Linux-Advocacy Digest #101, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Jun 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: WHICH LINUX??? (David Steinberg)
Re: What's wrong with StarOffice
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do .......
(Mark S. Bilk)
Re: equivalent to Exchange? (abraxas)
Re: iMacs--iTegrated with the iTernet (Darren Winsper)
Re: What's wrong with StarOffice (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Number of Linux Users ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Debian ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Drestin Black")
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Drestin Black")
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: WHICH LINUX???
Date: 15 Jun 2000 18:53:43 GMT
JEDIDIAH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: This wouldn't happen to be wmconfig by any chance?
: That has been available in Bughat for quite some time now and
: Mandrake is at it's core a dressed up Bughat...
Actually, one of the things I noticed when moving from RedHat 6 to
Mandrake 7 was how Mandrake had broken and abandoned wmconfig, which did
make moving among desktops on RedHat rather less of a hassle. I'm glad to
hear that it (or something equivalent) has made it to Mandrake.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's wrong with StarOffice
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:20:45 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If a person prefers WordPerfect Office 2000 that could be a partial solution
to the problem at hand; but what about the remaining X apps and the non X
apps that need or could benefit from Postscript and/or TrueType fonts? What
is more, why should someone have to change the software they are using just
to get support for these fonts when the support for PostScript fonts is
already on their host but possibly not activated, the situation could be the
same for the TrueType fonts.
It was Barbara's lamentation about the lack of support for these fonts by
Linux, that prompted my response. Although to be accurate, Linux has no
support for these fonts because other than the console mode screen fonts,
Linux is not concerned about fonts in any way. X and the applications that
run on Linux, may require or could benefit from these fonts, and in this
siutation the support is already there, it just has to be activates and of
course the fonts have to be installed. Aquiring the fonts is a different
matter, it is not a Linux problem or an X problem any more than it is a
Windows problem or a MacOS problem. You aqiure them by whatever legal means
you prefer and install them.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8i9d35$t76$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Or you can reach into your purse and buy WordPerfect Office 2000 for
> Linux; it has TrueType font support and at a whole helluva lot less
> drachmas than MSOffice.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
.......
Date: 15 Jun 2000 19:03:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Terry Porter <No-Spam> wrote:
>Would you take advice from a Ford salesman, trying to convince you
>that Honda's were crap ?
>
>What if he didn't actually know anything about cars anyway ?
>
>How about if he was so ashamed of his real identity, being
>a total liar and bs artist, that every time you went to that
>particular car yard, he had changed his name ?
>
>This is simon777, otherwise known as "Steve/Heather/Amy/Keys88" etc.
>
>He has been posting here for 2 years, and its always the same Wintroll
>stuff, clever but untrue.
>
>Do yourself a favor if you're a lurker or a undecided Linux user :-
>
> ** kill file him **!
>
>If you do, you'll have a LOT less stuff to read, and will be able to get down
>to the nitty gritty, of good old Linux advocacy, without the lies.
>
>Is your time worth more than reading his lies ?
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
Excellent advice, Terry!
Here's a longer, but no doubt still incomplete, list of the
Lying Coward's fake names:
Steve/Mike/Heather/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/Sewer Rat/
"S"/Sponge/Sarek/piddy/McSwain/pickle_pete/Ishmeal_hafizi/Amy/...
Most of his lies are about alleged hardware incompatibilities
of Linux, the worst being that it only works with PostScript
printers (which are usually more expensive). This is *totally
false*, but he keeps posting it over and over.
Below are links to the hardware compatibility lists [HCLs] of
two major Linux distributions. It's my understanding that
hardware that works with any distribution should work with
all of them (at least for distros using the same processor,
e.g., Intel), or can be made to work by updating the XFree86,
printer filters, etc., which are free and common to all of
them.
