Linux-Advocacy Digest #922, Volume #25 Mon, 3 Apr 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (Lee Sau Dan)
Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp... (AMF)
Re: M$ dosent use own OS?? (AMF)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (abraxas)
Re: Linux bugs!!! ("Conrad Doyle")
Re: Win2000 kicks ass ("Conrad Doyle")
Re: Microsoft's settlement offer : publish ALL OR NOTHING AT ALL (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Re: Linux bugs!!! (Klaus-Georg Adams)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2000 kicks ass (Donn Miller)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (JEDIDIAH)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
SubmitWolf (Paul MAJGIER)
Linux mail/news application questions ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Rumors ... ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lee Sau Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
Date: 03 Apr 2000 19:53:58 +0800
>>>>> "The" == The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The> So would I, if only because I've not got the tools -- yet --
The> to generate PDF files.
I discovered "pdflatex" on my RedHat 6.0 system at least a year ago.
AFAIK, it comes with the latest teTeX distributions.
The> I can generate Postscript files
The> without difficulty of course, and PDF is mostly Postscript,
The> but there are things in the PDF header that I have no
The> knowledge about.
Ghostscript has got a "pdfwriter" driver for a few years. Maybe, it's
already there in your Linux distribution. Pay attention to the shell
script called "pstopdf", which frees you from have to type that dozen
of options to 'gs'.
The> Still, Adobe did release an 'acroread' for Linux at one
The> point, so perhaps they've finally figoured out that there may
The> be a market. :-)
There is 'xpdf'. It's much faster than the (well... a bit) bloated
acroread, although it because wired when the PDF uses some strange
fonts.
Anyway, ghostscript has been able to parse PDF input for some years.
It comes with a shell script "pdftops" since then.
I've just done a "man -k PDF" on a Redhat 6.1 system, and guess what
the result is!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
latex, elatex, lambda, pdflatex (1) - structured text formatting and typesetting
pdf2dsc (1) - generate a PS page list of a PDF document
pdf2ps (1) - Aladdin Ghostscript PDF to PostScript translator
pdfimages (1) - Portable Document Format (PDF) image extractor (version 0
.90)
pdfinfo (1) - Portable Document Format (PDF) document information extra
ctor (version 0.90)
pdftex, pdfinitex, pdfvirtex (1) - PDF output from TeX
pdftopbm (1) - Portable Document Format (PDF) to Portable Bitmap (PBM) c
onverter (version 0.90)
pdftops (1) - Portable Document Format (PDF) to PostScript converter (v
ersion 0.90)
pdftotext (1) - Portable Document Format (PDF) to text converter (version
0.90)
ps2ascii (1) - Aladdin Ghostscript PostScript or PDF to ASCII translator
ps2pdf (1) - Aladdin Ghostscript PostScript to PDF translator
xpdf (1) - Portable Document Format (PDF) file viewer for X (version
0.90)
gv (1x) - a PostScript and PDF previewer
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: AMF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp...
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 12:20:48 GMT
On 31 Mar 2000 19:30:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) wrote:
>I'm unsure if they still run UNIX largely but a close friend that worked at M$
>as a programmer (he hated it but it paid well). During one of our talks over
>OS and a little on NT he told me they use(d) UNIX for servers. I'm not sure I
>want to know how he knows this but like I said i'm unsure if they still run
>UNIX but, they did.
MICROSOFT had some Unix working which they later sold to SCO.
Other versions were sold in Europe and Bill was collecting royalties
even thought the original code was not there. That's why he got pie
in the face a couple of years ago in Brussels...
AMF
------------------------------
From: AMF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ dosent use own OS??
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 12:23:42 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:43:17 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ha! liar.
>
>prove it
>
>"JoeX1029" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> M$ has and may still run on UNIX, using NT to just serve mail. They
>didn't
>> even run on thier own OS. Dosent that give you confidence in NT??
>
goto www.netcraft.com and query OS and web server for
Hotmail, a M$ owned company. You'll see that it does NOT run a
M$ OS or web server. You could also run "queso" yourself.
AMF
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 3 Apr 2000 12:50:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Eric, follow the steps, one by one, and you'll be able to find the
>> story that shows your claim about IBM being unable to keep up
>> with sales to be fraudulent:
> I assume you have evidence of my intent when posting what I wrote. If not,
> using the term fraudulent is not only improper, but constitutes libel and
> slander.
Bullshit. You understand the law about as well as you do computers, to wit:
I think you are an idiot, a liar, and a fool.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Doyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux bugs!!!
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 13:14:17 GMT
Have you hear about petalo.c ? It can freeze the whole system under
2.0.xx and 2.2.xx; while 2.3.xx just can reboot using magic keys, the
system is been left unusable.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Doyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 13:18:30 GMT
> Hello. What medication are you on? I think you had better stop eight
years
> ago. Windows CAN'T be better than Linux. Sure, it might have a better
gui
> and more programs, but it still isn't better.
