Linux-Advocacy Digest #215, Volume #27 Tue, 20 Jun 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do .......
(Terry Porter)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I had a reality check today :( ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: The MEDIA this year! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
.......
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Jun 2000 08:57:26 +0800
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:39:44 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ad·vo·ca·cy (àd¹ve-ke-sê) noun The act of pleading or arguing in favor of
>something, such as a cause, an idea, or a policy; active support.
>
>You cannot discuss the attributes of Linux in a vacuum - therefore to argue
>in FAVOUR of Linux you will have to mention other choices over which it is
>favoured. Am I making any sense here???
Yes, I agree, however you said "AGAINST" Linux (pls see below). It was this
additional description of advocacy I took issue with.
To know good, one must know bad, an understanding of both sides of the coin
will give us a paradox, the totality of any concept.
Here in COLA, the Linux advocates put forward the *favorable* aspects of Linux.
Except in error (always a unnoticed crosspost), I have never argued the
favorable aspects of Linux in *any* Windows advocacy group, nor the
negative aspects of Windows.
>
>James
>
>"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:37:43 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Please note that this newsgroup is intended for arguments FOR and AGAINST
>> ^^^^^^^
>> >Linux.
>> WRONG !!!
>> Please learn the meaning of ADVOCACY ????
>>
>> > Steve often identifies real (as opposed to imaginary) shortcomings
>> >of Linux. Yes, perhaps he does have too many aliases, and perhaps he is
>> ^^^^^^^
>> WRONG: They are not aliases, they are FALSE identities, to escape from
>kill
>> files.
>>
>> >wrong from time to time.
>> WRONG: Theis person is a Troll 100% of the time.
>>
>> > But this newsgroup will be very boring if everyone
>> >just praises Linux.
>> Why ?
>> Theres a lot to praise, unlike the OS *your* using right now.
>>
>> > IMHO Linux has established itself as a server OS, but
>> >has many miles to go before it qualifies as a decent Desktop.
>> Only in your opinion, ive been using Linux AS a desktop since 1997.
>>
>> > Critics, like
>> ^^^^^^^
>> WRONG: Steve is not a critic, he is a Wintroll. People need to know the
>> **difference**.
>>
>> >Steve, are there to point out these shortcomings.
>> >It is all about democracy - and calling a spade a spade!
>> Gardening department next building on the left, have a good day.
>>
>> >James
>> >
>> >
>> >"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 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
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 13 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:02:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> open /dev and time how long kfm's little gear takes before it stops
> spinning.
>
> Fresh boot, no cache involved. First thing you do after rebooting.
Between 4-5 seconds for it to finish.
That's 2005 files listed.
I can tell you from experience that NT isn't that quick.
I've got very near 300 files on a local directory at work
and it takes a good 3 seconds to display that.
It's not inconceivable that if it were to do 2005 files it would
be slower.
My machine at work is a Pentium III 500 mhz with a smaller drive than
my machine at home. Other than that, they are identical.
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:13:02 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Craig Kelley wrote:
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>
> >> > Sorry but I don't believe you at all.
> >> >
> >> > I have a Pentium 450mhz with 256mb and some of the fastest UltraDma
> >> > and SCSI hard drives you can buy and on my system the little sprocket
> >> > in the kfm window spins longer than it should after clicking on the
> >> > /dev directory.
> >> >
> >> > Try scrolling while kfm is still churning..
> >>
> >> I don't know about KDE, but gmc from gnome 1.2 takes about 2 seconds
> >> to show the /dev directory on my Celron 400/SCSI-2 system.
> >
> >It's about the same. I will admit I believe the Gnome to be slightly
> >faster.
> >But scrolling thru a directory is hardly a problem.
> >
> >>
> >> [snip steve's waste-o-bandwidth]
> >>
> >> --
> >> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> >> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:04:42 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Or the reverse. I have at least 10 distros sitting on CDs on my bookshelf and
> >another 3 at work. The only one I have installed is a copy of RH 6.1. (yeah, I
> >know, I know)
>
> Could someone explain to me why people seem to have this weird urge to
> collect Linux distributions on their bookshelves?
Sometimes it's hard to avoid getting extra distros, as they are bundled with books
or magazines. Also, it is easier to use newer rpm's in such distros than it is to
download them (at least if you have a regular modem).
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:07:02 -0400
John Wiltshire wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:56:17 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Remember the product itself still works - you can still run that old
> >> Windows 1.x software on the Windows 1.x machine you still have. Just
> >> don't expect it to run on a different machine. You never expect that
> >> of your consumer appliances. Why should software be different?
> >
> >I have said this elsewhere in the thread but based on you comment, it seems
> >to be appripriate here as well.
