Linux-Advocacy Digest #478, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Tim Kelley)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Tim Kelley)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Tom Elam)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Here is the solution (Marty)
Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (abraxas)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (abraxas)
Re: Here is the solution (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:12:33 -0500
"Clifford W. Racz" wrote:
>
> About the posting:
>
> >Amen, brother.
> >
> >But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
> >consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
>
> This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
> about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
> consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
> is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
> will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
It is about marketing, and unfortunately, advertising is rapidly
becoming the only protected form of speech, in the hands of those
with money. Word of mouth is linux's only marketing tool, but
the net gives you a lot of power in that area. The jury's not
out yet.
> It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
> IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
Look, linux is making progress in this area. Also, I don't
consider an OS that has to be periodically reinstalled from
scratch to be "easy to use", no matter how easy it is when one
first plugs it in. Windows' "easy to use" factor is only
warrantied for the first month or until anything is installed by
the end user. After that it's more difficult than linux. And
it's the "hair pulling - teeth gnashing - sanity depriving I'd
rather kill myself than go through this AGAIN" sort of
difficult, as opposed to the "I don't know how to accomplish
this, aw fuck I have to read the docs" sort of difficult.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:13:12 GMT
"Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
Rubbish, it is about marketting. IBM didn't sell its mainframes over
the others because their's were better, but because they had a better
sales department, that and the fact that they were already selling business
machines and they made their mainframes compatible with these pre-existing
machine, ergo selling an inferior product to the masses.
When IBM came out with their PC, they did the same thing over again.
MS does the same. It is marketting.
Part of the MS marketting has it the Linux is too hard for the simple
user, whereas Windows can be used by anyone. People buy in to it. That and
the fact that it is almost impossible to buy a Intel compatible computer
without MS Windows on it, means that most people end up using MS Windows.
Marketting, not product.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:19:17 -0500
ax wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fg81e$um$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > In 1996, Bill Gates was effectively imposing a "tax", collecting
> > a substantial portion of revenue from every PC user. The PC
> > had as much impact on trade and commerce in 1996 as ink and paper
> > had in 1776. King George taxed ink and paper, and tea. At that
> > time, ink and paper were essential to commerce, and tea was an
> > occaision for conducting business.
>
> At least Bill Gates was able to impose "tax". How Linux companies
> are going to "tax"? Should "free" wonderland be "tax" free as well?
>
> Linux companies are still in painful search of "sound business model".
> Red Hat had switched from "software" company to "service" company,
> and now it's switching from "service" company to "venture investment"
> business. What's next? Wal-Mart? KFC? .....
I mostly agree. But this depends on your notion of a "sound
business model".
The world doesn't need any more Bill Gates'. There is no
morallly justifiable reason for any software company (or any
other company for that matter) to build empires, and indeed I
doubt seriously that anyone will be able to do this with linux.
You can't build an empire on service.
So I can't be a multi-billionaire selling a product I can't
legally own. Wah wah wah.
Good riddance.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tom Elam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:21:19 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 08 May 2000 03:43:31 -0500, Tom Elam wrote this reply to Eric Bennett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, Gates is making a
>case that the best thing for consumers would be to have a single
>software company--Microsoft.
Right! Just like Napoleon, Hitler and a few others could never see the sense
of all that duplication and waste involved with multiple and independent
governments across Europe. Unify and consolidate - that's the only way to go.
=============================================
Tom Elam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:20:40 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 01:46:18 +1000, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 15:30:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 May 2000 13:29:48 GMT, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:8fg81e$um$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>
>>>> In 1996, Bill Gates was effectively imposing a "tax", collecting
>>>> a substantial portion of revenue from every PC user. The PC
>>>> had as much impact on trade and commerce in 1996 as ink and paper
>>>> had in 1776. King George taxed ink and paper, and tea. At that
>>>> time, ink and paper were essential to commerce, and tea was an
>>>> occaision for conducting business.
>>>
>>>At least Bill Gates was able to impose "tax". How Linux companies
>>>are going to "tax"? Should "free" wonderland be "tax" free as well?
>>
>> If you want to blather on about "American Dreams", you need
>> to acknowledge the basic historical fact that Americans
>> rather dislike taxes of any kind. So, someone coming up with
>> a sustainable 'no-tax' system would be really quite admired
>> by the 'leave us alone so we can rape the peasants' Big
>> Business pseudo-federalist types.
>
>There are sustainable no tax systems, It's called "Hunter gatherer".
