Linux-Advocacy Digest #425, Volume #27 Sun, 2 Jul 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.)
("Gonzo")
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.)
("Gonzo")
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (Chris Shepherd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 14:26:15 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8j3n6t$289p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <zN655.21962$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I find this hard to accept.
> >
> >It's not like the harm the proposed remedy would do is anything
> >less than blindingly obvious, after all. You don't think it
> >needs an *affirmative* defense? I've got to explain why
> >it's bad to harm consumers?
>
> Yes, please tell us why you think it will harm consumers if
> the operating system company actually has to cooperate with
> an outside applications company?
They do that now; it doesn't seem to be harming consumers.
It's this "you have to pay extra so Netscape can make more money"
thing that I see as harm to consumers.
> Or why it would be a bad
> thing if it cooperated equally well with many applications
> companies? I think these would be very good for consumers,
> legal requirements or not. Likewise, why do you think
> it would be bad for MS apps to branch out to more other
> operating systems?
They've already done so. Hell, you can even get Internet Explorer
for Unix, despite their claims that it's somehow inextricably linked
to Winodws.
> >I know it. But that doesn't make it right. It infurates me that you
> >people think you've got a right to take Internet Explorer away! It
> >infuriates me that you hafe the *gall* to pretend you are doing
> >it for the consumers (like me) you will *directly* harm.
>
> Whoa there! If having explorer separate is harmful, let's
> remember that MS already did that harmful thing to us with
> the extra-cost Plus pack for Win95.
Failing to give a thing is not harm; taking away the thing given
*is*.
If you were the one being screwed, you would not be
so calm about it. But you thing your special; no-one could
even screw *you*.
> A free upgrade would
> have been nice, but I don't see how bundling it into the
> cost of the not-free upgrade to 98 is good for anyone. It
> just takes away the choice of getting it or not.
This is entirely nonsensical.
> >Which is why I'm not always as polite as I should be. :/
>
> Or as logical?
That too. But nevertheless, you can't expect people to
be kind and friendly when you advocate harm to them.
And you should recognize that that's true, even if you feel
that you are right to advocate such harm!
> >But you can't expect to screw the vast majority of computer
> >users and not get *somebody* mad at you.
>
> How is anyone being screwed by unbundling? If the cost of
> IE is unbundled, the people who don't want it come out
> ahead and the people who do aren't hurt.
The people who do *are* hurt; they must pay extra simply
to support an inferior (in their view) competitor.
Consider this more extreme, but similar, example: If a band
of Armed Thugs (tm) compelled RedHat to 'unbundle' X-Windows,
so that RedHat users had to buy it separately, from a different
vendors, would those users be harmed?
I would say so. their perfectly reasonable desire to buy an OS
with X-Windows included and integrated for them has been
thwarted. Likewise, so has RedHats desire to provide this.
> >That is a controversial statement, actually. But even supposing
> >its true, it is *very* clear that the proposed rememdies for
> >Microsoft are *bad* for society overall, and good only for
> >a small minority.
>
> It is not clear at all that it would be bad for anyone.
You can't expect anyone but the most devoted MS-bashers
to believe *that*.
The usual line is that it does short term harm for a longer-term
gain, not that it doesn't do short term harm. The short term harm
is blatantly obvious.
> >The usual jusification for them is *not* that they are good
> >for society, but they will "create competition" some day in the
> >unforseeable future. This is, we are told, meant to counterbalance
> >the obvious immediate harm of degrading Windows.
>
> Why are you so sure that the operating system company will be
> unable to cooperate with applications developers when they
> are not under direct control? I think they are still
> capable of learning a new approach.
They co-operate with other app vendors *now*; this isn't
going to change as far as I can see.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 14:26:17 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8j3qhm$2bq1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <XN655.21967$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >That seems consistant with your "Unix good/not Unix evil" approach;
> >the TCP/IP stack conforms to Unix's, so its good. MSCHAP
> >doesn't, so its evil.
>
> Things that interoperate are good, things designed to break
> other products are evil.
MSCHAP doesn't break anything.
> MSCHAP broke every existing dialup service,
No, it didn't. Not adhering to the protocols you
would have them adhere to is not the same
thing as "breaking" anything.
They aren't obliged to implement the technologies
you think they should.
> most of which were done in dedicated
> hardware from a large number of vendors in spite of
> your repeated meaningless references to unix.
