Linux-Advocacy Digest #600, Volume #26 Fri, 19 May 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: a great job (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Off-topic ? Microsoft (Craig Kelley)
Re: Another One! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: a great job (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: How many more viruses does Microsoft need to fix the problem? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Slashdot is down (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: a great job (Tim Koklas)
Re: a great job (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:21:00 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 02:31:15 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>>
>> Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> : On 18 May 2000 00:44:19 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II
>> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : >Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
>> : >
>> : >: On 16 May 2000 23:40:20 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> : >: wrote:
>> : >
>> : >: >I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
>> : >: >late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me?
[deletia]
>> : Message-ID: <8fmlur$i7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> : http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623294410
>>
>> : __It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
>> : __very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
>> : __but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
>> : __possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
>>
>> : You are making a claim here. Then you immediately follow with:
>>
>> : __This
>> : __has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
>> : __hardware problem.
>>
>> : You are basing your claim on anecdotal evidence. Wait a minute, that's
>> : nearly 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
>>
>> *sigh* Perry, you just don't comprehend very well, I'm afraid. No, that
>> wasn't an insult... it was an observation.
>>
>> Let's analyze what I've said:
>>
>> "...it's quite possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees."
>
>No. This is an untrue statement.
Actually it is a true statement. However, it is still somewhat
misleading. X runs with pretty much free riegn of the system and
has the need to function as a device driver layer.
[deletia]
What is untrue is that X on Linux hasn't had that same 'go round'.
Infact, considering the number of installed machines: X on Linux
has most likely had MORE 'go round' than X on any other platform.
This whole '4 year old data' thing is another issue entirely...
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:24:39 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 01:02:23 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1$worth <"1$worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> A great job of shafing Apple and stealing the ideas that were themselves
>> stolen from PARC.
>
>Apparently Xerox didn't mind. Anyway, Linux, Star Office, etc. are not
>exactly great examples of originality either...
They are not typically represented as such either.
That's what distingushes the like of Star Division from Microsoft.
>
>> > N.B. Don't give me crap about how PCs or MS software are expensive.
>
>> M$ software ---- They are! That's not crap. How did he become so rich
>> but to exploit his natural monopoly... and why not!
>
>Browse any software catalog to see that the competition is not necessarily
>cheaper. If MS products were unreasonably expensive, MS would never
>have gotten all that market share.
Competiting OS products have been cheaper for at least 5 years.
Some competing office products have been cheaper for at least
that long as well.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Off-topic ? Microsoft
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 May 2000 10:26:10 -0600
"Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a doubt. Does anything prevent Microsoft selling all of its
> products to a foreign (non U.S.) company and keep on with the
> monopoly from let's say (as example) Spain, Japan, Korea, etc ... ?
Two words: import tariffs.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Another One!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:31:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Fri, 19 May 2000 14:47:49 +0200 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Another virus like the recent 'ILOVEYOU' has been detected. Read
>>about it here:
>>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2572454,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
>>
>>Windows-users really have to watch their e-mail carefully these
>>days. I wonder when it'll be our turn.
>
> Wasn't Kevin Mitnick's Internet Worm targeted specifically at Sendmail? :-)
> Or am I misremembering something?
>
Mitnik didn't write it. It was Morris. I just find it funny that everytime someone
mentions an Outlook worm that they all point to a sendmail bug in 88.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:34:20 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 01:24:11 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 18 May 2000 19:21:01 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >They, together with Intel, brought computing to the masses. They brought us
>
>> Apple did that sooner.
>
>Not to the *masses*. Apple was (and still is) elitist. Their systems were
They did so as much to the masses as the clones did.
The clones only really hit the 'masses' after 15 years of
pushing and the creation of a new 'killer app': the World
Wide Web.
Meanwhile, the first generation of non-academic hackers
was spawned by Apple, Atari and Commodore's 'lack of
reaching the masses'.
>(and still are) almost always more expensive and had (and still have)
>this "artsy fartsy" side to them that many people just don't care for.
>
>> >cheap computers and cheap software. Computer no longer is a dirty word
>
>> Commodore & Atari did that sooner.
>
>They were considered "game" computers, rather than "general purpose"
>(read "business") computers...
I thought we were talking "masses" here.
