Linux-Advocacy Digest #270, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 20:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Electric Ninja")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Yet another IIS security bug (Giuliano Colla)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Ayende
Rahien")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Steve Sheldon")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick <[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!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 19:15:07 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > > typo and all huh?.. That looks real authentic. Oh I see, it came from
> the
> > > fictional book The Microsoft File.
> >
> > Fictional? Prove it. Better yet, sue th author. If it is so fictional,
> > tell us why Microsoft didnt sue.
>
> It's not my job to prove made up events didn't happen. It's the authors job
> to prove they DID. Something that is soreley lacking in the gossip fish
> stories of the Microsoft File.
> Prove aliens didn't come down for a photo op with Clinton? Same thing.
>
> There's a pretty good precedent for huge corporations *not* being
> successfull in suing rouge loners with pencils. Just ask the author of
> WalMartsucks.com et. al. On top of that, the book has surely caused no harm
> to Microsoft.
That proves you didnt read it. You does plenty of harm to Microsoft.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 19:18:16 -0400
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> > > 20:53:03 GMT;
> > > >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > >> > MS-DOS and DR-DOS were *both* lousy things
> > > >> > to saddle Windows with. I'm not endorsing MS-DOS
> > > >> > over DR-DOS; I'm endorsing Windows with as little
> > > >> > of either as can be managed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Windows COULD NOT run without some DOS underneath. DR-DOS was
superior.
> > > >> And Microsoft used it monoply power to push DR-DOS out of the
market.
> > > >
> > > >I don't see that DR-DOS was superior as a platform
> > > >for Windows.
> > >
> > > Nice squirming, troll-boy.
> > >
> > > >The real trick was to supercede as much of DOS
> > > >as possible, not to use another DOS.
> > >
> > > No wonder you find it so easy to be clueless; you think there's a
> > > difference between something that is like DOS, and something that is
> > > "another DOS". Its a wonder you can even find the power switch.
> >
> > Come on now!! Your pissing Max off!! The truth to him is like holy water
on
> > a vampire. Max thinks - Microsoft was supposed to create Windows to be
> > compatible with DR DOS. He probably goes further into fantasyland to
think
> > Microsoft Inc. was supposed provide support for every Tom, Dick and DOS
> > lookalike that came along.
>
> NO, but then they should have put code into Windows to specifcally check
> if it was running on another DOS, then throw up error messages to scare
> off customers.
Yes, they should have. If they have no plans on supporting the OS on top of
DR DOS they would be derrelict in their duty not to inform the consumer that
Windows might not perform as advertised on top of DR DOS. If it was my
product I'd just refuse to let it install and not bother with the warning
message. It's the same reason you see a lot of disclaimers in products that
*can* pair up with others, but shouldn't. The "unleaded fuel only" warning
wasn't to put anyone out of business and those cars "can" run on leaded
fuel, it just ruins the catalytic converter.
------------------------------
From: "Electric Ninja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:17:25 GMT
> Now, I never taught them how to use Linux or anything. BUT, one person
who I
> supervised seemed to like the fact that you can just type "halt" at the
> prompt to halt Linux instead of moving your mouse down to the start
button,
> click on "Shutdown...", etc. etc. Simple and direct, Linux is.
This is a fairly lame argument. Opening a command prompt to type "halt"
takes just as much if not more effort.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:03:28 GMT
On Sun, 06 May 2001 20:59:47 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> My point is that while the lack of law suits is probably not a convincing
>> arguement for the the FSF's position, it is even weaker evidence that
>> the code is of limited value.
>
>The nature of the GPL has kept most of the value in standalone applications
>which are not greatly affected by the restriction against combining with
>other components. Would you risk a lawsuit, even one you expected
>to win, to save rewriting something like readline?
No. I agree that no matter how convinced I was that the FSF was wrong,
I would not defy their wishes to use readline. But my reason doesn't
hinge solely on value. I would respect their wishes because their
software is free. Had I paid for the right to use it, I'd feel quite
differently.
I really can't imagine any code being so valuable that I'd use it
against the will of someone who distributed it under a free license.
So ethics, expenses for being sued, value of the code, the risk of
generating bad will among free software proponents, possible bad
publicity, and probably a bunch of other things probably go into the
decision. For that reason, I don't think it's fair to say that
the value of the code is the determining factor.
