Linux-Advocacy Digest #984, Volume #26 Thu, 8 Jun 00 20:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux? The Kings New Clothes!!! (Rich Cloutier)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Linux first in ATA 100 support! ("None")
Re: Bob's Law (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("James E.
Freedle II")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 18:54:34 -0400
From: Rich Cloutier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux? The Kings New Clothes!!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> But they are all naked your majesty, says the 8 year old girl.
....to King Bill....as she tries to convince him that users' systems,
data, and wallets have been stripped bare by Wimp-dows*.
>
> Linux is a fucking con job, it is a lame attempt at trying to push an
> operating system that most folks have no interest in.
...because they are not ready for a major paradigm shift in their use of
computers...
>
> Try Linux for yourself, $1.99 at Cheapbytes.com will get it to you
> pronto.
>
> Hint: It's overpriced!
Not when you consider that RedHat 6.2 comes on FIXE cd-roms!
>
> When your system is lying legs up in the air like a dying cockroach,
> please let us know,
Nope, didn't happen. My first Linux-only PC has been up over 28 days
now. My previous system was dual-boot "just in case" but I haven't
booted that to Wimp-dows in almost a year.
The cockroach is a good analogy for Linux, as Cockroaches will be around
long after humans (and Microsoft) are long gone from the earth.
>
> After you have lost all your data, not to mention your friends, please
> let us know.
All my data is quite safe, thank you, even when some alpha software I
have tried has core-dumped.
>
> When you spend countless hours trying to accomplish the simple task,
> please let us know.
I am now working on a simulation of one of the products I support,
trying to find a race in an old "random logic" design, using gschem and
tkgate (schematic capture and digital simulation - two tools which I
could NEVER afford the Windows versions of.)
>
> When your Y2k state of the art system is turned into a mid 1990's
> antique, please let us know.
Actually, the computer I am using is a mid nineties antique which
wouldn't run Windows without leaking memory all over the place and
having to be rebooted every few days. It now runs Linux flawlessly,
along with all its apps.
>
> When your clients data does not import correctly into Linux, please
> let us know.
My clients don't give me data, I give THEM data....that's what being a
consultant is all about.
>
> When your video/sound half works please let us know.
I will (if it ever DOES happen.)
>
> You see, WE are Linux, and we want to help. And if you wait another 6
> years or so all of those things might work.
Thanks for the advice, Austin.
("as long as I can indulge in unprotected sex and drug use in a
consequence-free environment, I'll be all right."
--Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery)
>
> Of course you could run Windows, like everyone else and they would
> work right now.
...until the next upgrade....
>
> Linux is Lame and no one can prove otherwise.
Maybe not to you. The windows matrix has you and you won't accept the
Truth.
>
> Shit, they can't even give it away..............................
Maybe they should sell Linux for $319.00 a copy. After all, perceived
value is a big factor with most people.
(PSSST!! Hey Steve, I can supply you with a $319.00 copy of Linux from
my "warez" collection!)
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
* "Wimp-dows" is an open-source term which I hereby donate to the OSS
community, which may be used freely by any true OSS advocate, to help
alleviate the over-use of the terms "win-blows" and "windoze."
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:27:22 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 01:09:57 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:21:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:28:13 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >opposed to interoperability between applications is clearly business and
> >> >> >large-task oriented and is a poor trade-off for home users.
> >> >>
> >> >> ...until they have to acquire some Robber Baron's bit of software
> >> >> just because "everyone else" is using it & it tries to be as
> >> >> incompatible with everything else as possible...
> >> >
> >> >True interoperability between applications on the same box doesn't stop at
> >> >file formats in my book.
> >>
> >> Ultimately, that's all you have. The "file" could be streamed
> >> in a pipe or a socket but it's essentially the same in the end.
> >
> >That's not all there is to interoperability within one box. Have you seen my
> >VoiceType example? How does one accomplish that by piping a file around?
>
> You mean like using the ViaVoice api to send streams of characters
> encoded and encapsulated in a particular message passing protocol
> from a control program that captures the human voice from and audio
> card and essentially pipes them into other applications through the
> X message passing mechanism?
>
> There are several of those.
That's not how VoiceType works. VoiceType latches on to each application
(whether they know about it or not), forming appropriate keywords based the
application's menus, button labels, etc. It then triggers button presses and
menu accesses when these keywords are used. It does the same thing with the
graphical shell, making keywords out of the objects on your desktop and the
programs in your window list.
For example: I can say "JUMP TO NETSCAPE" and it will bring up my running
copy of Netscape to the foreground. I can then say "Bookmarks. Warpcast."
and it will cruise on over to the site whose bookmark is named "Warpcast". If
I said "POOPIEHEAD", it would not get past VoiceType itself, as it knows that
this is not a valid keyword for the app that has the window focus, nor is it a
keyword for the system shell or VoiceType itself. You just can't implement
this type of system, requiring two-way communication, without the controlled
app knowing about it, using pipes and streams of data.
