Linux-Advocacy Digest #517, Volume #34 Mon, 14 May 01 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Dave Martel)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Alan Baker)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source ("Gary Hallock")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Dave Martel)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:26:35 -0500
You are certainly on the ball Charlie.
You "just" discovered something that happened over a year ago and was fixed
over a year ago. Further, there is no evidence the back door was ever used.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/14/1858201
>
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/entrepreneur.html?s=smallbiz
> /articles/20010514/microsoft_ackno
>
>
> Microsoft admits to screwing thousands of business owners out of the
security,
> to jeapordizing confidential customer information, to cheating the U.S.
> government and the tax payers of their confidential security for years
> without their consent!
>
> EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA!!!!!
>
> EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA!!!!!
>
> Microsoft has proven once again by their own admission to be
> totally untrustworthy!
>
> They CLAIM they knew nothing about it.
> They appearently don't ever do a code review,
> for years yet!
>
> And I'll say it again! Would you quit reading CEO magazine,
> pull your heads out of
> your butts and install Linux servers before you get sued!!!
>
> You know your liable now!
>
>
> How many god damn fucking clues do you need here folks!
>
> -
> Charlie
> -------
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 14 May 2001 21:28:37 -0500
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > > Define stealing from the competition.
> > >
> > > For instance, patent infringement (Stac - compression) and taking code
> > > (Apple - used quicktime code in windows video). m$ lost both cases.
> >
> > Stac bought a patent,
>
> Stac may have bought a patent, but m$ infringed upon it after it was
> bought.
Stac also violated MS's license, and lost a countersuit by MS over reverse
engineering DOS.
BTW, violating a patent isn't stealing. Millions of patent violations occur
daily by people that simply come up with the same algorithm as a patented
one without even knowing it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 14 May 2001 21:29:32 -0500
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:v4%L6.23508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dpoah$624$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Not familiar with the quicktime code issue.
>
> As I understand it, Apple subcontracted parts
> of QuickTime to another firm- codecs I think.
Actually, QuickTime is based on the Sorensen codec, which Apple themselves
license.
> Microsoft later subcontracted parts of
> Window Media to the same firm.
Again, Sorenson (IIRC).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:06:45 GMT
In article <R90M6.854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>You are certainly on the ball Charlie.
>
>You "just" discovered something that happened over a year ago and was fixed
>over a year ago. Further, there is no evidence the back door was ever used.
>
So are you EF. It's a new one!
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/14/1858201
>>
>> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/entrepreneur.html?s=smallbiz
>> /articles/20010514/microsoft_ackno
>>
>>
>> Microsoft admits to screwing thousands of business owners out of the
>security,
>> to jeapordizing confidential customer information, to cheating the U.S.
>> government and the tax payers of their confidential security for years
>> without their consent!
>>
>> EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA!!!!!
>>
>> EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA!!!!!
>>
>> Microsoft has proven once again by their own admission to be
>> totally untrustworthy!
>>
>> They CLAIM they knew nothing about it.
>> They appearently don't ever do a code review,
>> for years yet!
>>
>> And I'll say it again! Would you quit reading CEO magazine,
>> pull your heads out of
>> your butts and install Linux servers before you get sued!!!
>>
>> You know your liable now!
>>
>>
>> How many god damn fucking clues do you need here folks!
>>
>> -
>> Charlie
>> -------
>
>
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:30:26 -0500
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <xwCL6.725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >>
> > > >> Hey Funky boy keep your hair on. What are you implying by 'hosts,
not
> > > >> servers'? I presume you are referring to multiple web servers being
> > > >> hosted on a single machine? The fact that Linux/Unix servers are so
> > > >> capable at this is just another embarrassment to Microsoft.
> > > >
> > > > Windows is just as capable, however Windows is used more often in
> > corporate
> > > > environments than ISP environments. ISP's often have hundreds or
> > thousands
> > > > of web sites (hosts) on a single machine.
> > > >
> > > > In any event, you're avoiding the question. What is your proof that
> > there
> > > > are more physical non-Windows servers on the internet than Windows
> > servers?