The "masses" are the ones that drive the development of Dreamcast
and PSX2 rather than the 'vast and wide appeal' of machines like
the VAX.
>
>> Billy is a sand bagger. DOS rode on the good name of IBM.
>> Low cost PC computing was due to the efforts of cloners
>> like AMD and Phoenix. Microsoft had nothing to do with it.
>> If Intel had it's way, an 4M 486 would still cost $1000.
>
>I do remember having a Cyrix processor once, but this was
>in the post-386 era. Intel was the main motor, but of course
Intel was the 'main motor' of keeping prices high and
out of reach of most people. Intel was the 'main motor'
of keeping 'serious' intel based computing power as
expensive as any Macintosh.
>competition was (and is) essential to keep those prices low.
>
>> They make lousy chips too. With their cohort Microsoft, they
>> helped ensure that computing in the year 2000 would be
>> constrained by Intel's circa 1981 mistakes. Even when Intel did
>> get it's act together, it took Micrsoft another 10 years to
>> take advantage of it (i386).
>
>Programs written fifteen years ago for DOS still run on modern PCs
>(running Windows) WITHOUT RECOMPILATION. That's
>legacy support the competition (Sun, Apple, etc.) can only dream of.
They will run on an Atari ST as well.
That is despite the fact that an Atari ST runs an MC68000.
Poluting a modern OS with imbedding legacy DOS support is
simply uncessecary. Moore's law has more than made up for
any associated overhead several times over.
>Now, legacy support is very expensive on the technological level.
>That's why Windows and the Intel architecture are so twisted.
>But, legacy support is what people want.
No, Microsoft merely represents the laziest sort of legacy
support possible. Microsoft represents the laziest sort in
many respects...
...like waiting 10 years to finally exploit
the IA32.
>
>> Linux exists because Billy was a sandbagger and lots of people
>> realized it: most notably a college kid in Finland.
>
>Linus wanted to create a "better Minix" exploiting the power
>and the availability of the cheap 386 architecture. I'm sure that
>Linus wasn't driven by his realisation that "Billy was a sandbagger".
>I think it was his love for technology that made him create Linux.
No, Linux thought DOS was crap. That's why he was trying to use Minix.
Had he found available an OS that could fully exploit his machine, his
motivations wouldn't have been there.
Linus just didn't do it for 'fun', he also wanted something useful.
The VOID left by Microsoft's apparent lack of need to improve itself
was what left Linus in the position to be doing for himself.
In the end, Bill created his own worst nightmare.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 22:08:50 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 18 May 2000 19:27:52 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Interesting how the mere presence of Linux can cause "severe network
>>>performance problems" in a network where everybody uses Windows all
>>>the time.....
>
>>Yes, I was curious about this also. I have seen some distributions
>>where the 'updatedb' script walks across nfs and samba mounted
>>partitions building the filename database which makes for some
>>interesting traffic with a lot of cross-mounted machines, but
>>even that should only happen late at night.
>
>Also, it should only happen if at least one machine is actually running
>Linux --- which Steve^h^h^h^h^hKeymaster88 assured us wasn't actually
>the case, as all the employees opted for Windows all the time....
>
>Bernie
>
>P.S.: Updatedb can also get kinda annoying when it gets to your newsspool.
> Especially when you don't expire news, and have directories with
> 100,000+ files...... Time to go Reiserfs ;-)
>--
Or you could put any dirs you don't want updatedb to touch off limit to
it. With SuSE, the default doesn't scan networked file systems (nfs
or samba) and skips /tmp and spool & etc.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: How many more viruses does Microsoft need to fix the problem?
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:56:05 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18 May 2000 10:55:25 -0700,
david parsons, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The insecurities in M$ products also drives the anti-virus
>>software industry, which iis more of a thoroughgoing monopoly
>
> Cartel, perhaps, not a monopoly -- I believe McAfee has
> the largest marketshare these days, but even after them
> buying Dr. Solomon it's still not more than about 60-70%
> of the market.
>
>>Windows shills are quick to point out that linux may have these
>>same problems too, if only it were more popular, but this is
>>partly false for technical reasons, and partly false because once
>>viruses became any sort of a problem on linux, a Free Software
>>anti-virus solution would spring up, and it would make the crap
>>people are forced to use under windows look like, well, crap.
