Linux-Advocacy Digest #585, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A cute linux song (Tore Lund)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Pim van Riezen)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:52:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
[...please snip a bit more, Aaron...]
>> >Apple ][ and ][ was just as OPEN. Peripherals proliferated.
>> >And an Apple with 64k of mem was significantly cheaper than
>> >a PC with 32k of mem.
>>
>> Peripherals aren't the issue. Clones are the issue. Publishing your
>> spec is one kind of open. Not owning the spec is a different kind of
>> open entirely.
>
>In that respect, the Apple ][ and ][+ were COMPLETELY OPEN
>
>The Manuals contained
>
>A) An appendix with the COMPLETE *COMMENTED* Source Code (assembly)
>for the ROM's and
>B) Another Appendix with a huge foldout-page with the COMPLETE
>schematic diagram of the electronics.
>
>You can't get much more open than that.
Yes, you can. Decisively so, because the Apple II wasn't an open spec
like the PC at all. Lots of companies published their specification.
That isn't the same as NOT OWNING IT. Essentially the PC architecture
was public domain, not IBM's property, though that is a metaphor more
than a fact. Did any other companies take these specifications and
start making Apple II's, *that's* the question. Not would they have
known how to if they wanted.
Perhaps it hinges on the fact that IBM didn't own the OS, and even
though MS didn't publish it either, Apple owning the OS and keeping it
secret for their own hardware platform is not the same as MS owning the
OS for IBM's hardware platform.
It's not like this all became reality by invocation as soon as the first
PC ran off the line; it is not a construct of business law or rules that
the PC is more open than the Apple II, necessarily. It is a construct
of the market; anybody can not only make a PC, but attempt to change the
"standard" for the PC. But only Apple could make an Apple II, and Apple
was free to change what being an Apple II meant at any time they wanted
on a whim. Once PC clones were established in the market, at least,
that wasn't the case for the more open platform.
[...]
>I think someone made a Z80 card for the Commodore 64, too.
That wasn't what I was talking about. Putting multiple chipsets into
one chassis doesn't make software independent of hardware. C++
compilers that are available for every platform is what does that.
[...]
>> "Ignored" would be too strong a term. There were quite a number of MCA
>> cards.
>
>Yeah, but nobody purchased any :-)
Not if they could help it, and had a clue. ;-)
[...]
>> Yes, but partially because you wouldn't need to implement a rule, since
>> nobody would want to or be capable of installing their own software.
>
>Of course you can. People do it on Unix all the time. They just
>have to install it INSIDE their own account.
People only do it all the time on Unix because most Unix operators are
highly technical and capable in comparison to the average PC user. The
average PC user only installs software until they find out how many
problems it causes, then they stop. On Unix, without the
point-and-click hand-holding, they simply wouldn't want to install any
to begin with. Or at least that was my contention. It wasn't a very
serious one.
[...]
>> I'm not terribly pleased to have such a potent and noble statement
>> followed by a crass and insulting disavowal of your personal
>> contribution to the problem. All humans act this way, even those who
>
>:-)
Yes, even me. But not as much as everyone else. :-)
[...]
>> I was very distraught, last year, to find a Sun workstation (Ultra 10, I
>> believe) delivered with a *completely failed* hard drive. "This shit
>> isn't supposed to happen," I thought, "its as bad as a PC!"
>
>ACK! Did they rush over immediately?
>
NACK! But they were a bit nicer on the phone when they told us they'd
ship out a new one. We are a VAR, BTW, in case I didn't mention. This
one was for lab use; and end user never would have seen it. But in the
old days, we'd never have had the problem.
[...]
>Yeah. As time progresses, I find more and more tolerance for
>absolutely lousy results. If the automakers were like this,
>we'd have 1,000 traffic deaths per day PER MAJOR CITY.
>
>I mean, can you imagine if brake systems only worked 99% of the time?
>
>
>> vendors are pie-in-the-sky arrogant elitist dweebs, generally clueless
>> about the real power of personal computers, and they need to realize
>
>Quite true. I really can't see much to justify the cost of
>a Sun (some_letters_go_here)10000 when the same capacity can
>be met by 10 $1000 Linux boxes and with beowulf extensions.
Well, it can't. Because you don't buy a Sun *X[1-N]* for capacity. And
ten boxes with a relatively new and intentionally transparent technical
mechanism is not necessarily going to work very well to begin with, let
alone provide the putative benefits.
>the Nuclear people at Oak Ridge, Tennessee recently reported
>that they assembled a multi-terra-FLOP computing system out
>of old discarded 386, 486, and sub-100 MHz pentium machines
>using beowulf.