>
>> While it's true that the FSF's position hasn't been tested in court,
>> the position is not so far removed from some precedent that suggests
>> their position is wrong.
>
>If they are right, then Microsoft would automatically gain control of
>everything their competitors in application programs have written that
>call any system dlls.
Exactly. This would be a very bad precedent to set, although it might
be the case the Microsoft could not assert such control without
running afoul of unfair business practice law.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 19:21:21 -0400
kosh wrote:
>
> Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>
> > First, let's get one thing straight; I'm not a wintroll. I don't
> > even run windows on any machine I own. I am a committed a Linux advocate
> > (and evangelist). But I am gonna rant (and there is foam coming out of my
> > mouth). What pisses me off about quite a significant amount of Linux
> > software is the ridiculous x86 bias, ridiculous to the point of ignorance
> > of the existance of other CPUs.
> > On many occasions, I have wasted much bandwidth and time
> > obtaining sourcecode to some killer app, only to find that it will only
> > compile on x86, and there is f***all warning in previous documentation.
> > There seems to be some kind of arrogant view that Linux is only run on
> > x86 (I use PPC). Some lamer has put in an ASM hack; that's fine, but would
> > it really be too much trouble to put in a C substitute, or at least some
> >>warning< next to that big hunk of megabytes large source code?? I
> > have to use a modem half the year and this isn't helping!
> > All I want is fair warning that they haven't taken into account CPUs
> > other than their own. So those of you who know (or are) developers,
> > _please_ bang some heads and let people know that there are people who do
> > not use x86s. Oh, and let them know that some people have their ints
> > ordered the _right_ way round :>
> >
> > Richard
> >
>
> The answer is probably simpler then what you think. Some of the programs I
> have written may not run on windows or on other cpu platforms. However I
> don't know if that is true because I don't have those other platforms to
> test it with.
>
> How is someone to know if the code won't work on a ppc, mips, sparce, etc
> without having one to test it on?
Then they shouldn't be writing it with code they can't test.
--
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: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 01:51:28 +0200
"Jonas Due Vesterheden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iliJ6.10914$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:9d1uvi$qfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Thank Jesus! It's a real HTML breaker, and has led to
> > > circus plug-ins like Macromedia Flash and Shockwave, as
> > > well as the ability to hijack a workstation through HTML
> > > or VBScript.
>
> > Nothing render pages better than it.
> > NS has plugins as well. And you didn't even needed VBScript to hijack a
> > workstation, all you needed is a JPEG.
> How do you hijack a workstation with a JPEG image?
NS3/2 - 4.7? allows you to execute commands in a a JPEG's comment via buffer
overflow.
http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/vdb/bottom.html%3Fvid%3D1503
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:22:29 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Les Mikesell in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 06 May 2001 03:25:33
> >"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> For the record: I work for a bank. To be exact, I work for the ING Group.
> >> While I cannot speak for the server side of things, it is true that on
> >> the desktops we (at least my division) were an OS/2 shop for a long time.
> >> We're now slowly switching to NT. Despite being pleasantly surprised at
> >> its stability,
> >
> >Remember you are probably coming in at about sp6 or so. Any assumptions
> >about instability before that would have been for good reasons.
>
> SP5 was more stable than SP6, actually.
>
> >> it is still a pain because of certain assumptions in UI
> >> design, which are just plain brain dead (like switching focus to the
> >> desktop when you close a window. I am a touch typist, so I consistently
> >use
> >> alt-F4, only to have to use the mouse to refocus on a new window).
> >
> >I hate to defend them, but what's wrong with alt-tab?
>
> I do think he was forgetting that. ;-)
>
> To be honest, it could the basis of an argument that what is 'intuitive'
> is not always what is 'familiar', because I have had the same kind of
> trouble, myself. It just doesn't "seem right" to alt-tab for the next
> app to pop up, after you close one. Why is that?
>
I don't believe that 'intuitive' and 'familiar' are just the same thing,
on a human interface. We have a background, a psychology, a brain built
in a given way, etc. etc. So if a human interface has features which
recall other 'familiar' things (like pressing a button, following with
the eye a moving object, etc.) it's more 'intuitive' than another one
which doesn't recall previous 'familiar' behaviors.
