Linux-Advocacy Digest #438
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 21:13:07 EDT Contents: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:52 GMT Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 13:49:48 On Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:00 GMT, T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 19:51:31 On Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:12 GMT, T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 05:23:57 T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 21:06:14 The rules of copyright have always involved copying something, not necessarily literally, but something recognizable as a translation or derivative. Hence the name, copyright, I would imagine. If nothing but the API is involved on either side (as a correct program should be written), then no copying is involved. I find something recognizably being copied here, whether you do or not. Name it. [...] The exclusive right to profit from an author's work. How do you copy such a thing? Is this some sort of dada post? You copy it by profiting on their work without the author's permission. That doesn't make a copy of a right. It usurps that right (right that seems to exist only in your mind anyway). Rights being damned metaphysical, when it comes down to it, I reserve the right to imagine any particular metaphoric manipulation or transformation that might be necessary for it to perform. So usurping the right to copy thereby copies a right, and copies a thing, and thus isn't supportable by copyright. I know what I said is gibberish; but I know what you did is, too. It's like saying trespassers copy houses. Or that copyright infringement is theft of property. Don't you just hate metaphysical metaphors? Useless, aren't they? Bottom line; copyright is not metaphysical, and the GPL is a legally binding and valid private contract until somebody proves otherwise. -- T. Max Devlin *** The best way to convince another is to state your case moderately and accurately. - Benjamin Franklin *** -- From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:53 GMT Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 10 May 2001 23:46:49 GMT; In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 20:32:38 GMT; In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The exclusive right to profit from an author's work. Gee, my copy of the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended does seem to list that exclusive right. The ones that it does list are in 17 USC 106: We've been over this a BUNCH of times, Lee. Check the U.S. Constitution, which tends to take precedence over ANYTHING in statute. Funny, my copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about an exclusive right to profit. What it does say is the Congress shall have the Power to secure for authors exclusive rights to their writings. And that is what Section 106 spells out. So, the Constitution gives Congress authority to pass a copyright law. They did. What do you think takes precedence? The Constitution, of course. Always has, always will. Says so, right in the Constitution somewhere, I think. Since now you've gotten a copy, why don't you look it up for us? Thanks for your time. Hope it helps. Not much
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #33Sat, 7 Apr 01 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Server bankrupt and data gone! (GreyCloud)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: gates messiah ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Server bankrupt and data gone!
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:10:28 -0700
Seattle Lighting: their contracted out server in Seattle went bankrupt.
All access to their data is lost!
So much for the thought of .NET or any other remotely contracted data
servers.
--
From: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:18:48 -0700
WGAF wrote:
"Dave Martel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
TCLPro, Corel PhotoPaint, WordPerfect, Snif+, not to mention the usual
apps like GIMP and XEmacs. There's bunches more but it's been a long
day.
The TCLPro is available for the Windows platform also for the same cost,
which is free. The commercial software like Corel isn't free as I said
previously. You can have any versions of the Emacs
Slackware and Debian are robust and they're both free. There are
indeed some high-priced distro's that approach the cost of an NT
license, but those are aimed at the corporate market and most permit
an unlimited number of installations.
Which is understandable. To develop a quality distro will cost money and it
needs to be recovered, otherwise the distro will disappear. The point is
that it won't be long when the Linux pricing will go by licensing the
distros for corporation based upon the number of installation. Take for
example Caldera's Tarantella Express, 5 user license for $835.00. As time
passes by I wouldn't be surprised that even desktop versions will need to be
licensed also. Yes, the Linux kernel and the GNU part of the distros will be
free, but when the company wraps some proprietery code around them, then
they can license it and won't need to make it available for free..
Otto
Caldera is already having troubles from what I've heard on the net.
(A lot of things are heard about different things.) But since its still
Linux
people will weigh what is it that they're getting for their money? The
average user
doesn't need it. The 5 user license more than likely can be
circumvented by looking around for the equivalent for free. The spirit
of Linux is just that... free and good.
--
V
--
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: gates messiah
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:20:33 -0400
Anonymous wrote:
matt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:07:30 GMT, Dark Angel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:In soc.singles Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:| that weird monkey guy who isn't stebe:
:| Dark Angel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:|
:| : Your archnemisis, Steve Chaney, seems to have had no trouble learning
:| : to use unix. Guess you're finally conceding that Chaney's smarter
:| : than you
:|
:| And Jackie Pokemon didn't need a recount to realise it's time to concede.
:
:| do you speak japanese?
:| if not
:| does that make you dumber than someone who can?
:| jackie 'anakin' tokeman
:
:Depends, if he put equal effort into learning Japanese and failed
:as the other person did and succeeded, then yes.
