IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Patent Wars and Antitrust Forum / Re: This is really funny.
Post #30,182
by Squidley
2/28/02 2:13:21 PM
Reply
New Re: This is really funny.
What zillion things? Please do tell.

Please see below.

Most any non-interactive process can run without a controlling tty, ya know.

I know. I'm not talking about things that require a controlling tty; I'm talking about things that require the command processor itself. Below are the results of a very rough search for Bash scripts on a very lightly loaded Red Hat 7.1 system. Note the heavy script presence in /etc.

Just as a reminder to keep us on topic, my point here is that\ufffdthe relationship between Bash and Red Hat Linux is very similar to the one between IE and Windows. Not because Bash and IE serve similar purposes, but because in both cases, simply removing the program from the product would greatly damage that product. And that's not because the program is integrated into the product in some "incestuous", unnecessary, or illogical way. It's simply because the product contains many other programs that require the one being removed.

/etc/init.d/pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/init.d/crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/init.d/pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/init.d/crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc0.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc0.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc1.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc1.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc2.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc2.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc3.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc4.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc4.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc5.d/S80pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc5.d/S90crond:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc6.d/K20pppoe:#! /bin/bash
/etc/rc6.d/K60crond:#! /bin/bash
/usr/bin/mail-files:#! /bin/bash
/usr/bin/mailshar:#! /bin/bash
/usr/bin/url_handler.sh:#! /bin/bash
/bin/igawk:#! /bin/sh
/bin/vimtutor:#! /bin/sh
/etc/init.d/rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/init.d/identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/init.d/portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/init.d/rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/init.d/rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/init.d/tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/init.d/arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/init.d/rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/init.d/identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/init.d/portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/init.d/rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/init.d/rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/init.d/tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/init.d/arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc0.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc0.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc0.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc0.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc0.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc0.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc0.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc1.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc1.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc1.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc1.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc1.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc1.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc1.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc2.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc2.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc2.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc2.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc2.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc2.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc2.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc3.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc3.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc3.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc3.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc3.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc3.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc3.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc4.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc4.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc4.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc4.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc4.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc4.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc4.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc5.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc5.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc5.d/S13portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc5.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc5.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc5.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc5.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc6.d/K20rwhod:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc6.d/K65identd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc6.d/K87portmap:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc6.d/K20rstatd:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc6.d/K20rwalld:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc6.d/K50tux:#! /bin/sh
/etc/rc6.d/K45arpwatch:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/catchsegv:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/glibcbug:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/ldd:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/memusage:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/tzselect:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/xtrace:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/batch:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/gettextize:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/mailstat:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/loadunimap:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/mapscrn:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/saveunimap:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/setfont:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/card:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/fixps:#! /bin/sh -e
/usr/bin/pdiff:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/psmandup:#! /bin/sh -e
/usr/bin/psset:#! /bin/sh -e
/usr/bin/texi2dvi4a2ps:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/texi2dvi4a2ps:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/vboxmail:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/vboxplay:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/pdf2dsc:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/db2dvi:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/db2html:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/db2ps:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/db2rtf:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/docbook2dvi:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/docbook2html:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/docbook2man:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/docbook2ps:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/docbook2rtf:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/docbook2tex:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/docbook2texi:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/docbook2txt:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/jw:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/rcs-checkin:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/autoconf:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/autoheader:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/autoreconf:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/autoupdate:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/ifnames:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/cvsbug:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/rcs2log:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/libtool:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/libtoolize:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/texi2dvi:#! /bin/sh
/usr/bin/texi2dvi:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/python1.5/plat-linux-i386/regen:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/python1.5/config/makesetup:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/rpm/config.guess:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/rpm/config.sub:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/rpm/mkinstalldirs:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/yp/ypinit:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/yp/ypxfr_1perday:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/yp/ypxfr_1perhour:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/yp/ypxfr_2perday:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/emacs/20.7/i386-redhat-linux-gnu/rcs2log:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/emacs/20.7/i386-redhat-linux-gnu/vcdiff:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/cvs/contrib/cvs2vendor:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/cvs/contrib/cvscheck:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/cvs/contrib/rcs-to-cvs:#! /bin/sh
/usr/lib/cvs/contrib/rcs2log:#! /bin/sh
Post #30,191
by Andrew Grygus
Picture of Andrew Grygus
2/28/02 3:44:32 PM
Reply
New And just exactly how long would it take . .
. . to replace bash with another shell of your choice? 30 seconds? 45 seconds?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
Post #30,204
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
2/28/02 4:24:18 PM
Reply
New Thank you...
...I was just getting ready to post the same thing.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Post #30,205
by drewk
Picture of drewk
2/28/02 4:29:29 PM
Reply
New Besides which ...
And correct me if I'm wrong here, but if you really wanted to I'm sure you could modify the scripts to look up what your default shell is and just point it to that.
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,206
by Squidley
2/28/02 4:36:06 PM
Reply
New Re: And just exactly how long would it take . .
. . to replace bash with another shell of your choice? 30 seconds? 45 seconds?

