I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.

[David T. Johnson]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

David Sutherland wrote:


LOL - keep it up, numbnuts. You are educating a whole new audience
about just how stupid OS/2 advocates can be


Then just when you think they've hit the bottom, they install linux.

Then they install Windows, begin posting here and really hit
the bottom.

--
Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
and IBM Web Browser v2.0.3

 

[Pandora Xero]

terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter) wrote in message news:<4a77b8e8.0405231915.6675f43e@posting.google.com>...

Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using Linux.
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter

congratulations you fucking ignoramus! your post has now reached over
200 replies. I hope you're happy with documenting your idiotic
decision and wasting everyone's time instead of simply crawling back
into dark cave you call "Windows"

 

[Diogenes]

Pandora Xero wrote:

terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter) wrote in message
news:<4a77b8e8.0405231915.6675f43e@posting.google.com>...
Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using
Linux. Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter

congratulations you fucking ignoramus! your post has now reached over
200 replies. I hope you're happy with documenting your idiotic
decision and wasting everyone's time instead of simply crawling back
into dark cave you call "Windows"

Do you have a point?

 

[Rich Grise]

"Diogenes" <diogenes@crete.org.net.com> wrote in message
news:8b92c96cdc5bbb64dd2f81bc52af52cb@news.teranews.com...

Pandora Xero wrote:
terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter) wrote in message
news:<4a77b8e8.0405231915.6675f43e@posting.google.com>...
Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using
Linux. Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter

congratulations you fucking ignoramus! your post has now reached over
200 replies. I hope you're happy with documenting your idiotic
decision and wasting everyone's time instead of simply crawling back
into dark cave you call "Windows"

Do you have a point?

Apparently, somebody posting something irrelevant "wast[es] everone's

time", but Pandora's posting of a snivel about it doesn't waste
_anybody_'s time, not even, presumably, Pandora's.

So, when Terry Porter posts something irrelevant, it wastes Pandora
Xero's time, along with "everyone" else's time, but
when Pandora Zero posts irrelevant, sniveling crap, it's _not_
a waste of time.

Ergo,
1) Pandora Zero's time is the only time with value
2) It's everybody else's job to manage Pandora Zero's time for her,
and apply prior restraint to themselves, such that they don't
waste Pandorka's pwecious widdle tiiime....

Feh.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Nice Linux add:
http://money.cnn.com/news/briefing/
on the right side, in the halfway down the page.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Diogenes]

Lee Willcox wrote:

Pandora Xero wrote:
terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter) wrote in message
news:<4a77b8e8.0405231915.6675f43e@posting.google.com>...

Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's
advantages, I have tried some Windows circuit board design software
and quite honestly there is really no comparison between the
Windows software and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux
software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using
Linux. Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter


congratulations you fucking ignoramus! your post has now reached over
200 replies. I hope you're happy with documenting your idiotic
decision and wasting everyone's time instead of simply crawling back
into dark cave you call "Windows"

OK, if you left linux and went to windows, why tell us? No one here
gives a flyingFK just what you do. Go brag in alt.windows.dumb.asses
or alt.windows.not.smart.enough.for.linux

linux makes you stupid.
[followups set appropriately]

 

[Lee Willcox]

Pandora Xero wrote:

terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter) wrote in message news:<4a77b8e8.0405231915.6675f43e@posting.google.com>...

Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using Linux.
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter


congratulations you fucking ignoramus! your post has now reached over
200 replies. I hope you're happy with documenting your idiotic
decision and wasting everyone's time instead of simply crawling back
into dark cave you call "Windows"

OK, if you left linux and went to windows, why tell us? No one here
gives a flyingFK just what you do. Go brag in alt.windows.dumb.asses
or alt.windows.not.smart.enough.for.linux

 

[MMI]

Curtis Bass wrote:

MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rjyw9$8eU@news.consultron.ca>...

David Sutherland wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:


The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...


[snip]



Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.



Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.

No. If "something has support for some doodad" then I expect it to have
that out of the box, not that I am to hunt the net for some 3rd party SW
suite.


