Linux-Advocacy Digest #654, Volume #25 Thu, 16 Mar 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Giving up on NT (Craig Kelley)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! ("mr_organic")
Re: Giving up on NT ("mr_organic")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Peter Söderman)
Re: Bsd and Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Open Software Reliability (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (abraxas)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (abraxas)
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:09:10 -0500
Ready or not, Linux viruses are coming, and no one is inoculated.
http://www.securityfocus.com/commentary/2
How to get infected using Linux...
by ralmeida
calvin:~$ wget http://somesite/happy99.tar.gz
calvin:~$ tar zxf happy9.tar.gz
calvin:~$ cd happy99
calvin:~$ ./configure
calvin:~$ make
calvin:~$ su
calvin:~$ make install
calvin:~$ exit
calvin:~$ happy99
You must be root to run this program
calvin:~$ su
calvin:~$ happy99
(ops!)
Re:How to get infected using Linux...
by QuantumG ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
(User Info) http://www.virusexchange.org/vlad/
hehe.. more like:
calvin:~$ wget http://somesite/pointlessgadget.tgz
calvin:~$ tar -xzvf pointlessgadget.tgz
calvin:~$ cd pointlessgadget
calvin:~$ ./configure
calvin:~$ make
calvin:~$ ./pointlessgadget
"that was boring.. I'm gunna go shoot stuff"
calvin:~$ su
calvin:~$ /usr/leet/leetgame
pointlessgadget was infected with a virus.. when you ran the virus it
infected every one of your running processes, including your shell. You su'd
to root and it peaked at your psuedoterminal to snarf the root password. It
then su'd to root and infected every running process on the machine. You
then ran leetgame and the virus infected it. Next you'll probably run 'ls'
and then it's all over.
Fiction? You can do it using ptrace.
You can read about it here(some linux viruses are at the bottom of this
link - feel free to experiment):
http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 Mar 2000 11:21:57 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Seriously, though, Emacs *isn't* that hard to pick up. And once you learn
> > it, you'll rapidly discover that it eclipses nearly every other editor out
> > there. I've found over the years that Emacs suits for almost everything I
> > do -- coding, word-processing, editing, sorting, searching, even basic
> > web-surfing and news reading.
>
> A matter of hours?
>
> I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to have to LEARN my text editor?
>
> I can fire up TextPad for Windows, which is one of the best text editors
> around (IMHO, syntax highlighting, and much, much more) and I am up and
> running in a matter of SECONDS and doing all that Emacs does and more.
>
> There's probably a few, if not more, things that Emacs does that TextPad
> doesn't, but I would probably never be able to find them, let alone
> master them in Emacs anyhow. The time it would take me to find and practice
> them in Emacs, I could just do it manually in TextPad.
>
> I'm not sure, though, it's possible TextPad has much more than Emacs, which
> is an equally likely case.
Does TextPad allow for compiling and debugging your code in-place?
Does it have context-sensitve syntax for any language (perl, C, Java,
HTML, pyhton, etc.)?
> However, I think it's ludicrous for you guys to consider it acceptable that
> I have to learn and train to use a text editor for some of the most basic
> things when, in a GUI, I can be using them in seconds with little training.
Well, there's always Gnotepad if you don't want to invest any time...
> This specific case, a GUI is much better than a CLI. I don't want to start
> that debate, but you have to admit, that, in this one specific case, GUIs
> are just simply more intuitive and have a lot less learning curve.
Not really. When you're editing files (ie, programming) -- it's much
more efficient to never leave the basic keyboard; even for the mouse
or Alt-F5.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:36:10 -0600
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ar3op$82u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Of course Windows 2000 was conspicuously absent...
>
>
> Because Windows2000 is not targeted at the consumer. Wal-Mart is targeted
> at the most uninformed and ready-to-spend-lots-of-money-without-knowing-
> anything consumer (suprisingly, they're selling Linux!).
>
> Go to CompUSA, CircuitCity or BestBuy (where the more informed consumer
> shops)
C>N|K! Are you fscking *serious*? Every one of the places you mentioned
is a complete *disaster* for the "informed customer". *You* may shop there
because that's probably where all your teenaged friends are employed, but
for anyone serioius about their gear or software, they are sloughs of
despond
from which there is little escape.
