Linux-Advocacy Digest #464, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 22:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("John Hill")
Re: w64k - the bugs are being found (pac4854)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("John Hill")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:39:36 -0600
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:51:00 -0800, petilon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>Win2K doesn't let regular users install any software. Software
:>installation is a privilege that can only be granted by the
:>administrator. Beyond that, I don't see how it's Win2K's
:>responsibility to warn you when a driver gets installed. No
:>OS I've ever worked with ever did that. Certainly no version
:>of Unix does, so why are you holding Win2K to a higher standard?
:
:It is because of practices Microsoft encouraged in the past.
:Have you ever installed a Windows application that doesn't copy
:a bunch of files into C:\WINDOWS? Neither have I. Microsoft
:encouraged this practice. Windows applications come with a bunch
:of "redistributable files" that applications routinely copy into
:C:\WINDOWS. (Note: the problem isn't that Microsoft lets ISVs
:redistribute files, the problem is that the files are copied
:into C:\WINDOWS.)
:
:This problem doesn't exist in the Unix world. I am yet to come
:across a Unix application that tries to upgrade the operating
:system during its installation. That's just not done!
You've never installed an app that required updated libs, and then had
the updated libs cause something to break? WOW!
In windows, this is about the same thing.
:So the answer to your question is that the problem doesn't
:exist on Unix, so there is no need for a solution on Unix. The
:problem is severe on Windows, so there is a need for a solution
:on Windows.
Me thinks it does, but you don't recognize it because you have to come
at it from a different direction.
:>>
:>>In other words, Windows 2000 allows any random application
:>>off the street to trash the OS without your knowledge.
:>>
:>
:>Only if the user installing the app has sufficient privilege,
:>and the fact that it installs a system-level component isn't
:>documented.
:
:It is not a common practice for Windows applications to warn
:you that it installs a system-level component. In fact this
:information is usually missing in the documentation too.
It has been common practice for windows to warn when overwriting an
existing file for some time now. You then have to chance to allow or not
allow that operation to continue.
:As for privileges, Windows 2000 has a all-or-nothing policy.
:This is insufficent. I want to allow users to install
:applications but not modify the operating system. Is this
:possible? Is it possible to give a user the privilege to install
:an application without also giving him/her the privilege to
:install device drivers or modify other critical system files?
No, it can be segregated.
:No, it isn't. And that's why we should wait for Windows 3000.
:
:>
:>But what do you expect? If I'm root on a Unix box and I run the
:>installer of some "random application off the street", how do I
:>know it won't trash the OS? Answer: I don't. Unix is absolutely
:>no better about this than Win2K.
:
:Again, your comparison with Unix is invalid because the problem
:doesn't exist on Unix. On Windows on the other hand, the problem
:is extremely widespread and there is an urgent need for a
:solution, especially if Microsoft wants Windows 2000 to be
:accepted for mission critical use.
heh....
:>>
:>>This means Windows 2000 can only be as stable and reliable as
:>>the last application you installed.
:>>
:>
:>Of course, and the same holds true for Unix. That's why software
:>installation on both operating systems requires the privileges
:>of someone who knows what they're doing.
:
:Again, as explained above, this is an invalid comparison.
Again, as explained above, you're talking out of your league.
:You can install most Unix applications without having the
:privilege to copy files to /bin. The same is not true for
:Windows applications.
That's nice, but there is no /bin in windows. Yes, I'm being
intentionally obtuse to prove a point.
:So why don't we discuss the problem in the Windows environment
:and what Microsoft could have done (but didn't) to fix it in
:Windows 2000, without refering to other operating systems?
:
:Even if other operating systems did have the same problem does
:that mean we should ignore the problem in Windows and not
:discuss it and make suggestions to Microsoft so that they can
:fix it by the time they release Windows 3000?
I don't expect to be around for Win3k. And for me, it isn't a problem
now. I don't want users installing apps. If you do, then you go ahead. I
want an OS that doesn't allow users to install apps. I remember my first
shell account. I installed an IRC bot despite this being against the
policies of the company providing the shell and thinking "man... so much
for security."
