Linux-Advocacy Digest #500, Volume #26 Sun, 14 May 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Microsoft must die! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Matthias Warkus)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft must die! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Evan DiBiase")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Evan DiBiase")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 18:52:03 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > All large software packages have bugs. The difference with
> > Linux is only that you are allowed to know what they are.
>
> But Linux is riddled with bugs. VMS has very few bugs.
>
Haven't noticed this "riddled with bugs" on my system.
>
> > Do you have some numbers to back this up? Even estimates of number
> > of hours on numbers of machines compared to Linux users?
>
> Within Digital, VMS field tests are deployed on 1,000's of employees
> desktops as their full-time workstation. I do not have more detailed
> information.
>
> What you need to understand is that there are far fewer hardware
> configurations for VMS than Linux. There are only two architectures,
> and only a few supported options. Therefore it is easily possible for
> the vendor to declare all supported platforms as bug-free. Linux claims
> to support far too many different configurations for it be practical to
> test. Because of this, I declare Linux as untestable.
>
And we give an iota about what you declare?
Besides Linux isn't a vendor, it's an OS. I don't know of any single Linux
vendor that supports all of the Linux architectures. Red Hat supports
three (x86, alpha, and sparc), Yellow Dog Linux supports Power PC, etc.
And how does it make it impractical to test?
>
> > On the contrary, that is the best part.
>
> Most customers are not interested in debugging bug-laden software.
> Where do you get this impression?
>
Where do you get the impression that Linux customers have to debug
bug-laden software. I don't have to so debug, which is good because
my debugging skills are pretty bad.
>
> > Backwards again. The users will perform exactly the correct testing
> > where the company testers can only simulate real-world use.
>
> The customer is only running its own tests performing high level
> functions. The company has the ability to do extensive whitebox
> testing, because it understands what the boundary conditions are. The
> customers testing will find fewer bugs, except in the case of Linux
> where software is released before it is tested.
>
Which software is unreleased before it is tested? True, some programs
are released this way, but those are ussually free and optional.
>
> > No more so than you have to alpha-test every pre-release from
> > a commercial company.
>
> Where do you get the impression that VMS users are using alpha-tests
> and pre-releases? Though field tests are available to public users, an
> overwhelmingly vast majority of VMS users are conservative and do not
> upgrade until x.1 or x.2. What evidence do you have most VMS users are
> using alpha-tests and pre-releases?
>
Probably the same evidence that you have that most Linux users are
paying for alpha-tests and pre-releases.
>
> > If it has been two weeks since the last release there are probably
> > no showstopper bugs.
>
> And the two weeks are a magic number because ...?
>
> > What an odd question in the context of a preference for VMS!
> > What do you do when you add a piece of hardware that VMS doesn't
> > support? And why would you consider doing that on a production
> > machine where you don't have time to reboot?
>
> On VMS you never have to reboot because it supports clustering. The
> need to reboot to install new hardware is a Linux thing.
>
And Linux doesn't support clustering?
>
> > This is the point of the Cathedral/Bazaar, release early/often, and
> > all that. Massively parallel testing just happens to work, and the
> > testers don't even need to understand the problem, just how to
> > report the reproducable ones.
>
> If this is the case why are there so many bugs in Linux compared to
> VMS? Have a look at the CERT advisories and count the number for Linux
> versus the number for Linux. You just do not seem to understand that
> the cathedral model consistently develops software which is
> substantially more reliable than software developed in the bazaar model.
>
We don't understand it because it doesn't happen.
>
> > The difference from the user's
> > viewpoint is just the lack of glossy PR fluff when the highly
> > stable versions appear so you have to pay attention. However,
> > once you get started with 2.0.36 or 2.1.12 or any other solid
> > version it is easy to ignore the machine until something else
> > well-tested comes along.
>
> Tell me, how do you know that 2.0.36 and 2.1.12 are "stable"?
Because they don't crash on me? Well 2.0.36 didn't, can't say
about 2.1.12.
> Did a
> bunny come and tell you? Of course not, _customers_ ran these and
> declared them as stable.
