Linux-Advocacy Digest #793, Volume #34 Sat, 26 May 01 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Chad
Everett)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:12:10 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now let me see. What makes a supercomputer? Is it blindingly fast? In
> this case, no. Can it do massively parallel operations - yes. Is it
> physically pretty big - yes.
>
SETI can not do massively parallel operations. It can only run a bunch
of relatively independent batch jobs in parallel. Once there is a need
for any significant communication between processors, the SETI approach
breaks down. That's why real supercomputers (e.g. SP2, ASCI white) have
some sort of very high speed switch to allow processors to communicate -
the internet fails miserably in this regard.
> It looks like a supercomputer, it smells like a supercomputer. Oh,
> sorry, it's not in one building and it consists of a million or so
> PC's.
>
It smells nothing like a supercomputer.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:21:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> >Device drivers on Linux are written in C?
> >> >
> >> >Device drivers on Windows are written in C++ and make use of COM. Which
> >> >one is more technologically advanced?
> >>
> >> I think it's pretty clear how far you are willing to go to miss the
> >> point. What gave you the impression that the language used, and
> >> reliance on a proprietary single-source API, has anything to do with how
> >> advanced the actual technology of an OS is?
> >
> >So you're saying that C is technologically more advanced than C++?
>
> No, I'm saying (and it is quite clear to anyone besides yourself, I'd
> venture) that the language used is not a cogent definition of
> technological advancement. In fact, I would point out that it is quite
> beside the point, for the meaning of 'technological advancement' which
> rightfully belongs in the context I defined by my statements.
Your insults aside, you do realise that C is less technologically
advanced than C++? C++ (when used correctly) will produce code that is
more advanced than C, since it uses objects etc. Not that you can't do
objects in C, it's just harder.
That's what I meant - what the hell are you talking about?
> >Here you go again, twisting everything to fit your dogma - your favourite
> >topic.
>
> <*Yawn*>
Indeed. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> >"Peer reviewed"... 8)
> >
> >It only works if everything is carefully examined and the results
> >reported. Just everyone taking a look see at the code is not enough.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? Yes, everyone "taking a look see"
> is "peer review", given the latitude in stupidity which your appearance
> in the discussion requires.
Have you ever done a "peer review". Do you know what it involves? It is
more than just "taking a look see". It has a chairman, a person taking
notes, and people making the comments. One person reads through the code,
whilst the others ask questions and query etc. That's what I would
consider peer review. I can't see that kind of structured approach
occuring outside of a company.
> >There are problems in Linux install for various distros. Yet if this
> >"peer review" process you mention was working, these problems ought to
> >disappear.
>
> You confuse competitive development with peer review. Understandable,
> under the circumstances, but still so stupid an error that it seems
> likely you are being dishonest in committing it.
You're tripping over your dogma again.
> Please make you statement comprehensible, and I will be glad to discuss
> it. The statement "a Linux upgrade rarely works and is not recommended"
> makes no sense, as it is false.
I read that statement here on COLA. I tried it myself. I upgraded
Mandrake 7.1 to 7.2. My desktop suffered as a result.
> >How is that Samba eventually locks everyone out and has to be restarted
> >for it to work? Didn't the "peer review" process catch this one?
>
> This is at least more comprehensible. You seem to be referring to a
> specific bug in Samba. Any difficulties getting Samba to work well can
> be traced to Microsoft, since it is their piece-of-shit badly-documented
> protocol, and if they didn't use it anti-competitively, it wouldn't have
> the kind of stupid-ass problems it does.
All faults lead to Microsoft huh?
> >> Windows is just monopoly crapware.
> >
> >That's just your dogma.
>
> No, it is the reality of the marketplace, the "real world", and the
> verdict of a federal prosecution. Get it?
There's nothing to get. The outcome of the court case is still yet to be
determined. Microsoft continue on as if nothing has changed.
> >In your posts you quote the following:
> >"*** The best way to convince another is
> > to state your case moderately and
> > accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***"
> >How is it that you are singularly unable (or unwilling?) to do the above?
>
> Why is it that it is so difficult for others to recognize what criteria
> is described?
Why is it you are unable to use moderation in your posts?
> >How is Windows monopoly crapware?
>
> How is it not? It seems a reasonable and accurate claim, given that it
> has 95%+ market share and is widely recognized as being almost
> god-forsaken in how difficult it can be. Don't you think?
The monopoly bit is not in question. I question your use of "crapware".
> >I don't rate gcc are a leading edge development tool unless it has an IDE
> >and the whole kit and kaboodle.
>
> I don't care.
I see. So, wearing skins and using clubs, you'd say "I don't care" to
civilisation.
I've used C compilers on the command line, and I've used them with
various IDE's etc. You become more productive with the latter tools.
