Linux-Advocacy Digest #232, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:14:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Sell Me On Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Juan Toledo)
"Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) ("Stephen S.
Edwards II")
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Mig Mig)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (The Cat)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (The Cat)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (George Graves)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 23 Apr 2000 14:01:03 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>So, I'll need to retract my statement - syskey no longer gives the
>>>protection it once did before PWDUMP2 was developed.
>>
>>The fact that you know or don't know about the existence of
>>PWDUMP2 really has nothing to do with the security your
>>system. Your potential attackers may have had equivalent
>>or better tools all along.
>
>And you're here to suggest that Linux's shadow password file is
>significantly better?
Partly - history has proven that having usable passwords in a
disk file is a bad idea regardless of how well think the file
is protected. Unix-encrypted passwords are not directly usable
unless they are susceptable to a dictionary attack. But that
wasn't my point. I mostly wanted to suggest that you are extremely
gullible if you think that the service pack changes that made
samba more difficult to configure were done for anyone's
benifit other than Microsoft's.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 23 Apr 2000 14:07:48 -0500
In article <dJGM4.1131$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>David, you are mistaken about the above. Use a tool like LOphtCrack and
>>use the SMB packet capture fascility. You don't need administrative
>>rights in the domain to do this.
>[snip]
>>There is one benefit of Linux though. Because the source code is freely
>>available, everybody with an interest in security and programming
>>knowledge can fix security holes. This is one of the reasons why Linux
>>is so much more secure than NT and security issues are fixed much
>>quicker.
>
> Is it secure?
>
> telnet, ftp send passwords in cleartext over the LAN. Who cares about
>l0phtCrack, you just need a sniffer to grab those.
This, of course, requires physical access to shared media. While
this is fairly common because ethernet is cheap and managed
hubs and switches used to be expensive it is not necessary
these days and should not be allowed in situations where
security is critical.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: 23 Apr 2000 14:21:04 -0500
In article <8dub6v$pl2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Actually the only thing i miss in Linux is a good Exchange/IMAP client..
>there is tkRat but it aint it.
Netscape Communicator/messenger is tolerable as an IMAP client once
you convince it not to consider all the files under your home
directory as mailfolders.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:24:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:27:58 GMT, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>vendors of x86 processors which Windows will run on.
> >>
> >
> >As will Linux. They (the various x86 clones) are clones after all.
Same
> >architecture.
>
> Not the point. The point I'm refuting is that Windows only runs on
> Intel hardware. They are not strictly the same archtectures: e.g.
> AMD has 3dNow and Intel has SSE.
THAT IS THE POINT! What I was trying to say was the INTEL X86
ARCHITECTURE meaning to class all X86 clones into a single architecture.
If you do not like the x86 arcitecture were do you go??? With Linux,
just about EVERY WERE!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Juan Toledo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:15:29 +0200
==============30A61E859892C0FA4A46C55D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
test@myhome escribió:
> see, I wanted to install etherape:
>
> >rpm -Uhv etherape-0.5.3-1.i386.rpm
> error: failed dependencies:
> gnome-libs >= 1.0.0 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
> libglade >= 0.11 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
>
Hi. :-)
I'm the author of EtherApe, and I don't like the fact that you are unable to
try my program. :-)
Here is my list of suggestions:
*Since you made a full install of suse, you probably have a full development
environment. Your best bet is to download the .tar.gz. It is actually not
much harder to use than an rpm or deb package. Just do:
* tar xvfz etherape-x.y.z.tar.gz
* cd etherape-x.y.z
* ./configure; make; make install
*As some other people said, the problems you have are the main reasons why I
find debian much superior to any rpm based distribution. Just run apt-get
install etherape :-)
*Then you can switch to FreeBSD if you so feel like. I'm told EtherApe
compiles and works in FreeBSD as well. :-)
The advantage of using packages instead of source, is the fact that
uninstalling is supposedly easier, but if you keep your etherape-x-y-z
directory, you can uninstall cleanly as well, using make uninstall
I'd really like you to help you get EtherApe running. Please email me
directly with any problems you may have.
Then I'd like to ask people using Mandrake or Suse whether they know of any
URL that would teach me how to produce spec files so that my rpm packages are
compatible among all RPM based distributions.
Regards,
Juan.
