Linux-Advocacy Digest #912, Volume #26 Mon, 5 Jun 00 17:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Brad BARCLAY)
Re: phpMyAdmin (Mig Mig)
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students! (Mig Mig)
Re: A Better Windows (Cihl)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Mayor)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Some advocacy. (Steve Mentzer)
Re: The sad Linux story (Mig Mig)
Re: A Better Windows (Cihl)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ("Come Home")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (JEDIDIAH)
Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (Mig Mig)
Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: A Better Windows (Cihl)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brad BARCLAY <[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 16:40:00 -0400
Trevor Smith wrote:
> We do not have a VAT, we have a GST. There are also provincial sales taxes in some
> provinces (though not all) and I believe, in Ottawa, they have the PST (10% or 11% --
> it's been a while since I lived in Ottawa) and the GST (7%). Here in the Maritimes we
> have a "harmonized" sales tax (which includes our PST and GST) which we call the HST.
Just FYI, in Ontario (the Province in which Ottawa is located for
lurkers) the PST is 8%. GST is 7% - so overall in Ontario there is a
15% Sales Tax.
Brad BARCLAY
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Location: 2G43D@Torolabs
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: phpMyAdmin
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:47:20 +0200
mlw wrote:
> neolyth wrote:
> >
> > Have installed the newest phpMyAdmin 2.0.5
> > and the newest MySql DB 3.22.32 on my Server runnning
> > Linux Redhat 6.2. The My SQL server is up and running.
> > I installed phpMyAdmin in /home/httpd/html/phpMyAdmin.
> > When I point from another machine in the net to
> > from my browser: http://www.myhost.com/phpMyAdmin/index.php3
> > the following error msg appeares:
> > Fatal error: Call to unsupported or undefined function mysql_connect()
> > in lib.inc.php3 on line 119
> >
> > I would appreciate if you could help me with a bit support in this case.
> >
> > Thanks in advanced
> >
> > Peter Hoeltschi
>
> You don't have the mysql module installed in PHP. You must build it (or
> get it from an RPM) and make sure you load it in php3.ini
Those might get hard to find.. i had same problem few weaks back and didnt
manage to find the latest RPM with mysql support.
He might end having to compile php with mysql support enabled.. its rather
easy once you read the instructions included in the PHP source.
------------------------------
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: 05 Jun 2000 16:24:48 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie) writes:
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 19:34:53 GMT,
> Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Default) writes:
> +
> + > Having just gotten through reading over 7,000 Linux posts in one sitting,
> + > I *still* fail to see the advantages of Linux over Apple's forthcoming OS
> + > 'X'.
> +
> + here's one *huge* advantage. linux with X11 is here. apple's OS X is
> + still forthcoming.
>
> Well, if you can find the developer's release,
as i was saying, linux with X11 is here; apple's OS X is *still*
forthcoming.
> you can run MacOS X now.
not if i can't find it. post an URL for download please.
> It's developmental code, but we all run developmental code, right? > ;)
we can only run that which we have access to.
--
johan kullstam l72t00052
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students!
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:50:50 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bracy) wrote in <EEM_4.4560$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Actually, after reading your posts, I think you'd be better off with
> >WordPad.
>
> It's a better editor than... oh my gosh, what _do_ you write LaTeX with? Go
> on, tell me... VI!!!!!
One could or even Emacs.. but one also could use Lyx (www.lyx.org) or Klyx.
Once youve tryed doing some major work with Word and failed...you learn to
appreciate Latex.
Cheers
Ahhh. it feels good that Emacs and VI (Vim) run on Windows when you have to
use Windows
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Better Windows
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 20:49:21 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 22:22:37 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >For the last few hours i've been watching this newsgroup, as well as
> >some other related ones.
> >Well, (how do i put this), if the people on these newsgroups had all
> >been together in a bar, chairs would be flying all over the place and
> >the police would already be on their way over!