No. kernel developers went over them, and then the distributors tested
them.
Given the competition (at least in x86), the distributors have some
incentive
to test.
> Therefore, these customers must have gone
> through the previous versions of each of these in order to find out
> that the other were _not_ stable.
No. they just wanted more features, or they were new to Linux.
> See, this doesn't happen in VMS.
> Digital would not release a version less stable than 2.0.36 - the
> 2.0.36 would become the first version in the release.
Why the focus on 2.0.36? I never thought of 2.0.35 and the
previous 2.0.x kernels as unstable.
> The main
> difference between minor versions in VMS is not bug fixes (there are so
> few because there are so few bugs), but new features.
>
That's true with Linux within minor versions.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Microsoft must die!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 18:56:16 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 20:00:01 GMT, As If <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Jimmy Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> it's back to 1024x768 24bpp resolution. I do used NTs but everytime I see
>> the blue screen with hex values all over the screen and /CRASHDEBUG
>> without any prompt it's more disgusting. Microsoft do give away their
>> patches but always with disclaimer... :-(
>>
>
>The only times I ever have gotten the blue screen are:
>
>a) overclocking my box and running too hot - pushing the hardware where it's
>not supposed to go
>
>b) using crappy 3rd party hardware drivers.
>
>Microsoft isn't to blame for 99% of the NT blue screens out there; it's the
>junk that passes for OEM hardware drivers.
My current favorite for BSOD's is: Trying to read Rock Ridge CDROMs.
(Yeah, I know there a service pack for this 'bug'. But this is
something that never should have caused such a condition).
--
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]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 18:47:11 GMT
REREAD THE THREAD. I posted an article, but rather than discussing the
article, you have engaged in personal attacks. Sorry if you don't like
what was said, but if you can not discuss issues without resorting to
personal attacks, that is NOT MY PROBLEM. So you can read it again:
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2568904,00.html
In article <8fmmfn$i9e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fmbvt$ekn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > ah, the whole group resorting to bashing. I know I've won the debate
> > now!
>
> That's just it Matt. You never give any facts _to_
> debate. You only give opinions (your own, or others')
> which cannot be debated. How convenient for you.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 14 May 2000 13:53:36 -0500
In article <8fmlur$i7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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. This
>has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
>hardware problem.
Most X-related problems only lock the console and leave
the system running. You can telnet in and either recover
by killing X or doing a clean shutdown. I have had complete
lockups on a few occasions that I've generally blamed on
having gpm running along with X. Some versions would cause
this, and I think the bug continued even after they claimed
it was fixed. Anyway I never use the mouse without X running
and think things would be more stable if the distributions would
stop activating gpm by default. I've never seen the lockup
on a machine without gpm running, but it is rare enough that
this doesn't really prove the relationship.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 19:02:02 GMT
On Tue, 9 May 2000 12:34:30 -0700, someone claiming to be Bob May
wrote:
>The details that I have were that Stac management and other employees
>(software engineers, etc.) had gone to Redmond and talked to Microsoft
>(a.k.a. microcrud) and discussed a technology transfer. There were
>several of these trips and there was only one trip after the source
>code had been shown to the microcrud people. Considering that I was
>going down the street to Stac, my info was from inside sources. If
>Microsoft had just coded something from having seen the Stac software
>run, they would have been in the clear. Stac won the lawsuit because
>they could prove to the court that Microsoft had taken thier code and
>copied it's design.
After a single glimpse of the code, they reproduced it from memory?
Interesting...
And how do you explain the fact that Veritas supplied the tech for
DoubleSpace (basically a tweaked version of Veritas' DoubleDisk?)
Stac won due the minutiae of contract law under which MS was found
liable for infringing a copyright licensed from someone who had no
right to do so.
Similar to finding the pawn shop guilty of theft because they bought a
watch from Max that he stole from LShaping, even tho Max signed the
form saying that the watch was his and supplied his drivers license,
etc.
But then who ever said contract law was supposed to make sense?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:42:51 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 14 May 2000 08:41:20 -0700...