Each of them has better things than the other.
> The day Windows is better
> than Linux, 6545.546646 will be the answer to life, the universe, and
> everything (Not 42).
Can't understand that.
> At home, I have two 98 computers. One crash literally every 5 minutes.
The
> other one crashes once a week (min). You're just lucky because 2000
thinks
> you like Microsoft.
Comparing Linux to Windows 9x is not serious. Compare it to NTor to 2000
if
you want. Note that I am not saying they are better, just comparable.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's settlement offer : publish ALL OR NOTHING AT ALL
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:10:48 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 03 Apr 2000 04:25:20 GMT...
...and Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:eFSF4.8515$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It just struck me last night and I don't know if it's been explored yet.
> An
> > Open Sourced Windows would allow people to create new desktops for it,
> > right? KDE for Windows?
> >
> > And considering we already have the option of a command line boot, then
> > isn't it theoretically possible to already create such a thing?
> >
> > Seemed relevant to the thread...<shrug>
> >
> New desktops are nothing new with Window9x and NT. There about a dozen or
> so, desktops you can use, instead of Explorer. Try
> http://floach.pimpin.net/
It should be possible to port both KDE and GNOME to Windows with a
reasonable amount of workforce.
mawa
--
I will not let the Great Equaliser, that is, the capitalist race-to-
the-bottom, steamroll over every aspect, every minuscule detail of my
life, my world and the society I live in. I believe that there are
things to spared from devastation by the "free market". -- mawa
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours?
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:10:09 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 2 Apr 2000 23:33:41 GMT...
...and Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <hsiF4.1443$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Evolution is going to have branches on each side. For instance, nothing
> >like MAPI, TAPI, or DirectX exists for Linux.
>
> Dunno about MAPI or TAPI, but Linux does have an in-the-works
> approximation to most of DirectX: the Simple DirectMedia Layer. Its
> equivalent of Direct3D is OpenGL, which is much more mature than SDL,
> however :-)
There is a multitude of DirectX contenders, most of them very
cross-platform, that are supported by Linux. Among them are SDL,
Allegro, ClanLib, PLIB and such. OpenGL is supported by pretty much
all of them. There is even integration of OpenGL into GTK for the
adventurous ones who want to write desktop applications that need 3D
display.
mawa
--
(Warum ich gerne in Deutschland lebe:)
...aber unter diesen Bedingungen gibt es in Deutschland keinen Bill
Gates, meine Damen und Herren...
-- Edmund Stoiber
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:04:25 GMT
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 03:29:47 -0400, Kurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Even IF you do a "Stupid" Linux install, you need 2 partitions: one for swap
>> and one for your files.
>>
>> -- Rich C.
>> "Great minds discuss ideas.
>> Average minds discuss events.
>> Small minds discuss people."
>
>Never tried it, but if you have a decent amount of memory, you don't
>need a swap partition.
If you take that approach, you'll be wasting half your memory as stuff
like start up code can swap out leaving all ram for what is actively
executing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:14:36 GMT
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 01:12:24 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>chewing_gum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Hi there
>>
>> Had this installed for a month now. Superb, no hangs, no crashes..
>> ....beautiful piece of software. Well done Bill.
>> Linux for the desktop? Never.
>>
>>
>> cheers
>> bob
>
>About W2K - The only cool thing is FAT32.
You're joking, right? You consider a file system based on late seventies
microcomputer technology a cool thing?
------------------------------
From: Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux bugs!!!
Date: 03 Apr 2000 16:23:24 +0200
"Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a follow-up of the thread "Nice link" which was started by me :-)
> I wish to propose the following challenge for everyone:
>
> Find a way, ANY way of crashing the entire Linux operating system while
> operating as a non-root user! Please post anything you can find in this
> thread. I'm sure many people will be interested!
>
> Also, for the WinTrolls, this is your chance! Take it! Take Linux, and crash
> the hell out of it, the way Linux-users can while using Windows!
The last time I saw a Linux system crash went like this:
I have a server which is connected to an EMC Symmetrix Disk Cabinet
via Ultra Differential Scsi. Someone assigned the Linux disks inside
that cabinet to an AIX server whithout noticing they were in use. The
next time I accessed the discs from the linux side, it went catatonic
with scsi resets. After the reboot it complained about an AIX
partition table on its disk (and rightly so :-(
Note: I don't hold this against Linux :-), rather against the
management software from EMC, which didn't put up those red signs...
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:46:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Free software is clearly anti-capitalist.
>
> No. Software is clearly not capital.
Is working in a group of equals in spirit of cooperation rather than
competition and distribitiog products of you labour for free to anyone
who desires them capitalistic?
