Linux-Advocacy Digest #451, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 15:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Perry Pip)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...? ("Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:51:17 +0000
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> You make a strong case, but just how much more damaging was the behavior
> >> from merely being 'provocative'. Again, the anonymity of the poster
> >> *should* certainly be taken as an indication that inflammatory derision
> >> such as claiming someone is an alcoholic or, archetypically, that they
> >> are a "pedophile", is entirely false to begin with. Is it his
> >> arguments, or his facts, which you wish to dispute? I'll question
> >> either one, entirely, if he was posting anonymously. Why do you think
> >> people post anonymously, and why I hate it?
> >
> >I am not sure why *you* hate it. If you want to know why I hate it, I
> >made my reasons pretty clear in this post:
> >
> >http://x51.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=662203720
> >
>
> "I am curious to see what kinds of response I get to these questions. I
> will also be curious to judge them on the basis of their cogency and
> logical soundness. Maybe that could provide some objective test of my
> aforementioned mass-insanity hypothesis."
>
> Yes, indeed. I found your article very interesting and quite
> worthwhile. But I do disagree with your position.
>
> First, I think if you have to come up with a new 'law' or 'force' to
> explain how something works, you're out on a limb to begin with. You
> can't create a 'law of accountability', and then try to compare it to
> real-world activities like anonymity.
The law of accountability that I refer to is not my invention. The idea
that there is a principle in the world that you are accountable for your
actions -- that if you lie, you will be known as a liar, if you steal,
you will be known as a thief -- is not something that I can take credit
for as my original idea.
>
> Your comment that, outside of the Internet, the availability of
> anonymity does not exist, except for special cases. To a great extent,
> that is true, but I'll point out that the special cases are not of a
> pre-defined nature, and so I do not believe you are within your rights
> to claim that someone doesn't fit into the classification of special
> cases, as that would be second-guessing their circumstance, not
> double-checking their responsibilities.
What special case? Name a public discussion forum in the non-internet
world which makes provisions for anonymous participation.
The fact that established public forums make no provision for anonymous
participation already suggests that it is not much of a fundamental
right.
>
> The 'vacuum' of the lack of the law of accountability, in your analogy
> of astronauts learning to survive without the law of gravity, so to
> speak, is the natural order, I'm afraid. It isn't so much that we do
> not have a 'law of anonymity' allowing people to speak while hiding
> their identity, it is that your belief that such a thing could exist is
> an extension of the law of privacy. There has been much debate on the
> fact that there is no 'right to privacy' established in the Bill of
> Rights or Constitution, though even the highest courts recognize that
> this is a manifestation of everyone's basic rights, to at least some
> extent. While you can't speak at a town meeting, normally, with a hood
> over your head, you can author a work under a pseudonym.
In the latter case, there is a publisher that is taking some
responsibility for the content not being libellous. For example, you can
sometimes withhold your name when you write a letter to the editor of a
newspaper. But at best, that is like a moderated newsgroup. And a
moderated newsgroup has a very strong defense mechanism against the anon
jerks.
Max, your thinking on this is a bit muddled, I'm afraid. I've been
observing your participation here and, though you sometimes have
interesting things to say, I think you write entirely too much. If you
thought somewhat more and wrote somewhat less, your contribution would
have more value.
Jonathan Revusky
>
> The lack of any 'law of accountability' in the natural order provides
> the reasoning which blocks your 'theory of mass insanity', I think. But
> it points the arrow of "personal responsibility" in the other direction.
> It is up to the people listening to the statements, true or untrue, made
> by the anonymous person, and weight them rationally. It might not seem
> comforting to think that this argument would, in fact, allow anyone to
> go around 'spreading lies' about you, that 'someone might believe', and
> that could harm you and your 'good name' in ways that you might never
> even become aware of. But the fact is, all you have to prevent someone
> from ruining your good name, should they decide to make a conscious
> effort to do so, is the truth of your honesty in maintaining your good
> name. A 'good name', a reputation for integrity, is not just a brand
> label, so that people who don't know you can judge you. Again, the
> arrow of responsibility points the other way: it is up to people to
> judge you based on your actions, not your name. And this *promotes* the
> 'personal responsibility' which people are afraid will be unsupported,
> undemanded, when we realize there is no 'law of accountability'.
> Because it requires any person interested in having a good name to do
> more than simply manage to get one; they have to constantly re-earn it,
> and ensure that when faced with a choice between believing what an
> anonymous source says about you and what your actions show, any
> reasonable person is going to recognize that in remaining anonymous, the
> source has removed all credibility from his words.
