Linux-Advocacy Digest #100, Volume #26 Thu, 13 Apr 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (Itchy)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: I have a dream! ("ax")
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Ralph C Blach)
Re: Which distribution (Opinionated)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 02:13:11 GMT
On 12 Apr 2000 22:08:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Petreley has got to be kidding in his latest Infoworld column.
>>First he says "The superb new suite for Linux".
>>Then he says " How much I like this suite and how You'll have to pry
>>it out of my hands".
>>Then, incredibly he goes on to state that one of the first things the
>>suite did was crash, and of course he finds a way to blame it on
>>Windows because apparently parts of Corel Linux Office 2000 runs under
>>a customized version of Wine.
>
>Corel is contributing to the development of Wine, the win32
>emulator for Linux. This is a good thing, as it will allow
>a lot of Windows software to run under Linux directly, without
>needing any modification, nor a copy of Windows.
>
>The columnist Petreley writes:
>
> It is almost identical to its Windows counterpart because
> much of the suite runs on Corel's version of Wine. (Wine is
> an open source programming interface that brings most of
> the Win32 API to Linux.)
He also ignores the fact that the native Windows version runs
perfectly. Take a look at USEnet and see how many complaints there
are. I'll save you the time, most folks love it!
> The first thing that occurred to me is that WordPerfect may
> have these problems because it still has too much Windows
> code left in it. It doesn't matter whether or not I'm
> right. A lot of folks are going to suspect the same thing.
> It will be hard to trust WordPerfect until Corel produces a
> version that is free of Windows contamination.
It's contaminated with WINE which SUCKS BIG TIME. I have YET to get a
version of Agent that runs reasonably well, despite a 3 or 4 rating on
the Wine website. And others I have spoke to say the same.
Hell Mark, if you really want to run all those "nasty sucky win
programs" why the hell don't you run them natively instead of under
some abortion like Wine?
You and your like are always complaining how Windows applications suck
anyway, so why Wine?
>I suspect he's not a programmer, because "Windows code" and
>"Windows contamination" as aspects of WordPerfect don't make
>much sense.
Wrong again, he is quite a good programmer. Look up his bio and you
will see.
>WP, like other Windows programs, makes calls to the Win32 API
>in Windows. Somewhere along the line, Windows is buggy, which
>is why it has a habit of crashing.
So why does it work under native Windows perfectly?
Wine/Linux is to blame here....
>Wine implements the win32 API under Linux. When it is per-
>fected, any win32 application that runs under Windows should
>also run well under Wine and Linux without modification (if
>the app itself is bug-free). Wine will be, in effect, a
>win32 subsystem for Linux.
Wine is a joke... It is always and will always be behind Windows and
no matter how hard the programmers work it will still be behind.
>That will be good for users, who can run win32 Windows soft-
>ware (some of which they may already own) under Linux. It
>will also be good for software companies, because they can
>develop a single version of each product, and it will run
>under both operating systems.
Run Windows for Windows software and Linux for Linux software. Emulate
is a nasty word in the computer jargon dictionary.
>The "Windows code" and "Windows contamination" that needs to
>be removed is not the code in WordPerfect that makes win32
>calls to Windows or Wine, but the Windows operating system
>that executes those calls.
He's not even running Windows, which makes your argument even more
absurd.
>>I have the Windows version and it runs fine.
>>
>>On top of that he can't get it to print on any other version of Linux
>>except Corel (sound familiar?).
>
>Of course Corel will fix this, because they want people to
>buy WP no matter which Linux distro they're using.
Maybe but based upon their SBLive track record I wouldn't hold my
breath.
Corel is a company in serious trouble and they are trying to niche out
a market in Linux, thus the "I won't work with anyone else" concept of
their programs.
Try and get some to run under Redhat for example and see what happens.
Try Wordperfect for example and see. It's a *.deb file. Kpackage dies
on it.
>>So much for "I can take any program and run it on any Linux".
>
>This is true, since they all use the same kernel, although
>it may require a little fiddling.
Doesn't require any fiddling under Windows. Why should Linux folks
have to fiddle?
Oh I forgot, Linvocates like playing with os's instead of
applications. No surprise here seeing as they have so few commercial
strength applications to play with.
>But Steve-Heather, who has written thousands of lying propa-
>ganda articles against Linux on behalf of Microsoft, is
>trying to imply that there's a serious problem, in order
>to frighten people away from Linux, and make them stay with
>Microsoft.
