Linux-Advocacy Digest #474, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 14:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Paul Voller")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (JEDIDIAH)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (John Sanders)
Re: Giving up on NT (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users (John Culleton)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: 2 Mar 2000 18:14:22 GMT
Can't quite tell which parts are satire and which are serious.
I've heard reasonably good things about W2K's reliability as well, and
hope those things prove to be correct, but I still won't purchase or
recommend Microsoft software until Microsoft ceases and desists from
unethical and/or criminal behavior (including but not limited to
subverting formerly open standards such as Kerberos).
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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 18:05:14 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:04:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
If I ran 16 CPU's on my home machine I might be worried.
HOWEVER, when it comes to desktop Unix, the commercial vendors
are the one's playing catchup.
>
>Linux is truely a luser.........
>
>Buy MSFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Free yourself from that stinky Linux.
>
>pickle
Since Sun or NeXT wasn't willing to rescue us from MS, we
had do to it ourselves.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Paul Voller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:20:09 -0000
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various NG's,
> and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
> reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
> servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash.
3 whole months without a crash!? Whatever next, unrestrictive sales
practices? Less than "20,000-or-so 'serious' bugs"? Gosh, we are honoured
that almost 5 years after they released NT4, the bane of my life, they have
actually come up with a product that is good. Probably a fluke :-)
--
===
Paul Voller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mullitt.freeserve.co.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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 18:08:54 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:48:13 +0100, Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> I think Windows advocates overexaggerate the kernel recompiling
>
>IMO, it has the same amount of relevancy as the frequent crashes of Windows.
I know people who crash NT4 on a daily basis & NT5 on a weekly basis.
I personally have managed to make NT4 tank more often than I
install a new Linux kernel.
I never knew anyone that rebuilt their kernel on a daily basis.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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 18:07:38 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:17:12 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:89kkki$tb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> 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....
>
>Ouch! Looks like you missed the windows 2000 launch. You should head to MS
>and view the video of the event. You'll see a live demo where they fire up a
>16 processor unisys box and run an application on it with 8 processors. Then
That's interesting.
The version of NT5 that was realeased then hasn't been
advertising that capability. Neither has the version
that will eventually be called 'Datacenter'.
Not to mention those TPC/C benchmarks that are still being
done on 4-cpu boxes.
[deletia]
A dog and pony show, or some docttored video doesn't
really prove anything.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 2 Mar 2000 18:23:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Ever get 2 DirectX games running on NT at once?
> sure, what's the big deal? UT and TA - one minimized while the other is
> running... yawn...
No. Both running AT THE SAME TIME. Not one "minimized". Both sharing the
same console at the same time, accessing the same hardware, both running,
both being played.
Because thats the equivalent of two X servers accessing the same hardware
at the same time.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 12:23:15 -0600
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?
> i've used linux and as far as i am concerned it is a complete waste of
> time to configure and set up all in the hopes that there might be some
> application that you can really use. Hardware support is in many cases
> at a very basic level. I can walk into just about any store and buy an
> application that will do anything. mention linux and people start to
> look at you funny.
>
Man, this type of thread is really tiresome. If Linux is a waste of
time for you, don't use it! Stay with windows.
How about this: If you don't already have some experience on UNIX, or
you don't care to learn anything about UNIX, or you don't have an
interest in exploring other OS's, then just don't! Contrary to what
many here say, Linux is _not_ for everyone. It's not a requirement for
anyone to use _any_ particular OS. The success of Linux is not
dependent upon every desktop in the world to be running Linux. How many
users (other than the developers) were there before the 1st version of
Linux was available? NONE.
> you linux supporters have no idea how much you are missing in the way
> of great applications. Too busy compiling your cernels i suppose.
I would guess that you would be hard pressed to find someone who runs
Linux that has zero familiarity with a Windows OS. Yes, there have been
times that I was busy compiling my Kernel. I've have a box with a
custom SCSI boot proceedure and another Kernel that runs on an embedded
Motorola system. Can you buy that app?
[deletia]
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:22:27 +0100
Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To sum up, with each and any application i've used on the Mac, I've been
> beating with multitasking issues. While, on Windows9x, i experience none of
> these multitasking issues [I don't use QT].
>
> So IME, I repeat IME, multitasking on the Mac is far from great with
> different sets of applications/tasks.
>
> If it's not the fault of the OS, then many of the Mac apps are not so
> brilliantly coded. Happy now ?
I didn't say that the Mac's multitasking doesn't suck, I said Win 9x's
does. Happy now?
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:14:11 GMT
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:11:14 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:39:34 -0500, Drestin Black
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Both Chad's and Drestin's rebuttal argument to Joseph's post is
>> >> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
>> >>
>> >> That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
>> >
>> >weak... very weak...
>>
>> Microsoft can't make it work with their own OS. They have
>> to depend on the product of their primary competitor. They
>> can't do that which they expect all their customers to do.