Still, there are always those who swear by the old way of doing things...
> >As for advanced kernel design, I thought the idea of having to do a
> >kernel rebuild was rather old fashioned now, yet it's still there in
> >Linux.
>
> Just goes to show how wrong you can be. A kernel rebuild is actually a
> pretty trivial process, when you aren't dealing with proprietary
> bullshit and monopoly crapware.
Modern kernels do not require a rebuild. UNIX is the only system that
still needs this step. OpenVMS went for dynamically loadable modules,
just like Windows does. Linux has this feature - but it still has the
good old kernel rebuild. That's progress for you.
> >And where did you think our company came from? Sensaura is part of
> >Scipher. Scipher is also known as "CRL". Central Research Labs of EMI,
> >before EMI decided it wanted to focus on music and not research.
>
> Did I mention how brand names are kind of useless in the modern era of
> PC software?
Did you miss the point?
> >We base our technology on science. Go take a look at the white papers on
> >our web site and see the level of science there, before you open your
> >mouth and stick your size twelves in it.
>
> Don't blame me for the inability of the market to distinguish efficient
> design from senseless marketing. That's the result of monopoly
> crapware. You can't deal with it until you learn to recognize it.
Why are you talking about something completely different?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 May 2001 15:38:18 -0500
On Sat, 26 May 2001 18:09:33 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> On Fri, 25 May 2001 12:15:36 -0500, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:09:25 -0400, JS \\ PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >I have to say, Linux Mandrake 8 was looking real damn good. Support for
>all
>> >> >my hardware (for once) easy set-up, even seting up networking and
>connection
>> >> >sharing was painless. Good newsreader - Knode, pretty stable OS. I even
>> >> >liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when switching
>users
>> >> >(unlike Win2K) I was actually contemplating using it much more often and
>> >> >only using Windows for apps I need to use that aren't available on Linux.
>> >> >But....
>> >> >Well after half a day checking out the new XP OS, I have to say IT KICKS
>> >> >MANDRAKE ASS!!
>> >> >Internet connection stays when switching users! And get this -
>Applications
>> >> >even stay open and are there (still open) when returning to that user.
>> >> >That's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the browser still kicks
>ass,
>> >> >and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed to
>the
>> >> >hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux. Ohh I could go on and endlessly
>> >> >list how much better XP is than Mandrake. Once again the Linux community
>is
>> >> >playing catch up to the industry leader. Competition at it's finest!
>> >> >Thank You.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Can I setup Windows XP at home so that I can log into it via ssh and have
>> >> a server running that acts as a proxy web browser, allowing me to
>> >> browse the web from my machine at work over an encrypted channel and
>> >> bypassing the filters on my company's firewall? And do all this with
>> >> out-of-the-box free software?
>> >
>> >Nope, but you can download SSH. Not many people use it for this, so
>> >Linux can be the king of the not-so-used features, I guess.
>> >
>>
>> Really? What free ssh for Windows gives me a sshd that runs on Windows
>> that handles tunneling and port redirection?
>
>OpenSSH + Cygwin, according to OpenSSH.com.
>
>> What free http server for Windows can be configured as a web proxy server?
>
>Apache, I guess. Web proxy sucks, though, so I'm not sure why'd you do
>that.
>
Works great for me. It allows me to browse the web and use SSL based sites
whose traffic would not normally be allowed through my company's firewall.
>It's probably just better to Terminal Service in to your Windows box
>at home, that's what I do.
>
Better because Windows can't do it, right?
>>
>> >> Can I use Windows XP to redirect it's output over an encrypted network
>> >> port so that I can run applications on my home machine from my machine
>> >> at work, complete with GUI features? And do all this with out-of-the-box
>> >> free software?
>> >
>> >Yes. Win2K had this too.
>> >
>>
>> I don't believe you. Please tell me how to do this with Win2K Pro with
>> out-of-the-box free software and then I'll believe you.
>
>Well, now you're claiming terms. Win2K Server can do this. There are other
>free GUI tools like this for Win2K pro, however.
>
You seem to be forgetting my questions about free out-of-the-box software.
Please remind us what it costs to get Win2K Pro?
>WinXP has it in every version.
>
Beta software.
>And TS is way better than crappy X over sshd.
>
Please remind us how much it costs to get terminal services? ...and of course
do I need Windows software on both side of the connection? What happens
when I want to do this with a non-Windows machine on one side of the connection?
>>
>> >> Can I use Windows XP as a NAT server and firewall and allow the machines
>> >> on my LAN to all share a single internet connection? And do all this with
>> >> out-of-the-box free software?
>> >
>> >Of course. Win2K had this too.