:>>>
:>>>Are you seriously suggesting that Win2K should never allow the
:>>>installation of device drivers?
:>>
:>>Of course not! All I am saying is that Win2K should not allow
:>>applications to install device drivers in a clandestine manner.
:>>
:>
:>So what do you suggest, a warning? That wouldn't accomplish
:>anything, because installing a bad device driver is only one
:>way to trash an OS. You can also trash system files. That's why
:>there are permissions. As long as you have the ability to
:>modify system files (or install drivers), the system must
:>assume that you know what you're doing with respect to those
:>files (or drivers). If you believe the system should warn even
:>the superuser when a driver is installed, then you must also
:>believe the system should issue warnings every time the
:>superuser installs or modifies a system file. And that's a
:>ludicrous suggestion.
:
:I am saying only a "OS Updater" utility should be able to
:modify system files and install drivers. Windows 2000 should
:not let just any random application installer off the street
:to trash the OS without your knowledge or permission.
That's how it works now. Its run by the administrator and the server
operator group. If that bunch doesn't know what they're doing, then its
all over. What you actually want is for only MS to be able to write the
windows directory. I don't want that.
:>>
:>>Win2K should put the end-user in control, not some random
:>>application installer.
:>>
:>
:>The end user *IS* in control. The installer runs on the user's
:>behalf. That's why the ability to install software isn't given
:>to just anyone, or, at least, it doesn't have to be.
:
:No, the end-user is *NOT* in control. The end-user only wants
:to install the app, not trash the OS. It should be possible to
:give someone the ability to install software without also giving
:him/her the ability to trash the OS. Why is this so hard to
:understand?
Then the end user should understand what they're doing before they do
it. Being clueless isn't an excuse. Wanting to be protected and blame
the vendor for failing to understand what you're doing is a cop out. Why
is that so hard to understand? Besides, you assume that this "OS
Updater" will never trash a system just as placing new libs on a system
will never trash it and just like moving to a new kernel will never
trash the system. At least there are procedures for recovering an NT
system in the event that you really screw something up like installing a
bad driver. What, praytell, do you do when the kernel immediately panics
upon initialization? How do you recover from that? About the same way
you do on an NT install, I would imagine...
:>>>
:>>>By the way, no version of Unix can stop a user with sufficient
:>>>privilege from trashing the OS completely. Does that mean Unix
:>>>is fundamentally flawed?
:>>
:>>Unix culture is completely different. In Windows applications
:>>routinely copy their files into C:\WINDOWS. Unix applications
:>>don't do that.
:>>
:>
:>So it's not a technical problem at all? Thank you.
:
:It is a cultural problem which requires a technical solution.
Now its a cultural thing? Was it caused by the liberals or the
conservatives? Please explain.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 01:45:38 GMT
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: proculous wrote:
:> When there are so many great windows and mcintosh programs out their
:> what is the point of wasting time on a build it as you go along system?
: Gee, all those applications, and Microsoft didn't even include TeX,
: emacs and gcc. Yes, it's so hard to check the "Install Everything"
: box during Red Hat setup.
Egads, I wouldn't advise *that*. Red Hat installs best for me
using the text installer (super fast) and the "custom" installation
choice. Linux isn't likely to need reinstalling, so take the time
to know exactly what you're putting on your hard drive.
Just a few minutes saying "I don't need this, or this, or this..."
can save a lot of space and keeps your system more secure -
since you'll know which daemons and services you've got ahead of
time and you can maintain them accordingly.
And if you miss anything you wish you had, it's easy to pop the
disc in again and add a few packages.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Date: 2 Mar 2000 02:10:26 GMT
On 02 Mar 2000 01:17:05 GMT, Damien wrote:
>On 1 Mar 2000 23:07:40 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| > That MS uses
>| >incompatibilities in document formats to create vendor lock and
>| >promote continous and costly upgrading?
>|
>| That sounds like a "conspiracy theory". It might have some truth in it but
>| not as much as you think.
>
>Don't conspiracies by definition involve more then one
>person/orginzation?