A distributor's HCL may only mention hardware that they them-
selves have tested, so to find out if Linux supports a parti-
cular item, one can search for it on several distributors'
HCLs, and can consider it supported (or supportable) on all
distributions if it appears on the HCL of any of them.
Caldera Systems, Inc. - OpenLinux eDesktop 2.4 Compatible Hardware
http://www.calderasystems.com/support/hardware/2.4/
Red Hat, Inc. Hardware Compatibility List for Intel/6.2
http://www.redhat.com/support/hardware/intel/62/rh6.2-hcl-i.ld.html
Here's the central modem compatibility list; click on
"BIG LIST":
Winmodems are not modems; Linux information page
http://www.o2.net/~gromitkc/winmodem.html
Here's the central database of printers and the ghostscript
and other drivers/filters that operate them under Linux and
other varieties of Unix:
Un*x printer compatibility database listing
http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/pht/printer_list.cgi
And here's one person's advice on how to select components
to create an inexpensive, reliable, high-speed Linux system:
Cheap /Linux/ Box -- compatible hardware
http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~comech/tools/CheapBox.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: equivalent to Exchange?
Date: 15 Jun 2000 19:12:00 GMT
Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the ways that MS gets a foot in the door of many businesses is
> MS Exchange. Businesses like the idea of an e-mail/groupware server. And
> the client software runs (more or less :-) on their Win 9x machines.
> HP Openmail provides an alternative, but only the server runs on unix.
> The client software is MS Outlook with an HP MAPI layer.
> Lotus Notes is in the same boat. I haven't seen client software for
> Linux.
> Having a web interface could be a solution. Exchange has one that allows
> you to access most of the functionality. I don't know if it likes
> Netscape or not though... A web interface would provide for a mix of
> desktop OSes too.
> Has anyone seen anything that's viable and doesn't cost an arm and a
> leg? Perhaps with a database backend?
I used to work with a guy who cranked out a good looking web
interface for a sendmail/chat system in about a day and a half.
It really isnt rocket science, unless youre used to paying a company
like microsoft *alot* of money for very simple (and highly proprietary-
I wonder why) functionality.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs--iTegrated with the iTernet
Date: 15 Jun 2000 19:12:18 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:17:43 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:10:20 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> This is what I mean. UNIX has been around so long that people have given
> >> up trying to even think about fixing its fundamental flaws. And they
> >> wonder why new users are so put off by it all, and why Linux is
> >> completely failing to make any headway on the desktop...
> >
> >That's complete bullshit. Linux is gaining market share at an
> >increadible rate.
>
> I'm not aware of any figures showing any significant market presence for
> Linux on the desktop. Do you know differently?
I'm fairly certain IDC did a report showing sales of Linux distros
increasing at a rate of something like 300% a year. They didn't
distinguish between server and desktop sales though IIRC.
It's a shame statmarket.com don't let you check stats for free any
more.
Besides, do you have any proof of your assertion that Linux isn't
gaining market share?
A local computer store where I live has recently
started selling Linux. Considering it's pretty much a 2 man operation,
I'd say they must be getting some demand.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with StarOffice
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:22:11 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:20:45 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If a person prefers WordPerfect Office 2000 that could be a partial solution
>to the problem at hand; but what about the remaining X apps and the non X
>apps that need or could benefit from Postscript and/or TrueType fonts? What
X will quite happily exploit truetype fonts. Oddly enough S05
even automagically detected all of my X fonts including some
of the more peculiar/custom ones (like my Atari ST fonts).
Strangely enough SO has been pleasantly surprising me lately.
>is more, why should someone have to change the software they are using just
>to get support for these fonts when the support for PostScript fonts is
>already on their host but possibly not activated, the situation could be the
>same for the TrueType fonts.
Considering that there is no good reason for any application under
X to NOT use the system fonts available (TrueType excepted), this
has always confounded me.
[deletia]
Sure the apps have to do their own print rendering, but that doesn't
mean that they have to be totally disconnected from the rest of X.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:37:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ib53b$ojj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The one that encourages me to look critically at such comparisons?