> > ...there will be no money, no private property.
>
> There will be private property as long as only one person can possess
> a given object. There will be money as long at any resource remains
>scarce.
Why have money when you distribute the products of your labour for free
and in turn you can have products of other peoples labout for free too?
>
> > no monsters like Microsoft.
>
> Monsters like the Soviet Union instead?
You must be really stupid if you think Soviet Union was a communist
country.
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, Wisconsin
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 11:11:31 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 01:12:24 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >About W2K - The only cool thing is FAT32.
>
> You're joking, right? You consider a file system based on late seventies
> microcomputer technology a cool thing?
FAT is nice for 1.44 meg floppies, but not much else. For example,
say you want to back up just a couple of small files on a unix box as
a regular user, on Linux or BSD or something. mtools is the perfect
thing for this. It would be insane to create a minix, ext2, or ufs
filesystem on there and mount/umount the thing all day just to read a
couple of files. :-) And, there are situations when I have to backup
some really trivial stuff like this. Of course, now you've got to
change the raw floppy device's perms so that it can be accessed as a
reg. user by mtools. On FreeBSD, for example, the floppy devices are
not accessible by default for reg. users. But, it's no big deal,
since mount normally doesn't work for regular users, at least on FBSD.
I guess it does provide extra security for servers to have the floppy
devices unaccessible for regular users, but for workstations, I guess
you'd want regular users to access the serial ports, floppy devices,
etc. For servers, you'd want the /dev/[r]fd0 and serial ports'
permissions turned off for regular users.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 15:30:51 GMT
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 21:42:58 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:53:41 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> An OS that is owned by the resident 800lb gorilla of the market
>> >> doesn't need to be profitable.
>> >
>> >An OS owned by any publically traded company has to be profitiable,
>AFAIK.
>>
>> Nope. A publically traded company has to be profitable. That is
>> WORLD of difference. A functional PPC or Alpha port could merely
>> be a Research & Development cost, or something explained as
>> necessary to be able to strategically exploit new openings in the
>> market. There are certainly plenty of ways to make that little bit
>> of apparent loss seem palletable on the annual report.
>
>But _WHY_ would they bother ? No-one's going to buy it. It's just throwing
>money down a black hole.
As I said, and what you could have read for yourself.
a) a portable OS is not that expensive to port.
b) the port itself can encourage good engineering practice.
Plus, MS could be fully ready for any sudden market shift
and actually live up to all of their propaganda about
strategic vision.
[deletia]
"portable" means that it's not going to be prohibitively
expensive to redeploy the OS or application on another
platform.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:03:21 +0200
> haven't used it, but have read that it supports bash and almost all of the
> fsf/unix utilities. Seems like it's an easy port from unix which would make
> it a nice little developer/desktop workstation, no?
no
no-X11 and some of the apis are not fully posix or usable (network for
example)
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:11:05 +0200
> It is unix-ish under the hood.
more or less
> It's kind of interesting to play with,
> if you have the spare time. It really shines with threaded multimedia
> applications
which? name three
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:22:37 +0200
From: Paul MAJGIER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SubmitWolf
Hello everyone,
Do you happen to know of a program or part of a program under Linux
which can submit a site to a thousand search engines at the same time ?
To
give you a more precise idea of what I am looking for, I can give you
the example of "submitwolf" which does something similar under windows.
I could obviously come up with such a program myself but there are many
types of forms to enter and if such a program exists already, it must
certainly have a rich form database and that would be very helpful to
me.
Thanks in advance for your help. By the way, I am also interested in
classes with sources in Java.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:34:31 GMT
Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from the OS.
I'm stunned at how much is changed, but i'm beginning to miss the
things which caused me to return to windows in the first place.
I'd love a mail program that can sort and search mail. One that can
automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules. A contact
list that integrates with the mail program so I only have to maintain
one list of contacts/email addresses. Netscape mail really sucks. It
has corrupted my archives several times.
The news reading programs are very weak. I simply want the ability to
select what articles I want to download, tell it to download, and have
it happen. I'd also like the ability to have it automaticly combine
and decode messages. Several windows programs, (outlook, agent, etc)
have these abilities. I'm surprised Linux still doesn't.
Are there any modern applications in development that meet these
needs? Everytime I tried to search for an answer to this question, I
found a lot of advice saying to use mail, trn, etc. Yeah, I used those
programs for a while; but I didn't upgrade to linux to use the same
text based programs I used 10 years ago.
Thanks,
CG
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:42:17 -0500
Reply-To: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Which is why I'm surprised that T. Max used the term incorrectly. And
> >strawman written as one word isn't wrong, but it is less common, yes.
> I suppose we can also argue the point that "mun" is a less common form
> of "man".
Yeah, if you had any citations for it, maybe.
> Do you have a reference for your claim?