> > > > Stick to the topic.
> > >
> > > Where did I ever mention 'physical non-Windows servers'? You really
are a
> > > pratt.
> >
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > You do realise that Microsoft are a minority when it comes to Internet
> > > servers
> >
> > Clearly you were talking about actual servers, not hostsnames.
> >
> > Don't weasel out of it. What is your proof?
>
> http://www.netcraft.co.uk/survey/
Again, Netcraft only counts host names, not servers. The same server can
server 10's, 100's, even thousands of hosts.
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:16:40 -0700
I nominate flatfish for least believable wintroll. He/she/it (using
thirty-five different aliases) has been unilaterally unsuccessful at
installing Slackware for almost as long as Slackware has been in
existence, and to this day still has miscellaneous driver problems that
were fixed back before most of us ever even lurked here.
C'mon, who cares if you can't install an 8-bit SoundBlaster-II on
Slackware 0.31? Give it a fuckin' rest and get with the program.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:33:48 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in
> > message news:dnXL6.12464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Mon 14 May 2001 07:01, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > >
> > > [Snip]
> > > >
> > > > One BIG advantage of Linux is that SMP code can be inlined, by
setting
> > > > a compiler switch and rebuilding.
> > > >
> > > > In proprietary binary operating systems (PBOS), SMP support is
provided
> > > > by libraries. The kernel has to jump to the proper library
function.
> > > > This function call is necessary so that the PBOS can support both
> > > > uni-processor and SMP machines. However, note that the function
call
> > > > is overhead that the open-source kernel can simply compile out of
> > > > existence.
> > > >
> > > > Examples of PBOS's: Windows, Windows, Windows, Windows.....
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > >
> > > I believe that this is wrong: NT/2K ships with two versions of the
kernel
> > > (and a few core libraries) pre-compiled on the CD, one with SMP
support
> > and
> > > one for uniprocessor systems. However, due to the welded-hood
approach of
> > > Microsoft products, one must reinstall the OS from scratch to switch
> > > between the two kernels. Yech.
> >
> > That is wrong. There is a simple utility to run to switch between the
uni
> > processor kernel and mutiprocessor kernel for NT4. W2K does not have
this
> > problem and you can change motherboard and CPU counts under it no
problem,
> > it reconfigures itself automatically when you come back up. I recently
went
> > from a uniprocessor m/b to a dual board and just shut down, changed
hardware
> > and came back up; had to reboot once more after it detected the changes.
>
> Count yourself lucky. After XP comes out, you'll need to call a (as-
> yet-unspecified-if-it-will-be-toll-free) phone number to beg
> permission to boot the machine back up.
Not true. You'll have 45 days to activate the software from the time you
install or overhaul your machine (simple hardware changes won't trigger a
re-activation). It will be toll-free, as the Office activation number is
toll-free already.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:04:04 -0600
On Mon, 14 May 2001 21:17:33 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, Borland is going to do the same thing, and we're hearing noises
>from Symantec and several other companies as well.
That supports my earlier statement that even if I liked Windows, I'd
refuse to buy XP because I don't want to encourage other software
vendors to take up this negative behavior.
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:20:01 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >You can't detect the bug unless you're looking for it.
> > > ----------------------^-------------------------------
> > > |
> > > BINGO
> > >
> > > Regression tests look for bugs just like all other tests. You just don't
> > > run the full suite of tests and concentrate on the area changed *and its
> > > interactions with other software components*. You can't possibly test
> > > every path through a program affected by a change. I always try to
> > > include in the subset chosen for testing some remote and subtle paths
> > > through the program. I am very happy if the test result clears the fixed
> > > bug and finds a new one, not introduced by the fix. If the fix
> > > introduces a new bug it is rejected.
> >
> > Isn't that what testing is about? the point of testing is to look for
> > bugs, try to confuse the program and cause problems by trying things in
> > different ways, isolate the bugs, fix the problem, then repeat the test
> > again. If you have written out a program, and you have no bugs, you
> > have obviously not tested the program properly.
>
> That's unit testing, or black box testing.