> >
> >What the hell ARE you all talking about!
> >I've heard some strange arguments which basically sound like "Linux is
> >better than Windows!" and "Windows is better than Linux!", "linshit
> >SUCKS!", "windhose SUCKS!" and stuff like that. Both OS's are
> >completely being RAPED as of late, along with the English language, i
> >might add.
> >
> >My point being: isn't the world big enough for both these OS's? What's
>
> Historically NO. The world doesn't seem to be big enough
> to hold ANYthing else and Windows or DOS.
>
> That's why the rest of us tend to get cranky.
Well...[sigh]...i guess you're right. But wouldn't it be nice if it
was?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
From: Mayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:47:50 -0700
In article <rwT3hgH4dNiP-pn2-CjVddjd9oDIw@CDR2-
194.accesscable.net>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor
Smith) wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 02:43:07, John Wiltshire
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And I thought South Park was a cartoon. Do people in the US
>> really think *that* badly of Canada?
Actually most Americans probably don't even think about Canada.
That's not a slam either. Its just that there's not really much
to think about. There's no significant political tension with
Canada; there's no major trade disputes either. Things between
the US and Canada tend to go so smoothly its easy to forget that
there's even anything going on at all.
>
>Ironically, even if Americans did think that badly of
>Canadians, Canadians probably think much more lowly of
>Americans.
>
>This is a bit odd really. I've rarely ever met an American in
>person that I dislike. I've certainly seen a few here on
>vacation and many thousands more "in the wild" on my
>visits down south.
>
>Yet Canadians seem to have this unshakeable belief that
>Americans are arrogant and ignorant. Or maybe I shouldn't limit
>that to Canadians. Maybe everyone outside of America has that
>opinion.
It does seem to be mainly Canadians and Europeans who think that
way. If they find an American who isn't well versed in every
aspect of every cultural, scientific, economic, and historical
institution there ever was (IOW knows everything) then they
loudly proclaim that this is just proof that all Americans are
little more than savages. They, on the other hand, are usually
instant experts on all things American. It doesn't seem to matter
that most of what they say is so outrageously wrong that its
obviously that they're pulling most of it straight out of their
ass.
The amusing part is that while their American hosts are politely
putting up with this display of rudeness and ignorance the
foreign guests are displaying the very charateristics they claim
to loathe in Americans.
>Again, I'm not saying Americans really are significantly more
>arrogant or ignorant than those of us up here in the "51st
>state", and I certainly don't have statistical proof of it. But
>it's just so hard to dismiss the idea...
Its the need for 'The Other'. It makes for a quick and cheap
identity to be able to say 'I'm not one of those'.
--
Come and see my new website!
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~rfovell/dpic.html
Generously donated and maintained by
THE Robert Fovell of CSMA fame.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 5 Jun 2000 15:47:00 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]%-M>,
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>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.
I can see why typing commands might be a problem for you. You
have my sympathy, but fortunately it is not a problem for
most people.
>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.
So all that stuff that says it requires NT will really run just
the same on a handheld windows CE device?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mentzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some advocacy.
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 12:52:20 -0700
On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 22:14:00 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Every now and then I like to post, amidst all the flaming, some things
>that Linux does well.
Linux does some things well.
NT/Win2k does some things well.
Win9x plays games well.
I love Linux and Win2k, but for different reasons. I think Linux *is*
superior to Win2k in many areas, but I also feel that Win2k is a
better application/development platform.
Case in point: I can write a data-access component in 30 minutes that
will connect to *any* OLE-DB or ODBC compliant database. I can publish
this component on a server (via MTS/Component Services), apply Win2k
integrated security to the component, and generate a "point and click"
install script.
This data access component is usable through *any* active-x/COM
enabled productivity software (access, word, excel etc etc etc), and
can also be used by other developers, reducing code-duplication. It is
fast, it is secure (provided that your network is secure to begin
with) and it is easy... what more can you want?