PS: I've just realized that the configure script will be asking for libglade
0.11 as well. :-(. I'm not really sure that it is really required, I just
copied that part of the configure script from gnumeric. I'll send you a
personalized version of the .tar.gz file if you want, so that you try it and
tell me if it works
==============30A61E859892C0FA4A46C55D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>test@myhome escribió:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>see, I wanted to install etherape:
<p>>rpm -Uhv etherape-0.5.3-1.i386.rpm
<br>error: failed dependencies:
<br> gnome-libs >= 1.0.0 is needed
by etherape-0.5.3-1
<br> libglade >= 0.11 is needed
by etherape-0.5.3-1
<br> </blockquote>
Hi. :-)
<p>I'm the author of EtherApe, and I don't like the fact that you are unable
to try my program. :-)
<br>Here is my list of suggestions:
<br>
<li>
Since you made a full install of suse, you probably have a full development
environment. Your best bet is to download the .tar.gz. It is actually not
much harder to use than an rpm or deb package. Just do:</li>
<blockquote>
<li>
tar xvfz etherape-x.y.z.tar.gz</li>
<li>
cd etherape-x.y.z</li>
<li>
./configure; make; make install</li>
</blockquote>
<li>
As some other people said, the problems you have are the main reasons why
I find debian much superior to any rpm based distribution. Just run apt-get
install etherape :-)</li>
<li>
Then you can switch to FreeBSD if you so feel like. I'm told EtherApe compiles
and works in FreeBSD as well. :-)</li>
<p><br>The advantage of using packages instead of source, is the fact that
uninstalling is supposedly easier, but if you keep your etherape-x-y-z
directory, you can uninstall cleanly as well, using make uninstall
<p>I'd really like you to help you get EtherApe running. Please email me
directly with any problems you may have.
<p>Then I'd like to ask people using Mandrake or Suse whether they know
of any URL that would teach me how to produce spec files so that my rpm
packages are compatible among all RPM based distributions.
<p>Regards,
<br>Juan.
<p>PS: I've just realized that the configure script will be asking for
libglade 0.11 as well. :-(. I'm not really sure that it is really required,
I just copied that part of the configure script from gnumeric. I'll send
you a personalized version of the .tar.gz file if you want, so that you
try it and tell me if it works</html>
==============30A61E859892C0FA4A46C55D==
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: 23 Apr 2000 19:38:31 GMT
SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:13:31 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >Boy are you out in left field. From a technology perspective, Windows is
: >a disaster. I will argue any technical position you may take, debate the
: >pros and cons on an aggregate basis. The single thing that NT does
: >better than Linux, is processor affinity linking to I/O devices with
: >SMP. This one feature has little effect in 99.9% of the applications
: >which one would deploy using x86 hardware.
: I never claimed in any post that Windows was superior to Linux. My only
: point is that Linux sucks, technically. I am not interested in comparisons
: to Windows but to the more serious operating systems.
If I may ask, what constitutes a "serious" operating system? I use my
WindowsNT workstation for tasks which I consider "serious" every day, not
the least of which is producing 3D animation.
: >So, you made the erroneous remark that UNIX is technically inferior to
: >UNIX, so I will let you frame the debate. You put out some facts, you
: >have some right?
: Facts why Linux sucks? How about a complete lack of asynchronous I/O
: for starters. A completely lack of application-level exception handling.
: A horrbibly inefficeint and slow string implementation. A window system
: which requires a context switch (!) whenever you move the mouse. A
: programming model which fixes resolves memory management through process
: destruction. WHy don't the superior, more robust systems have these
: problems?
I'm not so sure that they don't. SCO OpenServer, for example makes use of
X11R5, which I'm sure has much of the same drawbacks (likely more) that
X11R6 suffers from.
But as I stated, I'm not sure what you mean by "serious", or "superior",
in the context of operating systems.
: >This is very untrue. Most Linux users have a great deal with computers.
[SNIP]
: protetction). In my experience, most Linux users are compiler jocks
: who think they are god's gift to programming because they know how to
: unpack a tar.gz file and compile it into a binary (a task, of course,
: which has nothing to do with programming, and is completely non-technical).
I have to say that I completely concur with SeaDragon's observations.
There is a certain "elite snobbery" that goes hand in hand with a
command-line environment, be it UNIX, or VMS, or even DOS. People who
often argue that "typing requires thinking" often overlook the existence
of USENET, as an example of a counterpoint.
