Linux-Advocacy Digest #356, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (mlw)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (robert bronsing)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (mlw)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Ian Davey)
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. ("~¿~")
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... ("~¿~")
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 07:16:09 -0400
Chaparral wrote:
>
> We can all say what we want about how Windows sucks and that Linux is the
> end-all-be-all, but after trying almost every Linux version to date, the
> bottom line folks is that Mr Gates has made operating a home computer easy
> enough for my great uncle to run. The Penguin still doesnt come close!
An opening statements with no facts.
>
> What Linux is VERY good at is the handling of servers... this is stuff that
> you are expected to fiddle with and fine tune. Home users don't want to
> fart around all day trying to figure out what to click and then having
> barely predictable responses.
Conjecture about the wants of other people. Just because you "can" fool with
something does not mean it is required. I suspect that many end users will
learn about these features and use them, if they want.
>
> So, Linux sucks hard for the home user but beats the hell out of WinBlows on
> the server farm... especially when you can tell a client that full-blown
> server software will only cost him $75 compared to $2000 plus for
> 2000Server!
The point of your message is that you claim Linux sucks, but you do not put any
supporting arguments as to why you have come to this conclusion. Debate is
surely a lost art in the twenty first century.
>
> Microsoft will rule the home front for many years I think, but their
> exorbitant pricing and draconian licensing policies will soon cause the
> server market to dry up.
Your conclusion is silly. In fact, your whole post is silly because it
addresses nothing. There are no observations or facts from which one could be
swayed.
I use Linux at home, all the time. I do e-mail, word processing, checkbook,
etc. I have no need for Windows on my work station.
I have Star Office, PostgreSQL, AIM, Netscape, MP3 players, CD burners, all the
standard games, utilities, etc. It is perfectly fine for most homes.
>
> Im done now.
Truer words were never spoken.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: robert bronsing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:28:49 +0200
I like to have control over my computer, I like it when I can do things
with it my way. I became fed up with MS because of the many BSOD's but
more importantly windows doesn't allow you to do things your way, only
the almighty Microsoft way. After having had three crashes in one day
(netscape brought down the entire OS) and not being able to interfere in
the inner workings of the OS I went out to the store, bought myself a
RedHat 5.2 box set and wiped my computer clean of all micosoft software.
Pretty much out of frustration. I partitioned the disk, installed linux
and I was instantly enthusiastic about it.
There was much there that I was unfamilliar with, in fact I didn't know
much about UNIX at all but I don't mind that.
After a few months I could get linux to do what I wanted it to do and I
vowed never to return to microsoft. A year ago or so, I bought a copy of
Slackware and 'the linux toolkit' from Walnut Creek CDROM. In the
toolkit they put a couple of distro's and a copy of FreeBSD and I tried
them all, except the FreeBSD (don't know why, just never got around to
it). I like Slackware and never had too many problems with it. I now run
Slackware 7.1 and installed the 2.4.1 kernel.
In the mean time, I started to work on my Ph.D in neuroscience and for
that work I need to do quite some data analysis. And for science, linux
is great. Even on my old and tired computer (P166 MMX, 128MB) I can do
everything I need to do. I can do development, maths and so on and it
doesn't cost me a dime. Octave is a free mathematics package that offers
much of the same functionality as MatLab does. The difference is that
MatLab costs several K$ per license and I can't put it on my home box
and octave is free (and functions developed under octave are compatible
with MatLab)! Same goes for many free software applications. They are
every bit as useable as their proprietary counterparts, only cheaper.
I fully intent to write my thesis using vi and LaTeX, just to show how
beautiful a thesis can look when typeset with a proper typesetting tool.
Another reason I love linux is that your computer knowledge is put in
perspective. After feeling like a computer expert in windows, I now know
that I am still very much in the learning stages...
--
Robert Bronsing
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:16:06 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steve Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Steve Sheldon wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Really? In your educated opinion what yet do they need to improve?
> > >
> > > Do not let an application manage its own window (except for
> > > drawing the interior).
> >
> > That's pretty much already the case, and rather useful.
> >
> > > Implement X-Windows; get the graphics out of kernel space.
> >
> > Implementing X-windows would be a signifigant step backwards in
evolution.
> >
>
> HAHA! Tell that to Apple!