>
> That's why *I* hate anonymous posters. Not because it enables them to
> hide their identity. But because there real name cannot provide the
> reputation which they deserve, whether positive or negative, regardless
> of how true or false their opinions are. It does, I think, encourage
> people to post crap, not because it removes 'accountability for their
> actions', but because it removes the ability of others to take
> responsibility for being able to honestly evaluate their words.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> ======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
>
> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
> -----= 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] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:57:35 GMT
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:59:19 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> I bought Solaris 7 both x86 and sparc versions about a year or so ago
>> for $10 plus shipping. Looks like now they are only selling Solaris 8
>> for $75. But you can install it on as many machines as you
>> like. That's certainly cheaper than W2K.
>
>Not a commercial license.
>
>From the main page: http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/
"For only the cost of media ($75 US) plus shipping, you can use the software
on an unlimited number of computers with a capacity of 8 or fewer CPUs."
>From FAQ at http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/faq.html
"You can use the Solaris 8 runtime environment at home or at work, for
business or personal computing."
That's an *unlimited* number of *business* computers for only
$75. This is certainly *much* cheaper than W2K, which is $4000 for an
andvanced server license. Now I'm not advocating Solaris, but your
claim that it's more expensive that W2k is dead wrong. So why can't
you be a man and admit when you are wrong?? Does it hurt your feelings
to know you're not a very smart guy?? Tough shit....accept your lot in
life.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:08:36 GMT
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:41:18 +1300, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I've just set up two dual-processor Redhat GNU/Linux 7 computers both
>booting with RAID1 for high reliability. I am also making use of the newly
>GPLed MySQL on both computers.
>
>One computer provides NAT and IPChains firewalling services. Both also
>provide an Apache/PHP development environment.
>
>To set this all up has cost $0 for the software. Knowing that Microsoft
>provides a lower total cost of ownership ;-) I'd be interested to know what it
>would cost to move these computers to a full Microsoft solution.
>
>It appears I would need this software:
>
>1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both computers.
>2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
>3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
>4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
>
Don't forget to include biyearly complete replacement of all your software
frequently necessitated to use MS's latest'n'greatest operating system. Nobody
would seriously consider using win31, win9x or even winNT software with W2K
production environment.
>Now there will be advantages/disadvantages to both configurations. But is
>the software cost differential and loss of freedom really worth it?
>
>Who really believes MS provides a lower TCO?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:04:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> >> Netzero makes a linux client
> >
> > Interesting, as a search with "Linux" at Netzero's
> > site produced 0 matches. Also, Netzero claims to
> > only support Windows, with Mac support to come later.
> >
> > www.netzero.net
> >
> > Colin Day
> >
>
> Hmmm, maybe its just vaporware.
>
> I based my statement on this article.
> http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_403361,00.html
>
> and this one
>
http://industry.java.sun.com/javanews/stories/story2/0,1072,27296,00.htm
l
>
> I've never used the service personally.
Apparently NetZero LIED when it said it was producing a Linux version.
I received this E-mail from their support staff:
==========================
Dear Valued Customer,
Thank-you for your inquiry regarding a Linux version of NetZero.
Unix and other operating systems are not under development, nor do we
have immediate plans to begin software development for these systems.
==========================
So apparently the entire press release was a hoax, designed to increase
interest in their company by hopping on the bandwagon of "Linux
supporters" while refraining from any real "Linux support".
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: 4 Oct 2000 18:13:42 GMT
Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
| "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" wrote:
|> Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
|> | "James A. Robertson" wrote:
|> |> Peter van der Linden wrote:
|> |> >
|> |> > [...] I do somewhat resent you misrepresenting the
|> |> > situation in this way. [...] Do you think that somehow Gary
|> |> > Van Sickle had an unlimited right to make libellous
|> |> > accusations from his anonymous account?
|>
|> Peter, there's no "unlimited right to make libellous accusations"
|> anonymously and I don't recall anybody here arguing over that
|> except Revusky. That's his straw-man that he keeps beating, and
|> then claiming victory over.
|
| Well, it's not a straw man, Jon. It's quite literally what these
| idiots are maintaining. They are arguing that there is some kind
| of constitutional right to participate in a public forum
| anonymously. Furthermore, when you point out that much of said
Yet you just now dropped the 'unlimited' part, which in the past you
introduced into the debate.
| participation was libellous in nature, they simply repeat their
| claims about the "right to anonymity".
As opposed to the supposed 'unlimited right to anonymity'.
| So you're arguing that it would all be okay if the... organs of
| the state.... were involved somehow. And the fact that they
| weren't is what makes writing a letter of complaint so wrong...
|
| Interesting position. Are you actually willing to maintain that?