What you "expect" is irrelevant -- The Ghost In The Machine never
claimed that Windows had "out of the box" TCP/IP support, and, whether
you like it or not, 3rd party support is just as legitimate and
relevant as "out of the box" support.

Great. Will remeber the last one.

But great, from this time on, I can say that OS/2 had let's say
NFS support from the 2.x (1992-1993) times.


If it's actually true, then yes, absolutely.


Great. And don't tell me you
didn't find any in your OS/2 box.


It doesn't seem to be an issue with anybody but you . . .


Or we can agree that "has support" means "out-of-the box" and then I'll
shut up about let's say NFS for OS/2, but I'll be right about Trumpet
Winsock... You can choose...


Sure, you can be "right" about Trumpet WinSock if we all adopt your
pet meaning of "support", but that is rather unlikely, considering
that your pet meaning is itself wrong.

OK, I will adopt the 'right' meaning, why not. It allows me now to say
that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a local security support (not
HPFS386 related), because there is a 3rd party product that does that.
How do you like it? Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting
files and directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?

I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting about
NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.

Cheers,
Martin

* Quotation marks not used so that someone hopefully isn't going to get
confused again.


> Curtis

 

[David Sutherland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:44:40 +0200, MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote:

Curtis Bass wrote:
MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rjyw9$8eU@news.consultron.ca>...

[snip]

Sure, you can be "right" about Trumpet WinSock if we all adopt your
pet meaning of "support", but that is rather unlikely, considering
that your pet meaning is itself wrong.

OK, I will adopt the 'right' meaning, why not. It allows me now to say
that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a local security support (not
HPFS386 related), because there is a 3rd party product that does that.
How do you like it? Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting
files and directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?

I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting about
NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.

So long as you make it clear (as did GITM) that such support is an
add-on then you can make that claim. No-one is going to dispute it.
Your problems start when you lie about what is in the box. Actually,
that sentence works in your case by dropping everything after the word
"lie"....

Cheers,
Martin

* Quotation marks not used so that someone hopefully isn't going to get
confused again.

Confused about what, Martin? Is there a specific issue of
misrepresentation that you have in mind? ROTFLMAO.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

David Sutherland wrote:

Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

david@**ANTI-SPAM**sutherda.my-bulldog.com

If I take out **ANTI-SPAM** from the above, I get
david@sutherda.my-bulldog.com

Is david@sutherda.my-bulldog.com correct? It is
david@sutherda.my-bulldog.com isn't it?

 

[MMI]

David Sutherland wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:44:40 +0200, MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote:


Curtis Bass wrote:

MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rjyw9$8eU@news.consultron.ca>...



[snip]


Sure, you can be "right" about Trumpet WinSock if we all adopt your
pet meaning of "support", but that is rather unlikely, considering
that your pet meaning is itself wrong.

OK, I will adopt the 'right' meaning, why not. It allows me now to say
that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a local security support (not
HPFS386 related), because there is a 3rd party product that does that.
How do you like it? Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting
files and directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?

I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting about
NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.



So long as you make it clear (as did GITM) that such support is an
add-on then you can make that claim. No-one is going to dispute it.

Great.

Your problems start when you lie about what is in the box. Actually,
that sentence works in your case by dropping everything after the word
"lie"....

That sentence works for you too. And does very well.

Cheers,
Martin

* Quotation marks not used so that someone hopefully isn't going to get
confused again.



Confused about what, Martin? Is there a specific issue of
misrepresentation that you have in mind? ROTFLMAO.

Must it always be someone's quotation when a text is in quotation marks,
David? LOL

Cheers,
Martin

Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[Diogenes]

David Sutherland wrote:

You are a cunt. But then, you already knew that.

Whoa! That's pretty strong, isn't it?

--
Diogenes

 

[David Sutherland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 04 14:04:14 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:


You are a cunt. But then, you already knew that.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[David Sutherland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:13:08 +0200, MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote:

David Sutherland wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:44:40 +0200, MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote:


Curtis Bass wrote:

MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rjyw9$8eU@news.consultron.ca>...