Everything I just mentioned can be accomplished in Unix, but nowhere
near as easy or integrated.
>
>I recently had to boot my NT box to change a driver to support a new
>version of hardware. I have gotten so used to Linux, that I had
>forgotten how awful Windows and NT are.
>
Typically, on an NT/Win2k box, you don't need to update or change
drivers while the server is in production. The only real need to
change a driver is if you install a new piece of hardware (which
requires a poweroff anyway) or after a blue screen due to a buggy
driver.
People seem to complain about NT/Win2k embedding the video layer into
the kernel. Buggy drivers will send Linux into a kernel panic just as
fast as sending Win2k into BSOD.
BTW: Rebooting a client machine is no big deal.
>Rather than focus on negatives lets look at positives.
>
I agree..
>I just finished a prototype 20 node Linux cluster. 1 main central node
>as a central administration point, and 19 nodes which net-boot using
>DHCP, TFTP, and NTF. It was fairly easy to set up. It was about two days
>work. There are a few tweaks here and there that will be done, but it is
>repeatable, stable and scalable. Each net node boots and puts up a CPU
>monitor on the screen of the managing node, using a standard monitor
>program. They do this with neither modification to the application nor
>perceptible CPU load and/or memory usage on the server.
>
There is nothing preventing an NT box from doing the same. I can write
an NT service that communicates with a central server via DCOM quite
easily. What you built is not impossible or even difficult to build
under WinNT/2000. You just need to know how to use the tools.
>I use Applix. I would not trade applix for MS office for money. Applix
>has never crashed on me, ever.
>
Funny. I have been using Office 97 under WinNT for about 3 years now.
And aside from some stupid macro errors (that I caused myself), I have
yet to encounter a corrupted document or GPF.
I guess I am the exception :)
>I have setup web servers that go unattended for months at a time. I have
>customers that have forgotten me. When I call and ask how the server is
>working, they are shocked to realize I have not been in to fix it.
We have a WinNT based ecommerce site in production. It only goes down
when we take it down for routine maintenance (code updates, etc). No
BSOD's, etc.
I find that when using IIS, the *quality* of programming staff has a
lot to do with the effectiveness, efficiency and reliability of the
entire application.
>
>I am experimenting with the 2.3/2.4test kernel. It is dreadfully
>unstable, but much more reliable than Windows NT.
How so? NT has been rock solid for years, provided that you don't use
buggy drivers, and follow some basic rules when developing
applications.
>
>I just installed gtoaster. I have made a few music CDs. It was really
>easy!!!
>
Adaptec EZCDCreator is really easy to use as well. And it comes with
any CD-R you buy these days.
>A couple of my friends are still licking their wounds from the
>"ILOVEYOU" virus, and are more interested in Linux every day.
The "ILOVEYOU" virus preyed on the compu-stupidity of the general
populous. If there was a unix email client that supported the in-line
execution of shell scripts, unix would also be succeptible to these
issues.
The one thing that *wouldn't* happen inside unix is the corruption of
the base OS. The worst damage the user would do is the destruction of
his/her home directory, which can be restored fairly easily.
So, I will give Linux/Unix 1 point for the core OS security.
MS made a tradeoff about the core OS. They understood that for people
to gain acceptance of an OS, it had to be easy to install and use
software. Linux needs to understand that when people want to install
the new version of StarOffice, they don't want to call their sysadmin
or log in as a superuser. (I know that staroffice can be installed
into a user's home directory, but who wants 400 copies of staroffice
floating on the server?)
They want to put in the CD, point click, install, and run the
software.
So, I take the 1 point away for Linux making software installation
more difficult than it needs to be...
>
>There is only one thing I miss about Windows. My UMAX Astra 1220P
>scanner is not supported. Other than that, I have not found another
>thing which I would consider using Windows.
