Linux-Advocacy Digest #2, Volume #28 Wed, 26 Jul 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard
))
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! (David C.)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! (Richard Steiner)
Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!! (Jen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:11:49 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:16:43 -0400,
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Perry Pip wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >> Except that the private sector simply isn't willing to make huge up
> >> >> front investments in new technologies that won't pay off till decades
> >> >> later. Two good additional examples are the railroads and civillian
> >> >> aviation, both of which were fisrt invested in heavily by the
> >> >> Government and later privitized when people realized their was money
> >> >> to make off of it.
> >> >
> >> >Not sure about railroads.
> >>
> >> I should have been more specific - the first transcontinental
> >> railroads. http://www.blm.gov/education/railroads/trans.html It was an
> >> investment the private sector was unwilling to make, mostly because of
> >> getting across the Sierras and the Rockies. When it was completed, the
> >> industry had it's largest boom ever.
> >>
> >
> >But should the government have financed it? Yes, it would not
> >have been built as soon, but was it worth rushing?
>
> For the people at the time, most obviously yes. It opened up the
> West. It reduced the travel time from the Midwest to California from
> six months to one and considably improved your chances of getting their
> alive. In the coming decades, additional railroads connected the
> resources of the West to the industrial revolution in the East, making
> life better for people coast to coast.
But if enough people did want to travel to California by rail, then why
weren't the railroads privately financed, and there was insufficient
demand for such railroads, then why did government finance them at all?
Remeber Credit Mobilier?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:29:26 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Serial ports don't have more than a few hundred feet of distance on them
at
> > best.
>
> So . . . my telephone really *DOESN'T* connect me to people that are on
> the other side of the planet?
Of course it does, but you don't want your console hooked up to a modem.
Anyone can call in, and hack root access then, since console does not have
login restrictions.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:12:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> >
> >
> > This put you and Bill Gates in the same boat as Al Capone,
> > Adolf Hitler, Napoleon, Caligula, and all of those other famous
> > figures who would "do WHATEVER it takes to win".
>
> Unlike the others, Napolean was an honorable man.
I suppose that all depends on where you were standing. If you were
British, or Russian, or suspected of being involved with the first
exhile, you might question Bonaparte's honor. The man was obsessed
with conquering the world, as were men like Julius Ceasar, Adolf
Hitler, Genghis Kahn, and monopolists such as J.P. Morgan, Andrew
Carnagie, and Bill Gates.
In each case, they were able to successfully concentrate power to
such a degree that leutenants and successors were able to create
some really nasty situations. Julius Ceasar was succeeded by men
like Tiberous (paranoid),Caligula (scizaphernic), and Nero (sadistic).
In fact, Claudius tried to restore the Republic, and
the Pretorian Guard threatened to kill him if he tried.
Ghengis Kahn was succeeded by Kubla Khan, and eventually Suluman,
eventually extending the Ottoman Empire from northern Europe to
the Great Wall of China, and into most of India and Africa.
The "Holy Roman" empire eventually became a massive genocide in
which nearly 15 million people were tortured to death and then
killed in horrible ways (burning, slow suffocation by hanging,
being cut open from the rib cage to the groin and having your
bowels removed and displayed to you and the crowd... I think
that was Pope Gregory that launched the great Crusades which
became the start of the Holy inquisition.
The issue isn't near as much whether Bill Gates is a good business
man (he is), or whether he engaged in some shady business practices
(he did), or whether he abused his power (he did), but rather, whether
subordinates also abused power too (they did), but whether it's wise
to create a magnate to attract meglamaniacs with the dilusion that
they could create panacea by destroying all that does not fit
with their vision (killing them physically, politically, economically,
socially, and covertly).
Hitler didn't just come out and tell the entire German population
that he was going to rob, rape, torture, and kill 12 million people.
Many people had no idea that Auschwitz existed.
> The reason he has a bad reputation is because he
> dislaced the aristocracy, and at that time, they
> were the only ones who could WRITE the history books.