[snip]



So long as you make it clear (as did GITM) that such support is an
add-on then you can make that claim. No-one is going to dispute it.

Great.

Your problems start when you lie about what is in the box. Actually,
that sentence works in your case by dropping everything after the word
"lie"....

That sentence works for you too. And does very well.

Care to substantiate that claim? I've got all my evidence lined up
right here....

Cheers,
Martin

* Quotation marks not used so that someone hopefully isn't going to get
confused again.



Confused about what, Martin? Is there a specific issue of
misrepresentation that you have in mind? ROTFLMAO.

Must it always be someone's quotation when a text is in quotation marks,
David? LOL

So you would rather *not* go into the details? Wonder why.
ROTFLMAO.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx>
wrote
on Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:49:33 +1000
<cb1271.5k.1@kadaitcha.cx>:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
nospam@kadaitcha.cx
wrote
on Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:33:42 +1000
cauctc.22s.1@kadaitcha.cx>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
nospam@kadaitcha.cx
wrote
on Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:19:38 +1000
7q4ecbepJXIED9E8E221779490D3qEesmH7A4erv@kadaitcha.cx>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net
wrote:

(Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1
days.)


[to Martin] Duh.

True, a subtle point which I could have clarified better. There
are issues here:

There's nothing wrong with winsock. I'm using the latest version of
it now to build a custom, RFC compliant NNTP control. It does its
job and it beats goung down to bare metal to achieve the same
result.


Which RFC?

1036, 850, 997, 1153, 2034, 1812, 3052 ...


1036: Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages. Dated 1987-12.
850: Standard for Interchange of USENET messages. Dated 1983-06.
997: INTERNET NUMBERS. Dated 1987-03. (Did you mean 977?)
977: A Proposed Standard for the Stream-Based Transmission of News.
Dated 1986-02.
1153: Digest Message Format. Dated 1990-04.
2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes.
Dated 1996-10.
1812: Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers. Dated 1995-06.
3052: Service Management Architecture Issues and Review. Dated
2001-01.

Hm.

So I made a few up.

Interesting, though I for one would have thought Microsoft
already had one.

They have a control from 1996, which they got off some company called
NetManage that is no longer distributed. The control is flakier than a
prostitute's cunt on a busy night.

Anyway, I've got the code going. alt.test is full of test posts out of it.
Now all I have to do is get it to work with messages over 8k.

What an odd limitation.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

 

[the Jazz Guy]

Diogenes wrote:

David Sutherland wrote:

You are a cunt. But then, you already knew that.


Whoa! That's pretty strong, isn't it?

Actually, given that he was addressing K-Man, he was pretty polite.

--
the Jazz Guy

"My baby just cares for me"
(Nina Simone)

 

[David Sutherland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:30:11 GMT, "Diogenes"
<diogenes@crete.org.net.com> wrote:

David Sutherland wrote:

You are a cunt. But then, you already knew that.


Whoa! That's pretty strong, isn't it?

The in-duh-vidual known as Kadaitcha is not exactly without a history
on usenet. Rick Mather gets exactly what he asks for.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=kadaitcha+man&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20030908171329.18258.00000533%40mb-m13.aol.com&rnum=9

He doesn't have the balls to present a real email address, and shits
all over those who think it's good manners to present a real face to
the world. Why should I care what I say to him? I might as well feel
sympathy for dog shit.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[Diogenes]

David Sutherland wrote:

He doesn't have the balls to present a real email address,

His email address is in every one of his posts. You seem angry about
something.

--
Diogenes

 

[David Sutherland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:53 GMT, "Diogenes"
<diogenes@crete.org.net.com> wrote:

David Sutherland wrote:

He doesn't have the balls to present a real email address,

His email address is in every one of his posts. You seem angry about
something.

Try mailing him at his "nospam" address - see how far you get. And
in case you didn't notice, his sole reason for posting was to set me
up for spam harvesting. Perhaps you think I should be grateful?


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

David Sutherland wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 04 14:04:14 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:


You are a cunt. But then, you already knew that.

So sue me.