Linux-Advocacy Digest #258, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix is dead? (John Sanders)
Re: Where is PostScript support?? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU! (Sean LeBlanc)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
Re: i cant blieve you people!! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability (abraxas)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective ("Rich C")
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (John Sanders)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 12:03:54 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> If a user wants the GUI, he should be able to get a usable GUI.
> If he wants CLI (side note: CLIs are not what they used to be,
> although the mods aren't quite as visible -- but '<TAB>' command
> and file completion didn't exist in the 80's).
>
B.S. SunOS, csh. If you configured it.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Where is PostScript support??
Date: 25 Apr 2000 12:10:45 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>However, I still haven't found a satisfactory way of preparing decent
>presentations. It is de rigueur to give conference talks on-line from
>one's laptop. However, I simply haven't found an alternative that
>compares to the ease of use, appearence, and speed of presentation my
>colleagues enjoy with PowerPoint.
Have you looked at Corel Presentations 9 from the Wordperfect
2000 suite? Their demo at Comdex seemed nice enough.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
From: Sean LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:26:11 GMT
Neither. It uses some undocumented call(s) in NTDLL.DLL.
Check it out:
http://www.sysinternals.com/listdlls.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alun Jones) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean LeBlanc
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Or run listdlls.exe.
>
> Does that catch DLLs loaded through the LoadLibrary call, or only those that
> are listed in the dependencies?
>
> Alun.
> ~~~~
>
> --
> Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us
> 1602 Harvest Moon Place | at web site http://www.wftpd.com or email
> Cedar Park TX 78613 | us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] VISA / MC accepted.
> Fax +1 (512) 378 3246 | NT-based ISPs, be sure to read details of
> Phone +1 (512) 378 3246 | WFTPD Pro, NT service version - $100.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:22:37 GMT
In article <8cihqm$13d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> In article <7AXG4.624$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8cgj1a$1qbm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >MS-CHAP i'll grant you on, though I
> >> >believe it's published. "originally" is
> >> >meaningless. We're talking about Microsofts standards today.
That's exactly the problem - we are talking about Microsoft's
standards (Windows is da standard) vs Open Systems standards
as submitted to the IETF, POSIX level 3, W3C (prior to Microsoft's
interference), MPEG, and IEEE. Standards traditionally proven
using open source technology to assure a complete and implementable
specification.
> >> How do you get NT machines to authenticate against anything but
> >> a Microsoft box as a domain controller? Is that a protocol?
> >> Is it published? Which component can you replace to make
> >> the client side co-exist with standard network authentication
> >> methods?
> >
> >MS-CHAP is an auto configuring protocol for dial-ins, not a domain
> >controller authentication.
But it does bring up the second ugly problem. You can use MS-Chap
to get a TCP/IP connection, but you need yet another level of
proprietary software/protocol to access servers using anything OTHER
than HTTP.
> Yes, so we've established that Microsoft does many non-standard
> things. That's the point of this discussion, isn't it? I
> thought you were trying to claim otherwise. The domain
> controller business is the most insideous of the bunch. They
> can't claim to interoperate with open systems until they
> work properly as clients to someone else's authentication
> system.
AND when other non-windows clients can be authenticated to
their system. A true open standard is orthagonal. It goes
both ways.
> >> >No, there are no such protections and no such non-disclosures.
> >>
> >> So where are the domain controller documents? And what is
> >> really happening when IIS talking to IE pretends to be doing
> >> HTTP but pops up an authentication window that has a
> >> third box for 'domain' information? For some reason this
> >> doesn't work when a standard http proxy gets between
> >> the two. Why is that?
> >
> >I really don't know, nor do I care.
You don't, but the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade
Commission, and the Attorney's general of about 20 states are
very interested in this.
> Then please stop claiming that Microsoft products follow
> published standards.
>
[snip Front Page Extensions]
> The situation is contrived to encourage unsuspecting HTML authors to
> create pages that fail under anything but IE. You can say
> a lot of bad things about Microsoft, but they are not ignorant
> of the marketing implications of making the competitor's
> product look bad.
> >> Just like visual J++
> >> creates java applets that won't
> >> work with anything but Microsoft
> >> browsers.
> >
> >It *CAN* generate applets that do this.
> > It most certainly can also generate
> >100% pure applets. More exageration.