Even if you did have another suitable Bourne-compatible shell, would it really take you just 45 seconds to retest all those scripts? Just 45 seconds to figure out which ones relied on Bash-specific extensions and port them over to the new shell? What if some lawyers were demanding that you ship a version of your Linux package without a shell? Would it still take you just 45 seconds to respin a fully configured, tested, and working product? What if the component you were being forced to remove did not have any readily available workalikes?
Post #30,210
by ben_tilly
2/28/02 4:39:47 PM
Reply
New But would it work?
You could make the substitution, sure. But bash does not always work exactly like csh or ksh and there is a chance of breakage in some complex shell script.

Even so, the replacement of the shell would be relatively simple. But not necessarily utterly trivial.

Cheers,
Ben
Post #30,235
by Meerkat
2/28/02 6:19:30 PM
Reply
New Kinda like coding around non-standard behaviour in IE? :)
On and on and on and on,
and on and on and on goes John.
Post #30,293
by wharris2
3/1/02 6:13:03 AM
Reply
New Oh shock non-standard IE behavior? (me quivers)
More proof that squid is a shill. Or a bloody drooling MS "I can't hear anything else (covering ears)" advocate.
Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #30,283
by pwhysall
Picture of pwhysall
3/1/02 2:22:44 AM
Reply
New OK
Just as a reminder to keep us on topic, my point here is that the relationship between Bash and Red Hat Linux is very similar to the one between IE and Windows. Not because Bash and IE serve similar purposes, but because in both cases, simply removing the program from the product would greatly damage that product. And that's not because the program is integrated into the product in some "incestuous", unnecessary, or illogical way. It's simply because the product contains many other programs that require the one being removed.

I don't think that it's fair to equate bash with IE - the one is a shell, which has been a OS component since the year dot, and the other, is a web browser.

Well, it was.

No-one's "extended" bash to the point where things like Apache won't run without it. Hence my comment about running without a controlling tty.

Yet I can't install IIS4 on NT4 without installing IE? Wassup with that?

And yes, it would require testing and maybe some tweaks to replace bash with the shell of your choice. The point is that it can be done.

You cannot replace IE in the same way, because core OS functionality now depends on it.

My file browsers don't depend on Mozilla - sure, Nautilus can use Moz to display HTML content, but it critically doesn't stop working if Moz isn't present. I believe that there are moves afoot to enable Nautilus to use the gtkhtml widget to display HTML content. (Sans scripting and net connectivity, natch :-))

Explorer is now basically an IE window with files in it.

This need not be the case. I present Windows 95 as evidence.