>
>your argument hinges on "can't make it work" - this is the part that is
No it doesn't.
It can also be a matter of 'wont bother'.
I which case that begs the question: why should anyone else bother?
>entirely unfounded and, upon examination, unlikely in the extreme. your
>argument fails.
>
>MS does not run hotmail.com on NT/IIS for some reason. reason x. None of us
>know reason x - but to assume it's because NT/IIS cannot handle the task is
>the safest WRONG answer you can choose. But it's the only one that fits an
>anti-ms program, i guess...
They are unable or unwilling.
Either position is hypocritical.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:20:44 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:17:56 GMT, Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Ahh, but the functionality of wordpad is different from the functionality of
>word in ways other than the differences between .doc and .rtf.
>
This is why I find a copy of emacs or microemacs useful on WinDOS.
Wordpad is TOO simple, MSWord (and friends) aren't simple enough.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:26:23 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:47:14 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:18:42 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:10:11 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> See, everyone keeps saying this and I actually have never once
>> >> >> seen this happen.
>> >> >
>> >> >Fire up X with a reasonably complex WM and some svgalib program like
>> >squake.
>> >> >Flick between the X and squake VTs until the machine locks.
>> >>
>> >> This is a contrived example that merely demonstrates that
>> >> trying to bit bang the same hardware with two root mode
>> >> apps concurrently is a stupid idea.
>> >
>> >The issue being whether or not X could crash the system IIRC. It can.
>>
>> Except it's not X that is crashing the system.
>>
>> What's crashing the system is 'two X's' trying to bit bang the
>> same hardware at once. That's a considerable difference.
>
>So Linux can't handle switching between video modes very well ?
Linux can't handle well the NT equivalent of running
two DirectX subsystems at once.
>
>> >Despite your accusation of "contrived", it was something I stumbled upon
>> >quite innocently switching between squake and X.
>>
>> The current version of quake is both fully supported and runs
>> under X. Your example is still artificial and contrived.
>
>Which would be relevant if I considered the current version of quake to be
>as good as squake/quakeworld, but I don't.
Considering that all of that code is open, this notion
of being married to one particular method of rendering
seems really quite absurd.
>
>> Mebbe if CivCTP or Heroes of Might and Magic used svgalib you
>> might have a point.
>
>
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 12:34:51 -0600
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:49:35 -0600, "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Chad, you have presented an excellent argument for any
> >organization to not migrate to any form of NT, ever.
> >
>
> For once I agree with the Microsoft bashers, to an extent.
>
> Migrating Hotmail to NT is not something Microsoft really has a choice
> about. It doesn't matter how difficult the move is or how little sense
> it makes. It simply *MUST* be done, for no other reason than to save
> corporate face. In this particular case it's even more urgent, because
> Microsoft is pushing NT for precisely Hotmail-style deployments.
At this point in the argument, I believe it to be wise for both Chad
and Drestin to quietly step out of this thread. These two fellas are
so awash in embarrassment trying to explain why MS does not migrate
Hotmail to W2K that it has become grossly unfair for me and the others
to voyeuristically participate in their pain and suffering.
Get 'em next time boyz! This one goes to the reigning server champ
of all time, UNIX!
--
The always friendly, always lovable, and highly presentable,
Mr Rupert
.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:28:54 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:10:04 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:55:24 -0500, Drestin Black
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:10:11 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:89ic0f$1dn1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
>> >> >> >> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
>> >> >> >> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
>> >> >> >> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
>> >> >> >> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
>> >> >> >> >> Protection" does for me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
>> >> >> >> > as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
>> >> >> >> > there's no system files to protect.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
>> >> >> >> system?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Similar to how X can hang Linux requiring a hard reboot?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> See, everyone keeps saying this and I actually have never once
>> >> >> seen this happen.
>> >> >
>> >> >Fire up X with a reasonably complex WM and some svgalib program like
>> >squake.
>> >> >Flick between the X and squake VTs until the machine locks.
>> >>
>> >> This is a contrived example that merely demonstrates that
>> >> trying to bit bang the same hardware with two root mode
>> >> apps concurrently is a stupid idea.
>> >
>> >it may be contrived but it does demonstrate linux hanging - just a quicky
>> >way to demonstrate that this is in fact possible. There are others...
>>
>> Demonstrate on.
>>
>> Hopefully they will not be an example of two applications
>> trying to do low level manipluation on the same hardware
>> at the same time.
>
>But why is it that suddenly linux is afforded the luxory of saying: "oh, it
>never crashes and you can't include instances of this or that" or "that type
Anyone can get the DDK write their own driver level 'lets kill
the OS' hack. Those aren't very intresting.
>of crash doesn't count." When we explain that pcA v8 crashing is not a
>Windows "bug" it's poo-pooed - but, an example is given where linux hangs
>solid and suddenly: that doesn't count.
PC anywhere shouldn't be doing driver level access.