I have worked out my personal way to tell apart 'familiar' from
'intuitive'. If you are familiar with interface A, and then switch to B,
it will take some time to become familiar with B. But when you've become
familiar with both, it turns out that it takes you more time to get used
again to B after using A, than getting used to A after using B. It means
that A is more 'intuitive' than B. I've been using Windows since its
beginning, and only last year I started using KDE on Linux. But it takes
me seconds to feel at ease when I switch from Windows to Linux KDE,
while it takes me many minutes to get used again to Windows when coming
from Linux. I conclude that KDE is more 'intuitive' than Windows.
Coming to your question I'd say that alt-tab is connected to the idea of
making first of all disappear the current app and then popping up the
next one. But if current app has already disappeared, the scenario is
different, so it's not 'intuitive' to use the same command. One would
think that, as current app has disappeared, the next one should pop up
by itself.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 01:59:40 +0200
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d4khv$r94$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jonas Due Vesterheden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:KmiJ6.10919$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "donc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Oh sure. And everybody knows that NCSA Mosaic was inspired by IE. Why,
> > > if it weren't for Microsoft's innovation there wouldn't even an
> > > internet today. But perhaps their biggest contributions have been in
> > > the areas of reliability and openess.
>
> > Are you saying that Microsoft created the internet or am I
> misunderstanding?
> > If not, can you please explain?
>
> A> live a space between your responses and your qouting.
That is leave, sorry.
> B> he's being sarcatic.
> C> IE is *much* more than Mosaic.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 02:01:27 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MzkJ6.22908$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > That's exactly my point. Pascal properly hides what shouldn't be
> > normally used by an application developer (i.e. dirty tricks with
> > pointers). You can do in Pascal anything you can do in C, but you must
> > state very explicitly, so that you're made aware of what you're doing.
> > Once you've learned, you may start playing with C++, if you feel like,
> > but your background will make you avoid all the trivial errors you can
> > do with C++, without the compiler telling you, and learning only at run
> > time.
>
> Not true. You can't do anything can do with C++. You can't write device
> drivers, for instance.
I don't think so. I know that BS is strongly against making C++ a high
language.
You might not be able to write one on today's OS. Because the kernels are
all written in C. But I don't think that there is an arcitectual reason why
C++ can't be used for device drivers, if you have a kernel that can support
it.
Or is there?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 02:05:39 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 04:59:28
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Fri, 04 May 2001 02:39:20 GMT, Chad Myers
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Sure, the scripting is good, I'll give it that. But as far as just a
> >> > basic shell, it's really not that great. Simple editing on the
command
> >> > line for long commands isn't terribly easy. HOME and END don't work,
> >>
> >> They work for me.
> >
> >But not del, and it's annoying as hell. Anyway to fix it?
>
> It isn't broken. I told you; call your OEM. If you don't have one, go
> hit a non-advocacy group.
It's more fun asking here.
> >> > It doesn't have a pop-up command history like cmd.exe (the F7 key)
> >>
> >> Up and down arrow keys scroll through the history. You can search the
> >> history with Ctrl-R.
> >
> >It's not the same as F7, with F7 on CMD, you get a list of all the recent
> >commands are displayed, so you can choose from them.
>
> Choose how? With the *mouse*? <*snicker*>
There is something called arrow keys, T. Max, you know.
> Nobody cares if it's "not the same" as Microsoft's broken shell
> substitute. Write a GPL command.com for Linux, if you love their
> disfunctional hacks so much. Bash is a clearly superior shell to
> anything that Microsoft is even capable of producing.
A> I don't like string handling in C any better than the next guy.
B> Even if I would write it, it wouldn't be GPL.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 02:09:17 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Actually, I think that the reverse is true.
> > I know a little of Pascal, and the pointers that Pascal have can stump
you
> > if you are transferring your Pascal knowledge to C/C++.
> > Pointers aren't an easy concept in the first place, and C & C++ way of
doing
> > it are nearly identical to the way the machine does it, so it's easier
to
> > learn the C's way, and then learn Pascal, which limits your ability to
use
> > them.
> > As a note, a good C++ programmer shouldn't have much use for raw
pointers.
> > The standard library provides for nearly everything that you need to use
a
> > pointer for, and it does it much better than the average programmer can
hope
> > to do. More safely, too.
> > The big plus of C++ is that you don't have to pay for things that you
don't
> > need.
>
> That's exactly my point. Pascal properly hides what shouldn't be
> normally used by an application developer (i.e. dirty tricks with
> pointers). You can do in Pascal anything you can do in C, but you must
> state very explicitly, so that you're made aware of what you're doing.