Again, if you were fighting with Wellington, or living on the road
to Moscow, or one of the men trying to escape back to France after
the Moscow campaign, you might have had a less generous opinion.
On the other hand, if you were an Officer in the Napoleonic army,
it was a pretty nice time.
> > Who knows, maybe Microsoft had someone "fix" Dr Kildall's airplane
> > before he took it out for that last flight. Maybe somebody "fixed"
> > Steven Wozniak's plane? And how many other visionaries died in
>
> Woz died? When?
No. Woz almost died in a crash of his private airplane. It seems
that a combination of a malfunction and Wozniak's limited experience
resulted in an airplane crash that almost killed him and 3 other
people. He survived, but suffered severe brain damage, especially
affecting his short term memory. He now teaches computer skills
to elementary school children. As I understand it, he's very happy
being away from the politics of Apple, and still likes to tinker with
new inventions.
Gary Kildall was an expert pilot, and his plane malfunctioned over
the California coastline. He wasn't even able to maneuver
the plane back to a safe landing area. There were some
questions about why the plane failed, why Kildall was
unable to coast tho a safe landing (the plane was designed
to be able to glide quite a distance very safely). Since
it was an experimental aircraft, and it was completely
destroyed during the crash, foul play can't be ruled out.
Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to even determine
the cause of the crash, let alone the state of the pilot.
Observers who actually saw the crash said he was near land,
that the engine sputtered, and that the plane went into a
sideways dive, not the sort of thing an experienced pilot,
with no engine, and a good chance of landing safely on the
beach or nearby field, would do.
Either he was dead (but the engine wouldn't have died like that),
or he lost BOTH his engine and his maneuvering cables (something
that would been checked during pre-flight inspection). Bottom
line is that he's dead.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 27 Jul 2000 01:18:57 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:00:22 +0200, Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>So what's the excuse for Win9x?
There is no excuse for Win9x. It is poorly engineered, period.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:29:10 +1000
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:17:53 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:12:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>
> >>And most Linux distros comes with at least three browsers (kfm,
> >>netscape, lynx).
>
> >That makes perfect sense to me. So why can't Windows come with even
> >one browser?
>
> If it came with three I think MS would have had less trouble with the
> DoJ. Even if two of them were installed by OEMs. Which OEMs wanted to
> do but for some reason MS decided that doing so would demean the
> "Windows Experience".
Microsoft never stopped OEMs installing alternative browsers. Ever. It
*specifically* says that in the FoF.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:29:53 +1000
"Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > Se?n ? Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Microsoft doesn't force you to use IE as your primary Web browser. You
> > > can use it to download Navigator and never use again, if that's what
> > > you want. So what's the problem?
> >
> > Microsoft's repeated claims that you couldn't remove Explorer without
> > irreversibly crippling Windows, for one.
> >
>
> IE is far more then the browers. Removing IE will damage windows. Removing
> the web browsers will effect nothing.
Removing kfm will damage KDEs ability to act as KDE.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:22:29 -0400
Chris Wenham wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
> > > AbiWord is a clone of Word.
> > Word is a clone of WordPerfect.
> > > Gnumeric is a clone of Excel.
> > Excel is a clone of 123.
> > > StarOffice is a clone of Office.
> > This still doesn't point to a useful resolution of the problem
> > which is not merely limited to Linux.
> >
> > Besides, there are other office apps that are either 'the original'
> > or make no attempt to be like Windows.
> > > Gnome and KDE are heavily copying Windows Explorer.
> > Explorer heavily copies MacOS and has glaring similarities to just
> > about any other desktop shell that preceeded it.
>
> How does this change the point that most Linux applications are
> copies of something else?
"Copies" in what sense? Did anyone say that they weren't similar?
>
>
> > Just where in Windows are there anything like the gnome or kde panels?
>
> I don't know, I won't speculate on third party equivalents
> either. But that would be why I said "heavily copying" instead of
> "clone", wouldn't it?