These are facts. Petretely (sp?) says as much and you are free to
look.
Stop playing jedi and attempting to take the focus off the real point
which is Corel Linux Office 2k sucks. Linvocates in the group have
fairly reviewed it and now a mainstream of the industry has repeated
such. Why can't you admit that it is true?
>>Looks like the fragmentation of Linux has already started.
>
>No worse than it has been for years. More propaganda.
Assine......at best.....
>>FWIW I
>>couldn't get Worperfect included with Corel Linux Deluxe to even
>>install on RH or SuSE or Caldera despite it being a *.deb file and my
>>using the kde package manager which supports deb files.
>>
>>Wonder how many months he'll have to screw around with it to get it to
>>print under other Linuxen.
>
>Since Steve-Heather tries to make Linux look bad in every way
>he can, it's certain that he didn't try very hard to make the
>installation succeed, if he even attempted it at all.
In this case I don't even have to try. The honcho at InfoWorld, a
Linux supporter BTW did all the work for me.....
Shit, he even has a Linux column every week.
>>It just goes to show once again that "supported, working, runs etc"
>>are words that have completely different meanings in the Linux
>>community.
>
>Big Lies on behalf of Microsoft from Steve-Heather.
Read the article Mark and educate yourself.
>>It's incredible the crap Linux users have to suffer with in regard to
>>shrink wrap applications.
>
>The StarOffice and Applix office suites, just to name two,
>work perfectly well with Linux. Steve is lying again.
I am not talking about Applix and StarOffice, I am speaking of Corel
Stop changing the subject Mark.....
>>He should send it back and run the Windows version which works
>>properly, at least on my system.
>
>The idea is to eliminate Windows. Bad enough if an app crashes;
>there's no point in having the operating system go as well.
Stop twisting it... Corel is doing a damm shitty job of eliminating
Windows by running parts of their LINUX office suite UNDER WINDOWS....
What a freaking joke... This is the great MS Office killer we have all
been awaiting?
I'm howling with laughter over this
one............................................................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve
>>Steve
>>
>>Here is the url:
>>
>>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/04/10/000410oppetreley.xml
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Date: 12 Apr 2000 22:24:44 -0400
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:53:18 GMT, Itchy wrote:
>On 12 Apr 2000 21:45:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>wrote:
Firstly, you completely destroy your credibility by not showing the decency
and integrity to post under a single name.
>But the fact remains that the "holy grail" of office suites for Linux
Wrong. Corel Office isn't and never was the "holy grail" of office suites.
Applix has been around a lot longer, and Corel, as the new kid on the
block needs to prove itself. Thus far, it doesn't appear to be taking
the crown from Applix.
>This is classic fragmentation.
>Corel WP installs ONLy on Corel Linux.
>Corel WP Office 2k installs ONLY on Corel Linux...
No, it's not fragmentation. It's a badly written office suite.
BTW, it's not enough to show that this is an instance of fragmentation.
You need to show that there is an overall trend towards fragmentation,
and personally, I don't buy this. There always has been some degree
of fragmentation, and we are seeing consolidation in some areas and
the absence of such in others. You carry on as though there is a widening
gap in the different distros, but you completely ignore the fact that the
gaps have always been there.
>>>It just goes to show once again that "supported, working, runs etc"
>>>are words that have completely different meanings in the Linux
>>>community.
>>
>>Not at all. Your "Linux community" is a strawman which you use as
>>fodder for poorly founded blanket attacks.
>
>Nope. My statements are based on facts reported by a noted columnist.
Since when did the said "noted columnist" speak for everyone ?
>>The Windows version does not run on Linux.
>
>Exactly, and shows why Linux is a moot point.Choose your applications
>and then pick you OS and Linux will lose everytime.
For my real work, Latex, Latex, and Latex. Linux comes out with all guns
blazing. Yeah, I know, I use Linux applications, so that makes me "a geek".
Your argument is entirely circular.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: 12 Apr 2000 22:31:04 -0400
On 13 Apr 2000 10:02:03 +0800, Terry Porter wrote:
>>What "Qt lib fiasco" ? Are you referring to the controversial
>>"is-it-really-free" thing ?
>Yes I am.
It's become a moot point. It's not only free, it's probably the best GUI dev
tool for Linux. The only thing in the same class is gtk.