> >
> >
> >One thing I thought some one would point out that it is still possible to
> >run old Windows software on a copy of Windows that was current when the
> >software was written. Of course this is in most cases legaly impossible,
> >since back when we upgraded from the old Dos or Windows, we lost the legal
> >right to run the prior verion . Unless we performed the upgrade by
> >purchasing a retail version instead of an upgrade version. Or we had
> >additional lincensed copies of the prior version that were not also
> >upgraded.
> >
> >
> >Now if Microsoft would release Windows 1.x and Windows 2.x and maybe some
> >older versions of Dos as well, as freeware it would help to make some amends
> >for their past planned obsolences. That would not hurt the sales of their
> >current product line and it would help them in the good will department and
> >it would cost them nothing or next to nothing. Today's harware could
> >require a few patches, like software timing loops, but the small effort that
> >they would have to invest in that would also help them in the good will
> >department. In the long run effort like that might make it possible for
> >them to be able to compete openly and fairly in the market place and still
> >keep their market share.
>
> I *think* you can still get licenses for these products if you try
> really hard. You'd probably have to talk directly to someone in MS
> though. With some license rationalization you can probably find
> you've got extra Win9x licenses lying around anyway so you can
> 'unupgrade' the original licenses and survive an audit.
But aren't the OEM licenses bound to a particular machine? I know that
mine is (I bought my computer in January of '98).
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:10:03 GMT
Nobody on line at MEI Microcenter buying those HP Pavillion computers
pre-loaded with Windows gives a rat's ass.
Linux isn't even an option to the 90 or so percent of the public.
These people walk into a computer supermarket and say to the sales
person "give me your best deal".
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:32:08 GMT, "Charlie Root"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You know, if the supreme court turns Microsoft down, they'd better be sure
>to release the opinion AFTER 5:00 p.m. Not because of the stock market or
>anything stupid.. but because massive numbers of computer geeks would
>likely set fire to their systems and party like there was no tomorrow out in
>the streets. You thought the Lakers rioting was bad.. wait until you see
>8000 angry penguins in time square! :D
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:11:09 GMT
That's ok. If Linux can prove it is better than Windows, or Mac, I
will use it.
On 20 Jun 2000 18:49:36 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> [snippage]
>
>> The iMac is starting to look better all the time :)
>
>Especially since it'll run Linux just fine (and it can run MacOS
>as a guest OS).
>
>Of course, MacOS X should be the nirvana of both worlds.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:13:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:40:34 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The last thing I want to do when editing is remove my fingers from the
> >keyboard.
>
> And exactly the reason why you will go the way of the dinosaur...
Yet, I can edit faster with vi then you can with any GUI editor.
Why is that?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:14:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yea but Windows GUI looks and works well.
You've obviously never used X11
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:43:05 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> There is a reason why the rest of the world has moved mostly to GUI.
> >
> >Unix has had a GUI since, oh... 1983 or so... that makes 17 years.
> >
> >By comparison..windows is.. what... 10 years old?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:14:24 GMT
You are so incredibly full of shit it is unbelievable.
You never provide a source for any of these grandiose predictions of
yours..
How about some sources?
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:45:15 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I have to write this.
>
>I've never seen so many big name magazines having editorials
>about Linux before! We must have 6 times the media coverage
>Windows has in the editorials this year. Magazine after
>Magazine, some editor is prodding your company to consider
>the Linux jump this year.
>
>They are taking polls.
>They are toughting the benefits.
>They are drawing networking diagrams of how they did it.
>They are showing the benefits of doing it.
>
>They are ENCOURAGING it THIS YEAR!
>
>I wonder what next year's magazines will be like.
>I mean I've NEVER seen the kind of media coverage
>for Linux that I've seen in the first 6 months of this year!
>
>They are pointing out the few advantages of Windows 2000 and
>their merits as opposed to Linux and saying this year is
>the year to move to Linux in the office.
>
>In polls, I've seen 10 reports showing something like 35% of
>business's polled said they would be starting a Linux movement
>within 2 years. Another 30% said they are considering it within
>the next 5 years. These are polls from corporate America.
>The balance say's they are not sure or won't.
>
>Those are some pretty serious figures. With those kinds of figures
>it seems that 60% of corporate America will be under the Linux umbrella
>by 2005.
>
>Some of the magazines have multiple editorials and even profile stories
>about Linux in the office place.
>
>I see these magazines at my office and the offices of others.
>They are targeted at commerical users. They have ad's for
>Windows Back office server, and mini-computers, ATM networks,
>high powered copier/printers, so on and so forth. Not residential
>magazines.
>
>But now that we are on the subject of Computers in the residential
>section, took a trip to the grocery store to view some of the stories
>in the magzines on the shelf. It was a virutal replay of the same
>story.