> and you'll see Win2K there with a big display, and the RH box
> is sitting next to Caldera and FreeBSD way back on the third aisle with
> all the other "X for Dummies" or "Home Recipe Maker!" type software.
>
> -Chad
>
One often finds pearls of great price in the unlikeliest of places....
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:32:50 -0600
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ar0iu$6kr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Seriously, though, Emacs *isn't* that hard to pick up. And once you
learn
> > it, you'll rapidly discover that it eclipses nearly every other editor
out
> > there. I've found over the years that Emacs suits for almost everything
I
> > do -- coding, word-processing, editing, sorting, searching, even basic
> > web-surfing and news reading.
>
> A matter of hours?
>
> I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to have to LEARN my text editor?
>
!!!
You get a great big LART upside the head for that one, pal. That statement
is so dumb I'm surprised you went ahead and posted it. That's like saying,
"Is it really necessary to LEARN to drive a car? Is it really necessary
to LEARN to use a firearm? Is it really necessary to LEARN to use a power
tool?" You're like most people who use a powerful tool with no training:
you end up causing yourself or others no end of grief.
>
> I can fire up TextPad for Windows, which is one of the best text editors
> around (IMHO, syntax highlighting, and much, much more) and I am up and
> running in a matter of SECONDS and doing all that Emacs does and more.
>
I sincerely doubt that. I'm not going to school you in the huge breadth
and depth of Emacs features; get a copy (it runs on NT too!) and school
yourself.
>
> There's probably a few, if not more, things that Emacs does that TextPad
> doesn't, but I would probably never be able to find them, let alone
> master them in Emacs anyhow. The time it would take me to find and
practice
> them in Emacs, I could just do it manually in TextPad.
>
> I'm not sure, though, it's possible TextPad has much more than Emacs,
which
> is an equally likely case.
>
> However, I think it's ludicrous for you guys to consider it acceptable
that
> I have to learn and train to use a text editor for some of the most basic
> things when, in a GUI, I can be using them in seconds with little
training.
>
> This specific case, a GUI is much better than a CLI. I don't want to start
> that debate, but you have to admit, that, in this one specific case, GUIs
> are just simply more intuitive and have a lot less learning curve.
>
> -Chad
>
This is why Windows lusers will forever be the laughingstock of the hacker
community. "Why should I LEARN my toolchain?" they whine. "I've got
$LAME_MS_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL and $PATHETIC_EDITOR that does everything I need."
This is true; they can use these tools to produce badly-written, buggy
applications that the programmers themselves do not fully understand.
This also shows the intellectual laziness of many Windows coders, but
that's a topic for another thread.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:29:00 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:58:48 GMT, Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> All of this makes the TCO(MT) of Linux boxes significantly higher.
>>
>>> > man source_code
>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> If in doubt, you can always recompile (or get someone to do it)
>> if you have the source code, which should make most of the
>> problem a non-problem. Which is one more reason why I think
>> having the source is a _good_ thing.
>
>Having to spend several hours (let's say 10 hours) to recompile Oracle
>from source (which is not even available, but you seem to be assuming
>that it is or should be), then to test it to see if the new "drop-in"
>glibc isn't even more broken than expected does not seem likely to do
>wonders for the TCO[1] to me.
It wont take 10 man hours of labor to recompile Oracle, just
a few minutes. It's not like you hand compile the thing. OTOH,
you will gain more interesting information about the product
and be given a tool to minimize problems.
THAT will reduce TCO in the long run.
>
>Of course, this is assuming that the glibc2 Oracle does in fact not
>work with glibc2.1, which admittedly I've been loath to test at this
>point.
Considering that the next version of the 'top tier' Redhat
is going to be optimized for Oracle 8i, it's a fair bet
that Oracle works with glibc2.1.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Söderman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:32:46 GMT
Borland has already said that they are developing both C++ builder and
Delphi for Linux. At least Delphi for rLinux is supposed to be
released sometime Q3 this year.
