Linux-Advocacy Digest #147, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Intel versus Sparc (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:09 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 23:15:52
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
[...]
>I don't know what you mean by "after BASIC was trashed" since ROM BASIC
>was shipped in every IBM PC and IBM XT box. Or are you talking about
>the MS-BASIC that shipped with every version of DOS?
No, I was referring to the ROM BASIC, and so obviously I would be
talking about after the XT. That would be the AT, no?
>I wouldn't be that surprised if IBM got a flat fee license for ROM BASIC
>from Microsoft but I believe IBM always paid a (very low) royalty on
>each copy of IBM-DOS sold. You have to realize that Bill Gates wanted
>every contract for Microsoft products to be on some kind of royalty
>basis and all contracts for products Microsoft bought (QDOS for example)
>to be on a flat fee basis.
No, he just wanted to monopolize; I doubt he has any strong feelings how
it's accomplished.
>> >It was so cheap compared to what other OEMs paid for MS-DOS because IBM
>> >participated in the development of IBM-DOS/MS-DOS from the beginning
>> >through the development of OS/2 version 1.0.
>>
>> Such vague and obviously carefully neutral bullshit terms as
>> "participated in development" lead me to believe that you are unaware of
>> what really happened to begin with.
>
>Well, since Microsoft's development on DOS 1.0 occurred in the office
>across the hallway from my office I really do have a better idea than
>you do how it happened. By "IBM participated in the development of IBM-
>DOS/MS-DOS from the beginning through the development of OS/2 version
>1.0" I mean that IBM developers worked on parts of all versions of DOS
>and OS/2 1.0 while Microsoft developers worked on other parts with daily
>communication between them to coordinate development. It was completely
>a joint development effort.
I did not know that. Are you sure they weren't just making sure that
PC-DOS worked?
[...]
>> Because MS-BASIC was in the PROM, according to the information I have.
>
>So what? The ROM BASIC was very limited and only used if you bought a
>PC without floppy drives or a hard drive and loaded BASIC programs
>through the built-in cassette tape port. As it turned out, virtually no
>IBM PCs were ever purchased in this configuration.
Well, it wasn't my strategy; ask Bill Gates why he thought it would
work.
>> I don't see what this has to do with my comment, though. Are you saying
>> having to select the cheapest from a list of three entirely unknown
>> alternatives means that DOS "competed"? You're a pretty incredulous
>> guy, you know that?
>
>Yea, right. No one ever heard of CP/M before it was released for the
>IBM PC.
I used CP/M on the Commodore 128, though that was not "before it was
released for the IBM PC". Why does that mean it 'competed'? Are you
saying DOS made CP/M a forgotten memory because of competitive merits?
>And if I remember correctly, the UCSD P-System had a magazine
>devoted to it prior to 1981. Of the three OSs, IBM-DOS was the only
>unknown one.
I'm also familiar with an OS called Thoroughbred, which was popular for
programming PC accounting systems (it included a development environment
for just that purpose.) Unfortunately, the term 'compete' suffers from
abstraction error. I say that DOS didn't compete with these, not
because they were not potential alternatives, but because Microsoft
attempted to monopolize, not compete. That this coincidentally
resembles 'competing' is not all that surprising; extortion and
blackmail are similar in the same way.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Intel versus Sparc
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:12 GMT
Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 20:07:37 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> What's your point? Just because something affects only operating
>> systems and/or compilers on Intel platforms does not mean that all
>> operating systems and/or compilers on Intel platforms are affected.
>> Note the distinction between "only" and "all"; presuming one means the
>> other is an inductive assumption.
>
>The point is that it has NOTHING to do with the hardware platform itself, and
>only has to do with the mindset of the developers. There is no reason, besides
>common sense, of course, that the stack needs to be limited to any small
>number.
Yet it is, so your protestations are inappropriate.
>A 32 bit process space is pretty big, and it the 64M struct blowing the stack
>isn't a function of the hardware, it is a function of the operating systems.
>That is what this thread has been about.
Well, it is not what my comment was about.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:13 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 01:28:48
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:57:15
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
>01:24:11
>> >
>> >> >As a side note:
>> >> >C:\Documents and Settings\Ayende>debug
>> >> >-f 0:0 ffff 5
>> >> >
>> >> >C:\Documents and Settings\Ayende>
>> >> >
>> >> >It didn't even crash cmd.exe :-)
>> >>
>> >> No doubt a hacked patch, rather than a fix to the fundamental flaws
>> >> embedded in Windows, due to its historical development as a DOS
>> >> extender.
>> >
>> >Please notice the path & the application name, and don't display you
>> >ignorance.
>> >This is not a DOS extender, this is an NT system, which has no DOS roots
>at
>> >all.
>>
>> Note the lack of reading comprehension on your part.
>
>NT doesn't extend DOS, in any way, shape, or form, period.