Actually if you use the Microsoft javac designed for
the Microsoft java VM, the class files will contain
direct calls to Micrososft code that will make the
class useless on anything but a Microsoft platform.
> Not at all. Our first experience was to build an applet with the
> visual tools and it just could not be done in a way that worked
> right in netscape.
In some cases, if you are really well behaved and don't drag
in the ActiveX controls or add beans that are wrappers for ActiveX,
you can get source code that can be compiled using a regular
javac to create java "run anywhere" byte code. But the goal of
Sun was to make all byte code runnable anywhere.
> >> Are you going to claim that is accidental? That
> >> Microsoft didn't realize that the average user would think
> >> the other products were broken instead when they had in
> >> fact been tricked into building non-standards-conforming
> >> code by these tools?
> >
> > Any programmer that doesn't understand
> > the language he's using isn't a
> > programmer that should be trusted.
> > It's his or her job to know what is and
> >isn't standard.
Actually, since Microsoft doesn't include standards conformity
in their Certification tests, only a UNIX trained programmer
would even be aware of which standards were required and which
extensions violate the standards.
Microsoft says "Bill makes the rules". Ultimately it's the top
executives at Microsoft who have the final say as to which standards
are adopted and what gets proprietary extensions. "Them with the
gold - makes da rules". I'm sure Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton,
and Washington would beg to differ.
> Errr, no. It was Microsoft's job to obey their contract with Sun
> and conform to the language specifications instead of their
> usual trick of warping it to make everyone else appear broken.
> Even the contract wasn't enough to limit this behavior.
>
> >What does that have to do with
> > Microsoft "demanding" ActiveX be contained in
> >web pages?
In Judge Jackson's finding of fact, and during the trial,
there were a number of cases where Microsoft required that ISPs
using Windows NT servers to use ActiveX controls and other technology
designed to prevent the proliferation of Netscape and UNIX or Linux
on the desktop.
> >> That is clearly not true when the
> >> customers ask for refunds for the
> >> pre-installed gunk.
> >> Has Microsoft ever responded to these requests?
Actually, they have. They flatly rejected any terms and
any attempts to give refunds to people who didn't boot Windows.
Not only did they refuse to honor the refunds given by Toshiba,
they also refused to let Toshiba resell the licenses to other
channels.
> >OEM's take on all support options,
> > including refunds in order to get cheaper
> >copies of Windows. Thus, Microsoft is not
> > responsible for giving refunds on
> >OEM copies. The OEM is. Microsoft gives refunds on retail copies.
Actually, the contracts with the OEMs effectively forbid refunds.
The OEM must prepurchase all licenses, they are not allowed to
sell their licenses to other OEMs, and they aren't allowed to sell
them directly to corporate or retail users. Effectively, if
20% of their customers demand refunds - and the OEM honors it,
under the standard agreement, the OEM looses out entirely.
Currently, the best you can get as an OEM is to purchase Windows 98
and Works. IBM, DELL, and a few others have a special deal that
allows them to purchase less than they need - but they pay a premium
for the right to sell alternatives such as Lotus Smart Suite and Linux.
The standard Windows 98 agreement prevents the installation of Linux.
The OEM isn't allowed to alter the boot sequence from power-up to
the first screen. Recently, OEMs have been pushing back, but they
are still not allowed to put third party applications on the desktop.
The four largest PC makers (IBM, DELL, HP, Compaq) have been pushing
back, but are still threatened by the possibility of License revocation.
> That is not what the shrink-wrap agreement says. It says the end
> user should contact Microsoft it they don't agree to the terms.
You can call Microsoft and tell them you don't agree. They will
tell you not to use the software, put you on a "no support" list,
and will watch you electronically to make sure you don't pirate
their software, but they won't give you a refund.
> >> >NFS is a Sun proprietary protocol.
> >>
> >> Isn't the full spec released now?
NFS is fully supported in GPL. NFS-3 is only supported under BSDL.
> >I don't think it's documented by Sun.
> > I think it's documented by others.
>
> No, this is a source code release:
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/106091
Actually, sun published the specification back in 1991.
They also license NFS for MS-DOS/Windows for about 50 cents/copy.
> >> >> MS-CHAP is "based on CHAP",
> >> >
> >> >Inded it was.
> >>
> >> And broke everything that understood chap. As usual.