I don't think it's meaningless; you have been
very consistant about your standards: Unix is
good, non-Unix is evil. Unix is good even if it
isn't implemented by AT&T.
> Of course
> MS offered NT/RAS as a replacement at precisely the same
> time they dropped this client on every desktop. Just
> a coincidence, I suppose...
I shouldn't think so. Kinda useless to have a client but
no server, really.
> >I gotta give you marks for consistancy.
>
> It is MS that shows this consistent behavior. I am
> just observing.
Are you saying you judge MS by a different standard
than others, then?
> >[snip]
>
> >MS must know perfectly well that their POSIX emulation
> >isn't actually useful.
>
> Yet you defend their action in selling it where posix
> compliance was a requirement???
Yes.
POSIX itself is useless, period. MS's POSIX emulation is
sufficient to meet the formal requirement for POSIX;
that requirement is useless, too.
POSIX is too small a subset of Unix. If they wanted Unix,
they should have said *Unix*. Saying "POSIX" to mean
"Unix" is a big mistake.
[snip]
> >I do not seriously accept this notion of MS software as
> >an agent of deceit, pulling the wool over the eyes of
> >programmers everywhere. :D
>
> Then you just aren't paying attention, or you are
> so vendor-locked yourself that the situation just
> doesn't happen. Maybe you need to get out more.
Well, gee, I guess that proves me wrong, then, doesn't it! :D
[snip]
> >As I've said, if you are going to rely on NT's internal implementaiton
> >details, this is what will happen to you. MS does provide a way to
> >do things like SAMBA that doesn't depend on undocumented
> >stuff.
>
> Remember this was in the context of other companies developing
> things to compete with MS services.
Yes. I remember.
> My point (this time)
> was not about the evilness of not documenting and sticking
> to these wire protocols, but about the inhibiting effect
> that has on competition.
I fail to see such an inhibiting effect; MS has after all provided
an alternative to this strategy. A *superior* alternative in my view.
[snip]
> >It doesn't. It's *restricting* yourself to the standard that does.
>
> So implement all the standards you need. Or get the standards
> updated if you have invented some new concept they don't already
> handle.
I prefer the normal model of proprietary software- just implement
it and try to sell it. Let the market decide.
I don't think the central-planning approach is a good one. I think
I can point to the difficulties the standards-dominated Unix world
has had keeping up with everyone else as evidence for this.
[snip]
> >> Care to count the bodies among the ones that trusted MS?
> >
> >And yet they just keep lining up.
>
> Yes, monopolies have a way of taking away your choices.
I suppose they would, if we hadn't debased the term
"monopoly" beyond all recognition.
> >I think these companies know something you don't know:
> >specifically, they know that MS is one of the more benign
> >platform vendors around.
>
> I don't get that impression at all reading (say) the deposition
> from IBM against MS.
Well, given than IBM was suing MS, I can't say I'm surprised
they tried to make MS look bad.
However, IBM hasn't exactly been peaches and cream. Their
handling of OS/2 developers, for instance, was probably
the biggest factor killing that platform.
Nor has Apple, for another altenative. Apple likes to promote
technologies as the second coming, and then withdraw
them at the last minute, or shortly after release. It's rather
difficult to plan software development strategies meaningful
when your platform vendor does that.
[snip]
> >You've shown that AT&T was prohibited from expanding into
> >computers because of their monopoly on phones, even
> >though they had not in fact leveraged their monopoly to do so.
>
> Right. Being a government-granted monopoly they followed
> the legal requirements instead of going ahead and breaking
> them (at least in this case).
One can argue that being government-granted ought to impose
much higher burdens on them, though.
One can argue, conversely, that one really shoudln't try to impose
those same burdens on those who acheive dominance
through their own efforts.
> The reasoning was that having
> end-to-end control of data would wrongfully leverage the existing
> communications line monopoly.
That "reasoning" doesn't seem to involve any, well, reasoning.
*How* would they leverage their telephone monopoly to
dominate any part of the computer industry?
[snip]
> >I do recall Netscape bundling their browser with every computer
> >they could. You said... "dictating what everyone sees when
> >they connect to the Internet"; I'd say Netscape was doing a better
> >job of that then that MS is doing now!
>
> I must have missed that. I never saw Netscape bundled with
> hardware. Was it on anything close to a majority of machines
> shipped for some time?