Cool. But it only goes further in making people's use of computers too
abstract, virtualized, and emulated to be reliable. But cool.
>They needed a super computer...something on the order of
>a couple of crays clustered together...but they only had a
>a few tens of thousands of dollars left in the budget.
>
>So, they went out scavanging for old computers and computer
>parts, put in decent hard drives and ethernet cards, and
>behold...world's fastest computer system for the current
>"world's biggest computing problem"... made out of "obsolete"
>computer parts.
Now that is a beautiful thing. Thanks.
[...]
>> But have any of these vendors
>> moved to promote competition by any conscious developments to enhance
>> the customers ability to easily integrate or migrate between them? No,
>> not to speak of.
>
>Everyone is finally working on an open-binary standard for
>Intel-type chips. I think it's because each company's sales
>reps are coming back with "They love our proposal...except for
>one thing...the software isn't available on our Unix"
I love Linux. The software could suck, for all I care, it could be as
crappy as DOS, 4.1 even, and I'd still love it. An open source OS for
and open architecture computer platform. What more could we need?
(Other than to rest the x86 "standard" from Intel, though that is the
most competitive market of the three?)
[...]
>> I meant in a non-glass house environment. I had assumed from your
>
>Actually, most of my time has been in some sort of "user support"
>aspect or another.
The glass house environment I am referring to is directly related to
user support.
>At Ford, and at a stock brokerage, there was the "glass room"
>aspect (life devoted to taking care of the central servers, with
>little or no contact with users...) but most of my other positions
>have been very "desktop" oriented.
You're the help desk for host systems, right? OK, so its the progeny of
a glass-house environment. You do have a glass house mentality, I've
noted from observation.
>> earlier comment that you had some experience with the technology. But I
>> will reiterate that, based on what you said, you aren't "familiar with
>> the nightmare", having not experienced it in the implementation you
>> dealt with. Remember, I only hear about the stuff that doesn't work so
>> good; if Xterms were never a nightmare, I wouldn't know anything about
>> how Xterms work. ;-)
>
>They were. Their big problem is they tie up the network too much,
>and so nobody gets anything done.
Tying up the network so nobody gets anything done? I guess you'll say
its "overhead, not getting things done", right? Welcome to the glass
house. Where the power is on the hosts, and the users are clueless...
[...]
>[...]YEAH, you can do it in a spreadsheet, but,
>after about the 30th file, it starts to become a drag.
>So..I say, "Ok...what do you want done with it?.. show me
>the data, and show me what you want it to look like...
>..OK...here, let's FTP that stuff over to my machine...
>...spend a few minutes writing an awk script....
>...OK... you mean like this?... yeah...OK.....here,
>wait 2 minutes. Write a for-loop to run each file through
>awk...Here you go man... all done.
>....Uh....WOW...how'd you do that?"
This exact kind of scenario was potentially extended to the end-user
themselves by the PC revolution. You will agree, I hope, that while it
requires intelligence and learning to do this kind of thing, it ain't
rocket science. Every end-user should be able to do these kinds of
things for themselves, dependant only on the frequency of the recurrence
of a need to do so. And end users should have a need to do so, or they
aren't really operating a computer, they're just data entry people.
>You want to know how to get through to a user who keeps doing stuff
>the hard way (and usually fucking everything up for himself along
>the way)?
>
>You say the magic words: "Here's a trick..."
>
>At that point, you have their complete attention, because, in
>their eyes, it is now a chance to learn a magic spell from the
>wizard. :-)
Bless you. To teach is to learn, and to learn is to teach.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:51:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I created her an account on my Linux partition, mounted the
> windows partition as a vfat drive, and copied all her Windows mail
> over to her new Linux account. Voila! It worked perfectly! She can
> read all her old mail and send mail just like she did under Windows.
Incidentally, mind if I ask which mail client she'd been using in Win?
And what you used to convert the mailboxes? (Assuming they were not
already in "mbox" format... depending on your client of course.)
I've got tons of old mail I'd saved in MSOE, some in Pegasus Mail, that
go years back and I'd like to convert everything over to *nix-format
mailboxes at some point.
Thanks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:00:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000
>Even Windows 95 has pre-emptive multitasking. Mac OS before
>Mac OS X (in other words, the version of Mac OS that Mac
>users are using today) does not.