>> >
>>
>> I don't believe you. Please tell me how to do this with Win2K Pro with free
>> out-of-the box free software, and then I'll believe you.
>
>Win2K Pro has ICS. Duh. Where have you been?
>
Where have YOU been? From the Windows 2000 Pro Resource Kit:
"Do not enable ICS in an existing network that has DNS servers, gateways,
DHCP servers, or computers configured with static IP addresses.
If your Windows 2000 Professional-based computer is in a network
where one or more of these conditions exist, you MUST use
Windows 2000 Server network address translation."
Please remind us how much Windows 2000 Server costs?
>[snip rest is irrelevant, obviously you have no clue]
>
Read the above for proof that you are the one without a clue.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:26:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >I've already quoted a definition of dogma to you from a dictionary. I
> >remember you had the definition wrong then.
>
> I must have missed the post, as ludicrous as that sounds, because I
> frankly don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps this was several
> months ago, and you simply posted a definition which was soon shown to
> be flawed. I don't generally remember flawed arguments which I've
> already refuted; it is a character flaw.
It wasn't that long ago. You have a pretty vague memory - as you
demonstrated in another post. You forgotten that one too?
> You could refresh my memory, but it will probably just result in a
> spanking. If you feel up to getting yet-another spanking, you might
> want to repost it, though.
What spanking was that? The only one I remember was the one I gave you
quite recently. Remember "DirectX sucks"?
> "No, Pete, 'dogma' doesn't mean 'repetition, like I said. It doesn't
> mean 'vague references to repetition', either, but that's beside the
> point."
I repeat the term dogma, but you bring your favourite topic of discussion
(which I call dogma) in every conversation. You bring this up as
repetition, thinking to confuse the issue of dogma.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:26:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > I've already quoted a definition of dogma to you from a dictionary. I
> > remember you had the definition wrong then.
>
> Max is never "wrong", merely "mistaken". Just ask him!
Funny I thought "wrong" == "mistaken".
Maybe I was wrong. Or mistaken. Or both.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:45:04 GMT
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> Where have YOU been? From the Windows 2000 Pro Resource Kit:
>
> "Do not enable ICS in an existing network that has DNS servers, gateways,
> DHCP servers, or computers configured with static IP addresses.
> If your Windows 2000 Professional-based computer is in a network
> where one or more of these conditions exist, you MUST use
> Windows 2000 Server network address translation."
>
> Please remind us how much Windows 2000 Server costs?
>
> >[snip rest is irrelevant, obviously you have no clue]
> >
>
> Read the above for proof that you are the one without a clue.
Chad Myers doesn't figure in the costs and licensing terms.
Why should he? He doesn't pay for the software, nor does he
read the licensing; it does not apply to him.
Chris
--
Please enter your Message Activation
Code now to read this message
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 00:32:12 +0200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9en06q$or$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > > But is it multi-platform like Java? If not, then I don't want
anything
> > > to do with it.
> >
> > It is.
> > MS-IL is not tied to a particular arcitecture.
>
> 8)
>
> They're likely to produce a non-Windows version are they?
Yes, they have to, in order to get EMCA approved.
> I'd like to see the OpenVMS version, the UNIX one, the Linux one... etc.
> I can just see Microsoft stampeding to create it!
Wait.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 00:38:36 +0200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Your insults aside, you do realise that C is less technologically
> advanced than C++? C++ (when used correctly) will produce code that is
> more advanced than C, since it uses objects etc. Not that you can't do
> objects in C, it's just harder.
Code that is more advanced? What is that?
All compiled languages map to machine language.
C++ used to be pre-proccessed to C, and then compiled.
You might have meant that C++ approach is more advanced than C, but I would
say that C produce better code.
C++'s advantage is that it can be used to just about any approach that you
can think of.
>From purely function base programming to OO to Ada's OO to more strange
stuff.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 00:41:26 +0200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > > Visual C++ doesn't follow the standards, whereas I believe Borland's
C++
> > > does, as does GNU C++?
> >
> > GNU is missing a few things yet. It will be more or less caught up
> > when 3.0 comes out. Don't know about Borland, haven't used it in a
> > while.
>
> I thought GNU C/C++ was ANSI Standard.
Not yet, I'm afraid.
For that matter, I'm not aware of a *single* ANSI standard compiler.
> > > Unfortunately, Visual C++ is the fastest one I've tried on Intel
> > > platforms.
> >
> > I presume that you mean the executables are faster? Maybe MS ought to
> > make a Linux version.
>
> Yes, executables.
How does it compare to the Intel one?
What you say is pretty strange, because VC is an old compiler.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 00:47:07 +0200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9eof33$c0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > Fastest in what? Compiling? Executing?
>
> Executing. Delphi's the fastest thing I've seen for compiling. Like Kylix
> on Linux.