That I don't know. But I do know that Netscape is *still* commonly
bundled with hardware.
Netscape real world-domination strategy was to offer more
features (in the form of HTML extensions) than anyone else,
and then to view pages that used the feature you had to have
Netscape.
[snip]
> >Come now. Netscape was clearly a monopoly. What other choice had they?
>
> I used mosaic myself. Others who were using Netscape had to
> track it down themselves, so it was clearly their choice to
> have it on their machines.
You can still use Mosaic, can you not? Netscape was bundled with
people's computers and had HTML extensions that, if used,
made a Web page Netscape-only.
> >> It is directing them to obey the law.
> >
> >A law which *apparently* details the features an OS may contain.
>
> In what way an existing monopoly can use its power would
> be a better description.
It isn't. If the DoJ really is directing MS to "obey the law" then they
tell them their OS mustn't support web browsing, then the law
must be saying that OSes (at least some OSes) mustn't support
web browsing.
[snip]
> >There's nothing indirect about "take Internet Explorer out". This
> >is a direct design decition; Thou Shalt Not Have Web Browsing.
>
> I thought there was a rather large portion of the trial that
> covered whether internet browsing was in fact an operating
> system function or not. This was a finding of fact, not
> an arbitrary decision.
Saying that "it was not an operating system function" can
mean two things: "It was not something an operating system
does", or "it was not something an operating system should do".
Windows 98 did, in fact, include web browsing. If it did not,
there was no case to start with.
Saying that Windows 98 *should* not have had Web browsing
is a whole other thing; and it is certainly not a "fact".
[snip]
> >Probably some sort of word-domination plot. But what has that
> >to do controlling *television* networks?
>
> What do they have in common?
That is not what I was asking. But forget it; I'm sure there's
no actual meaning behind this.
[snip]
> >"Interpreting" the law and making it up as they go are pretty
> >indistinguishable.
>
> Like being told you can't bundle something, and then continuing
> and pretending the same thing is integrated instead?
:D
I think that MS had that in mind from the beginning; they did
get a clause in the consent decree *explicitly* permitting them
to integrate stuff into their OS.
I don't think they made *that* up as they went along.
But I don't mean to imply by that that MS isn't capable
or isn't willing to twist the law to their own ends. I think,
now that they've seen what Netscape could do, they may
be more willing to do it themselves.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 14:26:18 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8j3rqb$2d5h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <BN655.21963$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Well, if you are going to rely on the internal inplementation
> >> >details of NT, you can't be too shocked when this happens.
> >>
> >> Yes, this is precisely why wire protocols are the correct
> >> level of interoperability.
I'm leaving this statement in because I don't understand
it; clearly my interpretation is nonsense, but what
interpretation would make sense for this?
> >Hmm?
> >
> >Are you saying that wire protocols are teh correct level of
> >interoperability *because* they leave you dependant on
> >internal implementation details, so you break more
> >easily?
>
> No, MS supplies enough broken products - you clearly don't need
> interoperability for that.
:D
Well, that's what I woulda thought!
> >Surely you don't mean *that*.
>
> Correct, what I mean is that by using standard wire
> protocols you gain the ability to use any implementation
> you want, under any vendor's OS, changing either end
> separately.
That has little resemblance to what you *said*, though.
And you know my objection to it: Interoperability
by standardizing on Unix and Unix clones isn't
really interoperability. You have to be able
to work with *different* products, rather than
insisting that everything be made the same.
[snip]
> >> Right... It was just accidental that if you built something
> >> in J++ it wouldn't run even under Windows as an applet
> >> under Netscape. Sure it was.
> >
> >This just isn't reailty.
>
> Perhaps it has been changed after the uproar. It was
> the reality when we used it. There was no indication
> that it was not going to work with Netscape.
What they changed (when sued) was the default
setting of a checkbox so the extensions were turned
off by default.
If your developer friend can't handle unchecking that
checkbox himself, well, I don't think he has a prayer
in any case.
> >J++ could build portable *and* nonportable classes.
>
> I didn't do this myself so I'm not sure I am describing
> it correctly, but the impression I got was that you
> had to give up the visual tools that were the main
> reason for using it in the first place to do portable
> code.
I don't know. That's possible; If J++ works like Visual C++,
you'd have to use MS's class library to use the visual
development tool, and this library may well use
MS's extensions.