If it's trying to bit bang the hardware in the same stupid
fashion as running svgalib apps concurrently with X then
it is STUPID for the same reason.
>
>I will not play within double standards.
>
>>
>> Ever get 2 DirectX games running on NT at once?
>
>sure, what's the big deal? UT and TA - one minimized while the other is
>running... yawn...
Sounds like only one of those is really doing anything at
any one time...
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 18:43:48 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 17:57:46 GMT, Michael Totschnig wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
>I think in this discussion it is not important who knows more than the
>other,
Sorry, I didn't mean to wave my penis around. I just get surges of indignation
when people "educate" me about LaTeX, because I have been using it for years
for most of my work.
> but if one's arguments make sense. ;) LaTeX is a professional
>publishing/typesetting application, but integrated in a good environment,
>it can serve as a document authoring application,
That would depend on what types of documents you want to produce. I don't
agree that it's always a good document authoring application. There are
several cases where other types of applications may do a better job:
* Cover pages: Quark express does a better job.
* Books that require complex layout are not good candidates for TeX.
It doesn't handle things like embedded frames very well.
* Documents that need to be output in several different formats should
really use a good sgml dtd ( like docbook )
* Business documents are a good candidate for the traditional office suite.
* Web documents need to be written in html or an sgml/xml dtd and a
filter
> IMHO for most tasks
>better than Word, because it consistently supports logical document
>markup.
This is not always an advantage. When it comes to detailed layout for
example, it falls flat.
> If you consider academic document authoring,
Yeah, sure. I use it for this. ZBut I wasn't considering academic document
authoring.
>highly efficient packages which permit to combine the typesetting
>performance of LaTeX with the even more performing document authoring
>capacities of SGML-based systems.
The SGML based systems I've seen are all attrocious at math though. I
still haven't seen anything besides TeX that can handle math properly.
>I do not know business document authoring, maybe you are right in this
>point. But your initial argument was to compare today's open source word
>processors with commercial ones:
No, it wasn't. My initial argument was that we'd be up sh*t creek without
copyrighted software. My main point is that we should definitely not
abolish the copyright system. We should allow the OpenSource and copyright
development models to coexist and compete. Copyrights do not forcefully
infringe on anyone's freedom -- they only affect those who want to use or
distribute the software.
> commercial ones have been developped for
>business settings for decades, open source word processing has concentrated
>on academic document preparation, and just starts to go in this direction,
>so wait for some years, and we will see.
Well there you have it. Sure, we can wait and see. In the meantime, there
are those who need to use these applications now, and they don't have time
to wait. The nice thing about the copyright model of development and payment
is that it has served needs which OpenSource has not even come close to
addressing. My point is not that OpenSource developers will never write an
office suite. My point is that no one should be forced to wait until the
OpenSource model can cough up package (X) when another development model
can do it today.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[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 10:28:53 -0800
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:04:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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.
>
> If I ran 16 CPU's on my home machine I might be worried.
>
> HOWEVER, when it comes to desktop Unix, the commercial vendors
> are the one's playing catchup.
>
Yup, cause Linux is so much better at 3D, Graphics, Multimeda and productivity apps
then say Irix
or Solaris. Oh wait.....
>
> >
> >Linux is truely a luser.........
> >
> >Buy MSFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >Free yourself from that stinky Linux.
> >
> >pickle
>
> Since Sun or NeXT wasn't willing to rescue us from MS, we
> had do to it ourselves.
>
> --
> |||
> Resistance is not futile. / | \
>
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 10:46:18 -0800
In article <89k1ek$erv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig Mig
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is nonsens.....
>As long as you have the necessary data you can connect to
anything with
>Linux/FreeBSD/Whatever.
>Find the necessary info on the CD if techsupport does not want
to help you
>- its certainly there
>
>Greetings
Its not that simple. First you have to get online with the vendor
from their software. Then you have to select a local phone number
for access. Then you have to establish a user name and password.
None of this info is on the cdrom as such. What you have is a few
gifs and icons, MS Internet Explorer, and a setup.exe one can't
execute without Win 9x.
>
>John Culleton wrote:
>> I received another free internet offer today, this time
>> from Juno. As usual Windows 95 or later is required. It's not
>> like I haven't paid my dues to Bill Gates. I bought Windows
3.1
>> years ago. It won't work and of course Linux won't work. Thus
far
>> I have free cdroms from Juno, Freei.net, and bluelight.com
(KMART).
>> Freei.net has Apple software, the other two are Win9x or Win2k
only.
>>
>> The first free provider to include Linux as a supported or at
least allowed
>> user operating system has a monopoly on the Linux market for
this kind of
>> service. Whay hasn't any of the bright boys and girls who run
these services
>> woken up to that fact?
>>
>> John Culleton
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>
* 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:19:32 GMT
On 2 Mar 2000 02:15:29 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
I'm not the idiot expecting things to be taken as articles of faith.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
