Linux-Advocacy Digest #908, Volume #26 Mon, 5 Jun 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: The sad Linux story (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Jack Troughton)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Brad BARCLAY)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Brad BARCLAY)
Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students! (kl@podldk)
Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students! ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E.
Larson))
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies (bill@nospam)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:24:11 GMT
On 5 Jun 2000 18:10:23 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> ...based on a rather dubious anecdote.
>
>Keep your hands over your ears if you want, but what I see won't go away.
I've tortured operating sytems far beyond your ability to comprehend,
including Linux. Printing isn't one of the things that tend to bring
a Unix to it's knees.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: The sad Linux story
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:28:15 GMT
On 5 Jun 2000 18:21:03 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper) wrote
>in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>The ARM is nice, but even in the ARM3 days it was more suitable as a
>>mobile processor. OK, so it was one less fan in your desktop system,
>>but it didn't have hardware FP in the ARM610 which turned a lot of
>>people off the idea of using an Acorn.
>
>The lack of floating point was what moved me from RISC OS to Windows 3.1
>(achk! cough! splutter!). A 486 could beat the ARM chips simply due to no
>FP.
>
>>RISC OS was rather poorly designed. It still uses what effectively are
>>kernel modules as shared libraries, there still isn't anything in the
>>way of memory protection and it probably has more hard coded limits
>>than Windows. Its font system still kicks ass though.
>
>Drag and drop was the real beauty of RISC OS. It's the only system I've
>seen that has drag and drop from an application to a file viewer. Even
>Windows does not have that. Linux KDE doesn't even have drag to
>application, sheesh!
That is quite simply: a bold faced lie.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:16:37 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:42:51 GMT, Jack Troughton wrote:
> >On Mon, 5 Jun 2000 04:27:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> >wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure how you're counting rooms; this apt. has two bedrooms,
> >living room, kitchen, and a bathroom.
>
> I should have been more clear. When I say "per room", I mean "per bedroom".
> So in Australia, rental accomodation is about $230-450 Australian per bedroom.
> For example, a cheap two bedroom apartment will go for about $500 per month,
> while a three bedroom house in Carlton will go for about $1350 per month
> or possibly more -- you can probably blow as much money as you like on
> accomodation in Carlton. ( all that was in $AUS -- I'm too lazy to convert. )
Hmmm... sounds like Westmount here... _very_ rich.
> Obviously, the rate per bedroom goes down somewhat if you have a place
> with more bedrooms. BTW it goes without saying that when counting the number
> of bedrooms, you can't cheat and double-count a living room / kitchen as
> a bedroom, in particular, "2 bedrooms" means "5 rooms" as you described
> above.
Well, it's the usual way to refer to apartments in Montreal. My four
and a half would be called a two bedroom in Kingston, my hometown.
So, whenever you hear x and a half, you calculate x-2 and get the
number of bedrooms. Must be the gallic mind at work; Montreal is the
largest french city in North America, after all...
Actually, when you think about it, it's more precise. I've seen
plenty of one bedrooms advertised in Ontario that were really two
and a halfs, or even one and a halfs...
Jack
Montreal PQ
CANADA
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:33:53 GMT
Ha, just proves that MS OS's can't even manage MS's own manufacturing
process, the same way that hotmail proved that MS could not even get NT
and exchange to run a large scale email shop.
In article <8hglqk$br2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey! Finally someone found a good use for UNIX: Disk duplication!
>
> -Chad
>
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8guur9$633$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > If you read the article as you have asked US to do, you would
find that
> > > > Linux care had MANY management problems. Lack of commitment to
OSS was
> > > > just one of the MANAGEMENT problems and does NOT reflect on
Linux as a
> > > > whole. The same is true foe MS, which uses Unix in it
manufacturing
> > > > process!
> > >
> > > care to document that last part? I know you can't but I'd like to
see you
> > > wriggle around...
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP
> >
> > Care to wriggle out of that, Drestin?
> >
> > Gary
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Brad BARCLAY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:36:16 -0400
Mayor wrote:
<WARNING: way off-topic post follows>
> What battle was that? There was a plan to invade Canada by the
> US during the war of 1812 but it was never implemented.Two of
> the forces simply refused to cross the border (The Ft. Niagra
> detachment under Gen. Stephen Van Rensselaer and later under
> Gen. Alexander Smyth and the force based at Lake Champlian under
> Gen. Henry Dearborn). Due to grossly incompetent leadership Gen
> Hull ended up surrendering Detroit to a much smaller British
> force. That was the only defeat in the whole plan and it was
> from a British (Or as you're pretending them to be - Canadian)
> invasion of the US not the other way 'round.