: I find that most Linux advocates are completeley technically ignorant of
: any serious technical issues, but instead harp on on legal and economic
: issues. Most of these are obssessed with comparisons to Microsoft (and
IMHO, Linux was born out of a sheer dislike of Microsoft, unlike its BSD
cousins, who seemed to originate from a need for a BSD-like OS.
: not serious, robust operating systems), and cannot say anything intelligent
: except vague, cliched generalizations about stability, security, and
: scalability, and in most cases they do not understand the real technical
: issues which bnenefit these areas.
I don't pretend to be a "technically informed" person, but it's quite easy
to understand what you're saying here. Most of the gripes that Linux
users have about Windows in general is the same, regurgitated nonsense
that has been around since the days of Windows v3.1.
: >Different types of UNIX are different operating systems.
[Directed at Mark...]
While the actual code varies, I'd be reluctant to agree with that
statement on any level. UNIX operating systems are, for the most part,
based on full or partial POSIX implementations. They may be coded a bit
differently, but they all perform tasks in a very similar manner.
: Phooey. All of the Unix operating systems do things the same. FOr
: every interesting technical issue, all Unix's address the problem
: in same (usually, wrong) way. See the above list and tell me which
: Unix fixes the abive problems.
: >This does not say that NT is not also an operating system, however
: >something like Windows is debatable because the OS is really DOS and
: >Windows is an extension, so it is debatable. But like a tomato can be
: >called a vegetable, I guess Windows 9x can be called an OS.
[Directed at Mark...]
Windows95, or Windows98 are not anything at all. They are merely bundling
names. Windows95 is merely the bundling name for Windows v4, and DOS v7.
: Why the fuck are you so obssessed with Windows? DOes it make you feel
: really good that you are the second shittiest operating system in the
: world instead of the shittiest? Why don't you try comparising your OS
: to something serious such as TOPS-20 or MVS for a change?
Hmmm... according to Ken Thompson, Linux _is_ the shittiest operating
system out there. :-)
Out of curiosity, what is it about WindowsNT that makes you believe that
it's the "shittiest"? Often, people make judgements about products based
solely on their own line of work, without regard to other venues of
productivity.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 67E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:03:29 +0200
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> In article <8dub6v$pl2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Actually the only thing i miss in Linux is a good Exchange/IMAP client..
> >there is tkRat but it aint it.
>
> Netscape Communicator/messenger is tolerable as an IMAP client once
> you convince it not to consider all the files under your home
> directory as mailfolders.
Ohh.. its not tolerable... its silly to download your folders and messages
when connected to a IMAP enabled server (Micors¨1 Exchange).. that really
smashes the idea with IMAP. TkRat does this much better.. but still not
good enough - and the GUI is rather weird for my taste.
Well i guess i have to settle with TkRat for now.
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:15:39 GMT
There you go test@myhome the ball is in your court.
And BTW that type of response seems to be typical of the Linux
community. In the past I ranted about some other applications and in
all cases the authors contacted me to offer assistance.
MS could give 2 squats about my software problems. Why should they?
They have my money already, not that I have many MS applications but
the OS is enough to hurt my wallet.
As soon as Linux/FreeBSD/BEOS/what ever becomes a viable digital audio
platform I am gone completely from the Windows upgrade octopus with
it's 8 tentacles in my wallet.
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:15:29 +0200, Juan Toledo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>test@myhome escribió:
>
>> see, I wanted to install etherape:
>>
>> >rpm -Uhv etherape-0.5.3-1.i386.rpm
>> error: failed dependencies:
>> gnome-libs >= 1.0.0 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
>> libglade >= 0.11 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
>>
>
>Hi. :-)
>
>I'm the author of EtherApe, and I don't like the fact that you are unable to
>try my program. :-)
>Here is my list of suggestions:
>
>*Since you made a full install of suse, you probably have a full development
>environment. Your best bet is to download the .tar.gz. It is actually not
>much harder to use than an rpm or deb package. Just do:
>
> * tar xvfz etherape-x.y.z.tar.gz
> * cd etherape-x.y.z
> * ./configure; make; make install
>
>*As some other people said, the problems you have are the main reasons why I
>find debian much superior to any rpm based distribution. Just run apt-get
>install etherape :-)
>*Then you can switch to FreeBSD if you so feel like. I'm told EtherApe
>compiles and works in FreeBSD as well. :-)
>
>The advantage of using packages instead of source, is the fact that
>uninstalling is supposedly easier, but if you keep your etherape-x-y-z
>directory, you can uninstall cleanly as well, using make uninstall
>
>I'd really like you to help you get EtherApe running. Please email me
>directly with any problems you may have.