I love the networking stability and depth of Linux. I also like it's
"eggheadedness". It is a fun operating system for geeks like me to
explore and discover.
However, Win2k gives me a secure, stable and efficient application
development/deployment platform. Where Linux gives me brute power and
flexibility, Win2k gives me integration and "ease of development".
There are trade-offs to both platforms, and which one you use depends
on the project at hand!
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The sad Linux story
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:54:57 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Strange. I just tried the same. It works just like it should; add
> >selection by pressing CTRL.
>
> I tried again, and this time it worked as I would have expected. Most
> peculiar. Maybe I've found a (horror!) bug in kfm?
Maybe it will be known as the Goodwin bug since it happens to you.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Better Windows
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 20:53:38 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Cihl wrote:
>
> > For the last few hours i've been watching this newsgroup, as well as
> > some other related ones.
> > Well, (how do i put this), if the people on these newsgroups had all
> > been together in a bar, chairs would be flying all over the place and
> > the police would already be on their way over!
> >
>
> That's the fun of it here!!!
>
> There's room enough for both OS's, else Linux wouldn't be around.
> In a way, Microsoft itself is to blame for its Linux competition. How?
> Well, Microsoft code bloat leads to the need for bigger, faster machines,
Well...high sales figures by hardware manufacturers DO always seem to
correspond to Windows release dates.
> which gives Microsoft more room to add more features (more bloat).
> At some point, the machines became powerful and capacious enough to
> support a real UNIX-like system without being too slow for utility.
But isn't Linux supposed to run on less powerful machines as well? I'd
like to think so! You could use an old 486(SX) for masquerading and
file+print-services.
> Now, Microsoft has incorporated another round of bloating, so it needs
> the more powerful and larger machines now (for Win2K).
>
> Thanks, Microsoft, for forcing the hardware to work so hard for us.
I've read some tests about Windows 2000 supposedly being faster than
Windows NT on the same hardware. Why do i have trouble believing this?
Precedence perhaps?
------------------------------
From: "Come Home" <[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 20:54:14 GMT
"Brad BARCLAY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
It costs Canadian tax payers and businesses too much. We Canadians
pay for their education and we Canadian corporations pay for their
technology training or even personal communication and altitude
training. One hi-tech company in Canada spent $10K per
employee per year just for training alone (not including the hidden
cost of on job training) and painfully discovered that they are losing
hundreds of well trained talents to their US competitor every year.
We Canadians pay for the benefits of US. Enough is enough.
> Brad BARCLAY
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Location: 2G43D@Torolabs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 20:53:47 GMT
On 5 Jun 2000 15:47:00 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]%-M>,
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>NT is easy. It's fast. It's stabal. Your ramming hot soldiering irons up your ass
>when you put up
>>with UNIX and it's slownice and its' nead for you to tipe commands.
>
>I can see why typing commands might be a problem for you. You
>have my sympathy, but fortunately it is not a problem for
>most people.
...that's more of a DOS thing actually...
Dealing with bad typing isn't quite as much of a problem with
a Unix commandline. Editing out errors and conveniently
repeating commands is not as much of a hassle in bash or tcsh
as it is with command.com.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages)
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 22:59:48 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8heb15$q8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Those man pages have been there forever and doing a fine job. I must
> >admit that they are not particular easy to read , but everything you
> >need to know as an enduser is actually there. This is unlike f.ex. the
> >Windows helpsystem that really is of no help if you want to resolve
> >problems.
>
> They've changed, I remember man tar was far more descriptive in an earlier
> version of Linux.
Hmmm... you must have a better memory than i have. From a endusers point of
view they have allways been too complex.. but endusers shouldnt be
fiddling with Linux or any other Unix soooo..... Well im probably only one
around with that opinion
> As for Windows help system, I agree. Pretty weak.