>
> They've copied the "start bar" and they've copied the task bar and
> the system tray. They've copied the idea of putting a URL field in
> every folder view. They've even copied the icons and button positions
> pretty closely, too.
>
> It doesn't matter if Microsoft copied all this from someone
> else. Linux software definately appears to be copying from
> /someone/. I don't know what Outlook copied, but I'd be interested to
> know if Evolution /wasn't/ copying the Microsoft program.
>
So?
>
> > > Evolution is a clone of Outlook.
> > Fortunately there are at least 10 other mail apps that aren't.
>
> But that's not the point. The point is that new software currently
> being developed for Linux copies heavily.
>
But at the source level, or just the appearance?
>
> > > XMMS is a clone of WinAMP.
> > Just how would you make a 'distinctive' tape deck?
> > Besides, xmms is only one of several alternatives that
> > DON'T strive to look like winamp (a good thing since
> > winamp is a UI train wreck).
>
> I don't know how one would make a distinctive tape deck. But then, I
> don't think that one needs to copy the concept of "skins" either.
>
What if users are used to skins?
>
> > This is the bit that is really quite vexing. This is the
> > subtle bit of FUD: that Windows is somehow any less
> > derivative than anything else, or a useful source for new
> > ideas.
> >
> > It isn't. Most of it's interfaces are just as 'stolen'.
>
> Okay, cool. Windows copies manaically. Now why does everyone else
> have to do the same?
>
Compatibility.
<snip>
>
> Software being written for Linux today is not very imaginative and
> copies too much from other products in the proprietary realm. Be that
> Microsoft, the Mac, OS/2 or the Jolly Green Giant.
>
How different could it be?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:41:25 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Local sockets didn't have *much* more overhead, and some of that
> overhead was reduced through shared memory segments.
You're also forgetting that the X protocol is much more involved as well,
passing a *LOT* more data.
> > In a modern Unix, yes. Go back to, say 1993 when NT was released, or
1989
> > when NT was started and you'll notice that kernel recompiles were much
more
> > common for things like adding device drivers in most Unices.
>
> Wrong. Kernel's weren't recompiled to add device drivers . . . they
> were basically relinked.
You need to add a references to the drivers, or linking them in doesn't do
any good. Unreferenced code doesn't do anything.
> But after relinking, you did have to reboot.
Which is the point.
> Since Unix is more modular, however, the addition of new devices and new
> device drivers is a relatively rare thing, compared to "configuration
> changes".
I consider adding or removing a device a change to your configuration.
> > Well, Unix doesn't have full remote administration anyways. There are
often
> > tasks which need to be carried out on the console, usually in something
like
> > single-user mode.
>
> The only thing I can think of that would require "single user mode" is
> performing a by-hand repair of a root file system. . . in which case, if
> that is your definition of "full", then no OS will ever have "full
> remote administration capability", because you will *always" have to
> have the administrator within arms length of the system to fix hardware
> problems.
"full" would mean "complete". "complete" would mean every possible
operation.
> By any realistic definition of "full remote administration", Unix has
> it, and even now, has more of it than NT does (NT needs more up and
> functioning systems to support remote administration).
What is that supposed to mean? Explain a task you can do on Unix but not NT
remotely.
> > Also consider a kernel recompile which causes the kernel
> > to panic or simply hangs upon reboot.
>
> Only developers do kernel recompiles, and the ability to relink a kernel
> in such a way as to cause it to panic does not stop you from
> administering it remotely . . . as the new kernel is installed in a
> try-and-revert fashion . . . after the panic or HPMC completes, the
> machine boots off of the original kernel.
Really, so applying the latest kernel security patch is something only
developers do?
> 'Course, you cannot do that with PC's, as they lack the intelligent
> firmware to support this capability.
Unix runs on PC's, does it not?
> > You have to go to the console for that.
>
> No, you don't need to be in front of the console to panic or hang a
> machine.
To recover the machine.
> > I liken X to the windows GDI, or the OS/2 GPI. That's not quite correct
> > though, since X also includes some things from the windows USER. No, X
> > doesn't include your wigits, and it doesn't include your window
managers.