Peter
Shill For Hire
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
     Judge order MS to hand over source code - (JayMehaffey) - (149) - Feb. 16, 2002, 12:07:30 PM EST
         Re: Judge order MS to hand over source code - (Yendor) - Feb. 16, 2002, 02:29:50 PM EST
         What a precedent! - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 16, 2002, 03:12:07 PM EST
             If it's true, CKK certainly has guts - (tonytib) - Feb. 16, 2002, 06:08:05 PM EST
         Holy mother of pearl! - (Silverlock) - Feb. 17, 2002, 02:23:18 AM EST
         Interesting (?) vote percentages - (Ashton) - (1) - Feb. 17, 2002, 05:57:24 PM EST
             I'm wondering about the size of the fine - (Silverlock) - Feb. 17, 2002, 06:43:18 PM EST
         How to test it? - (Brandioch) - (4) - Feb. 18, 2002, 07:56:49 PM EST
             General idea - (JayMehaffey) - (3) - Feb. 18, 2002, 10:28:31 PM EST
                 Obfuscation. - (static) - (2) - Feb. 18, 2002, 10:46:34 PM EST
                     Re: Obfuscation (I guess you're against it...) - (jb4) - (1) - Feb. 19, 2002, 09:33:22 AM EST
                         OT: I am getting *so* many comments about by my icon! :-) -NT - (static) - Feb. 20, 2002, 12:51:23 AM EST
         Nuttiness - (Squidley) - (137) - Feb. 19, 2002, 02:37:11 PM EST
             Semantics - (wharris2) - (136) - Feb. 19, 2002, 03:00:52 PM EST
                 Re: Semantics - (Squidley) - (135) - Feb. 19, 2002, 03:16:37 PM EST
                     But it's not modular. - (wharris2) - (122) - Feb. 19, 2002, 04:45:48 PM EST
                         No? - (Squidley) - (121) - Feb. 19, 2002, 05:38:52 PM EST
                             No. - (Another Scott) - (7) - Feb. 19, 2002, 06:15:49 PM EST
                                 I Respectfully Disagree - (Squidley) - (6) - Feb. 19, 2002, 06:41:42 PM EST
                                     Your questions are answered in news stories. - (Another Scott) - Feb. 19, 2002, 07:29:50 PM EST
                                     If it >IS< "modular"............. - (Brandioch) - (4) - Feb. 19, 2002, 07:44:32 PM EST
                                         Re: If it >IS< "modular"............. - (Squidley) - (3) - Feb. 19, 2002, 11:30:08 PM EST
                                             Definitions vs. designs. - (Brandioch) - (2) - Feb. 20, 2002, 01:55:17 PM EST
                                                 Re: Definitions vs. designs. - (Squidley) - (1) - Feb. 21, 2002, 09:56:05 AM EST
                                                     So, now we look at history. - (Brandioch) - Feb. 21, 2002, 12:23:18 PM EST
                             What? - (pwhysall) - (1) - Feb. 19, 2002, 06:20:15 PM EST
                                 Oops, You're Right! - (Squidley) - Feb. 19, 2002, 06:49:22 PM EST
                             Modules that cannot be replaced or removed - (imric) - (76) - Feb. 19, 2002, 07:51:44 PM EST
                                 Re: Modules that cannot be replaced or removed - (Squidley) - (75) - Feb. 19, 2002, 11:20:13 PM EST
                                     No. - (imric) - (74) - Feb. 20, 2002, 06:06:09 AM EST
                                         APIs & Modularity - (Squidley) - (73) - Feb. 20, 2002, 11:25:42 AM EST
                                             Re: APIs & Modularity - (drewk) - (71) - Feb. 20, 2002, 12:02:56 PM EST
                                                 Re: APIs & Modularity - (Squidley) - (69) - Feb. 20, 2002, 01:33:12 PM EST
                                                     This is really funny. - (Andrew Grygus) - (23) - Feb. 20, 2002, 01:55:47 PM EST
                                                         Re: This is really funny. - (Squidley) - (22) - Feb. 21, 2002, 09:18:25 AM EST
                                                             MS should control PC configuration? - (warmachine) - (6) - Feb. 21, 2002, 10:54:20 AM EST
                                                                 Re: MS should control PC configuration? - (Squidley) - (5) - Feb. 21, 2002, 12:06:02 PM EST
                                                                     you are absolutely right - (boxley) - Feb. 21, 2002, 12:22:13 PM EST
                                                                     I haven't met one that wouldn't. - (Brandioch) - Feb. 21, 2002, 12:33:22 PM EST
                                                                     A natural monopoly would be leverage into a free market. - (warmachine) - Feb. 21, 2002, 01:55:51 PM EST
                                                                     How the monopoly works. - (bepatient) - Feb. 21, 2002, 02:57:47 PM EST
                                                                     Homogenity over all. - (imric) - Feb. 21, 2002, 05:30:40 PM EST
                                                             Re: This is really funny. - (Steven A S) - (2) - Feb. 27, 2002, 06:49:22 PM EST
                                                                 Have to have a command processor? - (wharris2) - (1) - Feb. 27, 2002, 10:52:09 PM EST
                                                                     On Win9X - (Steven A S) - Feb. 28, 2002, 06:52:39 AM EST
                                                             Re: This is really funny. - (pwhysall) - (1) - Feb. 28, 2002, 03:29:58 AM EST