> Now the British (or as you are trying to claim - Canadian) plan
> to invade the US from Canada WAS an utter diasaster for the
> British (Canadians). The Americans wupped up on them mightily in
> the Great Lakes (particularly in Lake Erie). In fact there was
> only one battle that rose above the level of minor skirmish
> between the British (Or Canadian as you're calling them for some
> reason) in Canada ( The Battle of the Thames) and it was a major
> American victory that put an end to British (or as you're
> calling them - Canadian) attempts to seize the Northwest
> Territory from the US.
> So just were was this major handing of the US its asses by the
> Canadians (or more correctly British forces based in Canada)?
I think your version of War of 1812 history is a bit coloured there.
First off, there were "Canadian" forces involved. Upper and Lower
Canada's official military were part of the British army, however the
rank and file, militias, and native peoples who fought in the war were
primarily born and raised in the Canadas. The major exception to this
were those who fought who were United Empire Loyalists, many of whom
were born in the US. Such people were officially recognised as British
subjects, however they lived in Canada - making them Canadians. The act
of Confederation in 1869 would officially make them Canadian citizens.
Secondly, your overall history is messed up. True, Brock did promise
Techemseh what is now the state of Michigan as a homeland for Native
peoples - and this never came to pass. However, this was mostly Brock's
intention - it was never a goal of the British army or Canada in
general. Indeed, Canada was not the aggressor - Canada's primary role
in the conflict was to protect the existing border - which is why with
the Treaty of Ghent Canada was a net loser of land (Canada held
territory in both Detroit via Fort Malden, and in Buffalo NY through
Fort George and Mississauga in the Niagara area. As an interesting side
note, Fort Mississauga was the AFAIK only Canadian fort made entirely
out of stone - prior to its construction towards the end of the war
forts were primarily wood with only stone for the powder houses. The
original Fort Mississauga stands to this day, although it is in a remote
location with no official visitors services).
Now it is interesting to note that during the Battle of Queenston
Heights that some US militia corps *refused* to take part. Their
refusal was based on a clause in the US Constitution (IIRC - it may have
been some other act - admittedly, I don't have the US Constitution
memorized :) which states that the purpose of the militia was to defend
US soil - and the invason of another country was outside that intended
scope. IIRC, that argument went right up to the US Supreme Court.
(General Brock was killed during the battle of Queenston Heights. A few
hundred meters from the spot a stone tower was constructed, with Brock
reburied under it. The original was destroyed by a bomb in the 1850's,
at which time Brock was again reburied in a local cemetary until the
current monument was completed a few years later).
Meanwhile, Canadian forces burned down the original White House, and
destroyed the primary port on the US side of Lake Ontario (at a great
loss of life - on both sides).
Most historians agree that in the end, the Canadians were the victors.
Canada had a significantly smaller population, and very poorly trained
militias - most of them were just farmers and native peoples who were
given guns by the British. Canada was outmanned and outgunned, and yet
prior to the treaty of Ghent was a net winner of land. However, as a
land grab was never the intent of the Canadian forces, most of it was
returned as a part of the Treaty of Ghent (AFAIK, the only two possible
exceptions were Butlers Island in the Niagara river just above the
horseshoe falls, and Boblo Island in the Detroit river. The latter is
historically interesting as it was the primary entry point to Canada for
the Underground Railroad).
Now in 1815 when the war ended, telecommunications didn't exist: it
was a big task alerting all of the forces that hostilities ended. This
was especially true for Naval forces, which could be asea for weeks or
months at a time. This was the case in around New Orleans (IIRC), where
the US destroyed a British warship -- a week *after* the signing of
Ghent. News of this victory reached the US population at around the
same time as the news of the end of hostilities, which caused many US
citizens to believe that the British gave up due to this one, relitively
minor naval skirmish. Of course, this wasn't true, as the treaty was
signed and in effect before this battle took place (it's unclear if the
British ship was aware of the treaty or not -- they may have been
attacked unaware).