Have a look at:
http://community.borland.com/article/0,1410,21301,00.html
BTW It was years since they scrapped OWL, both Delphi and C++ Builder
use the VCL library wich they are porting to Linux and I think they
will be supporting both Qt and Gtk.
/PeterS
On 15 Mar 2000 23:54:51 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>I just thought of something. Now that Linux is pretty popular, and
>maybe BSD will also, it will be interesting to see if Borland will
>want to develop products for these OS's. For example, will Borland
>come out with a version of Borland C++ for Linux? Will we see a
>version of OWL (Object Windows Library) for the X Window System? I
>guess they could call it OWLX. It would be interesting. Of course,
>then there's the problem that gcc and existing X toolkits such as Qt
>and Gtk are open standard and non-proprietary, and that Borland would
>be interested only in their own proprietary standards.
>
>But then, I think it may be worth having Borland products of
>developers want paid support. Plus, Borland compilers may or may not
>be faster code than gcc. A benefit may also be that Borland can
>contribute some stuff to gcc, but I don't think they'd be interested
>in that.
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Söderman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove mapson to e-mail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:03:01 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donn Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:43:37 GMT, Pjtg0707 wrote:
>
>> >Alot of developers work in BSD partly because it is BSD code and
>> >partly to get away from the Gnu licensing. Linux's network
>> >code is also derived from BSD, but not as mature.
>>
>> Getting away from Gnu licensing, huh ? What compiler do the BSDs ship with ?
>
> I just thought of something. Now that Linux is pretty popular, and
> maybe BSD will also, it will be interesting to see if Borland will
> want to develop products for these OS's. For example, will Borland
> come out with a version of Borland C++ for Linux? Will we see a
> version of OWL (Object Windows Library) for the X Window System? I
> guess they could call it OWLX. It would be interesting. Of course,
> then there's the problem that gcc and existing X toolkits such as Qt
> and Gtk are open standard and non-proprietary, and that Borland would
> be interested only in their own proprietary standards.
>
> But then, I think it may be worth having Borland products of
> developers want paid support. Plus, Borland compilers may or may not
> be faster code than gcc. A benefit may also be that Borland can
> contribute some stuff to gcc, but I don't think they'd be interested
> in that.
>
>
Borland support Linux alredy, and are working on CBuilder and Delphi for Linux, and
interbase and JBuilder alredy realsed. From the polls they did, it seems that Delphi
and CBuilder will build the apps using GTK+, so develop on Delphi/CBuilder, and
compile anywhere where there is GTK+, and (I guess) a Borland compiler. Also, they
will make theyre products source-code compatible with Windows Borland products. So I
guess we can see many Windows products come to Linux just because of this. Take a look
at Borland site.
--
Best regads,
David Tabachnikov (NetHunter)
Please sign the Linux driver petition at http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:33:32 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:57:56 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Of course Windows 2000 was conspicuously absent...
>
>
>Because Windows2000 is not targeted at the consumer. Wal-Mart is targeted
>at the most uninformed and ready-to-spend-lots-of-money-without-knowing-
>anything consumer (suprisingly, they're selling Linux!).
>
>Go to CompUSA, CircuitCity or BestBuy (where the more informed consumer
>shops) and you'll see Win2K there with a big display, and the RH box
>is sitting next to Caldera and FreeBSD way back on the third aisle with
>all the other "X for Dummies" or "Home Recipe Maker!" type software.
Actually, in CompUSA Linux is sitting in the business software
section quite close to NT5. In BestBuy, it sits at the front
of the software section such that you can see it as you walk in
the door (also next to the NT5 boxes).
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:36:31 GMT
On 16 Mar 2000 14:10:15 GMT, Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <1EUz4.2304$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > >
>>> > > BTW, XFree86 4.0 was released yesterday and does multi-monitor support
>>> > > or will
>>> > > spread a single desktop over several monitors.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > nice that xfree has caught up...
>>> >
>>>
>>> To be fair to Linux, it took *much more* time for Windows to get close
>>> to Macintosh in this respect than it took for Linux to catch up to
>>> Windows.