>
>| Most other vendors of office suites also use
>| their own documentt format which is no more "standard" than the one that MS
>| use. The lack of standards is the one thing that makes writing *any*
>| filter a PITA. Most so called filters do little more than convert the
>| document to rtf then import it. Any logical markup and embedding/linking
>| is typically lost.
>
>True. I here by propose we all switch to exclusivly Tex, ASCII, and
>SGML file formats. All in favor, say aye.
I agree with you modulo two provisos:
(1) XML is also considered acceptable
(2) SGML is not reall a "file format", it is a standard for designing formats
which basically says that you use <tag> </tag> like you do in html.
This means that SGML does not instantaneously solve all compatibility
problems. I have already given an example here:
<nasty-visual-basic-code>blah blah blah</>
As you can see, this would still cause some problems.
However, at least the format will be parseable if its sgml or
xml based.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 02:13:20 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:16:01 GMT, Michael Totschnig wrote:
>Hello,
>today's free software word processors are "behind" commercial ones only in
>the respect of WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get) interfaces. In
>respect of document preparation as an organized task no commercial word
>processor can, at least for an affordable price, rival with LaTeX. The
I know about Latex , in fact I probably know more about it than you.
However, it is an entirely different type of package to Word. Latex is
a professional publishing/typesetting application. Word/Offie are
business document authoring applications.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 02:14:31 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:09:31 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 1 Mar 2000 19:44:59 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:47:41 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> You, nor any of your other Bloatware worshipers have yet
>>> to demonstrate why most, if not a vast majority, of end
>>> users WOULDNT be suitably served by RTF.
>>
>>The ones that can live with RTF can also live with Wordpad. The fact that
>
> Not likely. A document processor is more than just the sum
> of the visual elements it can generate. There is also the
> interface to consider.
I am not clear what you are talking about. The user interface to wordpad
is simpler than word, so for users who just need the functionality of
wordpad, it really is a better choice.
--
DOnovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 02:15:29 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:07:54 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 1 Mar 2000 19:49:25 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Take your bad rhetoric and go to a religion group.
With people like you here, it's easy to mistake COLA for one.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 02:19:35 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:07:09 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> People quite often compute using only mid-80's range of functionality.
However, a lot of uswers don't compute using onlyt mid 80s functionality.
I see no reason why these users should be forced to stick with the
technological limitations of existing openSource applications.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 02:24:06 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:07:09 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 1 Mar 2000 19:51:08 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:47:41 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> How exactly has the bloatware brigade progressed since then
>>> and why would most people care? Most people put up with the
>>
>>Laughable in the extreme. I won't even dignify that with an answer.
>
> If you can't answer it then we have no reason to believe
> that you have any awareness of the answer and you're just
> recycling someone else's rhetoric.
>
> Nothing is obvious.
It's a f*cking stupid question, but I can answer it. Here are
some things that we've yet to see in the opensource world:
* WYSIWYG printing.
* A Word Processor that you can embed a spreadsheet into
* Any word processor
* A decent web browser ( Mozilla doesn't count until it's out of alpha )
* A decent 3D game. Just one.
* Professional quality music applications.
You get the picture. If we were stuck only with OpenSource software , we'd
still be living in caves. OpenSource software is wonderful and all that,
but to suggest that we should desroy the copyright system is simply absurd.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 2 Mar 2000 02:23:29 GMT
In article <89j3hp$5kk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Niall Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hm, I would say that something can be so capitalist that is becomes almost
>Comunist.
I disagree; I think such a statement results from a very under-
standable confusion about the meaning of the word "communism".
It originally meant a system in which the people, by truly
democratic processes, own (control and benefit from) the means
of production (the physical equipment, land, knowledge, organ-
izations, etc., by which goods and services are created).
That's the concept to which we should assign the label
"communism".
On the other hand, in capitalism, the means of production are
owned by a small subset (class) of the population, the capital-
ists, who seize for their own benefit a large portion of the
value of the goods and services that are produced by the rest
of the population, the workers. This seizure of wealth is
called exploitation; it's the reason why, in the US for
example, the wealthiest 10% of the population own 90% of
everything, and the poorest 90% own 10%. Thus the average
member of the wealthy 10% owns 81 times as much as the average
member of the non-wealthy 90%.