                                                                 Architectures - (Squidley) - Feb. 28, 2002, 07:06:04 PM EST
                                                             Re: This is really funny. - (pwhysall) - (9) - Feb. 28, 2002, 07:43:08 AM EST
                                                                 Re: This is really funny. - (Squidley) - (8) - Feb. 28, 2002, 02:13:21 PM EST
                                                                     And just exactly how long would it take . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (6) - Feb. 28, 2002, 03:44:32 PM EST
                                                                         Thank you... - (bepatient) - Feb. 28, 2002, 04:24:18 PM EST
                                                                         Besides which ... - (drewk) - Feb. 28, 2002, 04:29:29 PM EST
                                                                         Re: And just exactly how long would it take . . - (Squidley) - Feb. 28, 2002, 04:36:06 PM EST
                                                                         But would it work? - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Feb. 28, 2002, 04:39:47 PM EST
                                                                             Kinda like coding around non-standard behaviour in IE? :) -NT - (Meerkat) - (1) - Feb. 28, 2002, 06:19:30 PM EST
                                                                                 Oh shock non-standard IE behavior? (me quivers) - (wharris2) - March 1, 2002, 06:13:03 AM EST
                                                                     OK - (pwhysall) - March 1, 2002, 02:22:44 AM EST
                                                     You ARE Michel Le Moron! - (jb4) - (44) - Feb. 20, 2002, 02:17:39 PM EST
                                                         Dont accuse - (boxley) - Feb. 20, 2002, 02:59:47 PM EST
                                                         Naah, just went to the same . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (41) - Feb. 20, 2002, 05:31:12 PM EST
                                                             Re: Naah, just went to the same . . . - (Squidley) - (40) - Feb. 21, 2002, 09:23:48 AM EST
                                                                 Cosmic-proportion delusions of grandeur from a bad $hilling - (CRConrad) - (39) - Feb. 26, 2002, 04:57:31 AM EST
                                                                     Nah. - (imric) - (38) - Feb. 26, 2002, 06:18:46 AM EST
                                                                         No, I'm fairly sure he's serious; he's $hilling for real. - (CRConrad) - (37) - Feb. 26, 2002, 07:02:02 AM EST
                                                                             Squidley-Diddley; - (imric) - (36) - Feb. 26, 2002, 07:41:19 AM EST
                                                                                 Yeah, but if you're stupid enough, why let that stop you? - (CRConrad) - (35) - Feb. 26, 2002, 08:08:05 AM EST
                                                                                     I can't believe you didn't catch this - (Silverlock) - (6) - Feb. 26, 2002, 08:48:05 AM EST
                                                                                         Yeah, I know - but how the heck could I... - (CRConrad) - Feb. 26, 2002, 12:02:40 PM EST
                                                                                         I used my usual spell checker . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4) - Feb. 26, 2002, 12:32:16 PM EST
                                                                                             Just tried your spell checker - (Silverlock) - (2) - Feb. 26, 2002, 12:46:46 PM EST
                                                                                                 Hmmm . . no such message from Google here . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 26, 2002, 01:18:31 PM EST
                                                                                                     Those damn bats. They're everywhere. - (Silverlock) - Feb. 26, 2002, 01:26:07 PM EST
                                                                                             So much for those right-wing "think tank" innaleckchuls, eh? -NT - (CRConrad) - Feb. 26, 2002, 02:42:10 PM EST
                                                                                     I always have to laugh... - (admin) - (16) - Feb. 26, 2002, 08:51:30 AM EST
                                                                                         Well if Squidley is not... - (ben_tilly) - (15) - Feb. 26, 2002, 10:17:06 AM EST
                                                                                             Re: Well if Squidley is not... - (Squidley) - (14) - Feb. 26, 2002, 10:45:34 AM EST
                                                                                                 And what makes you think you look any different here? -NT - (CRConrad) - (13) - Feb. 26, 2002, 11:57:16 AM EST
                                                                                                     Why, your presence, of course! - (Squidley) - (12) - Feb. 26, 2002, 01:38:10 PM EST