>>>
>>> Edward
>>
>>Does it count if XFree86 4.0 hasn't been integrated into the distributions
>>yet?
>
>It only counts for people who are capable of downloading
>a file from the Web.
That leaves out a lot of Windows users... <snicker>
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:35:59 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:47:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>On 15 Mar 2000 17:13:50 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
>wrote:
>
>
>> And even on the new machine, it doesn't recognise the Logitech
>> scrolling mouse I've got.
>>
>
>Win98 SE does fine with MY Logitech ScrollMouse Model M-BA47 (on the
>bottom).
>
>Win98 regular did fine with the diskettes that came with mouse. You
>DID try them didn't you?
What if the user doesn't have those disks anymore. This actually
turned up with one of the inlaws. Once they lost a driver disk
they were rather at a loss.
[deletia]
For this kind of user, a reference version that is no less than
6 months old makes much more sense. Linux and FreeBSD deliver
such a thing, Microsoft won't.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:38:46 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:35:52 GMT, Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:59:47 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Quantify this unreliability please?
>
>I will look into it. I have no proof currently, however.
>
>>> eBay has lost _b_illions in market capitalization due to bugs in Unix.
>>
>>Do you have details? I know that a number of sites have failed a number
>>of times. Many of these sites fail due to integration issues. Often
>>the problems result from 20%/month traffic growth. This has always
>>been one of the big issues for UNIX.
>
>Last summer eBay had a major outage for almost a whole day, and as
>a direct results, the market capitalization dropped by around $2 billion.
>The reason was due to a bug in Solaris. There were Sun engineers on site
>to fix the bug. This was one of the two or three most expensive industrial
>disasters in history - all to blame on Sun.
Not quite. This was a matter of poor site maintenance. Ebay
eventually fessed up to this fact.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 16 Mar 2000 18:44:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Seriously, though, Emacs *isn't* that hard to pick up. And once you learn
>> it, you'll rapidly discover that it eclipses nearly every other editor out
>> there. I've found over the years that Emacs suits for almost everything I
>> do -- coding, word-processing, editing, sorting, searching, even basic
>> web-surfing and news reading.
> A matter of hours?
> I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to have to LEARN my text editor?
> I can fire up TextPad for Windows, which is one of the best text editors
> around (IMHO, syntax highlighting, and much, much more) and I am up and
> running in a matter of SECONDS and doing all that Emacs does and more.
Can you search for a specific text string inside a 500 meg binary file with
TextPad?
> There's probably a few, if not more, things that Emacs does that TextPad
> doesn't, but I would probably never be able to find them, let alone
> master them in Emacs anyhow. The time it would take me to find and practice
> them in Emacs, I could just do it manually in TextPad.
There are lots of things that emacs can do that textpad cannot, but theyre
mostly things that are very handy inside a unix operating system.
> I'm not sure, though, it's possible TextPad has much more than Emacs, which
> is an equally likely case.
Actually it isnt. Emacs can do things that textpad cannot do at all; but
again, these are things that are very handy inside a unix operating system.
Your average windows user has no reason to edit extremely large files and
suchness.
> However, I think it's ludicrous for you guys to consider it acceptable that
> I have to learn and train to use a text editor for some of the most basic
> things when, in a GUI, I can be using them in seconds with little training.
You dont have to do anything that you dont want to do, but you do seem to be
quite proficient at whining about them anyway.
> This specific case, a GUI is much better than a CLI. I don't want to start
> that debate, but you have to admit, that, in this one specific case, GUIs
> are just simply more intuitive and have a lot less learning curve.
Xemacs.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:44:39 GMT
On 16 Mar 2000 15:14:52 GMT, Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:34:29 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I didn't get Jim's message, so I'll reply here.
>
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:42:36 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> >message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> XFree 4 has decent Truetype support IIRC. I'm waiting for it to appear
>> >> in Woody (Debian's current unstable tree) before I give it a proper
>> >> test drive.
>
>> >
>> >Isn't lack of anti-aliasing the real problem though?