>
> I suspect that virus detection is not quite as easy as you
> may think it is.
>
I have been wondering about this. It seems to me that the current method
of combing for a given bitmatch is a poor way to do it. You can never be ahead,
at best, you update the A.V. before you get hit with the latest nasty.
So how about (in addition to the above) having a list of things you don't want
e-mail attachments to do (tough under windows perhaps, but easy enough with
Linux) First of all is e-mailing others, shouldn't happen automatically, maybe
should get a warning that attachment foo wants to email itself to 3000 of your
closest friends... firewalls for e-mail sortof. Not perfect, but another
avenue to take.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:36:02 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 14:54:30 GMT, Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Office 95 in 16Mb 486 - I wouldn't load Navigator in twm on that and
>expect
>> '95 in 16M? Puleeeze.
>
> Hmmm, let's say that Windows 95 boots on a 16MB machine, and can even run
>Office 95, but in any case runs it well ...
Then I would advise you to not exhale strongly in the presence
of Law Enforcement personnell...
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:42:08 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fredrik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >THe Solitare Cards DO look nice in Windows!! Unless Linux cancome up
> >with something similar, it will never take of the desktop.. SOlitare,
> >the ultimate Windows Killer app... *sigh*
>
> Under RH6.1, simply type "sol" in your nearest xterm. No, the cards don't
> wink at you ;-)
>
> Bernie
I tried right now, and I still think that the back of the
cards in Windows
Solitaire is nicer.
On the contrary the Undo on Gnome Free Cell makes it more
fun than Windows
Free Cell.
That's why, given that the solitaire match turned out even,
my company WILL
use Linux.
Only we didn't hire an expensive blockhead consultant, so we
introduce it
gradually, and those still working under Windows, and
enjoying daily
crashes, ask every day when their box will become Linux too.
BTW not having
an expensive consultant, we gave a look to the Howtos (there
is one
specifically devoted to font DeUglification), in order to
have better
looking fonts, and now we have.
Star Office has been quite helpful to solve compatibilities
problems as we
had to uninstall Office 97 because of a general uprise, and
install again
old Office 4.3 which appears to contain the last almost
stable version of
Word (we had an open licence for all of our workstations).
Don't ask why we
didn't install Office 2000 instead, becuase you might get
bad words.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:43:16 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 21:28:12 -0400, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 11 May 2000 13:41:39 -0300, "Francis Van Aeken"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > :Slashdot is down.
>> > :
>> > :They always have had their share of technical problems,
>> > :which is quite embarrassing for a technology forum.
>> > :
>> > :Maybe they should reconsider their set-up and let go
>> > :of the hobbyist software.
>> >
>> > It's great reading comments on slashdot about how unreliable non-Linux
>> > software is and then having the very site that houses such comments
>> > (and runs Linux) be down for hours.
>>
>> Must make you happy.
>>
>> I'm sure if they were running ASP under IIS, they wouldn't have those
>> same DDOS problems, eh?
>
>Of course not. Have you heard of a single IIS5/W2K server ANYWHERE taken
>down by any DDOS (or anything else for that matter)?? To date, has ANY W2K
>server been broken into or down? None that I'm aware of.
That probably suffers even more from the 'cant attack it if you
can't find it' problem than Linux (mail) virii are supposed to
suffer from...
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 02:54:01 +1000
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 19:01:36 +1000, Christopher Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 14:34:50 +1000,
> >> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 02:03:23 +1000,
> >> >> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623637730
> >> >> >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623940112
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'm afraid I can't see any lies there. Perhaps you'd care to post
the
> >> >> >specific parts you're referring to ?
> >> >>
> >> >> I already did at
> >> >>
> >> >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624137505
> >> >>
> >> >> To which he never responded.
> >> >
> >> >Presumably you refer to the "I have seen a lot of BSODs in my time,
and
> >in
> >> >every single
> >> >instance, [...]" quote ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, and then he in a followup he changed his story from "every single
> >> instance" to "most". I guess you didn't finish reading the whole
> >> thing.
> >
> >I did. One sentence was about BSODs, the other about "problems".
>
> Go back to Deja and follow the context of the sub-thread - it was
> about BSOD's. Stephen used the word "BSODs". A followup to his post
> used the word "BSODs". In Stephen's conflicting followup to that he
> used the word "problems". Nowhere did he change the context or define
> "problems". So in that context problems implicitly meant "BSODs"
I've been back up the thread. The context was, IIRC, "problems", and the
specific sentence about BSODs.