                                                                                                         I guess MSFT is expecting to lose, then... -NT - (jake123) - (11) - Feb. 26, 2002, 02:43:39 PM EST
                                                                                                             Sure! Just like they always do :-) -NT - (Squidley) - (10) - Feb. 26, 2002, 02:56:14 PM EST
                                                                                                                 It ain't over til Judge K-K sings. - (Ashton) - (4) - Feb. 26, 2002, 03:45:46 PM EST
                                                                                                                     Re: It ain't over til Judge K-K sings. - (Squidley) - (3) - Feb. 26, 2002, 04:07:31 PM EST
                                                                                                                         My what colorful intellekchul epithets you have - (Ashton) - Feb. 26, 2002, 07:18:48 PM EST
                                                                                                                         Yes, but over at Petrele's VarLinux forum . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 26, 2002, 11:02:27 PM EST
                                                                                                                             Re: Yes, but over at Petrele(y)'s VarLinux forum . . - (Ashton) - Feb. 28, 2002, 01:43:13 AM EST
                                                                                                                 I think they're going to lose badly this time. - (jake123) - (4) - Feb. 26, 2002, 04:13:03 PM EST
                                                                                                                     I think you're way optimistic - (wharris2) - (3) - Feb. 26, 2002, 04:28:51 PM EST
                                                                                                                         I don't. - (jake123) - (2) - Feb. 26, 2002, 08:55:13 PM EST
                                                                                                                             Gates, Ballmer scared? - (wharris2) - (1) - Feb. 27, 2002, 03:44:39 AM EST
                                                                                                                                 Yeah... you're right. - (jake123) - Feb. 27, 2002, 10:40:12 AM EST
                                                                                     Hey! - (imric) - (10) - Feb. 26, 2002, 09:01:32 AM EST
                                                                                         *Snort* - (Silverlock) - Feb. 26, 2002, 09:17:34 AM EST
                                                                                         "Training ground"? Dunno... Let's hope it's more like... - (CRConrad) - (8) - Feb. 26, 2002, 12:00:17 PM EST
                                                                                             I noticed (possibly coincidence...possibly not) - (bepatient) - (7) - Feb. 26, 2002, 05:03:56 PM EST
                                                                                                 Really.. - (Ashton) - (6) - Feb. 26, 2002, 07:27:10 PM EST
                                                                                                     Karsten gave me the archives... - (bepatient) - (5) - Feb. 26, 2002, 10:33:38 PM EST
                                                                                                         True - the roster was larger (and heavier?) - (Ashton) - (4) - Feb. 28, 2002, 01:59:42 AM EST
                                                                                                             If you are nice - (imric) - (3) - Feb. 28, 2002, 06:01:37 AM EST
                                                                                                                 Would have to be ftp... - (bepatient) - (2) - Feb. 28, 2002, 10:48:33 AM EST
                                                                                                                     Legal - (kmself) - (1) - Feb. 28, 2002, 08:00:59 PM EST
                                                                                                                         Thats essentially my thinking. - (bepatient) - March 1, 2002, 10:27:25 AM EST
                                                         You ARE too kind! - (Squidley) - Feb. 21, 2002, 10:31:13 AM EST
                                                 Intent - (Andrew Grygus) - Feb. 20, 2002, 01:47:36 PM EST
                                             No. - (imric) - Feb. 20, 2002, 06:42:06 PM EST
                             Are you for real?!? - (jb4) - (33) - Feb. 20, 2002, 09:11:57 AM EST
                                 Hey, is that a trick question? - (Squidley) - (32) - Feb. 21, 2002, 10:21:22 AM EST
                                     No tricks, just treats - (jb4) - (30) - Feb. 22, 2002, 10:01:59 AM EST
                                         No, gems! - (Squidley) - (29) - Feb. 22, 2002, 01:55:25 PM EST
                                             Bwaaahaaahhaaaa!! - (Silverlock) - (1) - Feb. 22, 2002, 02:20:38 PM EST
                                                 Re: Bwaaahaaahhaaaa!! - (Squidley) - Feb. 22, 2002, 02:44:06 PM EST
                                             Are you REALLY that dense (or do they pay for stupidity?) - (jb4) - (4) - Feb. 22, 2002, 02:42:48 PM EST