>
>I'd rather have no anti-aliasing than have something like Windows'
>implimentation. There is talk of extending XFree (Or maybe even X) to
>support anti-aliasing, though.
Plus, a judicious choice of fonts can yield an equally
pleasing visual even under X. Anti-aliasing TT fonts
is NEEDED by Windows to deal with relatively crappy
displays. X was customarily running on displays in the
80's that are still effectively superiour to what some
Windows users are running even now.
Even when I was running Windows, I found it more useful
to push the pixel count up above the physical limits of
the tube and use larger fonts.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: 16 Mar 2000 18:50:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Of course Windows 2000 was conspicuously absent...
> Because Windows2000 is not targeted at the consumer. Wal-Mart is targeted
> at the most uninformed and ready-to-spend-lots-of-money-without-knowing-
> anything consumer (suprisingly, they're selling Linux!).
> Go to CompUSA, CircuitCity or BestBuy (where the more informed consumer
> shops) and you'll see Win2K there with a big display, and the RH box
> is sitting next to Caldera and FreeBSD way back on the third aisle with
> all the other "X for Dummies" or "Home Recipe Maker!" type software.
At the Best Buy [sic] on north avenue in chicago, illinios, USA, all of the
linuxes are kept immediately to the left of all of the windows.
BTW, you might want to think twice before you say something like "BestBuy
(where the more informed consumer shops)". In my opinion, informed consumers
shop mostly online and in specialized computer stores like Microcenter.
Circuit City and BestBuy are hardly acceptable to informed consumers.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:49:57 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:52:33 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:41:38 GMT, someone claiming to be JEDIDIAH
>wrote:
>
>Oh, boy! Story time! Gather 'round, children...
>
>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:29:58 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>>> We hate them cuz they are an organized crime gang that, through
>>>> an illegal monopoly, killed a bunch of superior products, set
>>>> computing back 5-10 years, and then rammed their lousy,
>>>> overpriced crap down our throats. Why is that "overly-biased
>>>> and ignorance-founded"?
>
>>>Uh huh.
>>>Please explain which superior products they killed (and how).
>
>> OS/2 : Forced IBM to not preload their own OS. This
>> was is a matter of public trial record.
>
>Then it should be no effort at all for you to post reputable citations
>that MS somehow forbade IBM from preloading OS/2.
This is just a convient way to avoid addressing something
that recieved quite a bit of press attention. Although, there
is likely a specific cite to all the things I mentioned buried
in this group within the dejanews archive.
>
>Here's a hint: IBM did such a preload. It didn't sell.
That's funny, Ralph Nader couldn't seem to get IBM to
preload OS/2 for him. This was also well covered in
the computing press at that time.
>
>
>> Desqview/drdos : Forced OEMs into contracts that charged
>> for ANY machine that was sold regardless
>> of whether or not it went out with MS product.
>> Public record: first DOJ consent decree against MS.
>
>These per-processor agreements were initiated by the OEMs to simplify
>accounting, and the DOJ agreed that no harm had come to the industry
>because of them.
Who's talking out their ass now?
>
>>>Please explain how they set computing back 5 - 10 years.
>
>> They sat on their asses from 1985 to 1995 not bothering
>> to fully exploit the IA32 instruction set and not
>> bothering to fully deploy gui based systems.
>
>Hmmn. I must have imagined Windows 3.1 and NT.
Windows 3.1 came out in the 90's and was still primitive
when compared to earlier rivals. Furthermore, NT was never
offered as an alternative for the bulk of consumer users.
Today, end users are specifically being discouraged from
using NT5 .
>
>>>Please explain how they rammed anything down your throats.
>
>> They conspire like Coreleone's to make it impossible to choose
>> anything else. Part of it is a fundemental nature of intellectal
>> monopolies. Part of it is legal manuvering specifically intended
>> to prevent other companies from doing business.
>>
>> Undermining any other company's ability to derive a revenue stream
>> from http clients while being able to fund the development of their
>> own client, force bundled with the natural monopoly product they use
>> to fund that development.
>
>Not to mention the black helicopters...
Your weak attempt at attacking the messenger is not useful here.
--
|||
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
******************************