Huh? No, the one that runs it faster!
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:28:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Hughes wrote:
> >
> > As the number of Linux users BOOMS to 0.3%. Is Linux taking over??!!
> >
> > http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
> >
> > http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html
>
> Just you wait! In a few more years we'll have 0.4%! HA!
>
According to Netcraft, the WebSnapShot site is running Apache/1.3.6
PHP/3.0.14 on Linux. Rolling on the fscking floor laughing my arse off.
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=websnapshot.mycomputer.com&Examine=W
ait..
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:41:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Pete,
>
>There are some 1,000 odd computer magazines world wide.
>Go find me 10 of them which indicate by a performance graph
>that Linux is slower than Windows.
>
>Just 10 is all I ask.
>
>You know, these magazines couldn't sell magazines if everybody thought
>they were full of shit.
>
>Further, they'd get sued.
>
>So there you go Pete.
>
>Walnuts to A-bombs, your wrong.
1000000 magazines wouldn't make a difference. From my perspective, Linux is
slower than Windows. My own tests tell me that.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:42:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Hallock) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Now if Linux is slower than Windows for this, would that not imply
>> that Linux is probably slower for other things as well?
>
>Nope. You just haven't been listening. And you never answered my
>question. Did you use the version of POVray compiled for 386 or the one
>compiled for 686?
The 686 actually. I checked.
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian
Date: 15 Jun 2000 19:42:15 GMT
Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: And they seem to be, unfortunately, more interested in ideology than
: Linux. Debian contributors seem to spend more time arguing about
: software licenses than they do coding. :-)
The whole KDE/Qt thing was unfortunate, but I agree with Debian's
position on that one. LGPL and QPL are both acceptably free licenses,
but they are not compatible with one another, so it is of questionable
legality to distribute binaries of KDE linked against Qt. (It can be
argued that the KDE developers have implicitly granted permission to
link against Qt, since that is at present the only way KDE can be
built. However, the licenses do not explicltly say so.)
As for removing non-free from the Debian site and its mirrors, I'm not
sure I agree that that's a good idea. Debian has always made it clear
that non-free was not officially part of Debian, but has always made
it available anyway because many of us (most I would think) do rely to
some extent on software such as Netscape that is gratis but not
DFSG-free. To remove it outright would greatly inconvenience some
users while encouraging others to use other distros (or other OSen)
that are considerably less free than Debian.
Maybe I'm naive, but I think there are solutions to both problems that
should be acceptable to the majority of folks on both sides.
Distribute Qt, and KDE as source, and include a tool that will
painlessly compile and link the two. The result would not be
DSFG-free but everything needed to achieve that result would be. As
for non-free, maybe it's time to find someone else to host it (maybe
SourceForge?). To get it you'd have to go outside of Debian's site,
or order a CD from someone other than Debian in addition to the
"official" Debian distro. That would be a minor inconvenience, but
not a huge one, and would allow Debian to continue to maintain its
admirable stand in support of DFSG-free software.
: I do prefer Debian over other Linux distros though. Things seem to be
: done well, and a Debian system is far more maintainable than any
: RPM-based one.
: In fact, I'm running potato here and it is quite stable. Probably more
: stable and less buggy than some other distro's "released" versions.
I liked Debian a lot, and may give it another try at some point if
time should ever permit.
Right now I'm using Mandrake because, to be blunt about it, I'm lazy -
it isn't as stable or elegant as Debian but it comes very nicely
configured and meets most of my needs right out of the box, with very
little need for ongoing administration or maintenance.
Joe
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:45:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ib50k$oic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>No, it wouldn't. In fact, all your test results imply is that you didn't
>pay close enough attention to the numbers printed at the end of the
>render.
I'll have to go and check.