>It went out of fashion 5000 years ago to a system called civilisation.
I'm sure the Amish would get a good chuckle out of this.
>
>>>Linux companies are still in painful search of "sound business model".
>>>Red Hat had switched from "software" company to "service" company,
>>>and now it's switching from "service" company to "venture investment"
>>>business. What's next? Wal-Mart? KFC? .....
>>
>> So? The whole point of Linux has always been that it doesn't
>> need to be a business at all in order to be sustainable.
>
>Always been ??
Some of us didn't arrive just yesterday.
[deletia]
--
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, 12 May 2000 16:22:06 GMT
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes, it does have influence. Can we be clear that the act of
> > conviction is still not a behavior of the defendant, but a behavior
> > of the court?
>
> No and here is why....
>
> The conviction is based on the evidence and the evidence is presented in
> court. The credibility, reliability of the evidence is determined by
> witness behavior.
>
> The reason a finding of fact by the trial judge is so permenant is that
> the trial judge was there and can see the witnesess, their behavior and
> asertain if they are being truthful and to what degree - things not
> detectable in a transcript.
>
> If you call the conviction the act of declaring the result of the trial
> then the jury/judge makes the decision. To me you are identifying who
> is empowered to decide.
So "getting convicted" is a behavior of the defendant?
If someone stabs me in the chest, is "getting stabbed" one of my
behaviors?
If someone sends me junk mail, is "getting junk mail" a behavior of
Chris Wenham?
If I was in a forest with no mail service, what actions must I perform
to do the "getting junk mail" behavior?
"Getting stabbed", "Getting junk mail" and "Getting convicted" are
_not_ behaviors. The phrases, and thus their meanings, have to be
re-arranged to "Stabbing someone", "Sending junk mail" and
"Convicting a criminal" first, and THEN they become behaviors of
someone else - in this case it would be a murderer, a direct
marketing firm and a court respectively. Not me.
Now I can encourage the above behaviors in someone else through my
own behaviors. I can sleep with another man's wife, subscribe to
junk lists and break laws. All of which can encite these other parties
into behaviors of their own, some of which might match those three
examples. The resulting actions are not _my_ behaviors.
And here's proof:
There is nothing I can do that will directly guarantee the act of
being stabbed, junk mailed or convicted in court.
The husband of the woman I slept with might decide to forgive me.
The direct marketing firm might choose not to send junk mail to me.
The judge or jury may rule in favor of me, or the legal system may
not even catch me or be aware a crime was committed.
My behaviors are something I directly control, either consciously or
subconsciously. It's _my_ nervous system that reacts when I touch
something hot. That's a behavior I'm performing. But if I was to pick
up a hot poker and touch the flesh of someone else, the flinch that
occurs would not be _my_ behavior, but the behavior of the person I
burned. My behavior was the act of picking up a hot poker and
prodding someone with it.
Supressing competition was Microsoft's behavior. Convicting Microsoft
was a behavior of the Court, as encouraged by Microsoft, but not
actually an act or behavior of Microsoft.
It wasn't within Microsoft's control to choose "guilty" or "not
guilty", that was up to the judge. Gates could have _defecated_ in
court for all it matters. That would have really really encouraged
the judge to come down hard! But in that case, it was still the
judge's and the court's behavior to make the ruling that convicted
Microsoft.
And how do we know this is true?
Because the judge could have had a change of heart, could have become
temporarily insane, or could have been compromised by blackmail,
bribes or whatever. These are all made very unlikely by a selective
process that eliminates bad judges and promotes integrity and
sanity. But we know both judges and juries can be influenced outside
of the facts presented in the courtroom, to the point where those
influences affect their behavior.
We know Microsoft got caught. But could they still have broken the
law without being caught? The findings of fact show that the law was
broken years before an investigation began, which shows us that the
law is not some perfect omniscient system that starts rolling the
same instant a law is broken. Someone has to blow the whistle, and
that someone is a human being who may find other things are in his
best interests (he could be successfully threatened, like how PC
vendors were intimidated into silence). The investigators could be
incompetent (we see examples in the Jon Bennet Ramsey case). The
whole court system could be corrupt. The country could be in
revolution and anarchy.
So you say the behavior of the witnesses affect the outcome? If so,
we must also accept that the behavior of the prosecution does as
well. But their behavior is not guaranteed or 100% absolutely
predictable. If it was we wouldn't need lawyers, juries or judges. We
would just compute the verdict!