Not on me. I'm on the road at the moment. When I get home I'll check in a
number of sources I have, sure. Where I recall seeing the variation first
was in a logic text, and I've almost always written it as one word without
complaint, although I know two words is more common. There are a lot of
compound words that are similar in usage--with a two word variants most
popular but compound variants used often enough in legitimate sources and
thus not incorrect.
I tried to quickly find a logic or philosophy site with some "bulk" behind
it that had the variation, but searching quickly I didn't find much mention
of it either way. I'll check again in a few.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:57:34 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I'd disagree with you both.
>
> The barriers are there, they are real (not at all intangible or
> abstract) and have nothing to do with market share or financial power.
>
> The barrier here is closed, proprietary data file
> formats/protcols/API's/encodings . . . in short, the barrier here is
> "secret information".
>
> Imagine, if you will, that AT&T had implemented the telephone system
> using "secret information" (protocols, specifications, signaling
> profiles, etc.). Just making the bare "wires" available to the
> competition would then have done *NOTHING* to solve the monopoly
> problem.
The fault in your logic is that MSFT doesn't control PC hardware.
MSFT controls it's own OS. There's NOTHING preventing someone from writing
their own OS and applications/APIs, etc for their own OS, as evidenced with
*BSD, BeOS, Linux, CP/M, DrDOS, and every other x86-based OS.
MSFT has a monopoly on it's own APIs and OS, true, but that doesn't not make
it a monopoly in the OS market. For example, Exxon has a monopoly on it's
own gas pumps, but that doesn't make it a monopoly.
- There is nothing preventing application vendors from writing software for
other platforms.
- There is nothing preventing OEMs from selling other software than Microsoft's
(MSFT discourages it, and did some bad things, for which it should be punished,
but at no time were the OEMs FORCED to go with MSFT, they could've used a
different
OS at any time, i.e., MS wasn't the only OS that could be run on PCs. Likewise,
it wasn't like PC hardware was developed to ONLY be run with MS Windows)
- There is nothing preventing consumers from buying a different OS, or buying
from an OEM that doesn't preinstall Windows.
The problem with the AT&T analogy, was that AT&T had the only phone cable
network.
They also had the monopoly on long distance (i.e. no one else could provide
long distance).
If MSFT control both the hardware (the phone cabling) AND the software (long
distance
server) and wouldn't let anyone else tap into their cables or service
(proprietary
APIs) then that analogy would be relevant, but it's not, so it isn't.
A more relevant analogy would be that there were many different phone cabling
that long distance providers could use, and consumers could choose from.
MS happened to own one of the cabling infrastructures and would only allow long
distance
providers that it wanted to onto the wire and would disallow others.
MS happened to have the best cabling infrastructure, so others wanted on, but
MSFT wouldn't
allow it.
The LD providers had many other cables to choose from, but they wanted MSFT's,
since it
was the best.
MSFT is not a monopoly, it just owns the best cables. It's call "competition"
and
"capitalism".
> The same thing is true here . . . until such time as MS is forced to
> release all interface information as both open, *AND* standardized . . .
> they can and will retain their monopoly.
They're not a monopoly. There are other OSes that open source, even.
Also, there is no barrier to entry, as anyone even a foreign college
student (Linus) could cook one up in his dorm room.
MSFT does not control both the hardware AND the software, and is therefore
not a monopoly, any more than Exxon is not a monopoly over it's own pumps.
> For examples, look at Samba. The biggest problem with developing Samba
> is aquiring the neccessary information to be MS compatible.
What's wrong with using one of the other billion file systems or networking
file systems? Why do you HAVE to use samba?
Simply because MSFT doesn't allow 3rd parties to integrate with SMB, does not
make it a monopoly.
Use *nix and NFS if you don't want to use MSFT. Use Novell and IPX, use
MacOS and AppleShare. You have many choices. MSFT != Monopoly.
> > However much I dislike regulation... the invisible hand has been
> > battered into unconsciousness in the computer industry.
>
> I despise regulation. I would suggest breaking the company up (Ala Ma
> Bell), and forcing them to make *ALL* the code for *ALL* versions of
> Windows open, and to *KEEP* it open for a minimum of seven years, with
> *NO* use restrictions.
Then we would have to do so for NetWare, Solaris, MacOS and many other
OSes, because they do the same thing as MSFT.
> That allows for the creation of competition, only impacts one of their
> products (they can keep everything else that they have never described
> as "part of the OS" private), and gives the most bang for the least
> buck. Since a huge part of their revenue comes from Office, this won't
> impact their bottom line negatively.
There already is much competition, it's just that MSFT's competitors
are incompetent and can't seem to succeed when success slaps them in the
face (Novell was the kind of NOS for quite awhile, but got beligerant and
lost the throne, now they cry to the DOJ because of their lack of competency).
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