> >> >> Anyone he disagrees with enough he labels a zealot.
> >> >
> >> >Usually they are.
> >>
> >> A generalization. It doesn't justify the many cases where he calls
people
> >> zealots and he's wrong.
> >
> >I can't recall any. However, since you're making the accusation I
presume
> >you're more than prepared to back it up ?
>
> Nice try. He's the one calling people names. It's up to him to prove
> it when he does so.
No, he's the one posting his opinion. *You're* the one saying he's
labelling people who aren't zealots as such, hence you should be prepared to
back it up.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 02:55:30 +1000
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g29u2$96h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > http:\\www.freebsd.org
> : ^^
> : *snort*
>
> ROTFLMAO! I _NEVER_ would have noticed that. Thanks Donal. :-)
Odd. It was one of the first things I saw :).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:48:54 GMT
On 19 May 2000 00:29:25 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>I'd like to upgrade to that version as lack of anti-aliased fonts are
>>>unacceptable to me.
>>>
>>>StarOffice 5.1 is a good example of an app where the fonts look unreadable
>>>at most point sizes.
>>
>> No they don't. They're quite readable even at msword default sizes.
>> This is simple exaggeration, or fabrication.
>
>This depends almost entirely on your pixel size. If your screen
>resolution is low, X looks bad. The higher the resolution the
>less you need anti-aliasing.
Now that consumer PC's have finally 'caught' up to Unix workstations
of the 1980's in terms of montor size and video resolution, that
shouldn't be too much of a problem. <snicker>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:51:24 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:392518ed$4$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > OLE was introduced as part of the OS in 1992, it was NEVER an office
> > > only
> > > > > solution.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong.
> >
> > > Pre-OLE2 was useless. I don't even consider it OLE since it was so
> > > radically different.
> >
> > There you go again. You get caught in a lie so you try to distort history
> > to justify your lies.
>
> No, I'm telling you what my thougts were. When anyone says OLE, I don't
> even consider OLE1. It simply isn't in what i'm thinking, thus it's not in
> what I'm writing about.
That doesn't matter. The foot was in the door.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:54:24 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 02:21:08 GMT, Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ok, I think you're not understanding the whole picture. First off, why does
>Windows inhabit 80% of all modern computers in the world? That one is pretty
Nope. It's because Windows was originally DOS, the OS of the IBM
microcomputer. The good name of IBM ensured the success of DOS
with which Microsoft could use to force Windows onto everyone.
[deletia]
Apple got that 'easy' thing right a FUCKING WHOLE DECADE before
Microsoft did...
...a lot of good that did Apple.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:55:30 GMT
abraxas wrote:
>
> Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Commodore & Atari did that sooner.
>
> > They were considered "game" computers, rather than "general purpose"
> > (read "business") computers...
>
> I just forwarded this off to a guy I used to work with at GVP...
> (if you dont know what GVP was, you have no business talking
> about commodore computers in any regard)
>
> Lets see what he thinks...:)
>
> -----yttrx
Actually, it depends on the time you are reffering to.
70's: They were used as business machines
80's: 70% games, 30% business (and if it wasn't for Amiga, it would have
been 90%-10%)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:04:11 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 01:07:47 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8g2ki9$1m7n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Neither Apple or Tandy could be considered suppliers to "the masses".
>> >Apples market share has always been very low, as has Tandy's.
>>
>> Think earlier. Before the IBM PC and for a short while after,
>> Apple and Tandy had almost all of the market.
>
>The market was tiny compared to today. Today, one in two homes has a
>computer. Back then, one in 1000 or worse had had computers.
So? That doesn't mean that those machines weren't available
in every Sears, Kmart and Gold Circle. HELL, these days you
typically have to find some sort of beautique.
[deletia]
>> >days, only hobbyists owned tandy computers.
>>
>> Isn't that pretty much what you call 'masses' who own computers?
>
>Not "masses who own computers" but the masses in general.
>
>hobyists were laymen, but not "masses".
More 'pseudo-elistism' discounting any early adopters as
not part of 'the masses'. That's pure bullshit.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