>I went and downloaded both the Povray source code as well as the Windows
>executable, compiled a linux version with gcc 2.96, and ran the test you
>described, on a Celeron400. And lo and behold, the timings were similar
>--- 21 minutes for the Windows executable, and 29 minutes for the linux
>one (which seems to suggest that the Celeron is actually faster at this
>than a P2, and that gcc 2.96 is producing better code than whatever the
>Povray team used for their linux executable).
Finally someone agrees with me.
>BUT.... that was only half the story. What was also quite obvious was
>a vast (factor of 4) difference in the reported number of "Shadow Ray
>Tests", and many of the other statistics were significantly different
>as well. It seemed as if the two executables weren't actually doing
>the same thing!
Now that I didn't notice...
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:48:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Yeah, and we've chosen to abduct all the people who post in this
>newsgroup who like Windows. You're not wanted on your planet anyway!
Yes, PLEASE, abduct me! Anything has got to be better than Earth!
8)
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 15 Jun 2000 14:51:06 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i9648$apb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8i8r2j$apb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Enlighten us then...
> >>
> >> > by the way, we're building a C2 certified NT configuration today,
hint:
> > not
> >> > a single Compaq part in sight, guess what: it'll be the equivilent of
a
> > C2
> >> > certified system. Choke on it.
> >>
> >> Being the "equivalent" of a C2 certified system is not the same thing
as
> >> being a "C2 certified system". If you understood the process, you
would
> >> realize this.
> >>
> >> I am now looking at the signed document that *proves* that the AIX
machine
> >> in the next room is a *certified* B1. Its signed and everything and
even
> >> has an embossment.
> >>
>
> > ahha
> > haha
> > hahahahahahahhahaha moooohahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha oh god,
> > please, i can't breath hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>
> Apparantly youve never seen one.
>
> > "signed and everything and even has an embossment" hahahahahahahahaaaaa
>
> > well, here we are at:
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/epl-by-class.html
> > gee... tell me, which of these represents your system?
>
> None, since it aquired its classification the latter portion of 1996,
> lightbulb.
>
> > Why don't you scan in that embossment and show us... blank parts if
you'd
> > like but lets see it - come on... it cost a LOT to get it, show it off.
> > Prove to us you are NOT a COMPLETELY liar on every scale.
>
> Guilty until proven innocent? I see.
>
> I'll give you a hint...its not the embossment that you're obviously
> guessing--which is not surprising, since youve never actually seen one
> of these documents.
It's simple - prove it. Scan a portion and prove it. I say you are lying.
1996? Did you even go to the URL I provided, this stuff has been on there
since PRIOR to 1996. I do not see any AIX solutions on there at all. Period.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 15 Jun 2000 14:53:30 -0500
again - actually prove something.
GO ahead, we are all waiting.
You talk and talk and pose and waste space but have you proven anything?
Lets see a deja url, how about that microphone? how about that laptop?
have you actually done ANYTHING other than selfmutilation and
selfhumiliation?
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i92cq$apb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > I've given all the details and you've given none. Go ahead, prove to us
> > exactly where plugging in a microphone invalidates a C2 rating. I
CHALLENGE
> > YOU TO DO THIS. If you cannot (and you made the claim, not me) than you
are
> > a liar and a fool.
>
> Actually, I gave alot of the details of certs C through A in a post a few
> months ago for the benefit of a certian crossposted group. As I recall,
> you thanked me for the details (of course, you didnt know it was me
because
> you wouldnt know headers if they were chewing on your scrotum). But
> at the time, I wasnt disagreeing with you directly.
>
> I didnt say that plugging a microphone into a C2 machine would invalidate
> its C2 certification. I asked you if you were telling me that plugging
> a microphone into a C2 machine resulted in a consistent certification--in
> this case, an NT4.0 C2 machine.
>
> And again, you are doing a great job of not comprehending anything at all.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 15 Jun 2000 14:53:32 -0500
and again, you say nothing and prove nothing and demonstrate nothing but
vile idiocy.
