Linux-Advocacy Digest #762, Volume #26 Tue, 30 May 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
(Alan Baker)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. (abraxas)
Re: The Mainframe VS the PC. (abraxas)
Re: Whilst at the store! ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Marty)
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (WickedDyno)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (poldy)
Re: Linux kernal - mode GUI? (Michael Mamone)
Console programming (Michael Mamone)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (poldy)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:20:19 -0700
In article <8gvavr$8bc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8gufnb$533$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Microsoft's main innovation is quite obvious: putting lots of
>> > computing
>> > power into the hands of general consumers. Who else, besides,
>Commodore,
>> > Apple, IBM, or Atari has even attempted this? The beloved UNIX
>> > weenies
>> > at
>> > Sun? Silicon Graphics (officially renamed to "SGI")? Yeah...
>> > _right_.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Maybe IBM? HP? Compaq? Dell? Packard Hell?
>>
>> Heck, Microsoft never put ANY computer power in the hands of consumers.
>
>That's right, computers would be just as useful if you had to flip
>switches
>to use them.....
>
>
As if Microsoft were responsible for the current state of affairs.
Please.
They lucked into a contract with IBM and bought someone else's work to
fulfill it. Then they copied the Mac. Then, after they failed to create
their new technology OS (and after using IBM's money to pay for their
own research) they hired the guy who did VMS to do them a version of it.
Any positive effects that all this has had are purely accidental.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: 30 May 2000 05:22:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I rather enjoy how you list NT5 seperately from W2K ... your ignorance of
> the topic is again revealed.
Oh really?
I used to run a beta copy of NT5 on a laptop about a year and a half
ago. The differences between it and W2K are enormous. Even you should
know that.
> Are you the kind that thinks "size matters?"
Yes. But ive got nothing to worry about.
> and, whenever someone lists as much as you have I always ask myself: user of
> many, master of none? probably.
That list spans almost 20 years, dork.
> While I could write a list slightly longer than yours, I won't pretend to
> know (remember) much of past OS and hardware ventures - especially those
> that don't matter anymore. I am focused on NT technology and am a master of
> it.
Interesting then that you dont know the difference between NT5 and 2000.
> That's why I post in this forum, I've tried the rest and have now
> settled on what I see as equal or better than them. NT just gets better all
> the time, I bet on the underdog with NT4 and W2K showed me I was write.
And ironically, wrong at the same time. :)
> Let me leave you with something to keep your eye out for, cause it's the
> next better thing: Blackcomb
Uh huh. I remember the last 'black' better thing--blackbird. I was
part of a testgroup for that project, and it was the finest thing
microsoft had come up with EVER. It would have quite literally changed
the world.
And it never made it past our group.
I have no doubt that any "next better thing" will die the same death,
for the same reasons. (why dont you wow me with your microsoft knowledge
and tell me exactly what those reasons were)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Mainframe VS the PC.
Date: 30 May 2000 05:23:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, and I didn't even choose the top-of-the-line server. And if
> I were to include PowerVault storage (not unreasonable considering
> the hardware we're comparing it to) the price goes up quite a bit higher.
The company that I order through tends to throw in a half a dozen or
so free countrykits to. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: whistler@<blahblah>twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Whilst at the store!
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 05:39:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most mindless drivel deleted!
>
>Some people are just destine to die.
>
>Wouldn't you agree.
>
All are destined to die.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 05:45:35 GMT
Robert Fovell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Robert Fovell wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Eric Bennett wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Spelling Camp. ;)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How ironic, coming from the person who recently wrote:
> > > > > > > > "Now it's time for Microsoft to puck blood."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "puck blood" is a comp.sys.mac.advocacy inside joke.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Incorrect, as it has been used as a joke outside of CSMA.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? Where?
> > > >
> > > > Witness his recent use of it in the cross-posting to COOA and various
> > > > other groups
> > >
> > > I was asked to relay the following from CSMA's legal department:
> > >
> > > The verb "to puck (blood)" is a registered trademark of the Church of
> > > Kong, Inc., the holder of all property and patents pertaining and
> > > relating to Mr. Ho You Kong, a former resident of Singapore. Astute
> > > students of the heirs of L. Ron Hubbard, the Kongites very aggressively
> > > employ legal avenues in protecting and furthering their interests.