[snip]
> >Okay, so there is at least one Windows programmer who writes
> >cross-platform code but doesn't bother to find out what's portable
> >and what isn't.
>
> Java, by definition is portable.
This is not so. Java is a language, and has a clear definiton
that isn't "whatever is portable".
> The problem was that the MS
> version wasn't really java, even though it was represented
> as such.
It was Java as much as g++ is C++.
Which is close enough for everyone but Sun. :D
> >I stand corrected.
>
> When we tracked down what was really happening we found that
> many others had made the same mistake. And MS was in the
> courts, again...
You're scaring me. You found many others who also couldn't
handle unchecking a checkbox, and who didn't think they needed
to know anything about Netscape to make an applet portable
to it?
We're doomed.
> >I nevertheless cling to the notion that most of them, when they want
> >to write portable code, do check. It's not like you wouldn't have to
> >with any *other* Java tool.
>
> No, it is really sad that you think an MS programmer should
> automatically expect his programming tools to be broken.
You mispelled "extended". :D
But yes. *Most* language implementations out there do
have extensions. It's perfectly normal and not at all
particular to Microsoft. You really should know enough
to expect it. If you don't know your language enough to
know what is portable and what isn't, you should turn
the extensions off or just admit you aren't writing
portable code.
This is all completely ordinary.
> Visual Cafe had no similar problem at all. We developed
> both applets that worked correctly across platforms and
> server-side servlets that ran the same on both NT and
> Linux servers with it, just copying the compiled byte
> code around.
You got lucky, I think. The JVMs out there are not
interchangable.
> >[snip]
>
> >I don't think the authors of the Sherman act ever
> >envisioned it being used in a market where virtually
> >everyone has a 'monopoly' over some niche or other.
> >They were thinking of commodity markets; and oil
> >in particular, as I understand it.
>
> 'Niche' products don't end up on every desktop in the
> country
Sure they do. The "desktop OS" *is* a niche.
But no desktop OS is interchangable with, say,
a mainframe OS. It's just not a commodity market.
> and as a side effect control what you see as
> you connect to the internet.
The web browser is another niche.
MS is not adverse to having more than one niche,
mind you.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 14:26:19 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8j7vd0$mu3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <IN655.21965$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >It isn't the only way to do it. So why are *wire protocols*
> >the 'essense'?
>
> It is the only way to do it that allows you to change one
> endpoint at a time.
I don't agree. It does *not* in fact permit you to change
one endpoint at a time; you cannot switch protocols that
way, but only implementations- and this is very limiting.
The MS plug-ins approach does let you switch an endpoint
at a time, because each client can be made to support
multiple protocols and can use the appropriate one,
depending on who it is talking to. You can switch clients
one at a time until all are switched, and only then delete
the older protocol.
> >It almost sounds like you are *defining* interoperability
> >to be "common wire protocols"; is that really what you
> >have in mind?
>
> It is a matter of perceiving reality, not definition. You
> can hide the wire protocol with an API wrapper at the
> end points, but unless the wire protocol is known and
> stable you can't ever add a new type of end point (say a
> new CPU with different byte ordering). If you can't
> add an unforseen new entity, how can you justify the
> term of interoperability?
But you can. The API works with something like a driver;
you can add unforseen new entities by obtaining (or writing)
such a driver and installing it wherever it matters.
You can do this easily if the "unforseen new entity"
supports such drivers- just give it the drivers for your
network. If it doesn't, you have to install a driver
on every *other* computer so they know whatever
protocol it is using. But either way you can do it.
> >> It is also useful for people connecting to large networks,
> >> such as the Internet.
> >
> >It's an approach that works to a point; it works if there
> >actually *is* a common wire protocol. But merely insisting
> >that everyone else use your protocol is often futile.
>
> If you don't document the protocol then you can't make any
> claim of interoperability.
Sure you can. Haven't you noticed me claiming left and right? :D
> There is no requirement to be
> open, but misrepresenting a sealed box is a bad thing.
You really do seem to be *defining* "interoperability"
as "fixed wire protocol". I don't think that's a promising
approach.
> >My main objection is to the "MS *must* use Unix
> >technology because we do, darn it, and we don't
> >want to have to both to support MS technologies!";
> >I can't respect that. If you want to interoperate,
> >why is it that MS has to do the work?
>
> Oh, they've done the work all right - they know
> exactly what it takes to make it impossible to
> interoperate.