>>KDE "big and bloated" ? Well it certainly isn't monolithic.
>>It comes with a ton of APIs and all of them take some space.
>Yes for sure, I guess I chould have stated I feel KDE is itself
>big and bloated. Its a personal perspective I guess, for instance I use
>Blackbox as a WM.
Repeat after me:
KDE is not a Window manager.
Depending on how you look at it, KDE is:
(developer centric) a collection of classes that extend the functionality
of QT
(user centric) a collection of apps that use the above classes.
>>IMO, the main reason why "bloat" turns out to be a problem
>>on Linux is that you have 101 different shared libraries.
>For KDE ?
I'm talking about having 4 different color selection widgets, one for
each toolkit. There's a lot of duplication.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I have a dream!
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 02:41:53 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>
> I have a dream today.
>
>
> I have a dream today.
>
>
> I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill
> and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be
> made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory
> of the Lord shall be revealed, and even the government will agree,
> we will all linux together.
>
Nobody except ghost can share your dream.
------------------------------
From: Ralph C Blach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:34:32 -0400
I have had a similar very bad experience with wordperfect office for
Linux Redhat 6.1
It loaded flawlessly, comes up just fine, looks great but crashes early
and often.
Corel made a fundamentally bad decision, and that is to run the product
under wine.
This product will need atleast 6 more months of work to get correct.
Chip
This is a very very very beta product
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Petreley has got to be kidding in his latest Infoworld column.
>
> First he says "The superb new suite for Linux".
>
> Then he says " How much I like this suite and how You'll have to pry
> it out of my hands".
>
> Then, incredibly he goes on to state that one of the first things the
> suite did was crash, and of course he finds a way to blame it on
> Windows because apparently parts of Corel Linux Office 2000 runs under
> a customized version of Wine.
>
> I have the Windows version and it runs fine.
>
> On top of that he can't get it to print on any other version of Linux
> except Corel (sound familiar?).
>
> So much for "I can take any program and run it on any Linux".
>
> Looks like the fragmentation of Linux has already started. FWIW I
> couldn't get Worperfect included with Corel Linux Deluxe to even
> install on RH or SuSE or Caldera despite it being a *.deb file and my
> using the kde package manager which supports deb files.
>
> Wonder how many months he'll have to screw around with it to get it to
> print under other Linuxen.
>
> This is an unbelievable piece of biased journalism and I find it hard
> to believe Infoworld would print such crap. I can't wait to read the
> Letters to the editor next week.
>
> It just goes to show once again that "supported, working, runs etc"
> are words that have completely different meanings in the Linux
> community.
>
> It's incredible the crap Linux users have to suffer with in regard to
> shrink wrap applications.
>
> He should send it back and run the Windows version which works
> properly, at least on my system.
>
> Steve
>
> Here is the url:
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/04/10/000410oppetreley.xml
--
Ralph "Chip" Blach
KF4WBK
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
------------------------------
From: Opinionated <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which distribution
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:16:44 -0500
Mig Mig wrote:
> <snip>
> Maybe you are but he's absolutely right.
> No need to answer questions to those that are to lazy to search for the
> information themselves. These kinds of users are getting too common these
> days.
>
> Greetings
Maybe links can be included in the Frequently Reposted Questions FAQ for
newbies to find info. Speaking of which, I haven't seen it lately.
Matthias, were are you?
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:37:47 +0200
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> > 8cqjfo$mu6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > In article <8cpluh$rek$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > My point is that it's not as bad as you make it to be.
>
> For you, maybe. You don't seem to realize that your experience is not
> universal.
I think there is clear misunderstanding here. If I write IME, it means that
I'm aware that it means *in my experience*. If I were not aware of that
fact, I would write a plain Windows9x is great, as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes Windows9x is total crap, stating it as fact. I *clearly* and
*repeatedly* stated IMO/IME Windows9x is not that bad.
> John Stevens
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:25:09 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
8csuog$6qd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > Ah, we're are definitely making progress. Windows went from total
> > crap which crashes all the time to great if you don't mind the
> > occasional crash.
>
> Sorry. Forgot to put in the <SARCASM>/</SARCASM> flags. Didn't
> think it was necessary.
Sorry, I incorrectly assumed that you would be able to acknowledge something
redeemable about Windows9x. My fault.