> >
> >And that was almost 10 years ago.
Actually, it was only 5 years ago. Keep in mind that Microsoft
didn't even support TCP/IP in Windows for Workgroups. They
included support for NetBEUI, Netware, and Banyan, but didn't
include a TCP/IP stack.
In 1993 Trumpet Winsock was the way to get TCP/IP on a machine.
Trumpet licensed their Winsock very reasonably - about $2000 for
a corporate site license. The combination of Winsock and Mosaic
have users access to UNIX systems in the "point and click" interface.
> Some things never change. Like the last NT service pack
> breaking a Lotus product. That's been going on for 15 years.
Actually 25 years. Microsoft wrote extensions to PET BASIC that
broke MITS BASIC. They wrote extensions to TRS-80 BASIC that broke
PET BASIC. They wrote extensions to MS-DOS 2.0 that broke MS-DOS 1.0
applications. Backward compatibility is not only not important
to Microsoft - Microsoft wants to break applications on predecessor
products because it drive up revenue and enables Microsoft to catch
customers who can't wait for the applications to be upgraded.
Microsoft did this with Lotus 1-2-3, breaking Lotus with Windows 3.1
and pushing OEMs and corporate customers to adopt Excel - which
Microsoft sold for $49. They did the same thing to WordPerfect.
Hard to imagine today that Execl, Word, and Powerpoint were each
about $50. Today, you can't even get an Upgrade for that price.
> >> Really? Our cisco rep says that we
> >> can't run normal chap and ms-chap
> >> both when authenticating dialins
> >> against a domain controller?
> >> Why is that?
> >
> >No, you can't. But the Microsoft client
> > can understand regular CHAP as well
> >as MS-CHAP. There is no need to run both.
Unfortunately, Windows NT 3.xx could ONLY accept MS-CHAP
connections. Microsoft tried to get ISPs to adopt Windows NT
as a terminal server. This meant you HAD to use MS-CHAP.
This was Microsoft's attempt to kill Windows 3.1 (by killing
Trumpet Winsock), and Linux - both of which didn't support
MS-CHAP. You could use Win32 Winsock - but Win32 broke nearly
all Windows 3.1 applications (except MS-OFFICE which was patched
when you did the win32 patch).
> No, the point was that we had to run ms-chap to let the router
> authenticate against the domain controller. And since it can't
> then do chap too, it breaks the non-ms clients that don't do
> ms-chap. You are right that these are mostly gone. That's the
> power and problem of a monoply player. If they do something
> non-standard everyone else is forced to rewrite theirs to conform
> or go out of business.
The key is it killed Windows 3.1 and forced everyone to go to
Windows 95. Furthermore, the Win32 extension killed nearly all
Windows 3.1 applications.
> >> >Which "standard" did Microsoft introduce, but not document?
> >>
> >> Domain controller authentication. How do we use another
> >> type of authentication with NT/win2k clients?
> >
> >Since when did Microsoft introduce that as a standard?
>
> I thought you were contending that Microsoft used standard
> protocols. Would you like to change to the more realistic
> view that Microsoft uses undocumented proprietary protocols
> to lock everyone using their client software or development
> tools into also using their server products?
The bottom line is that Microsoft uses nonstandard protocols
to exclude other platforms from the desktop market. Only after
Apple gave Microsoft a 25% stake did it get the rights to software
that could get past Microsoft's "competitor killers".
> >> >The success of the internet as
> >> > we know it today is most certainly due to
> >> >Unix, but it's also due to Microsoft,
> >> > since without Microsofts support of
> >> >it, it would not be anything as ubiquitious as it is today.
This is actually quite funny, especially since Microsoft has fought
anything that even smells like UNIX since MS-DOS 2.0. They came up
with heirarchal file systems to keep users from wanting UNIX. They
have been fighting UNIX ever since.
By the time Microsoft finally released it's own version of Winsock,
there were over 30 million users using Trumpet Winsock and Mosaic
or Netscape. By the time Microsoft came out with IE, there were
over 80 million users. By the time Windows NT 4.0 came up with
a marginally useful Internet server, there were over 100 million
Internet users.
Keep in mind that Mosaic and Netscape were desgined to make UNIX
available to Windows desktop users, with the explicit goal of
eventually making it possible for users to switch to UNIX with
minimal impact (since they would already have the web browser
interface).