Regardless of what my position would be, as Mr. Robertson points out,
discussions with you are generally not worth the time. So, no. I
will, however, occasionally point out misrepresentations of the
record and faulty logic, as I did in the previous post.
| [... discussion on ad hominem attacks]
|> In the past, in comp.lang.java.advocacy, Revusky regularly added
|> ad hominem attacks to his arguments, apparently believing that
|> applying it to an argument (often to "cause [...] psychic pain")
|> converts it from something to be shunned in a discussion to
|> something perfectly reasonable and proper. This is what he
|> means, above, when he says "was merely name-calling". Mr.
|> Robertson is justified, IMO, claiming that he just didn't want to
|> discuss with Revusky; it is tiring, for the reason he mentions.
Revusky wrote:
|
| You know, Jon, I don't even think that you are debating any of
| this out of sincerity. It's just that you're mad at me, have felt
| humiliated by me in various exchanges, and are desperately trying
| to get back at me in any way possible. I don't believe that
| anything you're saying here corresponds to any profound
| convictions on your part. Certainly, it's very half-baked, not
| very well thought out.
|
| So, already, it is bad enough that you discredit yourself by
| making these stupid arguments. But what is worse is that there is
| not even any sincerity or conviction behind what you are saying.
| At least, I sense that James Robertson is somewhat sincere. You
| are just trying to get back at me in some rather petty, pathetic
| way.
Nice to see you confirming my statements above, since Deja's archive
is currently limited.
Jam (address rot13 encoded)
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:14:41 GMT
-
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Frankly Simon, I don't think you are in a position to lecture people
> about self-contradicting arguments.
Congratulations -- you finally noticed my point.
I don't happen to think that PETER is in a position to lecture *anyone*.
I'll gladly stop when he does.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:16:03 GMT
"Jonathan Revusky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So you go figure if my portrayal of that is a straw man. Now, it is
> incredible that people would argue that there is a right to anonymous
> slander, but nothing much surprises me nowadays. At an earlier stage,
> various people accused me of slander. I pointed out to them that they
> needed to say who I slandered and what the slanderous statements were.
> (This little inconvenience had not occurred to them prior to making the
> accusaiton.) And then they quite literally trotted out as their slander
> "victims" people who were hiding their identities. (How could I be
> harming their "good name" if they were hiding who they were?) The
> stupidity of the whole thing was another drum I kept beating to
> demonstrate the stupidity of certain people. But it was not based on any
> straw man. The people in question really were that stupid!
Just wait until Deja's archive is back up.
And stop with the ad hominem. It's what I expect from you, but it's not
particularly gentlemanly.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:08:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> >> Netzero makes a linux client
> >
> > Interesting, as a search with "Linux" at Netzero's site produced 0
> > matches. Also, Netzero claims to only support Windows, with Mac
support
> > to come later.
> >
> > www.netzero.net
> >
> > Colin Day
> >
>
> Hmmm, maybe its just vaporware.
>
> I based my statement on this article.
> http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_403361,00.html
>
> and this one
>
http://industry.java.sun.com/javanews/stories/story2/0,1072,27296,00.htm
l
>
> I've never used the service personally.
Well, it turns out that NetZero wasn't being entirely truthful.
Is there a Linux version? Yes.
Is it available for anyone using Linux? NO.
http://www.justreviewed.com/articles/20000713170224/
"NetZero Taps Into Internet Appliance Market
With Oracle's New Internet Computer"
"NetZero today announced that it will be packaged
with the New Internet Computer, or NIC."
"NICs, priced at $199, are simple, affordable
Internet appliances that give users quick and
easy e-mail and Web access. NetZero's Linux-based
Z3 software will provide NIC customers with free
lifetime Internet access and will be bundled with
the NIC for a minimum 1-year period."
In other words, if you buy a NIC, you get a proprietary
NetZero software package which can't be ported to any
other version of Linux!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:20:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Adam Warner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:41:18 +1300
<8recd9$lr9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hi all,
>
>I've just set up two dual-processor Redhat GNU/Linux 7 computers both
>booting with RAID1 for high reliability. I am also making use of the newly
>GPLed MySQL on both computers.
>
>One computer provides NAT and IPChains firewalling services. Both also
>provide an Apache/PHP development environment.
>
>To set this all up has cost $0 for the software. Knowing that Microsoft
>provides a lower total cost of ownership ;-) I'd be interested to know what it
>would cost to move these computers to a full Microsoft solution.
>
>It appears I would need this software:
>
>1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both computers.
>2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
>3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
>4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
>
>Now there will be advantages/disadvantages to both configurations. But is
>the software cost differential and loss of freedom really worth it?
>
>Who really believes MS provides a lower TCO?
>
>Or more importantly, who really believes MS can sustain a lower TCO if a
>MS solution is indeed more attractive at this point in time? Open source
>software just keeps getting better and better, and the development rate
>appears much faster.
>
>Regards,
>Adam
The software cost is but one of the issues when computing TCO;
other issues are maintenance and hardware costs. Since you've
alread got the hardware, there's no difference there; maintenance
costs may depend on whether you're a Unix (or Linux) expert, or
a Microsoft aficionado, or a total newbie.