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[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: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:35:48 GMT
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 15:06:52 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 06/08/2000 at 09:00 AM,
> John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>> My attributions are just fine. They say exactly what you said they did.
>
>> John Wiltshire
>
>No they were not. You attributed to me a paragraph in which both inferior
>and superior were incorrectly spelled and in which the word wintroll was
>used. I did not write that paragraph no matter how many times you try to
>get people to believe what has now escalated to the level of outright
>lying on your part.
Here's the exact quote (no chevrons added - check it for yourself at
deja or on your own machine if you like):
===========Start Quote==============
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 23:09:02 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C Lund) wrote:
>In article <393b879b$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If the MAC OS was superior to those available for the Intel platform, it
>> would be dominant. It was rejected by the marketplace.
>
>And once again a wintroll makes the error of assuming popularity =
>quality. An infiriour product with a lower price and supiriour marketing
>can easily outsell the supiriour product. Particularily when people who've
>tried Windows think the mac is just a variation of the same theme.
Actually, Bob's an OS/2 fan. That's why most of us are having
problems figuring out his statement.
John Wiltshire
==========End Quote==============
Now, to explain it in nice simple terms, I wrote everything without a
chevron including the first line.
C Lund wrote everything with one chevron. Note that his attribution
line doesn't have a chevron because I wrote the attribution, not him.
You (Bob Germer) wrote everything with two chevrons. Note that your
attribution line has only one chevron because C Lund wrote it.
What is your problem with that?
And as for calling me a liar, well I'd just have to say your making it
all up and I really don't know why, or just plain deluded.
Does anyone else here have a problem with my attributions?
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:30:29 GMT
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 22:57:36 GMT, Rob Barris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8hhrn2$nd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> : On 05 Jun 2000 15:29:20 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : >"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> : >
>> : >> Apple's greatest enemy has never been other corporations. Their
>> : >> greatest foe is themselves. The only reason why they aren't as
>> : >> successful as Microsoft is for the same reason why Sun isn't as
>> : >> successful as Microsoft... they each are not appealing to a wide
>> : >> enough class of user.
>> : >
>> : >That, and paying $4000 for a new machine back in the 80s wasn't very
>> : >popular.
>>
>> : Brand name PC's with comparable hardware weren't much cheaper.
>>
>> When the Macintosh was first released, it ran for $2500. PCs were running
>> around $1500. I'd say that a 1000 dollar difference in the price tags was
>> a pretty significant difference.
In 1988, a generic 8088 clone cost you $1000 so whatever $1500
got in terms of a PC in 84 or 85 must have been really quite
pathetic.
>
> PC's were also running DOS. (Not that I can recall a specific PC model
>including monitor and networking that sold for $1500 in that timeframe).
...they were also running 8088's and lucky to any sort of
graphics capabilities at all.
>
> Do you think IBM sold a lot of PS/2 Model 80's (386)? They went for
>over $3K.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:37:18 GMT
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 15:06:55 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 06/08/2000 at 09:01 AM,
> John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Actually, I think you'll find most large and medium companies do deals
>> with salesmen and not through the retail channel. What you see on the
>> web site is *not* what the large companies are buying.
>
>They still are buying from the same OEM's and all supplied Win9x for the
>past 6 years whether the company wanted it or not. I have dealt with HP,
>Compaq, Dell, IBM, etc. on purchases of as many as 500 machines and they
>would not provide bare machines or machines w/o Windows or NT.
(Sigh). Ok. Whatever. YMMV I guess.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:36:56 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:32:28 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Local access to storage is faster than access from a foreign
> >> >> >machine.
> >> >>
> >> >> And less interesting. I already have that data.
> >> >
> >> >Well, I certainly wouldn't engage in an argument about what does and doesn't
> >> >interest you, but home users in general are not terribly interested in firing
> >> >up several computers to accomplish a task.
> >>
> >> No, they connect to the internet where the other computers are already
> >> running.
> >
> >What does the average home user do on the internet besides surf the web and
> >write e-mail? Do they actually use more than one machine to *accomplish a
> >task*?
>
> ...if that is what they typically do then they are infact using
> multiple machines predominantly...
Sorry, but I don't consider what the average user does while surfing the web
or writing e-mail to be accomplishing a non-trivial task.
> >> >> >In addition, home users are far more interested in what can be done
> >> >> >on a single standalone box because they can't afford (or don't want
> >> >> >to buy) extra equipment.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, the application can only deal with my own typing?
> >> >
> >> >Not sure I follow...
> >>
> >> If you don't exchange data with others, where else are you going
> >> to get any input?
