type---if i use a sensible
file format.
>> because once you've mastered the learning curve of an OS, reliability
>> and performance become the most important issues.
>
> The most important issue for me is being able to run the applications
> that I want to run. An OS is pretty much useless if it doesn't have
> apps. that people want.
True. Are you suggesting Linux has no useful apps?
>> And unix filesystems are better, because your data isn't scattered all
>> over your disk with a linked-list data chain. You've got the inode
>> system with unix filesystems, which is much better than that
>> linked-list piece of crap you call FAT.
>
> Hmmm... benchmarks of Windows 2000 have been pretty good with NTFS.
> Also, since NTFS is journaled, I haven't yet lost a file due to
> corruption unlike under Windows 9x and OS/2. (heh - i always lost the
> os2.ini file due to corruption)
>
> NTFS has been the most reliable FS I have ever used.
Have you everr used a non pee-cee, then? If you've made this comment,
then you haven't recently.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 01:26:31 +0100
>> > Windows is a complete joke, my man. You mean you
>> > really think that DOS-based piece of crap is better than Linux? LOL!
>>
>> Hell no... I have almost never used 9x... My path was OS/2 -> NT
>> 3.5/4.0
>> -> Windows 2000.
>>
>> Never have a really *used* 9x.
>
> Aw Gee... and you missed out on all the fun! Those BSODs and all.
Don't pity him too much. There's plenty of BSOD's to go around in WinNT
and 2K.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 01:03:23 +0100
> I *have* to interject here, because I get a little tired of the constant
> RH bashing that is going on. This is *not* an RH thing; Debian
> configures X the same way, using XF86Config-4. The point? It allows you
> to install X4.0 in parallel wiht X3.3.6, a great advantage when you're
> trying to upgrade, or just don't know whether or not your graphics
> hardware is 100% supported by X4.0. Note that this is not a personal
> attack, but in my opinion RH gets a lot of undeserved flak, just because
> they are the most visible distro as market leaders.
I'm going to rise to the defense of RH here. I use RH and although they
make a few mistakes (such as kludged X session init scripts) in general,
they produce a good solid distro that installs well.
> --
> Write in C, write in C,
> Write in C, yeah, write in C.
> Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
Only wimps use C. Real men use their turing machine emulator written in
sed.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 01:13:48 +0100
> As for ext2fs, who cares? I use ReiserFS, and I am bloody happy. It is
> fast, efficient and reliable. The only commercial distro that doesn't
> support it is redhat, mind you, they have always been behind in
> including useful things in their distro's. Question is, why use ext2fs
> when a better alternative is already available?
IIRC, SGI released a RH7.0 version with XFS. Every bit as good as reiser
FS if not better.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 01:09:01 +0100
> Welcome to Linux.
>
> It takes endless hours to do simple things that under Windows is done
> automatically.
>
> And they say it is a conspiracy.
>
> -Todd
You score a lousy 1.2 on the troll-o-meter.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 01:12:41 +0100
> Who uses FAT or Win9x anymore?
The vast majority of home windows users?
> But filesystems like ext2fs are far more brittle when it comes to
> improper shutdowns than FAT. On large disks, fsck can take hours to
> complete after a power outage, and it can lose quite a bit of data.
Firstly that's incorrect. Secondly Linux has reiserfs (bloody good) and
XFS (bloody amazing). Does NT have anything near the quality of XFS?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 23:49:15 +0100
> So use NTLMv2 and you won't have any problems as the article states (if
> you actually read it).
>
> NTLMv2 (128-bit encryption pack) is a free download for all versions of
> Windows 2000... why not just get it and stop complaining??
>
What about companies who need to have at least one Win9x machine on the
network - I assume this patch is unavailable to them so they will lose the
ability to access the server. Also, what happens when the company needs to
add a Linux / FreeBSD machine to the network - is the protocol
specification available to impliment it on SAMBA?
Not only this but what happens when this gets hacked too (as it will if it
carries the usual MS level of security) - will we all need to install
NTLMv2.1 then and make our networks NTLMv2 incompatible?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 22:43:47 GMT
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:29:20 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, the bank wouldn't work with Konqueror - KDE's default browser choice.
> The bank works with, IIRC, NS 4.x and later.
Ok, that makes more sense. You had me confused there.
> This, however, is not what comes up by default when firing up links.
You can change that of course.
> Annoying.
But not fatal.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 22:43:49 GMT
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:32:44 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:55:18 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Note I said "a document". Mailing labels require some fancier layout
> >> controlling. Fine, call it a half hour? You think they could learn
> >> Linux system administration in a half hour? Or a half a week, even?
> >
> > Do you think they could learn W2K system administration in a week?
>
> Nope - nor should you have to. I'm not saying that W2K, or any flavour
> of Windows, has achieved perfection in user experience. However, W2K and
> WinME _in general_ seem to be easier for John Q. Public to get up and
> running, so while they're far from perfect, they're at least better.