There is reason to believe that this is a good thing. The method used
by the Mac puts whatever program is running in the foreground in charge
of yielding to background programs if it wants to, while pre-emptive
multitasking allows Windows to have background processes take control
without waiting for the foreground process to yield. This does seem a
bit in the Mac's favor in terms of being appropriate for a system which
is intended to be used as a user desktop. Anyone who has been
frustrated by a menu disappearing repeatedly because some dialog box
wanted to pop up will recognize some of the trade-off. For a
client-only system, the foreground *should* have to yield before any
background processes can take control, by some reasoning.
> In all other respects, it's
>just as crappy as Windows and actually crappier than Windows
[...gripes about IMac snipped...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:46:25 +0200
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
Pssst... Your SEND button is stuck. I received this thing 11 times.
All the best,
--
Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Pim van Riezen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:46:30 +0200
On 11 Jul 2000, Drestin Black wrote:
> > Once more proving that Apache excels at virtual hosting while IIS does
> > not.
>
> Oh no, that does not logically follow. It may SUGGEST that apache is more
> commonly used for bulk hosting but not that apache is better. Remember, when
> you wanna make money by hosting a few hundred/thousand tiny sites on a
> single box, you wanna also make that box as cheap as possible. A T1, BSD and
> Apache and you are an "ISP" - gosh golly - and all 300 "hosts" count on
> Netcraft - yipee - those apache numbers sure do impress now! yipee!!
Especially since the advance of Frontpage and Frontpage Hosting, the
amount of utterly trivial websites that is being hosted on any platform
has gone skyhigh. Moreover, since most of those 5ct pages usually are
indeed made in Frontpage, the dolts that create them will initially go for
an NT hoster because "they do frontpage", unless a Unix shop with
Apache/mod_frontpage can offer them a better deal.
Taking the survey for Fortune 50(0) companies only may give a wrongful
image anyway. Being a Very Big Company doesn't mean you have anything
meaningful or useful to offer on the web by definition. Most what it will
tell you is that, by their very nature, those companies are much more
likely to use NT everywhere. Their entire network infrastructure is
already built around NT machines for the beancounters. The choice of
webserver is not likely to be a pragmatic decision made only on technical
grounds.
A better way to make the survey a bit meaningful would be to take a look
at large _sites_ instead of large _companies_ and take a look at those
percentages. There's still NT presence there (once you go down the road of
layer3/4 load balancing and clustering, you can beat any platform into
serving your site, really, even a Mac ;), but Apache/NS Enterprise
presence is bound to be bigger than if you limit yourself to Fortune500.
My current setup is a hosting company in .nl, running a total of 11,000
sites and hosting about 30,000 domains. We do run Linux, but most of our
servers are set up for the WN webserver (relatively unknown) for
historical aswell as practical reasons. Among those 11K, some sites are
trivial, others are major.
> > You mean the high-profile ones that MS helps set up for the publicity
> > value?
>
> I love it, as soon as someone shows a company running MS products the
> automatic assumption of the linux appologist is that MS probably paid them
> to take their products for free
In about '94, I worked for a large dialup ISP. At that time they were
going through the process of creating a new CD to send to the customers.
One offer came from Microsoft, offering an IE-based CD-ROM with branding
and dialup networking for free, on the condition that the servers would be
switched to NT. That made me cringe for a bit. I don't work there anymore,
but still I hope they didn't take the bait.
> and then paid magazine writers to use
> Netcraft to determine and publish those results. Even if the article isnt'
> 100% pro MS. Yea... right... and I've got some swamp land in Florida for ya
> too. Interested in another bridge to go with your brooklyn one?
Netcraft, like your survey, like specweb and even TPC will never be able
to tell you the entire story. Welcome to the wonderful world of statistics
and benchmarks.
> Get with it - these high profile companies have the money and smarts to pick
> ANYTHING they want, no matter what MS might wanna sell them. Sun is beating
> down their doors, as is HP and IBM and they wanna sell their MUCH higher
> profit unix solutions. And they picked MS....
But the decision is just as much or more a political one than a technical
one. Microsoft are real nice to people who buy lots of their stuff
(logically, would be bad business sense not to).
> > >"According to ENT's survey of Fortune 500 companies and their Web
> > >sites, IIS is the most commonly used Web server, with 41% of the market.
> >
> > Oooh, how impartial.
>
> a fact is a fact, no matter who reports it. If you can disprove the fact,
> then do so. Otherwise you are just spueing sour grapes.
There is at least some deceit in the statement. "41% of the Fortune 500
companies" does not equal "41% of the market".
HAND.
Pi
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:01:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You said:
> Face it Pete....