Apple doesn't use X, they use their own display code.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:28:34 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > And Win2K still has some problems holding over from its legacy
> > > application control model. It is still possible for one
> > > app to lock up the system, although at least Win2K will eventually
> > > respond enough to let you kill the offending app.
> >
> > That is not what is called lock up.
> > Lock up is when you *can't* kill the offending app.
> > Unless you spesifically limited the amount of resources the application
can
> > take beforehand, that is possible in any OS.
>
> How do you limit resources in NT/2000, Ayende? (Thanks in
> advance for your answer, cause it would be a helpful thing
> to know.)
I was theorizing, I don't think you can do that in 2000, at least not to my
knowledge.
There is CPU throttling, but that is for IIS.
What you *can* do is to set task manager on real time priority, so that it
would get more CPU than practically anything else.
That way, even in 100%, it should be workable.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:38:17 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A Solaris worm that defaces IIS Web server pages:
> >
> > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60354,00.html
>
> To the uneducated blindly hating, lets all read along together eh?
>
> "CERT said the worm enters a Solaris system by using a 2-year-old buffer
> overflow vulnerability and then targets IIS-based Web servers via a security
> hole that was uncovered seven months ago. Software patches that are supposed
> to fix the problems have long been available from both Sun and Microsoft. "
>
> Hmm... so this "new" worm uses a 2 year old Solaris vulnerability combined
> with a 7 month old IIS vulnerability both of which have LONG had a complete
> fix available for.
>
> So, it's not ANY suprise at all that we also read:
> "Denis Zenkin, a spokesman at Moscow-based antivirus software vendor
> Kaspersky Lab International Ltd., today said he wasn't aware of any
> incidents involving the sadmind/IIS worm. The worm could turn out to be
> "merely another entry in CERT's virus encyclopedia," he added. "
>
> And equally it's no surprise that the blindly anti-MS haters simply see MS
> mentioned in some shady light and immediate dispatch what little brains they
> have left to out mongolia and announce this worm as if it were some sign of
> a MS weakness...
Why do you assume that anyone (even me, who cares not for Microsoft
tactics) announced this as purely MS disrespect? I myself posted it
to illustrate that UNIX is not immune to hacking.
And equally it's no surprise that the blindly anti-Linux haters simply see MS
mentioned in some shady light and immediate dispatch what little brains they
have left to out mongolia and announce this posting as if it were some sign of
a MS hatred...
> weird...
Rather, I say!
> how this is even news suprises me... I would expect The Register to run this
> sort of crap...
You perhaps are unable to deal with facts that contradict your
Weltanschung, meine Freund? It is now totally (100%, as opposed to
the 99.9% feeling I had before) apparent to me that you have
a deep-seated agenda.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:42:17 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> I was theorizing, I don't think you can do that in 2000, at least not to my
> knowledge.
> There is CPU throttling, but that is for IIS.
> What you *can* do is to set task manager on real time priority, so that it
> would get more CPU than practically anything else.
> That way, even in 100%, it should be workable.
Duh, my brain was turned off. I guess I was too busy drumming
up anti-Microsoft fervor by posting about the Solaris-to-IIS
worm attack.
I don't know what RedHat's talking about with this swap size deal.
My workstation machine is using hardly any swap space.
Maybe they were talking about server usage.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:44:45 GMT
Steve Sheldon wrote:
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > You might as well complain about the inadequate amount of storage
> > capacity on a hard drive cause the last time you used one was
> > 1996. Notice where 1996 is in the following:
> >
> > Linux kernel history:
> > ---------------------
> > Pre-1.0: 1991 - 1994
> > version 1.x.xx: 1994 - 1996*
> > version 2.0.xx - 2.1.xx: 1996 - 1999
> > version 2.2.xx: 1999 - present
> > version 2.4.0 - January 4, 2001
> > version 2.4.1 - January 29, 2001
> > version 2.4.2 - February 21, 2001
> > version 2.4.3 - March 29, 2001
> > version 2.4.4 - April 27, 2001
>
> Yes, and notice how little has really changed... Version numbers don't tell
> the whole story.
Guys, Steve here is obviously trolling.
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:45:50 GMT
Steve Sheldon wrote:
>
[a lot of troll-shit snipped]
Guys, Steve here is obviously trolling.
> Yes, crashing out of X-Windows back to a console is pretty routine.
Just one example.