Conviction is binary. You're either found guilty or you aren't. But
the court system is full of irreducably random elements. We can even
take something as small as the random act of a toothbrush falling
into the sink of Joseph Klein that triggers a chain of thoughts that
led to a brilliant key argument in court ("I hit my head in the
bathroom, and that's when I got the idea of the Flux Capacitor!").
So we can conclude that the probability of a "not guilty" verdict was
greater than zero. It was very slim, perhaps 0.1% if you like to
think so, but it was there, and that meant Microsoft could not
absolutely guarantee the outcome the way they can guarantee a bogus
error message will occur when Windows is run on a particular version
of DR-DOS.
In other words, it's theoretically possible that Microsoft could have
behaved exactly as it had, but still not have been
convicted. Microsoft could not consciously or subconsciously convict
themselves*. There HAD to be a court system making the decision to do
that. Therefore, we cannot say that "getting convicted" is a behavior
of Microsoft.
The word we want, therefore, is "concequence".
Getting convicted is a _consequence_ of Microsoft's behavior.
And fortunately, we had a legal system with enough integrity and
resources to successfully convict them. That was a concequence of our
behavior on election day.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
* - You've probably heard the expression "You've just convicted
yourself" used in cop movies where the killer is caught making a
confession, but you don't need to watch Mississippi Burning to know
even that doesn't always result in jail time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:23:05 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 01:59:57 +1000, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 10:54:19 -0500, "Clifford W. Racz"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>About the posting:
>>
>>>Amen, brother.
>>>
>>>But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
>>>consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
>>
>>
>>This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
>>about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
>>consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
>>is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
>>will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
>>
>>It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
>>IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
>
>No you are talking rubbish
>
>Windows is the product most people use by the historical fact that it
>was the right product at the right time. (the Mac blew it)
>
>Linux has to be easier and better to displace Windows on the desktop
>
>Which it is not.
...depends on the situation.
It can be very much that: better and easier than Windows.
It can also be cheaply placed in the background so the
end user doesn't have to even see it, or care.
What makes you think that us Unix users WANT to do MORE
work than we have to?
--
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)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:24:21 GMT
On Fri, 12 May 2000 11:05:47 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In article <66KS4.2874$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Without the
>> > timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
>>
>> Sure. This industry is all about change. Change wiped out DEC, sent
>> IBM to its knees, and made a monopoly out of a half-assed desktop
>> operating systems vendor.
>>
>> Its time for a change again.
>
>IBM on its knees? Well, it's a nice thought.
>
>IBM stil makes MS look small.
They have more meaningful patents too. <snicker>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:28:12 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> ||
> || Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> || news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> || > Or how about this site:
> || >
> || > < http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4942/index.html>
> || >
> || > Where the author has this list:
> ||
> || [large list of undocumented functions deleted]
> ||
> || Noone is arguing that there are not undocumented functions. What we're
> || arguing is that nobody can provide a list of undocumented functions that
> || current Microsoft applications take advantage of. Most (if not all) of
> || those API's are used by the OS itself rather than applications.
> |
> |We have a utility in OS/2 called EXEHDR. It can show all of the DLLs that get
> |dynamically linked to the executable in question as well as which ordinals it
> |uses. I have to imagine that something similar exists in the Win32 world.
> |This could provide the requested proof.
>
> That's funny Marty, there's no exehdr on my Warp 4 (fixpack 11) system...
I almost fell off my chair when I read this!
I never claimed it was on *your* system, Phil. It's a standard
development tool. If you did any development in OS/2 you'd have it. It
comes on the DevCon CDs and it came with my purchase of Watcom 10 (and
11). It also comes with VAC I believe.
> BTW, I tend to doubt that there would be info in an exe's header
> describing the DLL's which are dynamically linked (meaning at runtime);
You'd tend to be wrong.
OS 101:
There are two ways to dynamically link in OS/2. The first way involves
inserting references into the fixup table of the EXE in question. This
is done by linking your executable with "import libraries", which is the
typical way dynamic linking is done. This way can be read by programs
such as EXEHDR and dumped in a detailed form, showing the address at
which the reference was made and the DLL and ordinal number to which it
was referring. Am I going too fast for you?
The second way involves calling DosLoadModule and obtaining the address
of the function in question. This circumvents the use of the import
library and cannot be detected by EXEHDR. The only applications that
use this method are the ones who are not certain if a given DLL will
actually exist on your system. This would clearly not be necessary for
and MS app running on an MS OS. It would know exactly which DLLs are
present.