Regardless, there were a lot of bloody battles, and alot of lives were
lost. In the end, the US's attempt to invade Canada failed miserably.
The Treaty of Ghent is still in effect today, and continues to help
shape our two countries as good neighbours.
A good video resource on the War of 1812 is the miniseries of the same
name by the McKenna brothers. I imagine it is available through either
the CBC or the NFB (I caught it on TVO (TV Ontario) some months back),
but you may have to look around for it.
If anyone wishes to continue discussing this thread, I suggest we move
it elsewhere. Private e-mails to me at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> may be a
good start :).
Brad BARCLAY
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Location: 2G43D@Torolabs
------------------------------
From: Brad BARCLAY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:48:40 -0400
Come Home wrote:
>
> "Brain Drain" problem had been hurting Canadian hi-tech
> industries for one decade. Many US hi-tech companies
> had built their success by stealing talents from Canadian
> companies.
Actually, Canada is already a net brain importer :). While many
Canadian-born people do leave for the US for high paying tech jobs
(which, BTW, don't always live up to expectations...), on average more
highly educated tech people from the rest of the world come to Canada.
Moving talent from Canada to the US isn't anything new. After A.V. Row
closed down ~40 years ago, NASA gained a whole whack of Canadian
aerospace engineers who helped NASA put a man on the moon, and do other
really impressive space stuff :).
If people born in Canada don't want to stay, I have no problem with
that. It helps make more room for people from the rest of the world who
*want* to be Canadians and live in our great country.
Brad BARCLAY
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Location: 2G43D@Torolabs
------------------------------
From: kl@podldk
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students!
Date: 4 Jun 2000 19:44:59 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jens says...
>
>Dear fellow readers,
>
>Linux + LaTeX is IMHO the best choice for master's or Ph.D.
huh?
latex is by definition available on almost any system. used it
on VMS and windows and unix.
>The fact that Linux stability, emacs capabilities
huh? emacs is available on almost any system. check visual slickedit
also.
I only agree with on latex. i only use it and nothing else to
write any report i have to do. but the beatuy of latex is that
it is on almost every platform.
kl
------------------------------
From: whistler@<blahblah>twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students!
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:58:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeepster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's an OS that makes you think, not just click,,with windows you become
>no more than a mouse jockey with no or little thought given to what you
>are actually doing. And they want that to be the future? Egads, the
>horror, THE HORROR!
>
It obviously hasn't helped you to think. What is it with the moron wing of
Linux users.
Paul
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: 5 Jun 2000 12:54:05 -0500
In article <L7G_4.38929$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott Norwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If an NT server requires weekly reboots, then there's something
>seriously wrong with the way in which it was configured.
Or - in the applications it is running, but an OS is supposed
to deal with application problems and resource usage.
>I'm not usually one to defend NT, but it really isn't that unstable a
>platform for certain applications, as long as you seriously overspecify
>the hardware and don't try to make any given server do more than one or
>two specific tasks.
Agreeed - but that is indeed faint praise.
>That's not to say that I think that using NT as a
>server platform is a good idea, but rather that it isn't quite as
>horrible an idea as a lot of people seem to think.
Unless you compare it to just about any of the other choices.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 20:05:13 +0200
Yannick wrote:
[snip almost everything for brevity]
> NT's logic is that you have people (users), which, as
> member of a particular organisation, or assuming a particular function
> (i.e. belonging to a group), have access to some resources.
>
> That's the model I'm referring to. With the added possibility of
> nesting groups, if I remember correctly. (to reflect some
> hierarchical aspects of the organisations.).
>
> My point of "making resources available to a user" is the very common case
> where you have a resource that your colleague Joe Smith needs to access, only
> you don't want others to access it. Now the same thing with Joe Smith and Jack
>Farmer.
That's the sort of things that users like to do, and
sysadmin don't like to be done. The standard Unix way is to
provide an internal mail system for that, so that you
actually send the resource to the other user, without
playing with permissions.
[snip]
>
> Imagine there are several laboratories. Students work in projects in groups
> of 4, and work on three different projects, each time with
> different colleagues. You'll have about 750 projects running at once.
> Each project will require a separate bunch of resources, which are the data
> created by each small group, plus some resources (data, hardware) that the labs
> will grant access to some particular group because it is required for their project.
>
> Of course, the "one group/one project" approach is still better if possible.