% man anakin
NAME
anakin - (Yet Another) Dark Lord of the Sith
SYNOPSIS
anakin [OPTIONS] [IMPERIAL_CODE]
USAGE
% anakin 402
Your misery is my dance
% anakin --help
The fact that 'anakin' does not run under Unix may be a bug, but
the executable considers it a feature.
% anakin 267
p r e c i s e l y
OPTIONS
-t sniggla Specify the designated target.
--mt deathstar
Specify a more military target.
--gthw play Global Thermonuclear Hypocrisy War
AUTHOR
Shmi Skywalker, apparently.
qui gonn speculates that i may have been fathered directly by the
midichlorians
whatever the fuck that means
BUGS
Does not know the language of binary load lifters.
WARNINGS
Refuses to mount excessively larg
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Bob Hauck)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Bob Hauck)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Charlie Ebert)
Something Seemingly Simple. (Bloody Viking)
LWN summarises Microsoft anti-source stance and has a new column ("Adam Warner")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (mlw)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Roy.Culley)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT vs *nix performance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Brent R)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: State of linux distros (Aaron Kulkis)
From: "Joseph T. Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: 24 Feb 2001 02:34:35 GMT
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I just noticed I have 1000 times more ram than my first PC/XT, it is a dual
: processor 600 MHZ system which is a an aggregate 250 times faster. My first
: hard disk was 20Meg, I have an aggregate 2300 times more disk space.
: It has been an amazing 16 years of computing.
It has indeed.
In fact you're probably understating the improvement in CPU speeds,
since today's CPUs execute far more instructions per clock cycle than
did those of the 80s.
Joe
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:43:41 GMT
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:06:27 +1100, Shane Phelps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob Hauck wrote:
How do we get him [Chad] nominated for KOTM?
I thought he did a pretty good job of self-nomination with his Black
Knight impersonation on c.s.s :-)
Just a flesh wound! Come back and fight like a man!
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:43:42 GMT
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:57:30 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure one can even run a window manager "over the wire" (I
wouldn't want to, because my bandwidth sucks) and get reasonably
good results.
I once ran a Motif GUI builder on one box, the window manager on
another, and displayed it all on a third (I won't go into why I did
this, but I had reasons). Everything worked fine over 10 Mbit Ethernet.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:00:24 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Giuliano Colla wrote:
nuxx wrote:
"J Sloan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
nuxx wrote:
No luck about it. If you apply datacentre type methodologies in design
and
change control as you would with any Unix server, NT is very reliable.
Some
Oracle processes tend to leak memory which would eventually cause a
problem
but they are killed and re-started for cold backup purposes on my
systems,
so the OS stays up all the time. Recent hardware used is stock Intel
server
boards with Adaptec hardware RAID. No BSODs, no crashes, nothing
special.
Sorry, we simply have not found this to be the case.
It's probably best you leave it to people that know what they are doing.
It's always been a source of wonder for me how Windows is so simple and
user friendly when they try to sell it to you, and requires experts in
order not to crash, once you have it.
On the contrary Unix, Linux, AIX etc., are represented as very difficult
and abstruse, but users who can keep a Linux box running for one year
without problems are apparently not competent enough to keep a Windows
box running for a couple of days.
There's something in this logic which I fail to grasp.
Could you please clarify it for me?
What is even more interesting is how experts from Microsoft
can't even manage to come up with a W2k server combination
which adequately replaces FreeBSD at HotMail.
Or how about the time they got all their source code stolen
from Microsoft Corporate HQ. For 1.5 months bandits continued
to download source code for th
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Mike")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: KDE Hell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: KDE Hell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: "Mike" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:15:28 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
...
On that, we can definitely agree. Just this morning we were trying
to find the NT equivalent of 'find . -newer somefile -print'
Ugh. I'm still waiting for the day that "ls -R *.c", or "grep -r xyz *.h"
really work...
I don't know of any built-in NT command to do the equivalent of
"find -newer", but using Cygnus or MingW, you can build most of the GNU
utilities for NT/2k, or you can find precompiled versions in various places
around the web. One problem with something like find is that there's an
equivalent NT command, so if your path picks up the NT commands first, you
get the wrong one. Bad for inexperienced users, but not so bad for
experienced ones.
E:\dev\python\bin\find . -newer proj.err -print
.
./examples
./examples/pysyntax.py
./examples/test_recursive.py
...
Of course, this solves your problem for one simple case. You're still going
to be pissed, though.