>Ie. MS taking over the computer world where everything is a monopoly, ie no
>competition
Approximately true, except for Unix, and now GNU/Linux/*BSD.
>which is sort a part of comunism
Not necessarily. First of all, the Chinese and (no longer
existing) Russian economic systems are not communist, because
the people do not control, through democratic structures, the
means of production. Those means are controlled by a small
subset of the population, the Communist Party, which also
seizes a disproportionate amount of the value of the goods
and services produced by the rest of the population, the
workers, thus exploiting them.
Thus, the Russian and Chinese economic systems are much more
closely related to capitalism, and are properly called "state
capitalism". Unfortunately, these systems are what most
people mean when they talk about "communism", because the
real, democratic, communism is almost never spoken about in
the capitalist media. The latter is something that the weal-
thy owners of those media don't want the population to know,
think, or talk about, because if people put it into effect,
the wealthy, parasitic existence of the capitalists would end.
Second, there could very well be types of competition within
a communist/socialist system, especially if the means of
production are mostly owned and controlled democratically by
the local communities around them, and by their workers,
rather than by the central (democratic) government. However,
if competition demonstrated that, say, a manufacturing pro-
cess used in an automobile plant in Chicago was better than
one used in Detroit, then the Chicago plant would freely
and gladly share the information about that process, so that
everyone would benefit, just as with GPL-ed software.
>but GNU allows open source
>which is actually similar to capitalism because everyone gets a chance and
>can suceed unlike MS's system where only MS can suceed.
Everyone would also get a chance to innovate under the loose-
ly coupled forms of communism/socialism, and everyone would
be able to benefit from employing and improving the software.
However, under capitalism, only the owners of a product can
freely benefit from it. The creators of GPL-ed Open Source
software own it only in the sense that they have the right
and responsibility to enforce the GPL, which guarantees that
*everyone* can freely improve, use, and benefit from it.
So GNU/Open Source/GPL is similar to true communism, not to
capitalism nor to the Russian/Chinese state capitalist system.
>Since Comunism has everything owned by the people and no or limited
>comptetition lets consider the differences.
No. Effective communism would have everything owned by the
people, but it would have to have friendly competition to
enable people to try out new ideas independent of a central
government.
>Right, Microsoft own big operating system that is pretty crap, most people
>in the world use this operating system because they think they have no other
>choice.
True (but we're trying to change that!).
>Now, Comunism Russian style I think.
>Govement owns everything for the people of Russia/CCCP, people think that
>this is their only choice.
Yes, except that Communism Russian style is simply *not*
communism in any respect except the name. The use of that
name by the controlling class of that system is simply
a lie designed to induce people to obey.
>So following that idea Linux is a bit of an escape hatch
>
>A bit of confusion supplied by Niall
If we all use a consistent set of words to denote the concepts
involved, then there won't be confusion. So, we might best
use the terms "true communism" and "Russian/Chinese state
capitalism" to label the two very different concepts.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 02:25:42 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:33:31 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>We are discussing the implications of abolishing copyrights. If we didn't
>>have copyrights, users wouldn't be able to choose to purchase software
>>that uses the copyright licensing model of payment/distribution.
>
>Of course they could, they'd just have to do it without the legal threat
>hanging over their heads. :)
You know what I meant. In the absence of the copyright system, the copyright
model of development would collapse in no time. The result would be that
users would have to make do with whatever the other models of software
development were capablae of producig.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 02:52:34 -0000
Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>
>"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:89gomf$6rp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <89fo31$fe8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >>How's the Trillian Linux64 team doing?
>> >>http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2431772,00.html
>> >
>> >>Hey! A public beta... but wait... when you start reading the
>> >>fine print, SMP has got a long way to go (gasp! I thought linux
>> >>was so well designed, it should've been a snap to get SMP working
>> >>in 64-bit, guess that hacked puke of SMP support in the Linux
>> >>kernel was a more hacked piece of puke than they thought).