...and Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Our governments'[0] attitude towards Scientology is another reason why
> > it's good to live in Germany.
> ---
>
> Your government practises censorship towards alternative groups.
> Scientology isn't the only example.
Then give me another one!
> The types of in-group / out-group models practised in germany and
> elsewhere are simply not healthy. The antisemitic movement in
> germany and europe generally over the first half of this century is
> just one example of where that type of politics can lead.
Again you show you don't know jack about what you are talking about.
The antijudaism[0] that culminated in the Shoah[1] is not a product of
the "first half of this century". Actually, you can trace it back to
the Middle Ages. Antijudaism was rooted deeply in German culture over
the centuries. I'm currently reading Gustav Freytag's well-known novel
"Soll und Haben" which was written in 1855. It's an interesting read
and tells you a lot about what antijudaism was like in our country.
However, nearly nowhere (except for France), the Jews were as well
assimilated and tolerated as in the German Empire (1871-1918). Before
Hitler, Germany was indeed often praised for its tolerance of the
Jews, compared to Russia (the word "pogrom" is a Russian word).
In the same Empire tolerating and assimilating Jews more than ever
before, antijudaism became rampant. William II was a fanatical
antijudaist and blamed Germany's defeat in World War I on the Jews
decades after still. (This in spite of tens and hundreds of thousands
of Jews fighting for Germany between 1914 and 1918.)
Somewhere around the middle of the 19th century, religious antijudaism
(which has been inherited from the Middle Ages) turned into cultural
antijudaism (stereotype: the Eastern European "Kaftan Jew") and then
into racial antijudaism (stereotype: the sex-crazed assimilated Jew
trying to undermine the Germanic race by rampantly copulating with
German women). This was the basis for Hitler's antijudaism.
What was promulgated by the Nazis was an anachronism, a 19th-century
phenomenon carried over into a world that was decades and centuries
ahead of Germany in many political respects.
In our country, the 19th century died a slow death commencing with
1918, ending in 1945.
[nonsense]
I'm not going to reply to insults.
mawa
[0] "Antisemitism" is too broad an expression and thus incorrect. You
should know that.
[1] Not "Holocaust". I'm not going to call a genocide by the name of a
USAmerican TV show.
--
You're almost as happy as you think you are.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:29:00 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 14 May 2000 10:42:56 -0700...
...and Gerald Willmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2000, Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> > Your government practises censorship towards alternative groups.
> > Scientology isn't the only example. The types of in-group / out-group
> > models practised in germany and elsewhere are simply not healthy. The
> > antisemitic movement in germany and europe generally over the first half
> > of this century is just one example of where that type of politics can
> > lead. There are certain rights of the individual that must be protected
> > from the prejudices of others.
>
> do you actually know what you are talking about? Ie, have you ever lived
> or even visited Germany or anything outside the US? It's simply absurd to
> claim there is censorship in Germany.
He thinks he knows about Germany because he's been indoctrinated by
Scientology-influenced media. It's as simple as that.
It's been know that, over the past years, Scientologists have run
campaigns trying to convince the American public that, vulgarly
speaking, "the Nazis are taking over again" in Germany. Salvador's
attitude is the result.
> Don't know where you got that idea from but how about backing it up
> with information who or what German gov't office is in charge of
> censorship. The last freedom of press statistic I saw put Germany
> higher than the US which is not too surprising if you are able to
> compare the two countries' newspapers.
Don't forget Germany's got laws against concentration of press market
share in the hands of media moguls. I don't know whether the US have.
mawa
--
THE THREE MANTRAS OF META-OPTIMISM (by mawa)
I. Everything's gonna be all right.
II. I'll always believe that everything's gonna be all right.
III. I'll always be able to believe everything's gonna be all right.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Microsoft must die!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 19:15:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 14 May 2000 10:50:19 -0600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"As If" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Jimmy Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > it's back to 1024x768 24bpp resolution. I do used NTs but everytime I see
>> > the blue screen with hex values all over the screen and /CRASHDEBUG
>> > without any prompt it's more disgusting. Microsoft do give away their
>> > patches but always with disclaimer... :-(
>> >
>>
>> The only times I ever have gotten the blue screen are:
>>
>> a) overclocking my box and running too hot - pushing the hardware where it's
>> not supposed to go
>
>That, indeed, is not the OSes fault.