Well - lets not bash Micros~1 all the time.. The help files for W2K are
much much better than previous versions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages)
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 20:57:25 GMT
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 20:07:49 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>mount -t vfat /dev/hdd5 /opt/petesadork
>>>
>>>Thats all you get. Now read the fucking manual.
>
>Calling me a dork gives you some satisfaction, I see. Still need to insults
>to get your point across, how pathetic.
>
>I've yet to find a manual telling me how to do what I want, so how can I
>read it?
Actually, the manpage for smbmount has all the information you
need. You just have to have the initiative to actually use it
and stop with the helpless routine.
>
>One hand across the eyes, one hand across the ears, that way you can't hear
>the evil: Linux is not perfect.
If you're unable to recognize basic patterns and relationships,
any system that ultimately depends on the intellegence of the
operator is going to eventually be a problem for you.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Better Windows
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 20:58:27 GMT
James wrote:
>
> Actually a good article.
Thanks James.
> Currently, I don't think there is place for more than one desktop OS. To
> facilitate multiple desktop OS' we require good standards - and most
> importantly standard inter-OS device drivers. Only then can we have more
> than one desktop standard. The reason is simple: application developers -
> for obvious financial reasons - are always only going to focus on the
> dominant OS'.
Someone else also pointed this out, but you have a point there. As
much as it would do the world good to have some kind of choice,
developers simply aren't going to support more than one system at a
time, as you said.
However, they WOULD do it if there was a possibility for financial
gain. This could happen if two or more desktop-OS's would have about
an equal market share. I don't see this happening though.
> James
>
> "Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > For the last few hours i've been watching this newsgroup, as well as
> > some other related ones.
> > Well, (how do i put this), if the people on these newsgroups had all
> > been together in a bar, chairs would be flying all over the place and
> > the police would already be on their way over!
> >
> > What the hell ARE you all talking about!
> > I've heard some strange arguments which basically sound like "Linux is
> > better than Windows!" and "Windows is better than Linux!", "linshit
> > SUCKS!", "windhose SUCKS!" and stuff like that. Both OS's are
> > completely being RAPED as of late, along with the English language, i
> > might add.
> >
> > My point being: isn't the world big enough for both these OS's? What's
> > the point in trying to force your opinion onto others? Nobody is
> > actually going to CHANGE what they do just because you decide to
> > smudge the newsgroup with shit made out of ASCII! (If you feel spoken
> > to, that's because i'm talking to YOU!)
> >
> > If you decide you don't like Linux for a reason, you can always use
> > Windows. The same goes the other way around, of course. But if you DO
> > decide to criticize Linux, try doing this in a constructive manner. (A
> > fellow named Pete Goodwin does this regularly. Please keep it up, and
> > try not to resort to trolling.) And WHEN (and it will) -constructive-
> > criticism reaches this newsgroup, the proper way to handle this would
> > be to simply listen and possibly pass information through to the
> > people responsible for that particular flaw. Linux is far from
> > perfect, just like any other OS. It has it's own problems, which still
> > need resolving.
> >
> > One of these ongoing problems is the documentation, as some have
> > pointed out. It's relatively difficult to document Linux well, because
> > there isn't a common source. Linux is developed by many different
> > entities.
> > In general it's a community effort; any and all help is needed. You
> > could say that whining is actually very helpful to us, if you do it
> > the right way.
> >
> > To the point:
> > Linux is not a better Windows. Linux cannot, in most cases, replace
> > Windows. Linux is completely different from Windows. Linux has it's
> > strong points (like general stability and power) and Windows has it's
> > strong points, too (like user-friendliness and OEM-support). The same
> > goes for the weaker points, of course.
> >
> > Because of a recent "hype" around Linux an ever-increasing number of
> > companies have come to rely on the GNU/Linux system. This means that
> > for us it's time to start taking our responsibilities seriously and
> > also to start behaving more professionally. Linux is taking it's first
> > steps into the big world, but it still needs a trusted hand to keep it
> > from falling to the street, so to speak.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