The main issue with building the GNU utilities is the same as the reason
that the recurse options on ls and grep don't work. The NT shell doesn't
expand wildcards, and the Unix shell does. Thus, even if you recompile the
GNU utilities, they aren't written to handle wildcards, and most will barf
horribly if they ever get one.
-- Mike --
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:16:44 GMT
On 13 Jan 2001 16:37:02 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 13 Jan 2001 06:59:02 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what, pray tell, is "the standard PC architecture"? And if anyone
gets to decide what it is, shouldn't it be IBM?
It is
AT ISA bus
I see. So all those "legacy free" PCs are non-standard, and thus one
shouldn't reasonably be able to expect to run (and reboot) Win98 on them
without hassle?
One would assume so, but that is not necessarily true. For example,
Micro channel was superior technology to the ISA bus used at the time.
IBM knew it and so did everyone else in the world. Unfortunately, like
Sony Beta format, it was not accepted as a "standard" with the word
standard being defined as "what most people are using". This is like a
car which typically has 4 wheels. This is standard for a car. There is
nothing wrong with having 8 wheels, and if I were driving in mud in
the swamps of Korea, 8 wheels would most likely be better, but 4
wheels is still standard.
I guess Linux' time has truly arrived, then ;-))
Linux does well with older hardware.
I have SuSE running pmfirewall on a 486 Thinkpad 750 which is a
486/33.
Win98, if I remember correctly won't even install on a 486 unless you
fool it with a setup switch.
As for PS/2's and Windows 98, I can't really say because I have never
seen one running Windows 98. Windows 95 yes, but not 98.
You could try booting in safe mode step by step (I forget what it is
called, but there is a selection for it) and watching as the drivers
are loaded to see which one is causing trouble, but honestly I haven't
had much success doing that.
Bernie
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the to reply.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:20:19 GMT
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:10:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
Offtopic: More than half of the US population, based on a survey
done some time ago, can't identify Mexico. (Hint: south.)
Based upon the Florida fiasco it doesn't surprise me in the least :(
Exactly. And that means that Windows 2000 is perfect for everybody.
No it doesn't.
What it means is that Linux isn't making any inroads on the desktop of
corporate America.
Spot The Flaw.
There is no
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #29Wed, 4 Oct 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390 (Gary Hallock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390 (.)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: GPL freedom ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux Sucks (unicat)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:12:26 -0400
From: Gary Hallock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Wow. Only $1,200,000.00
But only $500 per Linux image.
Gary
--
From: Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:15:15 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
But not at the time that the decision is actually made. Or are you
claiming that he's there "in spirit"?
No, he's there at the time the decision is actually being made: when he
programs what result the decision will have, and how the decision will
be made, and whether there is a decision.
So the programmer was there when the program decided "since ABC share
price is going down, sell that stock"?
Not that it matters since the programmer isn't responsible for the kind
of decisions the automated trading system will make. If he wrote "sell
good stock, buy shitty stock" then he'd be fired and the machine junked.
The existence of the automated stock trading machine is dependent on the
good will of the corporation and its making the kind of decisions that
the corporation wants using the economic model that the corporation wants
and the value system that the corporation wants. The machine is not an
extension of the programmer's will in any way, shape, or formo insofar
as it is behaving correctly (ie, not crashing, not having code that is
difficult to maintain or extend, et cetera).
If I read a book and follow its advice, just who is performing decisions?
Me.
So if I read "shoot people" and I go out and kill rich sons of bitches,
then that's /your/ decision, right? I just want to clarify this so I
know what to expect from the jury
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390
Date: 4 Oct 2000 02:17:20 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow. Only $1,200,000.00
It *is* a mainframe type deal afterall. You arent buying little
compaq machines. :)
=.
--
From: Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:37:48 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
Why not?
Because people "want" Unix compatibility and that's something I won't
provide. And *even* if I provided it, it just wouldn't be Unix and
people are comfortable with Unix.
We're assuming, I guess, that you're designing a system that
won't suck, at least in your opinion. If you opinion is so unique and
unrelated to what makes an OS useful that nobody else would find benefit
in your system, it will suck. If it doesn't suck, other people will
want to use it.
Which doesn't mean that 1) they will be aware of the existence of my OS
(how many OSes do you know about? Is it around two or three dozen?) nor
that 2) people will actually install my OS.
I'm all for recognizing the value of not trying to
design a single product which will work for all users; I'd much rather
see a dozen or more interoperable OSes being used than any one, even
Linux.
The problem is that you can't get beyond arguing rather pedantically
(and insultingly) about all these 'superi
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #27Mon, 3 Jul 00 08:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
s.n.a.f.u. 1b-i (Uncle)
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.)