:D
I do agree- they've done the work. The interoperability
you see to day between Windows and Unix,
such as it is, is largely due to Microsoft's efforts.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 14:26:20 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8j835f$r2e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <uN655.21960$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I think I must be on to something; both you and Leslie have felt the need
> >to try to change the subject away from support for client/server security
> >to other security-related issues (in your case, Visual Basic for Viruses
:D
> >and in Leslies, NT's poor implementation record compared to some.)
>
> Before you can dismiss my observation of reality as changing the
> subject, I suggest that you show why you think the poor record
> is a simple matter of implementation bugs instead of overall
> design issues where the unnatural integration of functions
> into places they don't belong introduces new weaknesses.
Hmmm..
I'm not sure I can prove that. But I think that if you wish to claim
that NT's design is causing these security problems by virtue
of combining things that shouldn't be combined, then I think
it is up to *you* to prove *that*, not up to me to disprove it.
I mean, the usualy standard is "he who asserts must prove";
otherwise it's just crazy, since I can assert all manner of strange
things, and it would be silly to demand that you disprove them
all.
However, even if we agree on this, it nevertheless *is* the
case the NT is doing it this way, and you can't interoperate
with NT by proclaiming that it *shouldn't*.
Even if you are completely correct that it *shouldn't*, it
nevertheless does.
------------------------------
From: "Gonzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not
ready.)
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 09:39:16 -0500
jmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bvD75.4700$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Laura Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
> > I'm not going to give up. But until I can successfully load and use
> > Linux for at least email and the Web, I know it's not ready for the
> > masses. I'm one of the people that's going to be explaining it to
> > folks, so I'd better understand it first, or we ain't getting very far!
> <snip>
> > --
> > "Sureshot" Laura
> > http://pcwranglers.com/
>
> Laura:
>
> First, I'm still relatively new to Linux..
>
> RedHat 6.2 set up flawlessly on my new system: Athlon 650, Matrox
Milennium
> G400, SB Live! Value, LS120, Castlewood Orb, UDMA/66 HD, CD and all, all
set
> up properly and run great. The Orb was the biggest suprise, as I thought
> there were no drivers for it yet!
I had better luck with Mandrake 7.1 myself. Both offer partitionless
installations which is what I suggest for newbies so that they will have it
easier when uninstalling (if needed).
>
> Half this stuff wouldn't set up during install in RedHat 6, and I couldn't
> get past partitioning with Mandrake 7 ("your partition table is to corrupt
> for me to see" - huh? I know Mandrake doesn't like Athlons anyway).
7.1 and 7.1 worked great for me. 7.1 has the partitionless option and is
much better.
only finicky bit was my USR PCI modem, which continued to want to be set
> up on what is COM5 in windows. SetSerial for the I/O and IRQ that the
modem
> wants, set to COM2, works a charm.
>
> RedHat 6.2 has been appearing on many magazine cover CDs here in Oz (and
> thus is REALLY free), though that probably doesn't help you much :)
All Linux OSs are free (they have to be) but RH is the most commercial
version out so has a bad reputation among FreeOS crowd who do not want to
see Linux commercialized. Linux does need commercial support though if it
ever wants to go mainstream. No way around that IMHO.
> At any rate, it's running fine on my system, and is quite fast!
RH ran ok on mine too but Mandrake 7.1 is faster on my system. Especially
with a partitionless installation. I couldn't believe the difference. It's
either the UDMA66 support or perhaps the newer Xfree version I guess.
------------------------------
From: "Gonzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not
ready.)
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 09:40:41 -0500
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> AMD is ok. Watch out for the K6-3D, though. Some stores have taken it
> out, because it would consistently slow down after about half an hour.
Huh? Where did you get that?
------------------------------
From: Chris Shepherd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 10:32:03 -0400
> >If I didn't think that Linux was the best I
> >wouldn't use it, I just haven't come accross anything better.
>
> Come across this: Windows 2000. It blo's LIE-nux away It blo's LIE-nux away It blo's
>LIE-nux away
Yep, just hope you've updated your version or don't have over a 4 gig
drive (who doesn't nowadays?), and don't EVER run scandisk, otherwise
it'll blow your hard drive away, blow your hard drive away, blow your
hard drive away.
--
Chris Shepherd
Vice President, GDPS Computers
Known in the SCA as William Silverlake
"I don't know, I can imagine quite a bit." - Han Solo
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
