Linux-Advocacy Digest #919, Volume #34 Sat, 2 Jun 01 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What does XP stands for ??? ("green")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
("green")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the ("green")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
("green")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (drsquare)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (drsquare)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (drsquare)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (drsquare)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (drsquare)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (drsquare)
Re: SourceForge hacked! (drsquare)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (drsquare)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (drsquare)
Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks: (drsquare)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Paul
Hovnanian)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Linux is shit (drsquare)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Stephen S. Edwards
II")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:35:17 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fbrkn$dtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> GPL'd code can be used by anybody in the world.
> >
> >No, it can't. It can only be used by someone willing to license their
code
> >under the GPL.
> >
>
> Correct. And the problem is?
That you can't use it in non-GPL code?
Which *include* other *open-source* licenses?
> >Show me the BSD that uses GPL code.
> >Where is the GPL code in Apache?
> >
>
> The BSD folks are using the GNU's based tool sets, compilers
> and even the desktops GNOME and KDE and so on so forth.
>
> Of the BSD distribution, less than 35% of it is under the
> BSD license as of right now.
Do you've proof of that?
Seems to me that if this is so, all of BSD would've to be GPLed.
> But if you really knew anything about OS's you wouldn't
> be asking this idiotic question in front of so many
> knowledgable people.
You mean, like the part that if you ship non-GPL code with GPL code, you've
to make the non-GPL code GPL?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:42:28 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fbrkl$dtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >
> >First, what code has MS stole from BSD?
> >Second, gone forever? Have the BSD code suddenly became less free because
MS
> >use it?
> >
>
> They stole the TCP-IP stack software from FreeBSD.
> They modified the code slightly and recopyrighted it
> as allowed for under the BSD license.
>
> The BSD people became aware of this too late.
Too late for what?
> Otherwise the Board of Regents notice would have
> to have been placed on the code just as with all
> BSD code.
>
> So Microsoft stole the code from BSD then never
> gave them credit for this.
>
> Then they admitted it, thus ending the debate.
No, the NT TCP/IP stack is based on the NT I/O model, and is not a port of
the BSD stack. The layered, multithreaded NT I/O model is well documented in
the Inside Windows NT/2000 books, and is very different to the monolithic,
non-threaded BSD kernel.
The Winsock interface, on the other hand, is based on the BSD sockets
interface, and was made more complete with Windows 2000, but that's not the
same thing at all. The BSD sockets interface is just a set of APIs above the
TCP/IP stack. There are also some BSD utilities (e.g. ftp) that were
directly ported from BSD sockets to Winsock, and are bundled with Windows NT
(and Windows 9x), but these just call the sockets APIs, and have nothing to
do with the TCP/IP stack.
The bottom line is this claim that NT 'uses the BSD TCP/IP stack' is a
fanciful myth, and probably originated when some clueless user noticed that
the NT sockets tools like ftp contain the BSD copyright strings.
Importantly, none of the NT TCP/IP kernel-mode modules contain BSD copyright
strings.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:50:02 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fbrkt$dtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
> >Whatever, *I* will make that claim.
> >Goverment fund code should be public domain, not GPL.
> >Will you argue with this statement now?
> >
>
> And *I* will say your full of shit.
>
> The government and anybody can use GPL'd code.
> They just can't copyright it and claim it as their
> own like with other licenses.
>
> The Government MUST GPL code.
But that prevent other people from using this code.
This include BSD people, Apache, X, Mozilla, Gnome, sendmail, Tcl/Tk, BIND
and many other.
> >Put simply, GPL code cannot be used in non-GPL products, this mean that a
> >lot of people can't use GPL code at all.
> >That include MS, but also BSD, Apache & X.
> >
> >This is because of the viral nature of the GPL.
> >
>
> The nature of the GPL is not VIRAL.
> It's never VIRAL to keep public code public.
No? I can't use GPL in my code, without making my own code GPL.
If it apply only to the code that I took, then I would've no problems with
it.
> The problem with the public license is it allows
> people to copyright the code and steal it away.
No, it doesn't.
It allows people to copyright *their* changes to the code.
The original code is always PD!
> GPL'd code can't be copyrighted and thus remains
> free from copyrights and available to the public
> at no cost. And that's the way it should be.
GPL code *is* copyrighed!