>
> <my original post was snipped at this point>
On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
> > Translation: How much libel do you think you can get away with?
>
> Ask yourself this question,
What alleged question?
> and then answer it yourself, grasshopper.
I can't answer a question which does not exist.
> After all,
How much is "all"?
> you're the one poaching on the protected preserves
Impossible, given your erroneous presupposition of such "protected preserves".
> of the One and True Kong.
Illogical, as there is more than one true Kong. Witness the existence of
Donkey Kong, for example:
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/DonkeyKong.html
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/snespics/dkc.png
> <Dirty Harry mode ON>
Too bad "logic mode" is not "ON".
> Do you feel lucky, punk?
How I feel is irrelevant.
> Well, do you?
See above.
> <Dirty Harry mode OFF> ;-)
Posting for entertainment purposes, Robert? How typical.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: 30 May 2000 00:46:55 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This has nothing to do with Linux - it is entirely a coding
>> error in PGP, found by public review that would not
>> be possible if the source were not open.
>
>bug only exists in the linux and bsd version. that's what.
Yes, because they offer a feature that the code uses
incorrectly.
>it was equally possible that it could have been found by internal review as
>external. also/hence, were it closed source it's equally possible internal
>review would have found it before the exploit was known and irresponsibility
>announced to the public instead of sending it privately to the authors.
There is nothing to make anyone believe that would be the case.
>> But it was spotted. The real question is how many trusted but
>> non-open packages have had even worse errors for longer than that.
>
>and how many open packages continue to have errors as long or longer that
>are simply "assumed" by downloaders to be safe, ex.: "I'm not a programmer
>but I'm sure there are a lot of "really smart guys" who've reviewed this
>code for me so I'm sure it's safe" - yea... trust open sores(tm)... I'm sure
>everyone is looking out for everyone else, for free...
And how is this different from trusting a much smaller number of
people who have seen closed source code and know that not
many other people are ever going to see it?
Les Mikesel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:57:08 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>WickedDyno wrote:
>>
>> In article <8go49c$13k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande "
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le
>> >message
>> >:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Spelling Camp. ;)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How ironic, coming from the person who recently wrote: "Now it's
>> >> >> time for Microsoft to puck blood."
>> >> >
>> >> >"puck blood" is a comp.sys.mac.advocacy inside joke.
>> >>
>> >> Posting for entertainment purposes again, Eric? I wonder what
>> >> Cornell
>> >> would think of this use of their network resources?
>> >>
>> >> > He spelled it correctly.
>> >>
>> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >
>> >Don't you know ?
>>
>> Of course not, as it has yet to be proven.
>
>Now this is where you separate the professional Tholen emulators from the
>rest. A real Tholen emulator would never admit to not knowing something
>under
>any circumstances. Do try to keep up, WickedDyno.
Hmm... I guess I ought to have gone with a simple Irrelevant.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 06:15:40 GMT
WickedDyno wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >WickedDyno wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <8go49c$13k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande "
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le
> >> >message
> >> >:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Spelling Camp. ;)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How ironic, coming from the person who recently wrote: "Now it's
> >> >> >> time for Microsoft to puck blood."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"puck blood" is a comp.sys.mac.advocacy inside joke.
> >> >>
> >> >> Posting for entertainment purposes again, Eric? I wonder what
> >> >> Cornell
> >> >> would think of this use of their network resources?
> >> >>
> >> >> > He spelled it correctly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >
> >> >Don't you know ?
> >>
> >> Of course not, as it has yet to be proven.
> >
> >Now this is where you separate the professional Tholen emulators from the
> >rest. A real Tholen emulator would never admit to not knowing something
> >under any circumstances. Do try to keep up, WickedDyno.
>
> Hmm...
Do make up your mind, WickedDyno.
> I guess I ought to have gone with a simple Irrelevant.
What you guess you ought to have gone with is irrelevant. What you can prove
is relevant.
------------------------------
From: poldy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 06:19:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's a remarkably unintelligable sentance you've got there.
>
>MS isn't credible, MS is profitable. As long as MS is profitbale the
>shareholders are happy. Blaming and demonizing their opponents isn't
>going to protect MS IF the stock drops and doesn't recover due to a
>pending company split.