> > > crash. My whole point here originally was that Windoze is far
> > > worse than other OSes WRT this. And I explaied the reason for
> >
> > My point is that it's not as bad as you make it to be. I know of
> > two consumer leve OSes, MacOS and Windows9x. IME, MacOS has no
> > edge in that department against Windows9x, but I'm aware that
> > others have different experiences.
>
> IME, it sux. For reasons adequately described. And I bevlieve
There _is_ progress. "IME Windows9x sux" is vastly different from "Windows9x
sux". In one case, you talk about what your experience and and I'm willing
to acknowledge it, as I expect you to acknowledge mine, in another, you
state a fact, which I dispute.
> that my characterisation of what Micro$ux considers "support"
> is spot-on as well. Arrogance is pretty much the only word
> that can describe their behaviour. And it is pervasive, as was
> shown in the e-mails revealed in the anti-trust suit.
Maybe, I didn't have to deal with them.
> > <SNIP> Some more stuff that I don't have the stamina to adress </SNIP>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Arne Langsetmo
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:52:25 +0200
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" wrote:
> >
> > John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Or maybe the boss doesn't even know that he has a choice.
> >
> > Of course, or maybe what he does for a living requires Win32
compatibilty.
>
> Which pretty much proves that MS is a monopoly . . . Judge Jackson got
> at least part of it right: secret, proprietary information is the basis
> for the MS monopoly.
>
> > > That statment will come as a complete shock to the good folks at Apple
.
> > > . . who are using a powerful UNIX type OS as the basis for their new
> > > consumer OS.
> >
> > You must have missed the *at the moment* I think.
>
> Nope. MacOS X is just Rhapsody (already released) and MacOS Server
> (already released) with a few cosmetic changes. Right now pretty much
> works as "at the moment", don't you think?
MacOS Server ? What is that ? An UNIX ?
> > > Nope. You do just exactly that on a Linux box, so to claim that
Windows
> > > or the MacOS is better is incorrect.
> >
> > You missed the minimum hassles part, yet again.
>
> No, I didn't. Linux has a lower hassle to productive work ratio than
> Windows does.
The fact that Linux isn't totally mainstream, yet, is high hassle generator.
It's not Linux fault, mind you.
> > What i meant, is that
> > incredible uptimes, for the moment, are not number one on the want list
of
> > customers.
>
> But what customers *DO* want is available with Linux, with the same
> caveat that applies to MacOS. . . in the end, a small, particular set of
Sure.
> customers may want to run a piece of software that is available only for
> Windows.
Maybe.
> Seeing as how I spend a fair amount of time using computers, and seeing
> as how I haven't used Windows in many years, it seems clear that the set
> of "must-use" Windows users is a sub-set of "home computer users".
Agreed. But, suppose some are not part of the "must-use" and yet sitill feel
that Windows works to their satisfation, why should they change ?
> > > You don't. But that says nothing about the relative merits of the
> > > operating systems: it is just a comment on the MS monopoly.
> >
> > Sure does. An OS is useless by itself.
>
> But that wasn't the discussion. What intrinsic limitation does Linux
> have that keeps it from performing the above task?
None AFAICT. But I evaluate an OS by the stuff it does that I need/want it
to do, not by what it might be able to do. It's as valid a criterion as any
other, and I'm sure i'm not the only one thinking that way. After all,
AFAICT, the reason of existance of an OS is to allow you to do your stuff on
the hardware you own.
> In short, once again, the lack of an application says nothing about the
> OS, unless you can point to some reason why the OS makes it impossible
It says that it doesn't allow you to do Foo.
> to create such an application to run on it.
Sure, you tell that to the guy who needs Foo application.
> > It still need to allow me to run the
> > software I need/want on the hardware I own. What good is the ultra
stable
> > and good OS if I have to encode my *.mov file by hand?
>
> What good is it? Simple. A fast, good, ultra stable OS is the perfect
> platform for running the encoding software on.
Okay, you take your fast, good, utras stable OS and encode the *.mov hand
manually. I prefer to let the computer do that for me wether it is on the
MacOS or Windows.
> The fact that for what ever reason such software doesn't exist, says
> nothing about the OS. It is a comment on the existing business model
It says that for the moment, it doesn't allow me what i want to do. The OS
is not bad per se, because of it, it's just not practical/useful.