By the time Microsoft "extended" Windows 95 to include support of
the internet, Linux already had plug-n-play, 2 million users,
and was growing at 15%/month. Red Hat had even offered OEM licenses
to numerous computer makers for as little as $5/machine - but was
"locked out" by exclusionary Microsoft contracts.
> >> Huh? OS/2 released full internet support including a browser while
> >> Mr. Gates was still proclaiming that windows would never include
> >> a browser for free. And MSN was expected to be a proprietary
> >> imitation of the internet. People have such short memories...
> >
> >Mr Gates never proclaimed any such thing that I recall.
> >Do you have a link to that?
The problem was that this information predates Microsoft's web sites,
and nearly everyone elses. You might find some commentary on the
Dow Jones site (some press releases in flat-text format), but you
probably have to go to the library and review copies of Byte on
Microfiche or Microfilm.
In 1993, Microsoft was targeting AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve, each
of which had reached about 1 million users by the end of 1993. The
original model was to use something like a Lotus Notes version of
Exchange. Users would connect to exchange servers - especially at
corporate sites - and pull down content in Microsoft Office format
which they could read at their leisure. These documents would
contain VBA applications that could be used for sending feedback.
This was all supposed to be released with Windows NT 3.x.
What Microsoft didn't know was that AOL was already targeting the
Internet - primarily because the X.25 network over X.3 pads was
already too slow for AOL's TCL interface. Meanwhile the publishers
weren't willing to pay 80% of their revenues to AOL so they were
going directly to the internet as well. By the time Microsoft realized
that the Internet was going to be the new model for on-line services,
they had to scuttle nearly everything.
I have a little more knowledge than most because my boss at Dow Jones
was managing me (I was doing the Internet Project) and a team doing
the Microsoft project. My site was swamped (a Solaris server in
California connected to a T-1 link, while the Microsoft Exchange based
product was running over budget and late. Eventually, the WSJIE team
adopted my web site model (WAIS server with graphics and linked
content and CGI interface).
Microsoft retooled MSN for the Internet. Initially, Microsoft wanted
publishers to use ONLY Windows NT as a server, and they wanted to charge
each publisher $5/user/month for "access to the customer base". The
publishers revolted by blocking MSN and all Microsoft related IP
subnets from connecting to their sites. In some cases, Microsoft
even had to PAY the PUBLISHERS to drop the guards. Furthermore,
the publishers refused to use NT 3.xx since it crashed too regularly.
Microsoft had to live with UNIX, and it had to play nice. But
Microsoft also used IE and MSN to collect information from users about
favorite sites, spending habits, and advertizing usage. This enabled
Microsoft to target key sights and come up with sites designed to kill
the top competitor sites. Of course, once Microsoft established it's
dominance in a particular arena, it would start charging the little
guys a premium price for access.
> No, but it was reported in the trade magazines covering the Comdex
> where the pre-release of OS/2 Warp was shown before Win95 was
> introduced.
Yep. Since Microsoft Windows 95 still wasn't available at that
Comdex, the big news makers were OS/2 Warp and Linux. Yddragisil
Plug-n-play Linux was getting the headlines, because it would configure
the commonly available VLB 80486 machines automatically. It got some of
the video cards wrong, but it did a remarkable job considering that
there were no PCI "plug and play" dialogues available.
By the 1995 Comdex show, the Internet had grown from 2 million in
January 1992 to nearly 64 million in January 1994. In fact even
counting internet was a problem. There were over 100 million uniquely
identified e-mail addresses, and cookies helped identify about 50
million users.
> >MSN shipped at the same time as the free IE. So, what's your point?
That was part of the PLUS pack that came out in November of 1995,
nearly 1 year after the releas of PnP Linux and OS/2 WARP.
> That they were forced by competition to make these changes in
> contrast to what they had planned. Now they no longer have
> competition.
>
> >Are you suggesting that OS/2 would
> > have made the internet as ubiquitious as
> >it is today?
Not OS/2 alone. On the other hand, the combination of
OS/2, Linux, BSD, SCO, MAC, and a cheap version of Solaris
would have prevented Microsoft from being able to corrupt
the standards system as much as it has.