What would their stock price be if they'd settled before the trial?
Before the Findings of Fact? Before the Ruling? Before the remedy
phase?
If they shipped Win 98 with IE's icon hidden, which is what they offered
to do in their remedy plan, they could have avoided trial. The feds
were asking for that. Even if they had to redo the DLLs to separate the
browser code from other OS functions, it would have been worth it for
them.
------------------------------
From: Michael Mamone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux kernal - mode GUI?
Date: 30 May 2000 15:56:42 +1000
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CAguy wrote:
>>
>> To quote a Microsoft researcher:
>>
>> "In early versions of Windows NT [Custer 92], Microsoft implemented
>> the Win32 GUI subsystem as a user-level process. With version 4.0,
>> Microsoft moved the GUI subsystem into the kernel address space to
>> improve performance. The differences between the two environments,
>> particularly the semantic differences between system calls and IPC,
>> necessitated a partial redesign of the GUI subsystem. It took ten
>> months to stabilize the resulting system, longer than any previous NT
>> release, although many other factors (for example, switching to the
>> Windows 95 user interface) also contributed to this delay [Cutler
>> 97]."
>>
>> Is there any on-going Linux project to do the same? or is this viewed
>> in the Linux community as a Bad Thing to do?
>>
>> IMHO it's a good thing for a comsumer type of OS (for speed) and
>> a non-issue for a server OS. Unless you believe that a GUI system
>> in kernal mode makes the system inherently unstable.
>>
>> I think Microsoft made a wise choice.
> I have to disagree. Moving a GUI, which in Windows world is mandatory,
> into the kernel is a disaster. NT Servers will kernel fault on a bad
> printer driver. Think about that for a minute.
> There are projects to get various drawing primitives down into the Linux
> kernel, and I'm not sure if I think that is a good idea. As long as it
> stays optional, then that should be OK, but if companies start requiring
> it, then it isn't.
> Almost unilaterally, any decision Microsoft has made about how to make
> NT more "consumer" has made NT worse. I think it is a long and
> questionable path to try similar approaches for Linux.
> Windows NT, on its first release, was unstable because the bugs in the
> core needed to be shaken out. Around 3.51, it was almost stable. Then in
> 4.0 they torpedoed it by putting the GUI in kernel space. Yuck, more and
> more serious bugs. I used to be on all the NT beta programs. Now, I
> simply don't care. NT is irrelevant. If you want a server, use Linux or
> FreeBSD. If you want a desktop use Linux. If you want to run games, buy
> a toy: Nintendo, PlayStation or Windows 9x.
I beg to differ. There's a difference between integrating a GUI into a kernel
and using kernel modules to assist in 3d acceleration. You can use X 4.0
without any assistance from the kernel (yet it is still amazingly fast).
--
=====BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK=====
Version: 3.12
GCS/CC>$ d- s-:- a--- C+++ >ULPP+++ L+++>$ E--- W+ N+ >o++++
K? w--- O? >M+ !V PS--- PE+++ Y-- !PGP t? 5 X++ >R+ tv++ b+++
DI+ D+ G >e+++++ >h++ !r !y*
======END GEEK CODE BLOCK======
------------------------------
From: Michael Mamone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Console programming
Date: 30 May 2000 16:00:16 +1000
Hello.
I am writing a game for DS171, and I've decided to focus my efforts on using
Linux based utilities. I was wondering if there are any decent online tutorials
for things like Ncurses, or svgalib (does that include the vgagl library?).
Thanks.
--
=====BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK=====
Version: 3.12
GCS/CC>$ d- s-:- a--- C+++ >ULPP+++ L+++>$ E--- W+ N+ >o++++
K? w--- O? >M+ !V PS--- PE+++ Y-- !PGP t? 5 X++ >R+ tv++ b+++
DI+ D+ G >e+++++ >h++ !r !y*
======END GEEK CODE BLOCK======
------------------------------
From: poldy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 06:26:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think the theory is not that MS's defence will get better, but that
>> they
>> believe they'll get a court that doesn't have it in for them.