>
>Then I'd like to ask people using Mandrake or Suse whether they know of any
>URL that would teach me how to produce spec files so that my rpm packages are
>compatible among all RPM based distributions.
>
>Regards,
>Juan.
>
>PS: I've just realized that the configure script will be asking for libglade
>0.11 as well. :-(. I'm not really sure that it is really required, I just
>copied that part of the configure script from gnumeric. I'll send you a
>personalized version of the .tar.gz file if you want, so that you try it and
>tell me if it works
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 23 Apr 2000 15:16:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 22 Apr 2000 22:28:43 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>wrote:
>
>>>That explains a lot. I think a lot of people now expect computers to be
>>>much easier to use than you apparently do. There's certainly nothing
>>>wrong with how you feel, but be aware you're certainly in the minority.
>>
>>But there is nothing easier or more consistant that a text
>>editor and no reason to learn a different interface for
>>every little task.
>
>People by the millions have proven that line of thinking to be in the
>minority.
Of course. Microsoft and Apple spent a lot of money convincing
them that text must be represented as arbitrary graphic shapes
and thus editting text must be complicated instead of having
the simplicity of typewriter characters.
>I can't say it's wrong, but I can say that most people
>nowadays use the GUI, and I think the vast, vast majority of them
>prefer that to the CLI. Linux serves up both fairly well, so *I* like
>it, but I think most prefer a GUI.
Things that are controlled by config files can be wrapped by
a GUI to give you the choice much easier than the opposite.
>I think the Mac method (hide
>everything) goes too far, and I think the Linux method (show
>everything) goes too far - I think Windows (NT/2k) is good middle
>ground for most people.
It's OK the first time you do something, but after you realize
that the 10th time you are repeating 100 steps and doing only
one different, how do you automate that other 99?
>...which makes setup all the more frustrating with NFS. You've got to
>trust the machine in question that has NFS-client permissions, else
>you open up an entire range of security problems. Without NIS, NFS
>is, IMHO, a disaster. I'm sure there's much more to it that I haven't
>seen or used yet, but it seems that getting the GID/UID from the
>*client* system and applying it to *server* side shares is outrageous
>- a security flaw that's easily exploitable.
Conceptually it is the same as trust relations between PDCs. Giving
the root password to someone on a client system that you don't
trust is the same as giving the administrator password to a
trusted domain to that person. One model isn't any more
outrageous than the other.
>>Keep in mind that the old method was just fine with Microsoft
>>until easily configured Samba servers became popular.
>
>Do you think that the only reason they changed it?
Yes, knowing that the encrypted token is just as usable for
an attack as the plaintext, I see no other reason for it
(and Microsoft certainly knew that as well) and the timing
was precisely right.
>>Is it possible to export the CLI commands from a working system in
>>a form usable to configure a subset of a similar system?
>
>I don't understand the question. NT's files are the same throughout
>NT's installations, which many find -very- nice (they can guarantee XX
>file will be there and will work).
If the service in question can be controlled entirely by documented
files, this issue is irrelevant since you can cut and paste
the lines in question directly. Among CLI's the only one I've
seen get this right is Cisco, where you can telnet in one
window to a box configured correctly and type 'show running'
and get exactly the lines you need to type in to configure
the setup by pasting to another window. For example you might
want to set all your time servers the same some lines like:
ntp time server nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn
you can just paste them in from the working copy.
>>You have to repeat all the same steps with all the
>>same places to make mistakes on each machine. Unless the CLI works
>>like Cisco's where a 'show running' command emits exactly the
>>commands needed to reproduce the configuration, having a CLI doesn't
>>help although it might give you a way to script the setup. For some
>>reason Cisco seems to be the only company that understands that
>>you often want to cut and paste between windows connected to two
>>different boxes.
>
>What do you do and what can't you do in NT/2k?