> > But it does include the basic GUI functionality.
>
> Now, what do you define as "basic GUI functionality"?
You know, windows, graphical routines, draing routines, the thing which
provides the canvas which window managers and toolkits use to create pretty
pictures.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:43:47 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Anthony D. Tribelli" wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > DR-DOS implemented true Multi-processing in 1985, yet Microsoft
> > > didn't accomplish the same task for another 8 years.
> >
> > Bad guess. Microsoft offered a Unix implementation called XENIX, IIRC -
> > and later sold to SCO, and also OS/2.
>
> MS didn't accomplish this in Windows for another 8 years.
>
> The context was: Unix vs. MS (Windows), not Unix vs. MS. Aaron simply
> used some short hand, because for the purposes of this discussion, Xenix
> == Unix.
No, the context is Unix versus Microsoft, not Unix versus Windows.
Go back and read the early statements. They were basically talking about
how it took MS years to figure out the concepts that Unix has had for
decades.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David C.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait!
Date: 26 Jul 2000 21:31:51 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> First, I have a laptop I want to install "Unix" on. I've installed
> Linux on desktops several times in the past (starting with Ygdrasil),
> but I have the feeling I may have fun with the BackPack parallel port
> CD-ROM drive. So, question 1: which of the modern releases is likely
> to install easily on a laptop with about 0.5GB of disk space, 24MB of
> RAM, and a parallel port CD-ROM drive?
Can't help you much with the PP CD-ROM drive. I think support for the
drive exists, but I don't know which distributions put this on their
install/boot floppy image.
> Secondly, about free "Unix"es in general... I'm a very busy systems
> and networks consultant. I want it to work; I frankly don't have the
> time for a voyage of discovery (and no, I don't indend to pose as a
> Unix "expert"). Maybe some day when I retire...
Peronally, I found no problems setting up and working with Linux (I've
used RedHat 5.2, 6.0, 6.1 and 6.2. I have no experience with older
revisions or other distributions of Linux, so my opinions are far from
definitive.)
If your experience doesn't agree with mine, perhaps a commercial
alternative, like Solaris might be more to your liking. I've installed
and used Solaris on SPARC hardware, and everything was pretty
straightforward. I don't know how the x86 version is, though.
> Anyway, one of the thing that bugged me the most about Red Hat the
> last two times I tried it (4.x and 5.x distributions) was the
> fragmented and incomplete state of the documentation.
It's much better now. The installer is also much easier to get
through. It's graphical, with on-line help in a window next to the
installer window.
> I'm no newbie -- I've worked with a number of Unix variants over the
> years. I am kinda rusty, though; these days, I mostly do non-Unix
> systems administration. I have no problem getting down and dirty, but
> I've got no time to play hide-and-seek with the docs. If it's not in
> the man pages, it's not in the right place, dammit.
Between the man pages, the info pages, and all the stuff under /usr/doc,
I've been able to find just about everything I need on my RH
distributions.
You're right, that it's not all in one place, but that's to be expected
when the software comes from a wide variety of sources. You'll find the
same thing with commercial Unices if you start installing third-party
software.
> I hear Slackware is a favorite of relatively knowledgeable Linux
> users. Is it really any better documentation-wise?
Dunno.
> And what about the BSDs? I'm a "BSD" guy from way back in the days of
> SunOS, and I still think Sun sold out to AT&T on SVR4. But
> preferences aside, how do the free BSDs compare with Linux? I've
> heard it said that if I like Slackware, I'll like BSD...386, I think
> they said. I'm not sure about the difference. I've never installed
> any of them. And I don't have the time to try them all.
What I know about BSD is all second-hand. From what I've been told,
it's remarkably stable and works well. I don't know a thing about the
docs and distributions, however.
-- David
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:29:50 -0400
John Jensen wrote:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Oh, but you see we *already* have this. Both Debian and RPM packages
> : can auto-update dependencies (that's basically how RedHat's installer
> : works). [...]