My understanding, which to me sounds a bit bizarre (I don't have a
cite for this either), is that a Microsoft solution can cost up to
30% less to administer, mostly because an NT sysadmin is hired on
at lower wages. Of course, there's the issue of how many NT sysadmins
are needed to run around rebooting boxes, creating system images,
or otherwise maintaining a network, compared to how many
Unix/Linux sysadmins.
As to that, I don't know; presumably, both sides have horror stories
to tell.
One other issue is that NT software is perceived as more or less
"ready to go", whereas Linux software "needs some work". (My RedHat
6.2 installation needed very little tweaking to be "ready to go",
though, which may put the lie to that notion.) It's also not that
difficult to type in "./configure && make", wait for it to install, then
"su" and then "make install". Of course, one has to know how to do that
(README or INSTALL in the top directory helps).
Debugging problems of course might be a different issue; "make", after
all, does a compile, or number of compiles, and links. If one doesn't
have a compiler, or the right packages correctly installed, things
could get interesting. But then, NT isn't immune from such problems,
either, although in many cases the manufacturer of the software provides
what he needs, which can lead to some real interesting incompatibilities
if there's another version of whatever the manufacturer provides
(older? newer? munged timestamp?) on the consumer's system. At least
with Linux, the conventions are that a version is part of the library
name (e.g., 'libc-2.1.3.so'); although Microsoft has this capability also
(MVSCRT20, MSVCRT30, etc.) it's more limited and cryptic.
If a program wanted to be truly paranoid, it can build itself, its
source code, and the source code of its required libraries in its
own directory, and its scripts would pick up libraries only from
that directory and from /lib and /usr/lib, mostly for libc and libm.
This works on both Linux and NT/W2K, and may be the way to go, if
one can stand the disk bloat (which is increasingly less of an issue
as the drives get larger and larger) and the enlarged memory footprint
(since two such programs can't share libraries -- again, not that much
of an issue since many new consumer-level machines have 64M or
even 128M, an amount that would have been ridiculously expensive
a decade ago).
So who knows? Microsoft is easier to use for rank newbies. But a
well setup Linux system will probably be more reliable. I don't
know what either characteristic will do for TCO, though.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:24:50 GMT
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:25:34 -0500, "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>These groups are much more
>enjoyable now that I no longer have to wade through the ramblings of morons,
>zealots and the generally clueless on either side.
So that leaves you with what... 2 posts?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:28:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donovan Rebbechi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 3 Oct 2000 20:10:25 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:04:35 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
>>> > OFF-TOPIC IDIOTS!
>>>
>>> Fuck off, idiot.
>>
>>Same to you.
>
>Hey -- that was off topic !
>
>Welcome to the "off topic idiots" club. ( if you can't beat 'em,
>join 'em, eh ? )
There are times when I wonder if Usenet ever is *on* topic. :-)
Followups restricted to one newsgroup. :-)
>
>--
>Donovan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random off-topic topic here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:29:21 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Mike wrote:
>> >
>> >> Netzero makes a linux client
>> >
>> > Interesting, as a search with "Linux" at Netzero's
>> > site produced 0 matches. Also, Netzero claims to
>> > only support Windows, with Mac support to come later.
>> >
>> > www.netzero.net
>> >
>> > Colin Day
>> >
>>
>> Hmmm, maybe its just vaporware.
>>
>> I based my statement on this article.
>> http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_403361,00.html
>>
>> and this one
>>
>http://industry.java.sun.com/javanews/stories/story2/0,1072,27296,00.htm
>l
>>
>> I've never used the service personally.
>
>Apparently NetZero LIED when it said it was producing a Linux version.
>
>I received this E-mail from their support staff:
>
>==========================
>
>Dear Valued Customer,
>
>Thank-you for your inquiry regarding a Linux version of NetZero.
>
>Unix and other operating systems are not under development, nor do we
>have immediate plans to begin software development for these systems.
>
>==========================
>
>So apparently the entire press release was a hoax, designed to increase
>interest in their company by hopping on the bandwagon of "Linux
>supporters" while refraining from any real "Linux support".
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
I'll add them to my 'list of bad Linux supporters' along
with InterVideo.
Intervideo was the company that was claiming to make a
'legal' DVD player for Linux (and the one that the MPAA
was using to claim that DeCSS wasn't necissary for
watching DVDs on 'other' operating systems). Nearly eight
months after their initial announcement and they have
burried the press release and have absolutely nothing but
'get WinDVD here' type of links on their site.
I would bet by the end of the year they will say the same
thing NetZero is saying now. Especially if the entire
appeals process has run it's course in the DeCSS trial.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