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:50:31 GMT
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> It's cheap. $75. I've got the x86 version. But you have to visit Suns
> web site first and check out the Hardware Compatibility List (HCL). It
> installed ok for me (IBM) but I hear that it doesn't install on
> everything. A visit to alt.solaris.x86 will give you an idea of the
> many problems of installation can have. The docs are complete and there
> are more tools supplied than what I've been able to find on linux. Most
> of these tools, however, are for networking. Wait till summer if you
> like Gnome. They're are providing Gnome 2.0 then. I have the 02/00
> distribution (1st rollout) and there have been many changes since. The
> fonts are a lot larger than what I've experienced in linux, but then
> that was with Xfree 3.3.6. They provide a program called AppBuilder
> that is a drag and drop method to designing GUI Motif programs that
> generates Xlib code boilerplate. Then you just have to add your core
> code to make a complete program very much similar to VC++6.0. There are
> many other features as well.
Thank you for the information, GreyCloud! It sure tastes better
than flames and troll-shit.
I'm sorry I ever cross-posted this topic into alt.linux!
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:38:05 +0100
In article <9dauui$qd2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> No, I didn't, because you spouted pretty much nothing but gibberish until
> the end where you gained a little more of a clue.
Show me where I spouted gibberish. I didn't.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:43:37 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >You're being deliberately dense. "Word does it straight away".
>
> You are apparently missing my point. Word does "it"(?) straight away?
> What is "it"?
>
> No telling what "it" is, of course; Word does really weird things with
> embedded graphics.
Are you really this dense? Word inserts embedded graphics!
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:46:50 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> >> 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?
> >> >
> >> >So, what's your explanation of how I'm wrong?
> >>
> >> First, tell me why I should need to explain it?
> >
> >To explain what you're talking about.
>
> What I'm talking about is what I said. It already explains how you are
> mistaken; that is precisely what my statement was. Why are you asking
> for an explanation you've already been given?
Because you gave no explanation. I gave mine.
> >I fail to see how my instructions are worthless. I described what you do
> >with Word. You seem to want to fail to understand.
>
> They were pretty vague, essentially useless, as is. I should know; I
> taught people how to use Word for almost ten years. And the point is
> that the explanation of the procedure for how to execute these things in
> Unix can be made just as simple, but are far more precise, consistent,
> and reliable then the alternative in "Whatever Way Microsoft Wants To Do
> 'It'".
Sigh... I'm not going over the steps again. They're pretty simple. I see
no reason why someone who claims to have taught people how to use Word
for ten years can see how they work.
> >Please explain to me why you could be so stupid not to understand what I
> >said originally, and not what you appear to think I said.
>
> Like I said; I taught people to use Word for years. Believe me, the
> level of stupidity I was feigning concerning your procedures were very
> charitable in representing what you would call the "stupidity" of the
> novice user, who had no bias towards Windows from familiarity.
So now you're pretending to be deliberately stupid. What was the point
of that? If anything, I think you were deliberately "trolling".
Thank you T. Max. for the last few posts, a whole pile of pointless
noise.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:47:27 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Good advice, but not always necessary. Word doesn't crash all the time,
> >any more than Windows does.
>
> <*Smmph*>
Meaning what?
More of your pointless noise?
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 08:20:52 -0400
"Mad.Scientist" wrote:
> What are your reasons?
I wire wrapped my first microcomputer in the late '70s. My first "real"
computer job was in a robotics company with a Sun1 and a VAX 11/780. CP/M was
big at the time. UNIX was cool then.
I could not afford a Sun, so I used a PC with DOS. I developed software and
drivers for DOS, Windows, and WindowsNT (I still do). In the mid '90s I had the
chance to evaluate "free" operating systems for an embedded application. I
originally thought FreeBSD would be good, but there was so much more for Linux,
I decided to try that. I was hooked.
WAY more stable than any MS product. Way easier to develop on. Way faster.
What's not to love.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:21:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Darren Wyn Rees
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Many Linux advocates find it difficult to concede the fact that Linux
>is not a gaming OS.
You still haven't defined gaming OS. An OS on which you can play Tribes 2,
Quake 1, 2 & 3, Myth 2, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Soldier of Fortune,
etc. would seemingly qualify. There aren't as many games as Windows
(naturally) but you can hardly deny their existence.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:26:01 GMT
[snipped for brevity]
> issues, KDE for example is rapidly taking shape, version 2.1.1 is
> snappy, 40MB of resources are used once the OS and GUI are fully loaded,
> that is with default settings, throw off all the unneeded services, and
> that memory usage will come down to around 25-30MB.