> >
> >I'm not suggesting a complete absense of exchanging data. I'm saying that a
> >tradeoff of program interoperability for inter-machine interoperability is
> >favorable for home users. Heck, if you wrote a document in Product X and you
> >wish to share the document with someone using Product Y, if Product X doesn't
> >save in a format readable by Product Y, you can simply fire up Product Y on
> >your system and cut and paste the document across to it with reasonable app
> >interoperability.
>
> ...after you've bought it.
>
> "Being able to run Product X" to decode proprietary data
> does NOT consitute interoperability.
I'd rather have to buy product Y and still be able to embed a spreadsheet into
a word processing document, than have my product X's format recognized by some
other machine that I'm not using. I'm a home user, remember?
> >> >> There is no trade off. Programs that actually do interoperate
> >> >> don't mind running on the same machine if that is all you have.
> >> >
> >> >But can they interact with other applications smoothly on the same box? An
> >> >example of what I'm talking about is VoiceType Dictation/Navigation on OS/2.
> >> >None of my applications have any particular knowledge of this app, yet every
> >> >one of them can be voice-enabled.
> >>
> >> How does this relate to not being able to work across machines/platforms?
> >> If you run X and have your voice control spliced into the keyboard
> >> you would be able to work with remote machines as well.
> >
> >Ahh, but it's not spliced into the keyboard. That's the thing. It's spliced
> >into the OS. It talks to the window manager, figures out which menus are
> >visible on the window which current has the focus, looks for button labels in
> >the current window, etc., and builds a list of valid keywords on the fly.
> >With all of the different widget libraries used in X, such a thing would be
> >impossible to implement.
>
> There are already versions to handle the 3 most widely used
> toolkits. So, in the worst case you would need a deamon for
> each toolkit you're running.
Yuck. How does the user know which toolkit is deployed for which app? And
when a new whiz-bang widget library comes along, you no longer have voice
control support with the apps that use it.
------------------------------
From: "None" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux first in ATA 100 support!
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:38:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I still don't get it, why do you say Linux had USB support before Windows?
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000, Christopher Browne wrote:
>>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Charlie Ebert would say:
>>>Who says Windows is ahead of Linux?
>>>
>>>Windows doesn't have support for ATA 100 yet.
>>>
>>>Suse announced support this week.
>>>
>>>Linux was first to support USB.
>>
>>Hum? I thought Apple was the first to support USB, and that Windows 98
>>was second, NetBSD came in third, and then Linux started having support.
>>
>>>Let's look at other things which make Linux ahead of Windows. Linux has
>>>several SQL databases, word processors, spreadsheets, development
>>>platforms, superior and numerious internet connectivity, superior
>>>networking capabilities, installs from DVD without third party
>>>drivers....
>>
>>I think Windows has several SQL databases, and possibly even more than
>>are available for Linux. Ditto for word processors, spreadsheets, and
>>likely some of the other "products."
>>
>>I would agree that Linux has some _credible options_, and that it has
>>great strengths in the area of networking. But when you make
>>overzealous claims, that is "trolling" every bit as much as the guy who
>>thinks Linux is "stinky."
>>--
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
>>"...Deep Hack Mode--that mysterious and frightening state of
>>consciousness where Mortal Users fear to tread." -- Matt Welsh
>
> Humm. Really! Windows had working USB before Linux? Very
> interesting....
>
> So, when you buy a copy of the Windows OS, you get everything I
> mentioned.
>
> Or did you forget to tell the public you have to pay extra for all that
> and THAT might amount to $10,000 in cash before you were finished.
>
> And that the UPGRADE prices are a little less, say $6500..... and
> climbing.
>
> I think you missed my point here. Windows doesn't have any of these
> things in the box. And your paying $350 for the box....
>
> That was my point.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bob's Law
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:38:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Jeff Glatt writes:
>
> >> Mayor writes:
>
> >>>> Bob Lyday writes:
>
> >>>>> Bob's Law invoked. Tholen mentioned. Thread is now
> >>>>> officially dead.
>
> >>>> Illogical.
>
> >>> Since when has logic had anything to do with Usenet?
>
> >> Since I started posting.
>
> > The University of Hawaii has had to reprimand you for violation of
> > their abuse policy since you started posting too
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Glatt.
>
> I suppose borg.com would be interested to learn that you're still
> at it.
Certainly no more interested than they were last time you attempted to bring
it to their attention, which is to say, not interested at all.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:43:39 GMT
"Illya Vaes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>>Flip a coin between the 'kill Netscape' and the Halloween
> >>>>document strategy of mutating the protocol again.
> >>>Right. Lower prices or improved product.
> >>Dumping product until the competition is dead or breaking
> >>well-considered protocols is not an improvement.
> >The Halloween document specifies *improved* products.
>
> That's MS-speak for "products that force 'customers' to use only our
products
> better than previous ones".
That's pure conspiracy theory. Why would they need to use code words
like that in an internal memo?