That is how it work!
> Bottom line... If you want to make copyrighted code
> then do so .... But don't expect the government to
> create YOUR company for you when you contract with
> the US. The work created BELONGS to the people and
> not the contractor.
The goverment pay for this work with tax payers money? Therefor all tax
payers should've access to it, not just GPL users tax payers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:53:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthew Gardiner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 14 May 2001 16:24:29 +1200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Um, my calculator says that a 99.999% uptime leaves 5.26 MINUTES
>> downtime per year - not 8 hours. Did you perhaps calculate for 99.9%
>> uptime?
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>365days * 24hours = 8760 hours
>0.001(difference between 100 and 99.999) * 8760 hours = 8.76 hours.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
You're off by a factor of 100.
99.999% = 0.99999 = 1 - 1e-5
Downtime per year = (365.2425 * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1e-5) = 315.56952 seconds,
a little more than 5 minutes.
But here's where it gets interesting. Assuming one has a server farm
of 5 machines and perfect detection of down machines on some sort of
front-end load-balancer, in theory one could have 90% reliability per
machine (9 minutes up, 1 minute down, say) and still attain that
99.999% figure, because the probability that all 5 machines will be
down is (0.1)^5 = 1e-5. Not that Win2k is *that* unreliable, but
I hope you get the point.
(This is assuming a light user load, of course.)
I want to know what circumstances that "5 colorful 9s" figure uses.
If it's referring to a server farm, it's worthless -- even a number
of bodgy DOS implementations with a flaky power supply
could achieve that. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random uptime here
EAC code #191 33d:04h:06m actually running Linux.
I don't hate Microsoft. Just their products.
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:16:22 +1000
COBOL and FORTRAN would have been better.
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:42:35 -0600, Robert Morelli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <9f9aqn$ecc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> > <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Ada is not an acronym, it's a name.
> > > What does Pascal stand for? I thought it was named for it's developer.
> >
> > Pascal is the name of a 17th century mathematician and philosopher.
>
> PASCAL isn't the name of the language though. That is "Pascal:, and it
> is not an acronym. It is named after the mathematician.
>
>
> > As for ADA, it's from Ada Lovelace, who programmed Babbage's
> > mechanical computers. On the other hand, what about
>
> Again, the name of the language is Ada, not ADA, and it is not an
> acronym. It is named after Babbage's programmer friend.
>
> I agree with your point, but these are bad examples.
>
>
> > BASIC is of course
>
> Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code <g>.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "green" <[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
dust!
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:25:43 +1000
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> green wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Rotten168 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > drsquare wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:21:24 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > > > (Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Considering that X predates the Logitech trackball by a full
> > decade,
> > > > > >> I suggest you ask Logitech why they are selling a trackball
that is
> > > > > >> incompatible with X.
> > > > >
> > > > > >*sigh* Why not ask X why they're still stuck in 1990? Either way,
if
> > > > >
> > > > > Why should X change just because a few people seem to find it too
> > > > > difficult to press the left and right buttons at the same time?
> > > > >
> > > > > >Linux wants to remain competitive on the desktop it will have to
do
> > > > > >better than this. I read an article a while back on how each OS
> > should
> > > > > >just stick to their respective markets, and we'd all be better.
> > Windows
> > > > > >should stick to the desktop (where it does a better job than
Linux),
> > and
> > > > > >UNIXens should stick to servers, workstations, routers, ... all
the
> > > > > >industrial-strength stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > > What, you're saying normal users shouldn't be given the option of
a
> > > > > stable operating system?
> > > >
> > > > Well... no I'm not saying that, but Windows is easier on the eyes,
it's
> > > > more user-friendly (whatever that means nowadays), it's got a faster
> > > > redraw rate than Linux. It's easier to do do "stuff" with. The
tradeoff
> > > > is that it locks up every few uses or so.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it's just not a good desktop OS,
> > > > delivering more power (and, yes, stability) than the average user
needs
> > > > and sacrificing speed, ease of use, and aesthetics.
> > >
> > > I couldn't call Win9.x series a good desktop. You should see the kick
> > > and scuff marks on the side of my wifes' computer! Starts a print
> > > process and halfway thru it locks up the whole system. Call that a
good
> > > O/S??