>
> I think 'rpm' is a fine package, but it is really more about managing
> dependancies than about reducing them. I think the interesting thing to
> glean from Component-Oriented studies is how to reduce interactions. If
> an application and its libraries were able to be upgraded independantly,
> 'rpm' would have a much easier job.
>
> I've been in the situation where I have two (or more) apps referencing the
> same library. I'd like to upgrade one of my apps, which requires a
> library update. If all of my apps have been upgraded to match the new
> library it isn't a problem. I can just upgrade them all at once. If, for
> some reason, an application has not been updated I have three choices:
>
> - I can upgrade force, risking a runtime error in the old app.
>
> - I can download source (or Source RPM) and try a recompile of the old
> app. Many times that is a low-risk operation. It could be that a
> end-user tool could even attempt a Soruce RPM rebuild in the
> background.
>
> - I can uninstall my old app.
Why not rpm -i --replacefiles? It will uninstall the the files of the
previous package that have the same name as the files of the
newer versions, but it will leave other files of older package alone.
Of course, this leaves multiple versions of the same library, but
given today's hard drives, that's preferable to *.so hell.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:51:58 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> And in spite of the spin, irrelevant. The original contention was re:
> rebooting, not temporarily freezing the kernel.
freezing the kernel for minutes is no better than rebooting.
> > And again, you can't just go stopping processes on a production
machines.
>
> Yes you can. Most production machines don't even need *soft* real time,
> to say nothing of about hard real time.
The question was not about "most" production systems. It was about
production systems. Let's see you stop the machine on a typical Oracle
database server in a data warehousing context that gets thousands of
transactions a second.
> > Many machines depend on continued access in order to function properly.
>
> And that access will not be unduly affected by the split seconds it
> takes to do this.
the actual operations will only take microseconds to complete, the majority
of your time is spent digging around in the internals.
> > For
> > example, machine control software. Oh, but not living in the real world
you
> > wouldn't understand about production needs.
>
> Ah . . . more "discussion by definition" . . . it's not "production",
> unless it is "real time"?
No, but real-time response is most certainly a constraint in many production
systems. You can't just ignore them and pretend they do not exist.
> That's just pitiful, Erik.
I work in real-time systems, that's why it's such an important issue for me.
> > Oooh.. 2 minutes of a stopped machine.
>
> Actually, it can be done in much less time. The scheduler only needs to
> be turned off long enough
> to swap the table and modify the process table size variable . . . about
> one missed timer interrupt, if that much, for an automated system.
And how do you automate this task?
> A few seconds, at most, by hand.
Well, considering that you would have to stop the process and go into kernel
debugging mode, find the variables using the symbolic information and then
reset them (you'd probably want to double check since if you make a mistake,
you could hose something really bad).
> > I suppose commands like PS and top don't need to know how BIG the table
is.
> > If you increase it's size, you have to change the constants which tell
> > everything how big it is... Idiot.
>
> PS and TOP don't require recompiling just 'cause you modify the size of
> a process table.
I didn't say they did. I said the constants in the kernel needed to be
changed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:22:11 -0500
Here in alt.os.linux, Dana Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake unto us, saying:
>Windows 2000 is the best Linux distribution.
Well, W2K certainly excels at resource consumption, be it memory, disk,
or cash from your pocketbook. :-)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
I intend to live forever - so far, so good.
------------------------------
From: Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
Date: 26 Jul 2000 20:39:32 -0500
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:10:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jenny-poo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 25 Jul 2000 10:14:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>
>> It also poses a large threat. Why do you think Sun gives away Solaris
>> now? hint: it's not cuz of Windows!
>>
>
>Does Sun just make money just on Solaris/Software? Didn't think so.
Who said "just", for cryin' out loud. But they DO (DID?) make money
on Solaris... Linux is crimping that a bit huh? Not to mention all
the other Unixes.
So Linux is going to eat away at Microsoft... it's also going to eat
away at Sun... at least on the low-mid end.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