Or do you suppose they *meant* to leak the Halloween document?
> >And "dumping" *is* an improvement for the customers; it's
> >rather inconvinient for competitors, but they can cope.
>
> Only in the short term. Once those competitors are down, the company can
do
> anything it wants with its dependent users (note I don't use the word
> 'customer' here).
I very much doubt it. That assumes that the competitors will go down
rather than fighting back; and that no further competitors will emerge,
no matter that Microsoft does.
It's pure speculation that any of this will happen. I am not aware of any
precedent.
> Where were you when all those Walmarts drove local shops out of existence?
> This is standard Monopoly 101 that even a child can understand.
I observe that Walmart is not without competition. Why are local shops
so special that they should be immune from it?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:43:40 GMT
"Illya Vaes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >It's just that realistically, Unix *isn't* a competitor to Windows 98.
> >To NT, sure. This is, in part, why Windows 2000 suddenly
> >learned to speak Kerberos. It already knew NetWare,
> >but increasingly its competitors wasn't speaking that.
>
> Ah, it's the "Server type OS" baloney again.
Well, the line isn't completely rigid, of course, but Linux is
useful as a server OS.
> BTW, since when is interoperability worthless when it's with
"non-competing"
> systems?
I didn't really mean to suggest that it was.
I do mean to suggest that "interoperability" between identical technologies
is of little value. Kerberos' ability to interoperate with kerberos is of no
greater value than Word's ability to interoperate with Word.
> And why does it "happen" to be the case that the non-interoperability
> of Win98 with it's "non-competitor" Unix makes lots of people take Unix'
> competitor (according to you anyway) NT on the other end instead because
that
> "happens" to support those proprietary, non-interoperable, non-standard
> protocols in _just_ the right way. Wouldn't be because it's from the same
> monopolistic manufacturer, would it??? Nah!
What do you have in mind here?
Our previous arguments about Kerberos do not apply here; While Windows 2000
can use the vendor-specific info field to do domain integration, Windows
98 cannot do domain integration at all; it has no notion of security per se,
but only of shares that need passwords. It cannot use the extra
capability Windows 2000's Kerberos implementation provides.
It is, consequently, not immediately obvious to me why you feel
NT makes a better server for Windows 98 clients than a Linux
server would.
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:07:36 -0400
I did not miss that point at all, I know that there are people that prefer
the CLI to a GUI. Even though I do not agree with them, I know that other
those do have a point. However the same point can be made for GUI. I have a
friend that does everything from the command line on AutoCAD and I will not
use the command line to type anything in. I can usely finish using a command
and onto the next before he types it in. What really erks him, is that I
have no training in using AutoCAD, but picked it up in a matter of days. I
use Windows because it provides most of what I need. Linux could provide
100% of what I need if it was easier to configure what I need and it
supported all of my hardware. The perfect operating system would provide
both to both type of users.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8hncpa$ebs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> James E. Freedle II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >what to do next. The only people that think that the CLI is intuitive,
> >are the people how where told that they will learn it, and therefore
> >they pass this on. This is not improvement, but putting off the
>
> There is something fundamental here that James E. Freedle II does not get.
> Yeah, I hear the chorus, "Just *one* thing?" but relax; I'm only going to
> mention *one* fundamental error because it's the only one I consider
> interesting. The others have Already Been Done.
>
> What Mr. Freedle does not get is that I, and people like me, *prefer* to
> use a command line interface over his precious GUIs. There may be some
> technical reasons why a command line might be more powerful, but that's
not
> really why we use them. We don't use command lines because they're
better,
> and certainly not because somebody forced us. We actually use them
because
> we like them.
>
> I am not just saying that I prefer command lines, in order to be mean or
> contrary. I really do prefer them. A GUI advocate who sets out to prove
> that I don't *really* prefer command lines must necessarily end up looking
> very silly. I know my own mind; you don't. Even if there were rational
> arguments against command lines, such arguments could only succeed in
> proving that I *ought not* to prefer command lines. It is a fact that I
> *do* prefer command lines, whether I ought to or not. I just do. That's
> not open to debate or negotiation.
>
> I do not hold this preference as a result of brainwashing by the Unix
> Xonspiracy (TINUX) or anybody else; it is genuinely mine. I am no more
> likely to be convinced to like GUIs instead, by Mr. Freedle's or anybody
> else's arguments, than a gay guy might be convinced to like women instead.
> Extending that analogy further, claims that I haven't met the Right GUI
> yet (popular among some advocates of Mr. Freedle's stripe) are exactly
> analogous to "Oh, you haven't met the Right Woman" yet, and equally
> meaningful.
>
> As long as some people prefer command lines, command lines will exist.
> --
> Matthew Skala, "the modern CEO's worst nightmare" (Macleans, 2000-04-10)
> My Internet doesn't include channels, commercials, or the V-chip.
> http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