> > >
> >
> > are you sure you didn't dislodge a parallel port/serial port card while
> > kicking it? ;)
>
> Hehehe.... no she uses slippers. But I can attest that MS has helped
> her develop a potty mouth towards Win98.
hint start a swear jar for your next computer :)
------------------------------
From: "green" <[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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:28:14 +1000
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >>
> > > But what about the people who don't have two fingers? Or NO fingers at
all?
> >
> > Yeah! How can they do a Ctrl-Alt-Del ????
>
> They should use an OS that doesn't require that set of keys for rebooting,
> or even better, one that doesn't need rebooting all the time.
>
or task management to kill malicious tasks.
------------------------------
From: "green" <[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
dust!
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:36:31 +1000
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9famk3$nkf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Patrick Ford"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > drsquare wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:40:25 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >> (Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >>
> >> >drsquare wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> Never mind that you can press the left and right buttons at the
> >> >> >> same tiem for the same effect...
> >> >>
> >> >> >No... that's what's unwieldy about it, pressing both the left and
> >> >> >right buttons is too annoying to be used in a practical sense.
> >>
> >> >> Too annoying? Are you taking the piss?
> >>
> >> >"Taking the piss"? WTF does that mean?
> >>
> >> What do you mean "WTF"? How can you not know what that means?
> >
> > He's a seppo, perhaps?
>
> seppo? are you taking the piss? how am I meant to know wtf that
> means??!??!?!
>
> -Ed
>
Make up your own meaning...
seppo
insult : sexy elephant porking pinokio's orifice
complement : ?
taking piss : drinking? weird sexual fantasy? (it ain't good either way!)
I don't know what half of the abbreviations mean but make up your own
meanings,
It isn't hard to see a insult or complement.
If you do know what it means and have no refute to the argument you can side
track
people by attacking with insults. the counter is to make fun of insults.
Perhaps their should be a alt.pointless-arguments.insults just for it ?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:36:50 +0100
On 2 Jun 2001 18:47:39 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)) wrote:
>drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Because then I'd miss other posts.
>
>>>Because youre an idiot and you dont know how to killfile properly. "Years"
>>>my ass.
>
>> Sorry, but my newsreader isn't capable enough to filter in such a way.
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
>
>Apparantly it is, you ignorant turd.
It is not capable to filter in such a way.
>>>> Oh no, that would be a complete DISASTER.
>
>>>If you actually knew what a killfile was, id buy that sincerity.
>
>> You're right. I really wish I knew what a killfile was. I really do.
>> Could someone please explain?
>Why dont you impress everyone AND DO A FUCKING WEBSEARCH.
>
>Or better yet, READ THE GODDAMN INSTRUCTIONS THAT CAME WITH AGENT.
I have, yet there is still no way.
You are still incorrect.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:36:51 +0100
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:19:36 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>>>>Now this is a prime example.
>>
>>>> Will you two just fuck off please, or take it somewhere else?
>>
>>>piss off.
>>
>> Fuck off up your own arse.
>Why, you're nothing more than an a goatish, idle-headed fustilarian!
I'll just take your word on what that means.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:36:51 +0100
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:43:57 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)) wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:28:01 GMT, Jonas Due Vesterheden
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <9fbdk1$5mf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Pegel wrote:
>
>> > I'm kind of new to Linux, I like what I see so far - my only
>> > reservation is leaving apps like Dreamweaver and Photoshop behind.
>
>> Have you tried the alternatives to these programs?
>The de-facto Photoshop alternative for Linux would be GIMP. Most
>distros seem to come with it.
But it's nowhere near as good as PSP
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:36:52 +0100
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:13:03 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesse F. Hughes)) wrote:
>drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yet again, you are completely incorrect. I was merely stating you
>> cannot call someone a criminal unless they have been convicted as
>> such. You cannot consider a reported crime a crime without a
>> conviction.
>My last word on the subject, since it is quite off-topic here. A
>crime is a violation of the law. A violation of the law may occur
>without a conviction. A violation of the law may be reported without
>a subsequent conviction. I offered an example of that, using the
>premise that the violator went unconvicted because of his own death,
>but it is obvious that there are a huge number of crimes for which
>there is no subsequent conviction.