> Once you've learned, you may start playing with C++, if you feel like,
> but your background will make you avoid all the trivial errors you can
> do with C++, without the compiler telling you, and learning only at run
> time.
I don't think so, I think that it's better to know *how* it's done, and
except assembler, C is the best way to learn how it's done, and then move to
the restrictions of Pascal.
And I'm talking as someone who did Pascal first.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 02:16:12 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 6 May 2001 23:05:43 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > FILE *fp = fopen("LPT1","wt");
> > if (!fp){
> > printf("failure opening printer port");
> > return 1;
> > }
> > fprintf(fp,"Here I'm printing text using fprintf() on windows\n");
> > fclose(fp);
>
> Won't work if the printer is Postscript and does not auto-detect plain
> ASCII.
How do you handle those printers in Linux? Output PS?
I'm interested, not attacking.
> > Install a PS printer driver, print to file, done deal.
> > And *I*, as the developer, don't need to know anything about PS to do
it,
> > too. It will create a perfectly legal PS file, too.
>
> No, instead you have to know about GDI and printer setup dialogs. The
> real advantage (and it is a significant one) is that you can use nearly
> the same code for display. Not _exactly_ the same in most cases, as
> screens don't have pages or headers or any of that, but mostly.
Yes, that is part of my point, that it's easier to add printing to an
application. This make it harder to create printing support.
And the *usual* case of printing is printing to a printer.
Besice, *I*, as the developer, can know nothing about PS, and *you*, as the
user, can still output his printing in PS.
> There exist libraries for Linux that allow similar things.
Take X output and turn it into PS?
> > Since most (all?) printers can accept fprintf commands, then *of course*
> > weare talking about GUI apps.
>
> Not all printers can accept ASCII text. Nearly all, but not all. And
> you can print with fprintf() from a GUI app too, BTW. It just won't be
> WYSIWYG.
Of course, but it's WYSIWYG.
But that is just a plain text output, and is simple to create on any OS.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 02:16:36 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > I have an Epson 740. It doesn not support Postscript. Thats why I have
> > > Ghostscript.
> >
> > Now, what does GhostScript *does*?
>
> ... and you are trying to pass yourself off as a software engineeer?
> Ghostscript is a Postscript interpreter. You know, so you can use
> Postscript output on non-Postscript printers.
I *know* what Ghostscript does, Rick. I'm trying to make a point here.
You need to take extra steps to setup GS as an interupter for the printer.
Of course, you can just run printtool to do it for you.
Now, I've never used GS to print, I use it to view mathematical
documentations.
But according to Denial, GS isn't a good way to use a printer. Got any info
about it?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 19:22:59 -0400
Quantum Leaper wrote:
>
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3DXI6.6016$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Q4HI6.118153$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Got one already. A BSCS from Rensselaer Polytechnic.
> > > >
> > > > You must be a minority, then. Nobody as stupid as you could graduate
> > > > with a BSCS unless you are a member of some political "victim" group.
> > > >
> > > Atleast he finishes what he started, unlike some people.
> >
> > Hmmmm?
> >
> > What's all this?
> >
> > Is there an amusing story behind this comment?
> >
> I though it was amusing, Aaron calling some stupid for finishing college,
> when Aaron never did...
Nah...I'm just saying that a degree =/= education.
I know people with PhD's who still don't have an education.
--
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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:23:19 +0100
>>warning< next to that big hunk of megabytes large source code?? I
> have to use a modem half the year and this isn't helping!
Student?
Other than that, fair rant. I have had noe expreience with this yest
since I'm an Intel (P133) user, but when I upgrade, it may well not be
intel.
When I write software, I try to ensure it compiles on a DEC, Sun, SGI and
Intel Linux, since that's what I have access to.
-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: "Steve Sheldon" <[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!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 18:27:28 -0500
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Stac may have a case; I've heard conflicting reports.
> >
>
> Stac won its lawsuit.
My understanding is Microsoft countersued, and they settled out of court.
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[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!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 18:30:11 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> billwg wrote:
> >
> > Do you have any authentication for that letter? That condition would be
an
> > explicit violation of the Consent Agreement and would be of extreme
interest
> > to the DOJ, at least the previous administration DOJ.
>
> Clue for the Clueless--the DOJ investigation PRECEEDS the Klintoon years.
Ok, you are aware that President Clinton took office in January of 1993,
right?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