>
> Regression testing tends to be done with scripts, and is based on previously
> discovered bugs. You regression test to make sure that old bugs don't creep
> back in.
Pressman ("Software Engineering, A Practitioner's Approach, 3rd ed.")
defines regression testing as "repeating past tests to ensure that
modifications have not introduced faults into previously operational
software" and as being conducted to "ensure that new errors have not
been introduced". Watts Humphries("Managing the software Process") "run
a subset of previously executed integration and function tests to
ensure that program changes have not degraded the system". I could go
on, but note that none of the definitions say anything about previously
discovered bugs.
I like to add in a few paths that weren't tested before, just in case a
bug was missed last time. Another thing regression tests help with is
what I like to call "uncovered" bugs. Those are bugs that were hidden by
the bug that is being fixed, but now come into play.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[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: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:24:33 GMT
In article <Cc0M6.856$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:v4%L6.23508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9dpoah$624$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Not familiar with the quicktime code issue.
>>
>> As I understand it, Apple subcontracted parts
>> of QuickTime to another firm- codecs I think.
>
>Actually, QuickTime is based on the Sorensen codec, which Apple themselves
>license.
This is incorrect. Sorensen is just one of many codecs that Quicktime
can use. There are 23 listed in my Quicktime installation and it's
hardly all inclusive.
>
>> Microsoft later subcontracted parts of
>> Window Media to the same firm.
>
>Again, Sorenson (IIRC).
Don't think so, but don't know.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:26:42 +0000
In article <AYwL6.709$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would a new bug show up in a regression test? Personally, I think
> that if you catch a new bug in a regression test, you're either lucky,
> or not performing the regression test correctly. You can't detect the
> bug unless you're looking for it.
>
> Sure, you can test your inputs and outputs, but that won't tell you if
> you Lotus notes is gonna break because it assumes that a return value
> means something it's not documented to mean.
>
Hu? Well, if that's the way MS does regression testing, it explains a
lot. Proper regression testing is not about making sure an old bug is
fixed. It's purpose is to be sure you didn't break anything in the
process.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:30:09 GMT
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > > On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all
> > > recorded in
> > >> > a
> > >> > > >corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers -
> > >> > > >you
> > >> > don't
> > >> > > >have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters
> > >> > lately?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse
> to
> > > run
> > >> > if
> > >> > > I make improvements to it.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > So don't buy licensed software who's terms you don't agree with.
> > >> > Simple.
> > >>
> > >> I don't.
> > >
> > > Good for you! There, not much of a monopoly MS has got there now is it?
> > >
> >
> > A friend of mine recently wanted to buy a new computer in a store. She did
> > not need the Windows 98 operating system or the applications that came
> with
> > it, so she asked if she could buy a computer without operating system or
> > any applications installed (after all, she already had a decent operating
> > system linux - and all the software she was ever going to need - SuSE).
> >
> > The sales droid told her that this was impossible, as all computers came
> > with Windows software preinstalled.
> >
> > So she asked if she could get a refund if she did not buy the software;
> > after all, all the programs that were installed on the computer were also
> > for sale as separate items in the store.
> >
> > This, the shopinator told her, was also impossible, but when asked why,
> the
> > drone went into maintenance mode.
> >
> > Indeed, this MS monopoly is nothing but a giant fata morgana. It does not
> > exist. People make it up as they go.
> >
>
> I can walk into a computer store and buy all the parts needed to build a
> computer. It will have whatever OS I choose to put on it.
>
The only problem with this is that it will cost you more than buying the
assembled machine.
> They should bitch to that particular OEM about the deal it signed with MS
> and why it chose to.
I do this with great regularity. Sometimes they even listen.
>I think I know the answer but the fault doesn't lay
> with MS. MS offers OEMs a choice. Sign a deal that says you'll only use our
> software preloaded and we'll sell you copies of our software cheaper. You
> don't have to sign but you'll pay regular pricing for the software. We won't
> stop you selling computers but obviously you'll be at a price disadvantage.
>
> Try walking into a car dealership and order a car without a motor.
Done that. Got the cars, too.