>Appearently here, you see the big write-ups about Mandrake 7.1.
>About Suse 6.4, Redhat 6.2 all the majors were in there in stories.
>
>The typical residential magazine is quickly becomming a linux variety
>magazine.
>
>There WERE some windows stories in there, about 1/2 of the magazine was
>filled with Windows stories.
>
>But Linux is rapidly taking over the media's attention.
>And there is apparently some kind of massive effort on the Media's part
>to have Linux moved in everywhere this YEAR.
>
>My question is WHY this year after all these years?
>Has Kernel 2.2.15 with Gnome 1.2 or Kde 1.0 finally convinced them
>it's ready for everybody's desktop.
>
>Are the media experts finally in alignment with what I've been
>saying for 3 years now?
>
>I'm not against the push. I just wonder why so much right now after
>all this time.
>
>I remember Microsoft's birth in the 80's and I don't remember hardly
>the press pushing then as it's pushing now. The emphasis back then
>was towards touting Apple's and Mac's capabilties. Microsoft was
>mentioned as a back door player at best then.
>
>Something large is happening THIS year I hadn't expected.
>There is some critical mass mandate from the people I hadn't
>forseen going on right now.
>
>Linux is rapidly breaking out and gaining new ground.
>And the media blitz is extraordinary. I've never seen this
>much endorsement for any one OS.
>
>I'm pleased and I wonder why all now...
>
>Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:15:04 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8im4s5$12u4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Ohh, I'm talking Real Servers here, able to be operated headless (a
> > > > >feature MS seems to have discovered recently :-), remotely and stuff.
> > > >
> > > > Does that mean there is some version of windows now that
> > > > will find it's mouse without rebooting if you happen to have
> > > > had the console switch directed elsewhere as it comes up
> > > > (or any other reason it wasn't seen at boot-up)? I know - I
> > > > should just buy the expensive KVMs that fake the mouse
> > > > for windows when the switch is in a different position, but...
> > >
> > > NT has always been able to do it. Win9x should be able to with any USB
> > > mouse, and you shouldn't be plugging PS/2 mice in with the machine
> powered
> >
> > Why not? Now I do leave X windows because I can't run it wothout a mouse.
>
> Because you can blow the keyboard controller chip on the motherboard (no, I
> didn't believe it either until I actually did it).
But what about the mouse? I would not want to do it with the keyboard because I
might not be able to restore the keyboard/shutdown properly.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:16:33 GMT
Okay, I'll play....
I think you actually mean business here so I'm going
to entertain you personally.
Go into C or Cobol or what you have there and write me out
a large serial file with say 80 Byte or what ever length record
you want.
Write out 20 megs worth.
Then read it in.
Repeat the read several times.
>From raw re-boot, the NT box shows no speed difference from
the first read to the last.
Now, go try it on any Linux. You will find that disk caching
has been observed and subsequent read's are faster.
This is why you wanted me to do it from a re-boot and I complied.
Then I did it again, point well taken. It is quicker the second
time around.
And you admitted this being a factor.
And by admitting that as a factor, you have proven to all of us
that you agree NT IE Microsoft isn't worth it's weight in shit
as it cashes nothing from the drive.
And that's true. NT cashes nothing.
It is the most resource abusing operating system I've ever seen.
I think it takes every meg you have of memory and committe's it
to program memory for working storage issues.
NT doesn't even know what a disk cache is.
But I want you and the other's to re-read what you and I've said
so they can see the comments for themselves.
You make a point of proving Windows is superior and by doing so
show us you know of it's deficiencies...
That's sort of defeatest on your part, isn't it.
Charlie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Open /dev via kfm and time how long it takes for the gear to stop
> spinning.......
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:11:02 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Typical LinoNut semantic argument designed to take the focus off the
> >> original point that KDE sucks compared to Windows as far as the
> >> consistancy and speed of the gui is concerned.
> >>
> >> The point is like I said above. Who cares what the cause is?
> >
> >
> >You idiot. The KDE is several clock cycles ahead of Windows anything.
> >You can also have more sessions open.
> >
> >You know nothing about X or KDE or Gnome.
> >And you know damn little about OS's like NT.
> >
> >Charlie
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
> >> Browne) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jeff Szarka would say:
> >> >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:07 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>>> The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
> >> >>>> matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
> >> >>>> Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Simple. If you don't like KDE use something else. The chioce is yours,
> >> >>>no on is forcing KDE on to you...
> >> >>
> >> >>The sad part is... KDE is the best window manger for Linux.
> >> >
> >> >The sad part is... Clueless idiots that think KDE _is_ a window
> >> >manager, despite _vast_ quantities of evidence to the contrary.