> But if you have some problems with your sysadmins (some unexpected
> problem taking all their time), or some unexpected change in groups... Do
> you think the teachers will take the time to call the sysadmin ? Or the
> sysadmin take the time, however small, to make the changes ?
> Under NT, you'll end up with access being granted to several individual
> students. Under linux, I guess access would be granted to a larger group
> or even everybody.
Not to make it an endless discussion, I think that situation
may be summarized that way.
The Unix standard way is not to assign resources to users,
but users to resources. Each of your students will be made
member of a limited number of groups, the ones containing
the resources he is entitled to access to. He'll be in group
"FirstFloorPrinter", "WitchcraftLabCDBurner",
"MagicSpellProject", "WarlockApprentice", and so on. If he's
elected in the students Council, he'll become member of the
"StudCounc" group, and when he's not re-elected he'll be
removed from this group. This makes very easy to maintain
both resources and users. Who has the right to assign and
remove resources is a matter of university policies. If a
teacher must be permitted to perform some action in order to
grant or remove some permissions, he may be provided by
sysadmin with some script which may run with root privileges
only to perform some defined operations (such as including a
student in a group, or removing a student from a group).
In my opinion this is broad enough to cover the example you
submitted. It doesn't cover the whole universe of
possibilities, of course. A big corporation may need a more
complex scheme, and then it will have to resort to ACL,
which exists for Unix, but poses a greater burden on
sysadmin, because he must not only check user permissions,
but also directories and files.
>
> > Besides the only check system needs is owner and group of
> > the file versus name and groups of user. Unless you have
> > users belonging to all 3000 groups, which appears slightly
> > unlikely, 20 or 3000 groups don't make any difference on
> > time to access the resource. The only user which should
> > access all groups is quite logically the owner of all the
> > resources, if such a need exists, or the root user, for
> > maintenance purposes.
> >
>
> And all this gives no solution for denying access, or does is ?
If Bill is using the CDBurner to make his own CD's, you
remove him from "CDBurnerGroup", and he'll be no more able
to use it. Who can do it, is again a matter of local policy.
If CD Burner belongs to Prof. Smith, the Prof. Smith can do
it. If it belongs to sysadmin, but sysadmin has provided
Prof. Smith with a shell script to add or remove users to
"CDBurnerGroup", then Prof. Smith can do it all the same. If
Prof. Smith has not been given this option, then he can't do
it, but not because of Unix.
>
> > >
> > > The resource group is not a solution, it's a workaround of a design
> > > flaw. The design flaw which probably wasn't a flaw in its original
> > > context (i.e. slow processors, few resources available, etc...).
> > >
>
> I want to insist again on this point. The linux access file system is not
> bad, only I think it's too simple, a simplicity which was surely necessary before,
> but may pose problems today. On linux, I always feel as if I am always near the
> limits of what's possible to do with access permissions.
If you really need ACL flexibility, you can have it. Just
follow Damien's link, and download the stuff. Only make sure
that your need is real, and doesn't arise from lack of
information on how to deal with SUID, GID, etc.
>
> To come back to the very example at the origine of the thread.
> I'm not the root user on that server. But I could be granted
> root privileges on my project's directory if such thing was possible
> with classic linux permissions (is it ?). I am part of the
> group that all files belong to, but whenever something goes wrong (ie
> httpd creating a nobody/nobody file) I can lose control on those files
> and need a sysadmin.
You only need sysadmin once to be made member of the
"nobody" group. If he chooses not to do so, because you've
taken the last "mousse au chocolate" at the university
"cantine", leaving him without, then again it's not a Unix
problem.
>
> If I was under NT, this is what I would have done : take ownership of the
> files, give myself inherited "change permissions (P)" and
> "take ownership (O)" permissions to all files.
> The ownership prevents the sysadmins or anybody else from removing
> my control over those files by mistake (Which happened once to me
> under linux and the sysadmins had all left for lunch), because ownership
> is quite separate from permissions. The P and O permissions allow
> me to regain control on newly created files unless the created file's
> permissions are changed to remove my rights on them.
> And all of this does not interfere with the access permissions scheme on
> the directories, because these are ACLs.
If under NT sysadmin cannot remove your control over those
files, it is an NT flaw. If your server goes astray, and
fills up 4 GB with rubbish that you only can delete, when
it's you who have gone to lunch, or to holidays, then I
would think that the scheme you're suggesting is in no way
better than the one you criticize.