>You intend to drop custom motor of your own design into it. What? They won't?
> Why not? You don't need it, don't want it.... they are forcing you to do
> it!! bastards! Try to buy a new 42" TV without a remote. You've got a
> universal remote, you don't need a remote. It's free? No, you say, the price
> is included so it's not. Hmmm... ok, those bastard monopolizers are at it
> again. Can't buy a CD with the jewel case? The list of examples goes on and
> on.
>
All monopolies suck.
> No one forces the OEMs to buy MS - there are obvious advantages and
> disadvantages to the choice which the market place caused to occur but these
> are not the "fault" of MS. Do you blame someone for being successful? Now,
> as we've said, you can buy a computer without Windows installed - what you
> meant to say was that your friend went to a store where only computers with
> Windows preinstalled were sold. That's like complaining that you went to a
> ford dealership and were pissed because they refused to sell you a brand new
> chevy!
So I decided on MOPAR long ago when it got dull watching fords chase
chevys around in circles. With cars and computers, I build my own from
salvaged and homemade parts. Anyone can do that
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy.spyware
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:18:22 -0600
On Mon, 14 May 2001 21:21:22 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> (Crossposted to alt.privacy.spyware. Things are slow, they need the
>> excitement)
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2001 19:05:18 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Mon, 14 May 2001 18:32:35 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> > Real claimed that this was an unintentional programming error -
>but
>> >> >> > this is the second (or possibly the third) time one of their
>products
>> >> >> > has "unintentionally" violated users' privacy.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It'll be a cold day in hell before I'll allow any RealNetworks
>> >product
>> >> >> > anywhere near my systems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Contrast with Microsoft, who openly admits that you'll need to send
>> >> >> them intimate knowledge of your machine if you wish to "activate"
>your
>> >> >> products in the future.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's not intimate knowledge, it's the equivelant of an MD5 checksum.
>> >It's a
>> >> >hash created by a number of unique identifiers, with no way to reverse
>> >the
>> >> >data to retrieve the original data.
>> >>
>> >> It's not the equipment info people object to, but the unique
>> >> identifier with which your system becomes associated. Not to mention
>> >> having to go to MS for permission to install an OS you've already paid
>> >> for.
>> >
>> >Craig most certainly did object to it.
>>
>> I was speaking in general terms. Personally I agree with Craig but
>> don't think most people are all that sensitive about their hardware.
>>
>> Just to save you repeating the claim that only an MD5 checksum is
>> transmitted, I don't believe MS's assurances one bit. The only way
>> that company will ever gain my trust is if Windows' complete source
>> code, as well as the source to all tools needed to compile it, becomes
>> readily available for public inspection.
>
>You people really amaze me. You are so paranoid about the activation
>scheme, and refuse to believe MS when they say something. If you think
>about it, if they wanted to collect information about you, they could do it
>without activation and send encrypted packets out that would be impossible
>to detect.
No they couldn't. Firewalls would stop unauthorized communications, or
at least log them and provide fodder for the media. Product activation
doesn't leave one any choice but to permit a connection to Microsoft's
servers.
>MS doesn't need activation to spy on you if they want to, so I don't see the
>big fuss over this.
>
>> >Further, the unique identifier can be used, how? It's not associated to
>> >your name in any way.
>>
>> At least not until you provide personal info elsewhere which (usually
>> without notice) is then connected to the unique identifier or to some
>> _other_ unique identifier with which that one has been associated.
>
>Again, if MS wanted to do this, they don't need you to activate to do it.
Sounds to me like a good argument for open source. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:43:57 GMT
On 14 May 2001 20:51:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The noatime mount option exists in Linux as well.
>
> I know that, you retarded fucksplash.
Oh, I thought there was a discussion going on but now I see that you
prefer irrational ranting. Sorry to have bothered you, fuckwit.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:43:58 GMT
On 13 May 2001 22:46:20 -0500, Chad Everett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No kidding. It is a damn shame that Adobe announced several months ago that
> they were dropping all development and support of Framemaker for Linux.
And I am sure they arrived at this decision without any prodding from
any third parties.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