If you doubt that EXEHDR can print out the DLL names and ordinals used
by an OS/2 EXE, let me know and I'll post its output for a common
executable.
> statically linked (by the linker at compile/link time) yes, but
> dynamically linked... impossible.
Static linking is the insertion of the needed code directly into the
executable. The import library itself is statically linked, but it
allows the code in the DLL to be dynamically linked.
> Maybe a dictionairy [sic... speaking of dictionary] of comp sci terms would help?
Maybe checking up on your facts before posting would help. Amazing how
you're so eager to "show me up" or whatever it is you're trying to do
that you'll post utter nonsense. How very Bobo-esque of you. You just
can't cope with the fact that I actually know what I'm talking about.
Please stop making OS/2 users look like irrational idiots. We don't
appreciate it.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 02:45:32 +1000
"tinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Not such a good choice, it's insulting to both women's anatomy and
seabirds.
True.
> He needs a new moniker. Ladies and Gentleman, I suggest a contest!
>
> Winners get to join Bob's country club, unless, of course, they are
> cornell grads. ('
Jeez, I'm not even a 'merkin - probably couldn't even be a waiter at Bob's
glorious country club :).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 12 May 2000 16:38:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Clifford W. Racz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About the posting:
>>Amen, brother.
>>
>>But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
>>consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
> This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
> about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
> consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
> is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
> will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
Wrong.
> It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
> IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
Yes, this was certianly true for NeXTStep/OpenStep, eh?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 12 May 2000 16:46:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yer right, we are going to be using Linux in 40-50 years!
> Compare the Computers of 50 years ago to now, then extrapolate the
> increasing rate of change, then tell me we will be using Linux, Liar.
Spoken truly as someone who doesnt understand computer history. The
same argument was used decades ago when it was decided to use double
digit dates..."oh come on...in 30 years we wont be using this stuff
anymore, they will have fixed it by THEN; just extrapolate the current
rate of change!".
Now that its clear that you do not understand what youre saying,
stop saying it at once.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:47:59 -0400
On Fri, 12 May 2000 12:28:12 -0400, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The second way involves calling DosLoadModule and obtaining the address
>of the function in question. This circumvents the use of the import
>library and cannot be detected by EXEHDR. The only applications that
>use this method are the ones who are not certain if a given DLL will
>actually exist on your system. This would clearly not be necessary for
>and MS app running on an MS OS. It would know exactly which DLLs are
>present.
>
The last two sentences are inaccurate. Windows apps that make heavy
use of COM (these days that would be all of them) indirectly call
LoadLibrary() (the Win32 equivalent of DosLoadModule()), making it
very difficult to find out what DLLs they load. In fact, they may be
different DLLs on different machines, and even on a given machine the
set of DLLs may change from time to time. To load a COM class, you
call CoCreateInstance() and pass in a 128-bit binary class ID. The COM
library then looks up that ID in the registry to find (among other
things) the name of the DLL that implements that class. I imagine that
SOM does something similar in OS/2.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:03:17 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler wrote:
> What makes you think I want "church taxes" collected for anyone, any time,
> anywhere?
At issue here is that the german government won't do business with a
company because of its supposed ties to a religious sect. This
discussion of taxes is a red herring. If the discussion is about taxes
then it is not about discrimination and the failure of democracy in
germany to provide equal protection under the law. And no, this problem
is not particular to germany. It is a problem in the united states and
an even bigger problem in most of the rest of the world.
> > And btw, Scientology's desperate and tasteless propaganda efforts in this
> > matter seem to underline what critics accuse them of,
What propaganda? The German government apparently won't do business
with any company that is in any way linked to scientology. That is
discrimination. It is not equal protection for all citizens under the
law, it is singling out a group and alienating them from the social and
political process. I don't care what country you come from, that is
flat out antithetical to the interests of democracy. Whether the
scientologists are tasteless or not, democratic government should not
single out groups to persecute. Especially not germany.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:06:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In article <66KS4.2874$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > Without the
>> > timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
>>
>> Sure. This industry is all about change. Change wiped out DEC, sent
>> IBM to its knees, and made a monopoly out of a half-assed desktop
>> operating systems vendor.
>>
>> Its time for a change again.
>
>IBM on its knees? Well, it's a nice thought.
>
Well the PC division was sent to its knees. Partly from IBM's mistakes and
partly from personnel losses.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