--
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: bill@nospam
Subject: Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies
Date: 5 Jun 2000 06:38:45 -0700
>Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><snip!>
>
>: Actually, IBM has had a 1.3 jdk for Linux for some time now.
>: It is very good, in my experience.
IBM does not have jdk 1.3, the guy does not know what he is
talking about. Even Sun does not make jdk 1.3 for linux yet.
Sun will be comming out with jdk 1.3 for linux soon, may be by end
of summer.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 5 Jun 2000 14:06:17 -0500
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Linux training is now offered free of charge at a local community collage. The only
>> >thing Linux needs is user friendliness.
>>
>> Linux needs a lot more than that. Just face it, Linux will never be as good as NT.
>
>This statement can only be true of your favorite sport just happens to
>be
>ramming hot soldering irons up your anis!
>
NT is easy. It's fast. It's stabal. Your ramming hot soldiering irons up your ass when
you put up
with UNIX and it's slownice and its' nead for you to tipe commands.
>
>>
>> >In store loaded linux boxes can be used by
>> >windoz lusers (like myself) as easily as a mac.
>>
>> If you think compialing kernals is as easy as macintosh.
>
>At least you CAN compile your kernel under Linux and add/change things.
Microsoft compials the NT kernal for you and you make the chainges in the Control
Panel not by
compialing everything yourself like in UNIX where if they did'nt make you compial the
softwhare
wouldn't evin work because no 2 UNIX boxes are binairy compattibal.
Compair this with Windos, whear the EXE fromat will run on anny Windos box
in the world. That kind of compattabillity takes genius that UNIX does'nt
halve. You don't even nead the C format in Windos so "open source" is
irrellevent.
>
>>
>> >The stability of unix,
>>
>> whitch is nothing compeared to the stability of Windows 2000,
>
>
>W2K doesn't have any stability. IT still blue screens!
W2K is perfectly stabile. It even bloes NT4 out of teh watter.
>
>>
>> >the ease of a
>> >graphical user interface,
>>
>> Something that Linux cant provide. (It has some graffics, but it does'nt have any
>ease you still
>> half to tipe command!)
>
>X is a graphical interface for which you can run KDE which just happens
>to blow the doors off of
>W2k in functionality and features.
KDE doesnt' make UNIX easy to use. It gives you graffics but it doesn't give you any
ease it still
makes you tipe. And like everything else in UNIX, you half to spend years setting it
up to werk the
way it's suppost to after you install it when in Windos it works rite rite out of the
box.
>
>>
>> >and the inexpenciveness of the package make linux a serious
>> >threat to the windoz market. But not yet.... Im still going to hold on to my linux
>> >shares!
>>
>> Linux is only a thret to the pinguine poppulation. HAHA!
>
>Oh, a serious debater. I must think harder.
>I dunno what a thret is but I bet it has something to do with
>either graphical or soldering irons!
>
>
>>
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >> The more I think about it, and the more virulent the commetns made in here
>> >> against linux, the more it becomes clear that the only reason there are people in
>> >> NGs arguing against the widespread acceptance of linux is a financial tie to ms.
>> >>
>> >> Why would anyone be against gettings something for free, that they can change as
>> >> they see fit, that offers exactly the same amount of tech support but instills
>> >> more confidence than the current expensive option availpable?
>> >>
>> >> Let's see now:
>> >>
>> >> -windows is expensive, bloated, and difficult to use. MS is highly resistant to
>> >> working with customers to make changes and make using a computer easier.
>> >>
>> >> -linux is free, and completely malleable. It is simply a matter of time before
>> >> an appealing GUI is placed on top of it to allow neophytes to comfortably make
>> >> use of it.
>> >>
>> >> And again, any bugs in linux are quickly eradicated, while windows users are at
>> >> the mecy of ms to repair them, assuming ms even fesses up to their existance. It
>> >> is typical of ms to deny them or their culpability, as they consistently,
>> >> wretchedly blame the user's incompetence or the other app manufacturer for
>> >> "improperly written software." Assuming ms even bothered to publish the
>> >> necessary apis to even allow for development.
>> >>
>> >> Personally, I prefer free and stabile over expensive and bloated.
>> >
>
>
>Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