> Any operating system would have done so and if market share had
> been spread over several vendors, none could have gotten away
> with building products that did not interoperate correctly
> with the others. OS/2 clearly had a head start at including
> a full suite of standards-conforming internet products. When
> did MS first ship something that spoke SMTP/POP correctly?
> When did they get lpr right? I guess they are finally doing
> NFS as an extra cost add-on for win2k. What about X?
X11 won't be coming from Microsoft. There is a version from
Hummingbird, but Microsoft tried to force Citrix instead. Furthermore,
you can't get Windows 2000 apps to run as X11 clients (unless you
are running VMWare).
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:05:52 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:37:43 -0400...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> steve jobsniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >i cant believe you peolpe... micorsoft is going down, taking the rest of the
> >tech stocks down alogn with it, and you folks are
> >*happy*!!! will you only be happy when the entire stock market
> >crashess, taking the economy, your job, and preciuos apple with it??? of
> >course you'll change you're minds then, but why not change your mind now
> >WHILE YOU CAN STILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE and keep it from happening?
>
> We have the attitude of M$ gates: Tough shit!
>
> -- We knew it would happen someday. We warned others. They didn't listen. So
> its tough.
I for one am glad that the "New Economy" stock market is slowly deflating
to an appropriate size instead of crashing.
mawa
--
For in Georgian Bay, it is possible to imagine North America as it was
-- before the United States have began the murderous deceptions and
unthinking carelessness that have all but /spoiled/ it!
-- John Irving, _A_Prayer_For_Owen_Meany_
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:09:46 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:30:24 -0400...
...and Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could envision a frontend for rpm that would keep track of what the sytem
> had, then look at what a new rpm requires, and finally, go out and grab the
> required stuff off the net. I bet someone could even make money off a thing
> like this by charging a subscription fee. It sure would save a lot of grief
> by avoiding "dependencies hell" is a RH-type system. :-)
This frontend exists and it doesn't cost anything. It's got its quirks
and is certainly not as time-tested and integrated as dpkg, but it's
there and it works. (It's called rpmfind.)
mawa
--
This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but SUN are not the
only sellers of Unix.
-- Anthony Ord
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: 25 Apr 2000 17:36:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It is stupid to have a default password, but it's hardly a new
>> attack. I've never used Microsoft SQL Server, but I'd wager that it
>> also has a default password...
> As a matter of fact, it doesn't. It forces you to type in a password
> during install.
> You can put in a default one, but it warns you about it. You can't
> just keep hitting next and bypass it.
Ohhh...it WARNS you about it. You cant just keep hitting NEXT.
How idiot proof. No wonder you like it, chad.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 12:37:48 -0400
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip outdated stuff]
> >>
> >> I think the critical issue here might be ISA PnP. I've always
> >> avoided it like the plague (to my benefit). My SB16/IDE (nonpnp)
> >> works just fine & has been chugging along since it was in the 486.
> >>
> >
> >You have a firm grasp of the obvious ;o)
> >
> >My whole point was that the SB-16 PnP loses its settings every time it is
> >inited, and must be configured either by a PnP BIOS (which I don't
believe
>
> Pseudo PNP cards are like that. That's why many of us avoid them
> like the plague, tell others to do so, and then make fun of people
> who haven't.
Go ahead, scoff away, but MINE WORKS! :oP
> ISA should have been put out of it's misery a long
> time ago. The market should have put it out of it's misery a long
> time ago.
>
> Except people kept buying the damn things...
>
> ...as well as motherboards with too few PCI slots.
The only problem with PCI cards is you have to look REALLY
carefully to make sure you don't have some "WIN-Peripheral"
that gobbles up your cpu cycles and refuses to work at all under
Linux.
My problem is now I've got so many "legacy" cards that I don't
want (or need) to replace, that I can't find motherboards with
ENOUGH ISA slots!
I had to buy the BE-6 series I because it has 2 ISA slots, while
the faster Series II only has one.
>
> [deletia]
>
> If you've got the PCI slots, you can simply avoid the hassle.
...or can trade one type of hassle for another (see above.)
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 12:47:19 -0500
test@myhome wrote:
>
> lets talk a little about the broken way of installing software on linux.
>
[deletia]
>
> the whole point is that a end user do not have to do any of this. They
> should simply have to issue one simple command or click on one
> button, and have the application install automatically.
Yes. It's a test. You fail. Stay with windows.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