What distro are you using? I've never seen a fully loaded KDE using'default'
settings with a 40mb working set. If nothing has been trimmed from a default
install (services and such) you're looking at substantially more than
40mb's.
Plus, this is where your accolade falls apart. NT4 with a full networking
setup loads with less than 40 with no tweaking at all. So, where's the beef
here? Meatless dinner, as usual.
---not to mention that this topic has nothing to do with the original post,
which is valid IMHO--
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:27:57 GMT
> > Okay, I was a little bored last night, so I thought I'd do a little
> > investigative work to see if I could discover who flatfish really is.
> > At this point, I'm about 90% certain I know his real identity. Here's
> > the trail I followed...
OK. A statement and a suggestion.
Statement: --Who gives a shit?
Suggestion: --Get out more and build a real life.
Really. This is not meant as a putdown. Your post is depressing to say the
least.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:39:14 +1200
"~=BF~" wrote:
> =
> [snipped for brevity]
> =
> > issues, KDE for example is rapidly taking shape, version 2.1.1 is
> > snappy, 40MB of resources are used once the OS and GUI are fully load=
ed,
> > that is with default settings, throw off all the unneeded services, a=
nd
> > that memory usage will come down to around 25-30MB.
> =
> What distro are you using? I've never seen a fully loaded KDE using'def=
ault'
> settings with a 40mb working set. If nothing has been trimmed from a de=
fault
> install (services and such) you're looking at substantially more than
> 40mb's.
> =
> Plus, this is where your accolade falls apart. NT4 with a full networki=
ng
> setup loads with less than 40 with no tweaking at all. So, where's the =
beef
> here? Meatless dinner, as usual.
> =
> ---not to mention that this topic has nothing to do with the original p=
ost,
> which is valid IMHO--
Your argument is as bad as saying that MacOS X has no burning software,
however, when I correct you, you refuse to acknowledge that you are
incorrect.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:43:26 +0100
>> No, I didn't, because you spouted pretty much nothing but gibberish
>> until the end where you gained a little more of a clue.
>
> Show me where I spouted gibberish. I didn't.
"Another Linux OOPSIE"
Pure gibberish.
The problem was to to with GIMP being stupid, not Linux.
-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: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:45:30 +0100
>> >You're being deliberately dense. "Word does it straight away".
>>
>> You are apparently missing my point. Word does "it"(?) straight away?
>> What is "it"?
>>
>> No telling what "it" is, of course; Word does really weird things with
>> embedded graphics.
>
> Are you really this dense? Word inserts embedded graphics!
The inserted graphics have a tendency to jump around quite a lot.
-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]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:50:36 +0100
>> >> I'm not familiar with this object. Could you provide some pointers
>> >> (I'm genuinely curious).
>> >
>> > Basically, you are taking advantage of NTFS5 (avialable in NT4 with
>> > SP4, I think). You get a Reparse (can't really recall the name) point
>> > on
>> > %SYSTEM%\PS2PRN which mean that when a program tries to access this
>> > file, NTFS will invoke a program (a function? can't recall how they
>> > call it), which will handle the request, it's possible, I guess, to
>> > build PS interepter that would print to printer this way.
>>
>> Do you print to this device as if it were a file or as if it were a
>> printer?
>
> Same way you would print to /dev/lpr or PRN, I assume. You feed it PS,
> it prints it.
That's not quite right.
/dev/lp? refers to the printer port under UNIX, but most apps have no
access to it. What happens is that you pipe data to the lpr program. This
contacts lpd, and lpd filtres the data and dumps it to /dev/lp?
If you could feed data straight to /dev/lp?, then it would get no
filtering (like under DOS).
I suppose you could create a device file that is firstly unique to each
process (like /dev/tty is unique to each console) and triggers a program
to be run on the data when data is written to it.
-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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:52:49 +0100
> You perhaps are unable to deal with facts that contradict your
> Weltanschung, meine Freund? It is now totally (100%, as opposed to the
> 99.9% feeling I had before) apparent to me that you have a deep-seated
> agenda.
I'm 100% certain too: his agenda is to troll, which he does quite 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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