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i92g3$apb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >> Youve misunderstood what that paragraph means, dresden, likely because
> >> youve never been involved with computer security to this degree.
> >>
> >> "Custom" does not mean the same thing as "specific". You need
"specific"
> >> hardware to gain a C2 certification for WinNT 4.0, but not "custom".
> >>
> >> In short, you're an idiot.
> >>
>
> > <SNIP completely fucking stupid shit>
>
> > abraxas you are moron, total died in the wool completely pathetic moron.
> > You've answer NOTHING, you've dodged around in syntax and words but
answer
> > nothing. You have no facts, you provide no documents, you don't even
pretend
> > to try to create lies to masquierade as facts. you can't even pretend to
be
> > smart you are so amazingly stupid.
>
> Wow, thats one hell of an argument you have there. Chock full o facts,
yep.
>
> > in short, you exist as something lower than a cumstain on some motel
> > sheet... go away.
>
> Theres some more of that fact-filled argument.
>
> > prove how a laptop cannot be C2 certified?
> > prove how plugging in a microphone into a C2 certified system
invalidates
> > the certification?
>
> And here we have the obligatory dresden posturing challenges, designed to
> divert attention from his own display of ignorance...
>
> Which somehow never seems to work.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 15 Jun 2000 14:55:44 -0500
"Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ia6n7$ge4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Next: find the relevant paragraph in the TOD where it says "not laptops"
> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/library/rainbow/5200.28-STD.html
> Elementary, Watson ...
>
Please provide more specific (page) locations of these items below...
> Fundamental Computer Security, Policy:
>
> Requirement 3. Individual subjects must be identified.
Via login, done same on laptop as desktop. No one is talking retina scans
here.
> Requirement 4. Audit information must be selectively kept and protected
> so that actions affecting security can be traced to the responsible party.
And how is it that this cannot be done on a laptop computer?
> Requirement 6. The trusted mechanisms that enforce these basic
requirements
> must be continously protected against tampering and/or unauthorized
changes.
And how is it that this cannot be done on a laptop computer? If you suggest
that because it's a laptop that if it's stolen it can be tampered with -
then, explain what is the difference to a desktop PC that's stolen and
tampered with?
>
> While req. 3 can, to some extent, potentially be done on laptops, reqs 4
> and 6 clearly can't. When the laptop is being used as a portable
computer,
> not as a PHB's typewriter, that is ...
Please demonstrate any differences between a laptop and desktop PC in
regards to these 3 items _ i don't see it.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 15 Jun 2000 14:59:26 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8i9dom$tl5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8i8rbl$apb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> [snippity]
> > Gee. Just like you do with linux. So now your two faced and
> backhanded.
> > That would make you a two faced, backhanded, retarded liar.
> >
> > -----yttrx
>
> Show some class or butt the hell out. You give Linux advocacy a bad
> name.
>
> Jeez, Drestin, I see what you mean. Ouch!
>
I don't know why I keep responding to his posts... maybe it's like slowing
down to see an accident, I know I shouldn't but still do.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: 15 Jun 2000 15:07:03 -0500
"John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7t625.2215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As the number of Linux users BOOMS to 0.3%. Is Linux taking over??!!
>
> http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
>
> http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html
>
>
oh my god, that was hilarious!! I loved it. Posted it on a BB here at work
:)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: 15 Jun 2000 15:07:40 -0500
That's a 50% increase!! Yeah!
just like going from 2 to 3 users...
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8iaul7$mkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You know you've hit the big time when you've made that
> giant leap from 0.2% to a whopping 0.3%.
>
> Congrats!
>
> -Chad
>
> "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:7t625.2215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > As the number of Linux users BOOMS to 0.3%. Is Linux taking over??!!
> >
> > http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
> >
> > http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: 15 Jun 2000 15:07:41 -0500
"Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking over.
really? how does being in the minority indate "in fact taking over."?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