I manage an assortment of boxes and find it much more difficult
to clone an existing system with services under NT/2K. To build
a copy of a Linux web server with a bunch of vhosts, for example, I
can copy an entire machine and then edit a few files if the
ip addresses are going to be different. On the NT/2K boxes
I have to repeat the install and then manually repeat the entire
server setup. I always want VNC installed and running as a
service so that's another several steps. I can't get
replication to run automatically without a domain controller
(why?) so I install the port of rsync with the cygwin dll
in another several steps. Maybe there really are easy
ways to do these things but if so, they are not as obvious as
copying files.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:26:29 GMT
Yikes!
Netscape in any incarnation is really a terrible program, really it
is. IE 5.0 blows the doors off of any version of Netscape I have ever
tried especially when Outlook is considered. It is smoother, more
intuitive and simply seems to work better than Netscape at least on my
systems. Of course IE does not run under Linux :)
I will say that Netscape 4.7 has not given me any grief in 2 weeks or
so of quite heavy use. This is a record at least in my experience.
I just feel the program is clunky and half done looking compared to
the Microsoft offering.
Personally I have high hopes for Opera. When I found out that the
Windows version fit on one 1.44mb diskette I was sold on it.
I suspect the delay in releasing the Linux version is because they
want to get it right the first time. I wish them well and will support
them in their efforts.
Linux really could use a world class browser. KDE is at least as good
as Netscape for basic browsing and hasn't crashed on me yet.
The folks who slam IE 5 should really try it for themselves. I am
certainly no fan of MS but their browser is quite nice. A far cry from
IE 3.x which really sucked goose eggs.
Now if they could only fix all of those security leaks.
On 23 Apr 2000 14:21:04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <8dub6v$pl2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Actually the only thing i miss in Linux is a good Exchange/IMAP client..
>>there is tkRat but it aint it.
>
>Netscape Communicator/messenger is tolerable as an IMAP client once
>you convince it not to consider all the files under your home
>directory as mailfolders.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: George Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:37:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>George Graves wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >George Graves wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >George Graves wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >George Graves wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
>> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >George Graves wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing
>> >> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> >> Apple could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on CSMA is
>> >> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> >> roll over, belly-up and die. With Apple gone, they wouldn't
>> >> >> >> >> have
>> >> >> >> >> that little nagging voice in their head that keeps saying
>> >> >> >> >> "did
>> >> >> >> >> I choose the wrong platform?" Because with no Apple, there
>> >> >> >> >> would
>> >> >> >> >> be only ONE platform and the Wintrolls could sleep secure in
>> >> >> >> >> their beds with no nasty Apple confusing them with that
>> >> >> >> >> pesky
>> >> >> >> >> Macintosh.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >A common misconception. PC owners are becoming increasingly
>> >> >> >> >aware that there are alternatives to MS based products, thus
>> >> >> >> >there
>> >> >> >> >are far for than "one" platform available.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> With what, pray tell, to run on them?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It's called "software" I think.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There just isn't enough of it for most people to get any work
>> >> >> done.
>> >> >
>> >> >Let's leave that up to "most people" to decide for themselves.
>> >>
>> >> They have. "most people" chose Windows, the rest chose Mac.
>> >
>> >You've just called everyone using OS/2 and Linux and every other PC OS
>> >a
>> >"nobody". If this is your intention then we will file your opinion
>> >appropriately (that's what the "Shredder" on the OS/2 desktop is for,
>> >after all).
>>
>> Not at all. I was talking about the TWO platforms who have the
>> preponderance of shrink-wrap productivity software available. Those two
>> are Windows and Mac. It isn't that the rest don't exist or that these
>> people are somehow inferior, its just that they fall outside the scope
>> of the conversation we were having in this thread. I.E. We're talking
>> about beef and potatoes, and you think we are damning broccoli by not
>> mentioning it when in reality, we just happen to be talking about steak
>> and potatoes, and the subject of broccoli just never came up.
>
>If there was broccoli on the plate as well as carrots and you made the
>statement, "Most of the plate is occupied by meat and the rest is occupied
>by
>potatoes," you'd be wrong, just as you were when you made the statement in
>question a few levels above. Thank you for your subsequent clarification.
The brocolli is irrelevant if we are talking about meat and potatoes. It
is there, certainly, and just because we aren't talking about it at that
moment, doesn't mean that we won't eat it or that we don't like it. The
fact that you continue to read some slight against users of less well
supported minority computer platforms on my part into my above comments
about Windows and Macs, is actually YOUR problem, not mine. None was
intended then or now.
--
George Graves
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