How do you know they are crimes unless they are convicted? Does
someoen reporting a crime automatically make it a crime? If I went to
the police and reported that you had murdered someone, would that make
you a criminal?
Rest snipped, as I am tired.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:36:53 +0100
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 16:17:31 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>> >It looks relevant to me. If we look back at the quotes above, we see
>> >that you were denying that there is a difference between convictions
>> >and number of crimes reported.
>>
>> Yet again, you are completely incorrect. I was merely stating you
>> cannot call someone a criminal unless they have been convicted as
>> such. You cannot consider a reported crime a crime without a
>> conviction.
>You can state a crime has been committed without having a perpetrator.
>If somone has been murdered, a crime has been committed. Large numbers
>of murders (crimes) go unsolved all the time. If you exceed the speed
>limit, you are commiting a crime, wether you are convicted or not.. and
>so on.
>
>webster's new world dictionary:
>crime: n. an act commited or omitted in violation of a law. Notice it
>doesnt say anything about a conviction.
And if there's no conviction, how do you know it's a crime? Sorry, but
I believe in innocent until proven guilty. If someone reports a crime,
I don't consider it to be a crime until it's been proven.
>> >Well, no matter.
>>
>> Stop talking out of your arse, and maybe we'll begin to take you
>> seriously.
>maybe you should take you aown advice.
I don't need to.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:36:54 +0100
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:07:51 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> Moronic BULLSHIT EF.
>>
>> GPL'd code can be used by anybody in the world.
>No, it can´t.
>It can not be used with other. also free code, like BSD
Says who?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:36:54 +0100
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:12:30 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>>> >>What's a dalsehood?
>>>> >
>>>> >typo(-d +f), presumably.
>>>>
>>>> How can you do that? They're on opposite sides of the keyboard.
>>>
>>>On a standard qwerty keyboard you will find "d" and "f" side by side.
>>
>> Standard qwerty keyboards are for queers. The layout on mine is far
>> superior.
>Are you trying to end up in everyone's kill file along with Kookis?
Yep.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:36:55 +0100
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 14:06:42 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>> >> What the HELL are you talking about?
>>
>> >Carpal Tunnel syndrome.... haven't you ever heard of it?? She's been
>>
>> No actually, I haven't.
>Ever since MS windows and two button mice have been out I've noticed a
>big increase in this problem... actually its been in the press a lot and
>a lot of lawsuits for disability have been filed over carpal tunnel
>syndrome.
Lawsuits because someone can't use a mouse properly? 99% of people use
a 2+ button mouse with NO problems whatsoever. Lawsuits? We'll end up
like american in two years.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:36:56 +0100
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 22:32:26 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Philip Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>kosh wrote:
>> Try this
>> http://www.linuxprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=464242
>>
>> In general if you have prnting problems go to linuxprinting.org
>>
>> That printer is listed as working perfectly so just follow the
>> instructions on that page.
>>
>
>If that worked I wouldn't be complaining!
Or maybe you're just a troll trying to get attention.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:36:56 +0100
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:09:04 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>>>>G******s law?
>>>>
>>>> Oh fuck off.
>>>Before you start being rude, tru making sense. I have absoloutely no
>>>iead what you're going on about.
>>
>> He's trying to invoke Godwin's law, which only a complete cunt would do.
>
>Firstly, you were the one who mentioned the Nazis for absoloutely no
>reason, so I assumed you were going after Goodwin's misinterpreted law.
>Are you calling yourself a cunt?
I didn't invoke any laws. I didn't realise mentioning the Nazis was
not allowed on this newsgroup.
>Secondly, Goodwin's law is not something can be invoked. Goodwin's law
>merely states that the longer the thread, the more likely the mention of
>nazis.
>
>There is often an extension (I know not to whom it is attributed) that
>says that when the thread gets on to the nazis is is so far off topic
>that it may as well not be there.
>
>Many people use this as a time to end the thread.
>
>Hopwever, that is nothing to do with Goodwin's law.
People who decide to end threads because of a mention of the Nazis
really have problems. With restrictions like that, we may as well be
under the Nazis!
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 03:40:27 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:07:51 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >>
> >> Moronic BULLSHIT EF.
> >>
> >> GPL'd code can be used by anybody in the world.
>
> >No, it can´t.
> >It can not be used with other. also free code, like BSD
>
> Says who?