>
> > I would assume that the Intel compiler would be the best in creating
> > efficent executables.
>
> We use Intel's compiler as it does SSE2, whilst VC++ doesn't. Actually we
> use both. Intel's compiler initially had a few problems but seems to have
> improved since they released it.
>
> I'm not sure which produces the fastest executable. One would expect
> Intel's.
>
> > VC++'s compiler is quite old, you know, the standard have changed. There
is
> > a new version just out of the corner.
>
> I thought the next one would be .NET. That ought to topple VC++ from the
> fastest executables (well, maybe not with the runtime compiler).
The next one /is/ .NET, but C++ is (the only one) still capable of going to
native code directly, and not map to IL first.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:47:21 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > > I adduce as proof... the Windows Key.
> >
> > The "Windows Key"? Whats that?
>
> Look on your keyboard. You won't see any Microsoft
> competitor's logo on your keyboard, just that
> Windoze key.
Oh, *that* Windows Key... :D
But I still don't undersand how
this is supposed to be proof for
anything in particular.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:47:22 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > I found Workperfect Office and Microsoft Office XP in Provantage,
> > > and their prices at each level of service were comparable (and
> > > both very high in my book).
> >
> > Not very surprising; any Office product worth
> > its salt gives you a *lot* of functionality.
>
> Actually, Microsoft Word is a piece of shit for writing
> large documents. One has to turn off many features in order
> to be able to edit the document, and long waits for processing
> are still rampant. For it's capabilities, it is overpriced.
> Of course, Framemaker is no bargain, but at least it will
> handle the big stuff. I'd talk about TeX, but even the LyX
> GUI front-end wouldn't make it palatable for you.
Word is just a word processor; Office (especially
the more expensive distributions) has a lot more to
offer than *just* Word.
Word is fine, if what you want is a traditional
word processor. And some people want that.
Not everyone is writing War and Peace. :D
Excel is a louse database, but people use
it as such anyway. Such is life.
> Anyway, I would suspect that WordPerfect is no better than
> Word at large documents.
I suspect so too.
> It is frustrating to have to wait for minutes a few times
> an hour while feverishly attempting to complete a large
> document. Why does Word periodically take up 100% of the
> CPU time???
It's probably doing that background spellcheck thing
that it does. Or the background repagination thing. Or
something like that.
Remember, taking up 100% occasionally doesn't mean
much- it means that Word wants to compute something
and nobody else wants to compute anything at that
particular same time. Any OS with any sense will
give Word all of the CPU in those circumstances.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:50:33 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Your insults aside, you do realise that C is less technologically
> advanced than C++? C++ (when used correctly) will produce code that is
> more advanced than C, since it uses objects etc. Not that you can't do
> objects in C, it's just harder.
LOL! C+ is nothing more than an object oriented hack on top of C. But,
even then, C++ has many features that make it much better than C for
large projects. There are some projects that don't require all the
features of C++, because those projects might require a simpler
procedural language like C. Java, OTOH, was designed as a pure OO
language from the ground up.
> Have you ever done a "peer review". Do you know what it involves? It is
> more than just "taking a look see". It has a chairman, a person taking
> notes, and people making the comments. One person reads through the code,
> whilst the others ask questions and query etc. That's what I would
> consider peer review. I can't see that kind of structured approach
> occuring outside of a company.
Peer review doesn't HAVE to take place inside a company. It could take
place on a mailing list, or via personal email, for example.
> I've used C compilers on the command line, and I've used them with
> various IDE's etc. You become more productive with the latter tools.
> Still, there are always those who swear by the old way of doing things...
Great, another "GUI's work best for me, so it must be true for eveyone"
type of a person. IDE's might be easier, but makefiles are more
standard across platforms. I find XEmacs to be great as an IDE, because
it has some of the features of the commercial IDEs, although viewing
multiple documents is not as convenient as the commercial IDEs. But
then, there's KDevelop. Imagine that.
> Modern kernels do not require a rebuild. UNIX is the only system that
> still needs this step. OpenVMS went for dynamically loadable modules,
> just like Windows does. Linux has this feature - but it still has the
> good old kernel rebuild. That's progress for you.
But most Linux distros have most of the functionality in modules, as
does Windows. Windows NT service packs could potentially have binary
patches for the NT kernel, and for that, MS would have to rebuild their
own kernels. It's just not as convenient to do it with a closed-source
system as it is with open source systems. Therefore, it's probably done
more often with open source than with closed-source systems. What's the
big deal?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:53:02 GMT
> flatfish+++
> "Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Because it flounders.
(I said that just for the halibut.)
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 00:07:49 +0100
<snip>
Do you have a point other than the blindingly obvious one that linux and
Windows have different strenghts?
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