So its just stubbornness, is that it?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:14 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >I appologize again, I was in kind of a bad mood and I saw quite a few
>> >responses from you that seemed quite closed minded. I suppose I should
>have
>> >put them in the context of who you were responding to. However, part of
>> >what irked me was that you seemed to be painting all pro-windows people
>in
>> >the same light.
>>
>> Prepare to be irked. The only excuse for ignorance is ignorance.
>
>Max, you don't inspire my irk, you inspire my pity.
That's not what you said a few lines previous. Why include the quote if
you're going to try to contradict it? :-D
>> >I don't consider myself to be trolling either, though apparently to many,
>> >simply arguing against Linux or for MS no matter what the circumstance is
>> >trolling.
>>
>> Pretending to argue for MS; there is no argument "for" MS, save being
>> victim of illegal activity which prevents free market competition from
>> getting rid of crappy products.
>>
>> Terry was right, though, you are not a troll, Erik (though, yes, you
>> look like one when you have 'bad days', just like I do.) You're just a
>> sock puppet.
>
>Sock Puppet is a term to describe fictional personalities.
No, it is a term to describe possibly fictional motivations for quite
non-fictional personalities. Or at least we are to assume you aren't
pretending to be someone else, though obviously clair/flatfish tests the
category.
>I am precisely
>who I am. I use my real email, my real name, and I have been on usenet for
>nearly 10 years (off and on). Now that Deja goes back to 1995, i'm sure you
>can find some of my older posts if you desire.
None of that prevents you from being a sock puppet, Erik.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:15 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 22:22:58
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> And I pointed out that Lyx also takes the same number of steps (neglecting
>> that you failed to name the file, in your example).
>
>You don't need to name the file, even to print it. If you want to save
>it, then you need a name. Can you not name the file in LyX?
>
>> I also pointed out that Lyx can be run remotely, using only a couple
>> more steps. By remotely I mean it'l use up cpu on the *remote* linux
>> box.
>
>So what? I want to run Word on my PC, not one round the corner.
You better; that's all you can do! ;-/
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:16 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 22:26:43
GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> I've just composed a letter to a friend, timed lyx startup(non cache)3 seconds.
>> Load 3 page Lyx document, 3 seconds.
>
>Word is a little slower.
>
>> Now I wanted to include a jpeg picture of my motorbike,wich a friend snapped
>> with his cannon SLR digital camera.
>
>Insert Picture in Word.
>
>> Lyx doesnt take anything but a postscript image, so
>> - start the Gimp (11 seconds to start up)
>> - read bike.jpeg
>> - save as bike.ps (encapsulated ps, greyscale)
>> - insert bike.ps into letter
>> - print to postscript laser printer (perfect)
>
>You have to convert to postscript! Oh boy! Insert File in word, and it
>does it straight away!
No telling what "it" is, of course; Word does really weird things with
embedded graphics.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:17 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 22:28:23
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >"Once you're used to it", a telling phrase. With Word you can just start
>> >typing.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. The four years I made my living teaching people to
>> use Word says you're wrong. Way wrong.
>
>"Those who can't, teach"?
Those who can, teach. Those who can't can only do.
>Please explain how I'm wrong? I load word, I start typing. I then print
>it. I don't even need to name it.
Why not just say "I just do it." Do I really need to explain to you why
your instructions are sort of worthless, and thus your argument is ad
absurdum?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:18 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 22:32:44
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Provided you have a network neighborhood icon on the desktop of the
>> client; if you don't, nothing works.
>
>Well, duh!
That's what I said, when you were prattling on about how easy it is to
get Windows to network. Doh!
>> The command line ftp does not support recursion, so its rather useless
>> for this kind of thing.
>
>The ZIP it.
Guffaw. How about we get a non-brain-dead ftp, instead, and save the
trouble. We're talking a diskful of stuff, remember. Doh!
>> >Hmmm... not of them, not even KDE or GNOME are as functional as Windows GUI.
>>
>> Depending on how brain-dead your opinion of 'functional' might be.
>
>Better than KDE or GNOME.
Depending on.... Doh!
>> Guffaw.
>
>Rasperberry.
Can't seem to pull of an onomatopoeia, can you? Doh!
>> >If konqueror is an example of file manager's it's nothing to write home
>> >about.
>>
>> The same is true of Explorer (either).
>
>Yet explorer is faster than konqueror.
When it doesn't grind to a halt under load, maybe.
>> >> Outhouse - Exmh
>> >
>> >Never heard of Outhouse.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
>Rasperberry.
>
>> Everyone else has! :-D
>
>I knew what it meant. Unfortunately, you have no understanding of
>something called "sarcasm".
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. You call that sarcasm?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:19 GMT
Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 03 May 2001 00:47:08 GMT;
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:07 GMT,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>>nothing - Wordnet
>>
>> What's this?
>This is the README file for WordNet 1.6
>
>WordNet is an online lexical reference system. Word forms in WordNet
>are represented in their familiar orthography; word meanings are
>represented by synonym sets (synset) - lists of synonymous word forms
>that are interchangeable in some context. Two kinds of relations are
>recognized: lexical and semantic. Lexical relations hold between word
>forms; semantic relations hold between word meanings.