John and Jane public don't ever set up Windows. It comes with their
computer. It is in fact no easier to set up, but they don't need to
find that out because Dell or Gateway or somebody does it for them.
The fact that pre-installed Linux is harder to come by isn't a failing
of Linux per se, but of the market.
You may have a point that installing software on Linux requires more
manual intervention than Windows. Most apps don't add themselves to
the KDE or Gnome menus automatically. Although I have run across a few
that do, it is not the norm. One more reason to get the LSB off the
ground so that this can become more widespread.
OTOH, most distributions seem to come with most of the things you need,
except games, out of the box. So there is less need for installing
things than there is in Windows.
> > Sounds good to me, but how do I prevent my kid from ordering dinner for
> > his sixteen friends while I'm gone?
>
> Parental controls, maybe, like you might have on assorted channels on
> your TV?
My point was that such things need to be thought of up front. We have
way too many people running around implementing "cool ideas" without
thinking them through for five minutes. Particularly with regard to
security and reliability issues. The current market seems to reward
this sort of behavior, but it'll cost us in the long run.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Y'all should be happy about this (or maybe not, I dunno)
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:50:36 -0400
mmnnoo wrote:
>
> Well, I take it all back. The article actually says Gate's foundation
> donated 1 billion, not 1 million, which is an enormous sum, even
> a significant amount out of 53 billion. I don't know if the foundation's
> money all comes out of Gates' personal fortune or what, but that
> is a lot of money.
1 Billion in cash, or 1 Billion in Windows CD's (actual cost to
Gates: nil)?
>
> In article <ZAvE6.73257$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mmnnoo"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The article says in 2000 Gates at 53 billion and donated 1 million. Gee,
> > 1 million is alot - unless you have another 52.999 billion left. A
> > million is 1/1000 of 1 billion, so percentagewise that's the equivalent
> > of someone who'd managed to save up 1 million giving away 20 in a year.
> > I'm not saying 1 million isn't alot to donate, it's just amazing how
> > much 50 billion is.
> >
> > 1/50,000
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brent R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/04/22/stinwenws01023.html
> >>
> >> Maybe this is the beginning of the end. As much as I spend a lot of
> >> time defending MS in here, I'd still love to see BG go. MS software is
> >> indeed getting worse, it's time for new direction (I'd also like to see
> >> crome-dome go too).
> >>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Y'all should be happy about this (or maybe not, I dunno)
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:52:14 -0400
mlw wrote:
>
> mmnnoo wrote:
> >
> > Well, I take it all back. The article actually says Gate's foundation
> > donated 1 billion, not 1 million, which is an enormous sum, even
> > a significant amount out of 53 billion. I don't know if the foundation's
> > money all comes out of Gates' personal fortune or what, but that
> > is a lot of money.
>
> It is not as much as you think.
>
> 1 Billion, given to mostly well to do charities makes a very small impact.
>
> As for a percentage of his fortune, well, think about this:
>
> Say he is worth 50 billion dollars. 1 Billion of that is 2 percent of the sum.
> Assume the average middle income person makes $35,000 in the US, 2 percent of
> that is $700. Divided to 52 weeks, and average church attendee, putting $15
> dollars in the basket each week contributes more.
Not only that, but much of the donations are Gifts-in-kind in the form
of Mafia$oft software....$0.75 CD's, "valued at hundreds of dollars each"
>
> He is just an evil person. His charity is doubly evil because it is extorted
> money, and he flaunts it.
>
> > In article <ZAvE6.73257$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mmnnoo"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The article says in 2000 Gates at 53 billion and donated 1 million. Gee,
> > > 1 million is alot - unless you have another 52.999 billion left. A
> > > million is 1/1000 of 1 billion, so percentagewise that's the equivalent
> > > of someone who'd managed to save up 1 million giving away 20 in a year.
> > > I'm not saying 1 million isn't alot to donate, it's just amazing how
> > > much 50 billion is.
> > >
> > > 1/50,000
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brent R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/04/22/stinwenws01023.html
> > >>
> > >> Maybe this is the beginning of the end. As much as I spend a lot of
> > >> time defending MS in here, I'd still love to see BG go. MS software is
> > >> indeed getting worse, it's time for new direction (I'd also like to see
> > >> crome-dome go too).
> > >>
>
> --
> I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
> ------------------------
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 15:52:04 -0700
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:25:39 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >>> > The problem is not that Windows or Office are bad software. They
> > >>> > aren't. Windows and Office are both fabulous.
> > >>>
> > >>> Hahahahah!
> > >>>
> > >>> Windows and office are _appauling_ products!
> > >>>
> > >> Of course. That's why so many people buy them, because they want to be
> > >> appalled.
> > >
> > >And 400 years ago, the entire population of the world thought it was
> > >flat. Your point again?
> >
> > 400 years ago, if anyone thought the earth was flat, he was incredibly
> > ignorant.
> >
> > After all, the world had been circunnavigated decades before.
>
> So says you! Charles Johnson begs to differ....
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
You're joking... right?
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