>>
>> It is Chad Myers' job to spew lies and hate against Linux, and
>> propaganda in favor of Microsoft, into comp.os.linux.advocacy
>> at every possible opportunity.
>
>Thanks for the warning, Pastor Mark.
>
>> >Or you could fire up Babel and read this one:
>> >http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-28.02.00-001/
>
>Hello Mark. Do you even read my posts, or do you just immediately
>start writing your hate monger speeches?
>
>The articles I posted showed that there was SMP support running
>(kind of) with Linux on 64, but it's >2 processor support was
>suffering.
>
>Show me a linux box running 16 Itanium processors and taking
>good advantage of each processor, then you can call me a liar.
Hey Chad - show the group any NT box running ANY 16 CPUs
you can think of AND taking good advantage of each CPU...
Something that several UNIXes have been doing for years.
Still, whilst you MS zealots continue to pay I guess NT might
catch up (although its taking its time).
And no Chad - pointing out that W2000 can support 16 CPUs
is not that same as taking good advantage of them....
>
>Until then, you're just spewing lies of your own.
>
>-Chad
>
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: w64k - the bugs are being found
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:50:13 -0800
ObTopic: I want to see Linux become a viable alternative to MS.
I really do. But this kinda shit is nit-picking. It's
counterproductive. There are workarounds for these. There will
be a service pack. And another. And all 63,000 "issues" will be
found (and posted here, no doubt - yucch!) and resolved. I'm not
necessarily fond of Microsoft, but this kinda crap is getting
old, tiresome, boring, and does not a goddamned thing to further
Linux. Give it a rest, fer $DEITY's sake.
Geez, I'm half tempted to go out and buy (yes, for $$$$) W2K, not
that I'd ever use it, but I'm that fed up with all this juvenile
whining. Either advocate Linux here, or fuck off.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 02:57:19 -0000
Drestin Black wrote in message ...
>
>"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> > Which is why I focus on NT and not W9x, hence the choice of this
>particular
>> > newsgroup :)
>>
>> Bah.. I keep forgetting 90% of the posts in cola are in comna too... was
>> thinking you were in cola.
>
>No problemo.
>
>>
>> > I know exactly what in Decent you are talking about :) While you'll
hear
>NT
>> > advocates talk about drivers drivers and drivers (with an occasional
>"stupid
>> > admin" thrown in for good measure) - if you talk to a W9x advocate
>you'll
>> > hear drivers about 4 more times with "remove the old ones first" thrown
>in
>> > for good measure
>>
>> I actually look forward to the day that MS has an OS out that's as stable
>as NT
>> (which IME still isn't as stable as *nixes are) but has all the game
>> playability, TV tuner support and DVD hardware decoder support that 9x
>does...
>
>I have good news. Windows 2000 does just that. It's the single most stable
>version of windows and has the most features and hardware support of all
>versions.
>
>>
>> But if I had all those under Linux, I'd go there in a heartbeat fulltime.
>I run
>> Solaris and Linux boxes 24/7 and only use windows for games, and DVDs...
I
>use
>> it for my TV tuner too (it runs under Linux, but I switch between it and
>DVDs
>> often and don't want to reboot everytime I do).
>
>Personally, and not being sarcastic, if I could find one reason to run
Linux
>I would run it again - but I sat down one day and tried to find one single
>thing I needed linux for. One thing that linux did that W2K could not...
>When that failed I started to think of anything that linux did easier?
(that
>took less time) Finally I deleted the partion, expanded my W2K into it and
>kept going (without rebooting of course)
Do you expect anybody to beleive this crap ?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:04:02 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 02:52:34 -0000, "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Something that several UNIXes have been doing for years.
>Still, whilst you MS zealots continue to pay I guess NT might
>catch up (although its taking its time).
Linux is NOT UNIX...
Linux always seems to be playing catch up in some form or another.
Linux is truely a luser.........
Buy MSFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Free yourself from that stinky Linux.
pickle
>
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