Agreed. I've done that myself, though it's been awhile. I had
two Cyrix 486DX266 chips; one worked at 80 Mhz, more or less; one didn't.
Definitely caveat emptor!
>
>> b) using crappy 3rd party hardware drivers.
>>
>> Microsoft isn't to blame for 99% of the NT blue screens out there; it's the
>> junk that passes for OEM hardware drivers.
>
>A driver is *part* of the OS. If Microsoft is too lazy to write their
>own drivers, then they must accept responsibility for the BSODs caused
>by bad OS extensions.
Not sure if I agree with that 100% -- although it's clear that the
OS is heavily dependent on drivers, some of them third party; without
them, the OS is in its own little world. :-)
But how can Microsoft take credit or blame for the foibles of
third-party driver writers? This doesn't make too much sense to me.
What Microsoft *can* be tagged with is the setup of a structure that
encourages blue screens o' death for crappy driver writings, as
opposed to merely disabling the device (such as a sound card; my
favorite bug at one point (1.2.x?) was feeding in certain MIDI events --
my keyboard has a thumbwheel -- and watching the sound module panic.
Didn't seem to affect the rest of the system).
Now, granted, disabling the disk device is disastrous, and disabling
the video device on NT is very problematical (Linux per se has no
problems with it, but ask anyone who's had to work around linuxsdoom
crashing the display how to reboot :-) ). But a faulty CD-ROM shouldn't
affect the rest of the system -- ideally, anyway (Linux has some
problems there, too, if the CD-ROM is SCSI-based, mostly because Linux
attempts to reset the SCSI buss, which appears to invalidate some
writes (!)...but it tries very very hard to stay up :-) ).
And it's still possible for bad drivers to crash the system on Linux.
At least, that is my understanding; it's possible the drivers are
running in a different "ring" by now, but I don't know the details
of the code and I've not the time to wade in there and look. I
barely understand the file system, and that's only because I've worked
with it. (It's not bad, since there's quite a few examples of
what to do already.)
>
>Ask your typical linux system adimistrator if he trusts binary drivers
>written outside the kernel. You'll get a 'no' answer almost every
>time.
Indeed.
There's also the issue of compatibility; can a module written for the
2.2.15 kernel work on the 2.3.x series? Or the about-to-be-released
2.4.0?
IMO, Linux mutates too fast for binary compatibility to work well. By
contrast, NT is a big, slow, heavy behemoth -- although for NT,
this might be an advantage (a small one) in that NT can leverage
older existing technologies (such as Win 3.1 stuff) and cross-pollinate
with the Win95/98 stuff, at a binary level. (But then, so can Unix, at
the source code level -- and there's the additional advantage that
one can actually *read* said code.)
>
>--
>The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Trust No One :-)
------------------------------
From: "Evan DiBiase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 15:18:05 -0400
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Now I'd like to read some about your background?
> >
> > Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers
since
> > I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> > FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What
more
> > do you want?
>
> And this is what it takes to be a Windows supporter today.
No, it just means that I've at least had experience with many of the major
OSen for the x86 platform.
> > > And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
> >
> > Uh, that's a great assertion. Do you have any proof? Stephen Edwards
pointed
> > to several high load, high profile web sites that are running IIS and
> > Windows 2000/NT. Are they merely imaginary?
>
> Oh god son. You are just beginning in life. You need to go read some
> magazines.
I do :)
> > > Linux is a continuation of ONE concept. They aren't trying to
re-invent
> > > the
> > > world and then HOPE it works.
> >
> > Well, no. But, according to your little "south park" bit up above,
Microsoft
> > isn't trying to re-invent the world, either. They're just stealing
things
> > that have already been invented.