(Jim Cameron)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Numbers for users,hackers? ("1$worth")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: s.n.a.f.u. 1b-i (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.)
(Ben Walker)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 09:59:32 GMT
In article 8jpern$12d$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article 8jooej$ilu$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very productive attitude! you asked and I replied. You have been
MISUSING THE TERM LINUX! I have ben trying to Educate your to the
difference but you continue to missuse the term linux to continue
your
trolling ways. As I said earlier, if you know the difference between
KDE
and Linux continue to bash linux for a KDE problem then you are a
troll.
thus, you are a troll plain and symple!
OK, let's take a look at this from another angle shall we.
When you say Windows, do you mean Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000? If
you
don't specify, how do I know what you're talking about? The two
systems
are different. What causes a crash on one system hardly causes a
problem
on the other. Therefore I feel perfectly justified to use Linux where
maybe Linux desktop (KDE) might be better.
Sorry, Troll, but if I say windows, I mean all of the Windows family. I
could safely say "without buying additional software, Windows will not
run Linux applications". If I spacific issues with a spacific versions
of windows, I state the version, i.e. "W2K's active directory can be
more trouble than it is worth" If I said "Windows active directrory..."
I would EXPECT to be called on the error. I DO SPECIFY the difference.
The truly pathetic thing is that you whine when people call you
stupid
because you can not learn to communicate properly! Despite people
trying
to correct your use of misuse of the term Linux, you continue to
misuse
it. Probably because you know it is inflamitory. And *YOU* want to
treat
me like a child Grow UP!
Fine. When I see Windows being correctly specified, I'll accord you
guys
the same courtesy. So long as I see Windows being called WinSucks or
WinLose, and not Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000, I'll carry on using
Linux.
C'ya Little boy!
Bye bye, let me know when you get out of Kindergarden!
Sorry, you flunked kindergarden!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: Uncle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: s.n.a.f.u. 1b-i
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:12:39 GMT
Hi everyone.
I'm working on a sysadmin utility
called s.n.a.f.u. (stands for Slippy
Network Admins ofFsck Util) and its
aimed at making the monitoring of logs,
activity, hardware activity, and system
status a little easier for folks doing
a lot of their admining on the cmdline,
not in X.
It also provides quick(er) access
to system confs for editing and system
logs for viewing. And there are few
extra misc scripts in there as well.
I'm a looking for folks to giveit a
try and maybe some feed back as well.
Anyone interested in it can swing by:
http://www.geekcave.net
s.n.a.f.u. is an open source project
and developer input is welcomed
thankfully. Comments, suggestion,
code, flames, etc. can be emailed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Uncle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.geekcave.net
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Cameron)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not
ready.)
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:17:29 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Darren Winsper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 14:50:10 GMT, Cihl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gonzo wrote:
Cihl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
AMD is ok. Watch out for the K6-3D, though. Some stores have taken it
out, because it would consistently slow down after about half an hour.
Huh? Where did you get that?
I don't remember exactly where i read that. It was in some computer
magazine several months ago. The problem mentioned something
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 09:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What have you done? (Full Name)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:44:35 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 04:31 AM,
"Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
WickedDyno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-
OK... but why a "Chinese" wall?
It's a reference to the great wall of china, which was intended to stop
the barbarian hordes from getting into china, but also stopped the
chinese from getting out.
Once again you prove that you cannot tell the difference between a lie and
fact. The Great Wall didn't prevent Chinese from leaving China. It only
went along the northern border. There was no wall on the west, south, or
east. Chinese could always leave until the advent of communism in 1949.
--
==
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=
--
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:50:58 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 04:14 AM,
"Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Furthermore, he summarizes by saying "Their use of undocumented
functions shows that Microsoft applications developers have access to
information on Windows Internals. But is this really such an unfair
advantage?" He then goes on to discuss how simple it is to find this
information and how Microsoft has made no effort to hide the
information, especially when using microsoft supplied tools like
CodeView and EXEHDR. His last statement on this says "The point is
merely that that Microsoft really can't be found to have unfair access
when anyone with copies of CVW and EXEHDR has essentially the same
access."
More pure bullshit on behalf of Criminal Bill. The above FUD assumes that
CVW and EXEHDR can find everything the programmer does. Since they are MS
products, that is not a valid assumption.
And any intelligent human being knows it. You are a liar and I've proved
it once again.
--
==
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=
--
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:53:59 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 01:31 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) said in response to Erik
Fuckingliar:
: Many people encrypt messages on the Internet. Is evidence of encryption
: supposed to be evidence of guilt?
What on earth is that supposed to mean? Guilt of what?
Real