GPL iteself, FSF, etc.
You can't use a GPL code with non-GPL code, you've to GPL the non-GPL code
to do so.
------------------------------
From: Paul Hovnanian <[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, 02 Jun 2001 17:52:12 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
green wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> who mentioned linux ? there are xservers for other os as well including
> windows. I use one.
> the design of computer devices should be as user friendly as possible. and
> take into account all
> possible ways to use the device.
An OS-independant user interface. What a novel concept. Quick, someone
call
MIT and see if they can't whip something up. ;-)
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
send spam to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==================================================================
The opinions stated herein are the sole property of the author. All
rights
reserved. Void where prohibited. For external use only. Standard
disclaimers
apply. If irritation, rash or swelling occurs, discontinue use
immediately
and consult a physician.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:49:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chronos Tachyon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 16 May 2001 04:09:49 GMT
<h4nM6.21969$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue 15 May 2001 10:48, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>>>
>>> Perhaps the "small-medium" NZ businesses can only afford a 'free' OS...?
>>> just cause they are poor doesn't make W2K bad.
>>
>> hmm, yet another Xenaphobic Septic Tank, why aren't I surprised? You are
>> just another example of the fabulous US education system at work.
>> Xenaphobia indoctrinated into you since you were born. Probably never been
>> out of the US,
>> LOL. What a forking luser!
>>
>>
>> Matthew Gardiner
>>
>>
>
>Xenaphobia = Fear of leather-clad warrior princesses.
A perfectly rational fear, given that she has a tendency to
swing toad-stickers at her opponents. :-)
(Besides, I would think Matthew's opponent -- somebody played
"snip the headers" again -- is a tad older than that; the show
is 1995 vintage, according to IMDB.)
>
>Perhaps you mean xen*o*phobia, fear of outsiders?
Ah, typos. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insret rnadmo ytpo eher
EAC code #191 33d:06h:04m actually running Linux.
[ ] Do you want this message to be private? Oops, too late.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux is shit
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:55:07 +0100
It really is. I'm sticking to windows. You can't even install a
printer for christs sake.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 17:19:14 -0700
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > I found this article interesting and not at all fanatical:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.sdmagazine.com/articles/2001/0105/0105a/0105a.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the teaser lines for it:
> > > > >
> > > > > Is Open Source for You? May 2001
> > > >
> > > > If it was, would we be running WindowsNT?
> > >
> > > Read the article, please.
> >
> > I used to be a GNU/GPL/Linux proponent. I
> > was using Linux before it reached v1.x. I
> > know what the spiel is. But yes, I did
> > read the article. SSDD.
> >
> > > > My Lord, you are a dense one, aren't you.
> > >
> > > Is this your approach to life -- contumely, ridicule, and
> > > insults?
> >
> > Your constant barrage of advertising for
> > GNU/Linux into COMNA is the reason why
> > I'm picking on you.
> >
> > We don't use OpenSource software, because
> > we know it doesn't work for us. Hence, the
> > name of this newsgroup,
> >
> > comp.os.ms-WINDOWS.NT.advocacy.
> >
>
> Well, I for one thought that NT was an Operating System,
> not a philosophy. Oddly enough, I use a mix of commercial
> and Free/Open software on Windows 9x, NT (4 & 5), MacOS,
> Solaris and *BSD Linux (and even DOS for specific purposes).
Good for you. But you missed my point entirely.
My point was, that advertising why OpenSource software
is "so wonderful" in this newsgroup is misplaced. If
we were that interested in OpenSource software, we
likely wouldn't be using WindowsNT at all.
> In some cases the commercial product is best, in others it's not.
> Pick the proper tool for the job and don't be blinded by ideology.
I'm not being blinded by anything. I appears to me
that you are attempting to change the context of the
argument. Stop the semantics, and just hear what I'm
saying.
In COMNA, we advocate the use of WindowsNT. Chris
seemed to be advertising as to why we should use
OpenSource software exclusively. In a newsgroup
where a commercial operating system is the topic,
such a thing makes no sense.
> It's all so binary for some people, isn't it?
It has nothing to do with being binary. It has
everything to do with "trolling" a newsgroup with
material that is not desired (at least, by me (I
can only suspect that others here feel somewhat
the same as I do about this)).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