>
> It would truely only make sense Evan if you were a computer programmer.
> But I think someday son you will be one. And I wish you the best of
> luck.
Thank you! But I fail to understand what would make sense... is there
something I can clarify for you?
> I think it's good you support what you believe Evan.
>
> But I also think you should explore and learn now.
Me too.
> And I'm going to pry on your curiosity some now.
>
> I want you to buy a box of Suse 6.4 down at the computer store
> and install it on your machine so you can compare W2K to
> Suse.
Well, I'd rather not, to tell you the truth. It was rather trying going
through all the operating systems listed above. I've used quite a few Linux
distributions: Red Hat 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, Debian 2.0, 2.1, and
potato, SuSE 5.2 and 5.3 (I've never used the 6.x series), Mandrake 7.0-2,
and Slackware 4.0 and 7.0. I've heard that SuSE 6.x is very nice, and
continues on the tradition of having a lot of software and being designed
very well, but I'm very familiar with the Linux userland, and I like Windows
2000 quite a bit better. Besides, I've just gotten settled, and now you want
me to get everything set up again? :)
> Then I want you to come back here and talk with us again.
I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of Linux with you. It's a very nice OS.
-Evan
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 19:14:15 GMT
On Fri, 12 May 2000 21:09:48 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting J French from alt.destroy.microsoft; Fri, 12 May 2000 09:33:24
>GMT
>>On Thu, 11 May 2000 21:13:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>Microsoft didn't port any of their existing products to the IBM PC,
>AFAIK. I guess I could be wrong with BASIC, but that is hardly support
>for your point; BASIC is so ubiquitous, I wouldn't that think it could
>be considered.
Of course, for someone whose job it is to know more about the industry
that anyone else, you often don't seem to know very far.
MS was under contract to supply * all * of their languages to the new
PC, long fore IBM even considered them for the OS. In fact, that's
why even tho MS did not write OSes, IBM came to them after Kildall's
wife gave them the boot: They were already involved, and maybe they
knew someone...
>>If you look at DOWS 1.0 it was virtually CP/M compatible at the
>>interrupt level.
>That's because Bill was running a scam. DOS 1.0 *was* CP/M, with
>slightly modified shell utilities.
The only substantiation to this is a single comment, attributed to
Gary Kildall.
If he was so certain he'd been ripped off, why didn't he * ever * do
anything but make a single cryptic statement?
>>Yeah - so whats new
>The fact that I'm stumped, like I said. Usually I can understand
>people's thought processes much more easily. Its what I do.
And here, I thought it was to know more about the industry than anyone
else?
Or were you lying then, too?
The evidence seems to support that supposition.
>[For those who might see a distasteful amount of arrogance in that
>statement, especially those who find my sometimes formal and stilted
>manner of writing to be annoying, I apologize. I assure you that I am
>well aware that it is just about all I am talented in doing.
What little talent you've shown suggests you need some more work...
>But I do do that well.
And we should take the word of a demonstrated liar ..why?
>Its also why I often get very precise in word choice
>issues, and tend to use words like "ubiquitous" more than the average;
>using the right word for the right concept is critical if you're going
>to try to troubleshoot people's technical understanding and
>comprehension.]
Of course, redefining them is critical if you're going to hide your
distortions and outright falsehoods. And we've seen more examples of
this than of your "precise" usage of the language.
------------------------------
From: "Evan DiBiase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 15:19:28 -0400
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 14 May 2000 10:08:38 -0400, Evan DiBiase
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
> >
> >Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers
since
> >I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> >FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What
more
> >do you want?
>
> Some real world experience, i.e. deploying systems in business,
> scientific, or engineering applications. Not that I mean to knock
> you. You're only 16, so someday you'll get some if you want and until
> that time you should continue to remain open minded as you
> are. However having a PC at home is not the same as implementing
> solutions in the real business world.
I understand completely :) I wasn't trying to argue for the business side of
things, but merely for the having a PC at home side of things. Sorry if I
gave off that impression.
-Evan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