> (maybe the hardware manufacturer will not release the informatio
> necessary to write a driver for the card, maybe the Sorenson encoding is
> secret, and proprietary . . . ), and it simply illustrates the
> effectiveness of MS's monopoly garnering and protecting tactics.
In fact, I think that it's an Apple stuff. But we all know that Microsoft is
the source of all evil.
> > I don't go around gushing how <insert favorite OS here> is. I judge it
by
> > it's ability to allow me to do whatever I have to do. I have no problems
> > with people prefering the MacOS, BeOS, Linux, UNIX, whatever. There is
no,
> > IMO, One True OS, they all have their place and use, AFAICT.
>
> I don't disagree, what I claim, instead, is that open, public interface
> standards are an absolute requirement in a modern, mature information
> processing business. Using Windows in any shape or form, or for that
> matter, any OS which doesn't have at least one plug-in replacement, is a
> very poor business choice.
Maybe.
> > > After the DOJ breaks MS up, more and more ISVs will start
> >
> > Maube, maybe not. Time will tell.
>
> Time has already told. The pace at which ISV's have been supporting
> Linux has increased steadily.
And that's good for Linux.
> > > Correct. Hence the incredible urgency in breaking up MS. Until we
> > > break up MS, we will never be able to break the unnecessary
relationship
> > > between OS and application that now exists.
> >
> > Glad you agree.
>
> Excuse, but that was always my point: MS sucks 'cause it is a monopoly.
MS may suck or not, I really don't care. But MS sucks is different from
Windows9x sucks.
> It is a monopoly because of it's use of secret, proprietary information
> that is used almost solely to establish "Vendor Lock In".
>
> Java was "embraced and extended" by MS *PRECISELY* because it threatened
> to break this unnecessary relationship.
>
> Unix is the *ONLY* OS that provided a broad range of open, public
> standards that have been implemented on multiple platforms by multiple,
> independent hardware/software vendors. As such, it is the heir apparent
> to the next generation in business computing.
We should all be using UNIX ? Hmmm. I'm more of a use what works for you
guy.
> > > Neither was Linux.
> > >
> > > But, as so often proves to be the case, a superior design ends up
> > > creating a system that has superior capabilities.
> >
> > Sure. But, I live in the present.
>
> ??? What has that statement to do with anything in this thread?
>
> Linux is the present. This discussion is the present. The design of
> Linux is the present . . .
That Linux may allow me to use my current sound card and to deal with the
Sorenson encoded *.mov files in an indisclosed futer. MacOS and Windows
allow me to do it now.
> > > Linux was developed on the same hardware, you know.
> >
> > So Linux can boot a GUI [which *actually* does some stuff + PnP] in
Linux
> > with 4 megs ?
>
> Yep. You are aware, are you not, that there are more GUI's for Linux
> than just X?
I heard about that. But would they boot with 4 megs and still have some
functionality ?
> > I would like to see that.
>
> Be my guest. The packages are still available, I think, though I
> haven't looked for them or used them in some time.
>
> > Note that Windows9x designs constraints were pretty stringent.
>
> So are the design constraints for any standards compliant Unix
> implementation.
>
> > > That's almost always the case, which is why democracy is such an
> > > absolute and total failure as a political system.
> >
> > Note that I don't believe in the UberOS per se.
>
> Why not? We have the UberEngine (the gasoline engine), the
It is ? There are things for which it is completely stomped over by other
technologies. Think planes and trains.
> UberControlMechanism (the steering wheel) and other "standard" things .
For a car, maybe. You are aware than an OS is way more complex and be used
in many, many different scenarios. You believe that it will be possible to
adopt a one size fits all stance on this ?
> . . why not a standard OS?
I said nothing about standard, I said Uber.
> > I believe in using the right
> > tool [for me] for the job at hand, may the OS be Windows9x,NT, Linux,
> > FreBSD, BeOS or MacOS.
>
> If designed properly, then an UberOS is perfectly possible, and
> eminently reasonable . . . the only real reason that you must consider
IMO, it's way more easily said than done.
> different OS'en for different jobs, is that you are victimized by the
> use of proprietary, secret information that has been used to tie you to
> a particular OS. If all applications ran on any OS . . . then what
> would differentiate the different OS'en enough to justify different
> OS'en?
Different UI and systems paradigms, availability, hardware
support/platforms...
> John Stevens
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