Sort of like a thesaurus, huh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:19 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 22:17:56
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >It's getting better, but it's still no where near windows. But hey, it's a
>> >windows world.
>>
>> I think you misspelled "criminal monopoly".
>
>You know that, I know that, but how come the courts don't?
Last you and I heard, they do.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:20 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>And your posts are growing more and more obtuse by the day.
Yes, I know.
>Do you ever actually say anything with all of those words you type in
>or are they randomly generated by some LinoCrap babble program?
You can't even get it when I go slow, can you?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:21 GMT
Said Chad Everett in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 17:43:13
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 22:12:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>>>
>>>This is where Linux should concentrate it efforts, but sadly the
>>>people in charge are just too stupid to see the light.
>>
>>There are no people "in charge" of Linux, moron.
>
>I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that Linus Torvalds
>is "in charge" of the Linux kernel.
Sure, the kernel. Linux is more than the epynomenous kernel; this is
GNU/Linux!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:07:50 -0400
Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> aaron wrote:
> > Matt Kennel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 02 May 2001 12:42:40 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > :
> > > :So, to summarize, you believe that homosexual attraction is genetically
> > > :determined.
> > >
> > > The twin and brother studies seem to indicate that it is
> > >
> > > :In other words, it is a birth defect, just like congenital mental retardation.
> > >
> > > Or being black or lithuanian.
> >
> > Being black or lithaunian doesn't interfere with the survival of
> > the DNA's lineage.
> >
> > Being homosexual does.
> >
> > Hope that helps.
>
> so aaron, did you ever figure out the third possibility?
I can think of a few, but whatever that third possibility may be,
the homosexuals aren't claiming it.
Why is that?
>
> for those following along at home the question was:
> you see a guy with no legs. this may be the result of:
>
> a. a genetic defect
> b. self mutilation
> c. ???
>
> and before you get all worked up about it don't worry.
> we don't hold your gayness against you.
> in fact that's the least of your problems...
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 3 May 2001 15:08:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:48 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 21:08:02
>>On Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:06:41
>>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> [...]
>>>>> A program which *requires* a library cannot be written until the library
>>>>> has been sufficiently designed (whether this is coding or documentation
>>>>> of the API is meaningless, which is the point you guys keep tripping
>>>>> over) to *base* the program on the functionality provided by the
>>>>> library. Thus, a program is derivative, in a legal copyright sense, of
>>>>> the library, and no time travel is required to make it so.
>>>>
>>>>No, a program that *requires* a library cannot be written until the
>>>>library's API are known, nothing more is required.
>>>
>>>In theory. Not in practice. How many times do we have to go through
>>>this: YOU ARE JUST BEING IDEALISTIC.
>>
>>It has been done, IN PRACTICE. That you, who has never exercised the
>>craft claim that what has already been done is impossible, is quite
>>irritating.
>
>I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
>practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
>exist in any way.
What can I say? It *is* possible, and I can prove it by example.
>>I have written programs that work in OSs I never saw, linked to
>>libraries I have never seen. Because those libraries implement
>>the same APIs as others I use.
>
>That is not in dispute.
Max, I wrote to the API. Those OSs later implemented the API and voilą,
my apps work with that implementation. because the API is not
the implementation.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:09:03 -0400
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > :> What an absurd statement, you're the one being completely illogical.
> >> > :> If a hetrosexual can be "converted" then clearly they already have
> >> > :> homosexual leanings.
> >> > :
> >> > :Proof?
> >> >
> >> > Know anybody who 'came out of the closet' who said ``I honestly had
> >> > absolutely no desire for guys before and got turned on by women only,
> >> > and I wasn't just acting.'' ?
> >> >
> >> > Why is it called 'coming out of the closet' as in their personality
> >> > was hidden, rather than, ``changing my mind about what gender I wanted
> >> > to boink.''
> >>
> >> Also take this logic as well. Would some one wakeup one day and say,
> >> "I'll join one of the most despised groups, lose most of my friends and
> >> then to
> >> top it all off, get rejected by my family". Doesn't sound logical, does
> >> it?
> >
> > yet l. ron hubbard has thousands of followers to this day.
> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >
> > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> > more even than death
> > - bertrand russell
>
> Who's Ron Hubbard?
L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction writer.
Created the religion "Dianetics" to win a bet.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 3 May 2001 15:09:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
>>>>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
>>>>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
>>>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>>>> not working as expected. Right?
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
>>>>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
>>>>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
>>>>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
>>>>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
>>>>performance requirements than anything else.)
>>>
>>>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
>>>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
>>
>>You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
>
>No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
>who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
>so.
Let's see, we should agree we are wrong because you say other say we are
wrong?
>>Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>>arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>
>Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>"program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>library".
No, I can not, because it makes no sense.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