>
> YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON!
and I said earlier:
> > The final resort of the feeble mind. If it doesn't agree with you,
SHOUT
> > YOUR FOUL MOUTH OF AT IT IN THE HOPE IT'LL GO AWAY.
Q.E.D.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:12:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >The issue of product and services bundling was resolved
>> >OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. It's an open and shut case.
>> >Microsoft's legal department must have their heads up their asses.
>> >
>> >DOJ's case is based on MOUNDS of precedence.
>>
>> You should check the last few days' posts on alt.destroy.microsoft,
>> where David Petticord and I have been discussing this exact issue in a
>
>Hmmm, that name sounds familiar... somewhere from 10+ years ago.
Wow, that's scary. He's just a guy I "met" on Usenet about two and a
half years ago, AFAIK.
>> great amount of detail.
>>
>> The problem is that the MOUNDS of precedence, which are all true and
>> valid, even when applied to software, aren't *proven* to be true when
>> applied to software. One of the fundamental tests for whether MS's
>> actions have been illegal for thirty years (or a hundred) or whether
>> they are legal, is not applicable to software. So at the very least one
>> new precedence has to be set, which is, "how does software work when you
>> apply the 'technical capabilities' test?"
>
>I think it is. The "bundling" case against IBM. IBM refused
>to honor their warranty for ANYTHING if the customer had even
>one line of non-IBM-written code on the machine.
IBM was bundling software with hardware, not software with software.
>The final judgement was that end-user's shall not be compelled
>to pay for anything which they would rather obtain through some
>other method (3rd-party purchasing or contracts, or in-house
>development, or even "shareware")
>My source: Thomas Watson, Jr's autobiography.
But it is the IBM case which relates the precedent to software (the
appellate decision made specific reference to this.) And it is that
reasoning that allows any combination of two pieces of software to pass
the "technology test". I don't know what the "some other method" piece
you're referring to is, but if the producer can demonstrate benefit to
the consumer, they are technically immune to tying claims, even if they
integrate or bundle. Mr. Watson's autobiography probably concerns the
consent decree which ended the case, rather than the legal arguments
involved.
[...]
>Still, you can't compel a purchaser to pay for something which
>he would prefer to get from another source.
That is the essence of the issue, yes. But the problem isn't the paying
or the source, but the "compel" question. Are you compelling someone to
buy something when you make it more attractive? (Please don't compel me
to pursue this line of questioning too avidly, as I'd have to start
arguing in Microsoft's defense, and I can't do that and feel good about
myself, even if I know its the right thing to do in certain
circumstances.)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:15:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> You're a troll, Daniel. Did anybody ever tell you that?
>
>And here I thought he was merely droll.
You know, the common elements have really never occurred to me. Perhaps
I'll check the dictionary, you might be right. :-)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:09:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So Pete, when you say Linux lags behind Windows, I can't help but
> laugh. Linux is so incredibly versitile that to compare it to a
> toy OS like Win9X is simply ludicrous to me. Perhaps Windows is
> better for you, as it is for many people. But when you claim that
> Linux is somehow inferior to Windows, be aware that you are referring
> to yourself only. There are very few computer-literate people who
> would agree with you.
Ah but there are a few, they're here in COLA. They've asked me to modify
my statement, so it becomes:
Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware products and
Linux desktop lags behind Windows.
I believe there are (many?) other areas, but that's my opinion.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:14:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. I did more than just cast insults. Thus your post is
> pointless.
I responded to the insults in your post as they nullify any comments you
make.
> 2. You claimed that one reason linux doesn't support as much
> hardware as Windows or Mac has something to do with the lack of
> profits for the hardware companies if they wrote Linux drivers.
> I rebutted, pointing out that the drivers are given away free.
That's true, but manufacturers generally write the Windows ones first.
> 3. You are either a troll or you have the absolute worst luck
> with computers of anyone I have ever heard of.
More insults.
It's more like I'm coming across the fact that Linux does not support
certain devices.
> If you really like windows and hate linux, don't use linux. It
> is that simple. You might want to be happy you have a choice at
> least.
Ah, but here on COLA it is proclaimed that Linux is better than Windows
and is overtaking Windows. I thought I'd take a look and see if Linux
has moved on since last I looked. Yes there are improvements but there
are still areas where work needs to be done.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:24:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
[...]
>These standards are described by IEEE.
You meant the IETF.
Other than that, you were correct in your comments.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:27:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 11 Jul 2000
[...]
>There is no need to force anyone to use open protocols. They
>are always the best choice.
That's worth re-posting. It is easily lost amongst the long trollfight
Les is enjoying against Daniel, and is a universally important point to
make.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