                                                 There you go again with the trick questions. - (Squidley) - (3) - Feb. 23, 2002, 04:51:45 PM EST
                                                     NTFS != HTML - (jb4) - (2) - Feb. 25, 2002, 09:40:11 AM EST
                                                         Re: NTFS != HTML - (Squidley) - (1) - Feb. 26, 2002, 02:23:49 PM EST
                                                             Don't bogart tht joint, my friend... - (jb4) - Feb. 26, 2002, 07:03:02 PM EST
                                             Why did you drop the other threads? - (Brandioch) - (6) - Feb. 22, 2002, 06:30:27 PM EST
                                                 Need... some... WD-40... - (Squidley) - (5) - Feb. 23, 2002, 05:56:18 PM EST
                                                     Ummm . . aren't you working overtime? - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 23, 2002, 09:33:09 PM EST
                                                         I could shill 18/7..........if...........the price was right - (Brandioch) - Feb. 24, 2002, 12:15:15 AM EST
                                                     A kinder, gentler, Microsoft at work... - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Feb. 25, 2002, 09:47:07 AM EST
                                                         Be aware that this new policy . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 25, 2002, 10:56:33 AM EST
                                                             I have a remedy, then: - (Ashton) - Feb. 25, 2002, 10:25:57 PM EST
                                             Wow... - (bepatient) - (14) - Feb. 22, 2002, 07:17:39 PM EST
                                                 Now, now... - (Squidley) - (13) - Feb. 23, 2002, 05:43:05 PM EST
                                                     I could almost grant such a Pollyanna view of it all.. - (Ashton) - (10) - Feb. 23, 2002, 07:20:53 PM EST
                                                         As I have been saying for years . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7) - Feb. 23, 2002, 09:29:41 PM EST
                                                             Do you mean that *recently* the CRM folks spilled their guts - (Ashton) - (6) - Feb. 24, 2002, 03:20:05 AM EST
                                                                 Siebel is the main victim here. - (Andrew Grygus) - (5) - Feb. 24, 2002, 01:24:24 PM EST
                                                                     Speaking of Accounting software . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Feb. 24, 2002, 02:02:55 PM EST
                                                                         Scary.. 7 years to find all the important glitches - (Ashton) - Feb. 24, 2002, 06:07:44 PM EST
                                                                     Andrew, care to update the current status? -NT - (drewk) - (2) - Nov. 5, 2004, 10:21:05 AM EST
                                                                         Update - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Nov. 6, 2004, 06:06:36 PM EST
                                                                             And Thank God for that. -NT - (folkert) - Nov. 6, 2004, 09:16:48 PM EST
                                                         Quick question: - (jb4) - (1) - Feb. 25, 2002, 09:44:02 AM EST
                                                             'a' as in the Sinclair Lewis book, "Babbitt" Still: :-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton) - Feb. 25, 2002, 09:57:20 PM EST
                                                     *chuckle* - (bepatient) - (1) - Feb. 24, 2002, 12:15:05 AM EST
                                                         Re: *chuckle* - (Squidley) - Feb. 26, 2002, 03:27:57 PM EST
                                     I guess you didn't read the MS memos from the trial. - (Another Scott) - Feb. 22, 2002, 11:07:55 PM EST
                     *sigh* Again? - (ben_tilly) - (9) - Feb. 19, 2002, 04:56:05 PM EST
                         Re: *sigh* Again? - (Squidley) - (8) - Feb. 19, 2002, 06:00:26 PM EST
                             But they don't have to be non-working. - (Brandioch) - (7) - Feb. 19, 2002, 07:34:56 PM EST
                                 Re: But they don't have to be non-working. - (Squidley) - (6) - Feb. 19, 2002, 11:45:00 PM EST
                                     Now that would be stupid. - (Brandioch) - (5) - Feb. 20, 2002, 01:44:40 PM EST
                                         Re: Now that would be stupid. - (Squidley) - (4) - Feb. 20, 2002, 02:33:41 PM EST
                                             Pick one - (drewk) - Feb. 20, 2002, 02:40:04 PM EST
                                             Purpose - (Steve Lowe) - Feb. 20, 2002, 03:22:58 PM EST
                                             Bzzzzzt! - (Brandioch) - Feb. 20, 2002, 03:49:59 PM EST
                                             And another thing ... - (drewk) - Feb. 20, 2002, 04:34:00 PM EST
                     I believe the anti-trust trial showed IE wasn't modular - (warmachine) - (1) - Feb. 20, 2002, 04:37:03 AM EST
                         +5 Informative. - (static) - Feb. 20, 2002, 04:52:40 AM EST

That is not actually a charming anecdote!
322 ms