> >> >
> >> >How many times do you need to be told that KDE is not a window manager
> >> >until it will penetrate deep enough into your pea brain to take
> >> >sufficient hold that you might feebly wonder: "Is KDE a window
> >> >manager? Maybe not..."
> >> >
> >> >KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
> >> >
> >> >When you state that it is, you simply make evident your ignorance, so
> >> >as to demonstrate that what you say is based on ignorance and
> >> >apparently complete apathy to educate yourself.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:17:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:20 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >
> >Trolls have said some pretty funny things, but Tim Palmer has to be the
> >best. He keeps slamming UNIX for its (good( ability to process data.
>
> The onley data UNIX can proces is text trying to process anything
> else would short cuircit the VT100 terminall.
You are alleging that programs written for unix can only process bytes
in the range of printable ascii characters?
Tell me, oh, Lord of the Shitheads...
After a compiler produces object modules, which are NOT text files...
how, pray tell, do the objects and libraries get linked together?
According to you, such an operation is impossible on UNIX.
Tell me why EVERY major automaker in the world uses UNIX to design
vehicles.
Since when is CAD text processing, YOU MORON!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:19:05 GMT
Oh crap! Pick up any computer magazine at your local office they have.
I want other people to post to this and give him your side of it.
Charlie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You are so incredibly full of shit it is unbelievable.
> You never provide a source for any of these grandiose predictions of
> yours..
>
> How about some sources?
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:45:15 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I have to write this.
> >
> >I've never seen so many big name magazines having editorials
> >about Linux before! We must have 6 times the media coverage
> >Windows has in the editorials this year. Magazine after
> >Magazine, some editor is prodding your company to consider
> >the Linux jump this year.
> >
> >They are taking polls.
> >They are toughting the benefits.
> >They are drawing networking diagrams of how they did it.
> >They are showing the benefits of doing it.
> >
> >They are ENCOURAGING it THIS YEAR!
> >
> >I wonder what next year's magazines will be like.
> >I mean I've NEVER seen the kind of media coverage
> >for Linux that I've seen in the first 6 months of this year!
> >
> >They are pointing out the few advantages of Windows 2000 and
> >their merits as opposed to Linux and saying this year is
> >the year to move to Linux in the office.
> >
> >In polls, I've seen 10 reports showing something like 35% of
> >business's polled said they would be starting a Linux movement
> >within 2 years. Another 30% said they are considering it within
> >the next 5 years. These are polls from corporate America.
> >The balance say's they are not sure or won't.
> >
> >Those are some pretty serious figures. With those kinds of figures
> >it seems that 60% of corporate America will be under the Linux umbrella
> >by 2005.
> >
> >Some of the magazines have multiple editorials and even profile stories
> >about Linux in the office place.
> >
> >I see these magazines at my office and the offices of others.
> >They are targeted at commerical users. They have ad's for
> >Windows Back office server, and mini-computers, ATM networks,
> >high powered copier/printers, so on and so forth. Not residential
> >magazines.
> >
> >But now that we are on the subject of Computers in the residential
> >section, took a trip to the grocery store to view some of the stories
> >in the magzines on the shelf. It was a virutal replay of the same
> >story.
> >Appearently here, you see the big write-ups about Mandrake 7.1.
> >About Suse 6.4, Redhat 6.2 all the majors were in there in stories.
> >
> >The typical residential magazine is quickly becomming a linux variety
> >magazine.
> >
> >There WERE some windows stories in there, about 1/2 of the magazine was
> >filled with Windows stories.
> >
> >But Linux is rapidly taking over the media's attention.
> >And there is apparently some kind of massive effort on the Media's part
> >to have Linux moved in everywhere this YEAR.
> >
> >My question is WHY this year after all these years?
> >Has Kernel 2.2.15 with Gnome 1.2 or Kde 1.0 finally convinced them
> >it's ready for everybody's desktop.
> >
> >Are the media experts finally in alignment with what I've been
> >saying for 3 years now?
> >
> >I'm not against the push. I just wonder why so much right now after
> >all this time.
> >
> >I remember Microsoft's birth in the 80's and I don't remember hardly
> >the press pushing then as it's pushing now. The emphasis back then
> >was towards touting Apple's and Mac's capabilties. Microsoft was
> >mentioned as a back door player at best then.
> >
> >Something large is happening THIS year I hadn't expected.
> >There is some critical mass mandate from the people I hadn't
> >forseen going on right now.
> >
> >Linux is rapidly breaking out and gaining new ground.
> >And the media blitz is extraordinary. I've never seen this
> >much endorsement for any one OS.
> >
> >I'm pleased and I wonder why all now...
> >
> >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
******************************