>
>That presupposes MS will change their behavior at a time they need to be
>even more agressive. The appeals court is no more tolerant than the
>conservative, Reagan appointed trial judge. On appeal they have to work
>with the Finding of Fact and that means they need to undercut the law -
>"Yeah we did these things but so what? The law doesn't apply...."
>That means they'll need to be careful to represent case law within the
>the context of the case law least they anger the three judges.
Several theories about what would happen with the Appeals court. There
are 9 justices and they're almost evenly split between Republican and
Democratic appointees, but probably more Reagan and Bush appointees
(can't recall exactly). If the case is referred to them, 3 justices are
chosen at random by a PC program (ironic, huh?). I believe last time
out, MS drew 2 conservative jurists who pushed the reversal on which MS
is banking their strategy. One of them was someone named Stephen
Williams so look out for this name.
Many of these judges have been given economic training by conservative
think-tanks, which promulgate the ultra free-trade, hands-off policies.
Some of these true believer judges may not even accept the idea of
antitrust laws.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 06:29:11 GMT
If it takes 20 users 100 hours to do a job and you only have 10 licenses
well guess it will then take 200 hours!!!! Very symple, for me what's
YOUR problem. Performince is HOW MUCH WORK YOU CAN GET DONE!
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the number of users limited by license has what-the-hell to do with
it's
> performance?
>
> you are really confused - I can't even decipher your blather any
more...
>
> nothing the goverment can dream of doing can affect copies of W2K
already in
> the hands of users. don't fool yourself wishing away w2k - it's here
to stay
> and only get better.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8guual$5mc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The performance of W2K THE NUMBER OF USERS IS GOVERNED BY THE
LICENSE!
> > READ IT!
> >
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8guneg$rd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <8gu9dc$533$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > : In article <8gp9f3$20h0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > : > *snip stuff about os/2*
> > > > > : >
> > > > > : > And BTW, why are you posting this to
comp.os.linux.advocacy?
> > > > > : >
> > > > > : > You are most assuredly doing what you always swore you
never
> > did:
> > > > > : > Trying to start a fight.
> > > > > : >
> > > > > : > May I be the first to say: Fuck off drestin.
> > > > >
> > > > > : Sorry, you are not the first to say it. Still, Drestin if
fun to
> > > > > : torment. He gets so pissed when you ask him to back up his
> > claims.
> > > > Of
> > > > > : course he never can. Then he tries some personal attack. So
> > > > predictable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh please! This is such typical "kettle" behavior. If anyone
has
> > an
> > > > > inherent disability to post proof of wild claims, it's you,
bright
> > > > boy.
> > > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Stephen, You've been sinking since your pathetic showing in the
> > Titanic
> > > > debate. If you have NOTHING to add, please keep you personal
attacks
> > to
> > > > your self. Unless you would like to back up drestin's claim that
w2K
> > is
> > > > independent of MS's business practices???
> > >
> > > are you still that pathetically stupid? It's a pretty easy claim:
the
> > > performance of W2K, the operating system, is not tied to MS's
business
> > > practices. How obvious that must be to all intelligent people. You
> > don't
> > > mean to suggest that the performance of linux is tied to any
> > particular
> > > company distributing it's business practices do you?
> > >
> > > W2K is a product - it performs or doesn't according to how it's
> > created and
> > > finally produced. How it performs cannot be affected by how the
> > business
> > > machine at MS works - if MS has a stupid advertising compaign, (or
> > brilliant
> > > one) can never change one benchmark or performance factor. It is
what
> > it
> > > is - regardless of how you wish to try to taint it with other
> > unrelated
> > > attacks on MS's business practices. I understand your frustration
- as
> > long
> > > as you've waited and prayed, no major bugs have surfaced and
companies
> > are
> > > RACING to install this as quickly as possible. Sp1 is on schedule
and
> > > contains new features as well as minor bug repairs (as would be
> > typical for
> > > any OS .0 release). The last excuse businesses had to install is
now
> > pasted
> > > (wait for the first service pack) and sales continue to increase -
> > but, not
> > > to be hypocritical, sales are not a measure of the performance of
an
> > OS nor
> > > does the business practices of any company affect how a product
> > performs (or
> > > doesn't). It's the product that stands alone to scrutiny. W2K is
one
> > kick
> > > ass OS. Deal with it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
