Linux-Advocacy Digest #569, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Andy Newman)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (westprog 2000)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Video software for linux (Martin Svensson)
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ("Rick Urdahl")
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. ("Todd")
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:45:24 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Here is the part of the article I like best:
> ********************************************************************************
> Meanwhile, Linux backer Compaq Computer is taking the open source
> software to task for not moving beyond its niche status. The
> UNIX/Linux product marketing manager for Compaq says that Linux needs
> to show that its being used in more enterprises before it can be taken
> seriously. "We're definitely at the stage where we need reference
> [enterprise] sites [using Linux]," Compaq's Judy Chavis says.
> "Otherwise we'll be in danger of losing all this momentum and it
> becomes one of those 'just for geeks' things."
So getting the software out in an unstable state because of *marketing*
reasons is more important to this woman than stability. Hmmm, she is
more interested in the image of Linux being just for geeks than looking
at the real substance.
> Chavis says that the
> delays in the Linux 2.4 kernel will delay her company's plans to
> release a Linux-based e-commerce site,
Why? If you are *that* desperate to use Linux, the 2.2 series kernels do
just fine and you can even use the *gasp* pre-release 2.4 kernels!!!
> though she adds that the
> decision to use Linux "was based on cost and the internal skills base,
> and it was felt that Linux was ultimately more reliable than Windows."
So in other words Linux is not holding her back again.
> But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
> services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
> database servers or online transaction processing. The independent
> software vendor support [is not there]: Oracle has to do the next
> version of its database [for Linux] because the current one is
> horrible."
>
> ***************************************************************************
>
> Seems to back up my points in the "You Linux guys don't get it" thread
> quite nicely.
Hmmmm... I think that this article doesn't really prove anything.
> Linux ports not as good as Windows... Oracle
> Directed toward geeks and Programmers.
> and so forth.
I notice that not one reason was given to back up the reasons for
Oracle's apparent horribleness.
> Hmmm, Compaq seems to say the same things I say...
>
> claire
>
>
>
> On 9 Oct 2000 13:47:04 -0500, "Drestin Black"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
> >
> >Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux creator
> >Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the next
> >Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
> >early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original due to
> >ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
> >
On another point, when was the 2.4 release date set? I understood that
it was set to be released whenever it was ready!
Chris
> >...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued that
> >the open source development model is superior to the closed, monolithic
> >models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both Linux and
> >Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
> >schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
> >
> >"...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
> >services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for database
> >servers or online transaction processing. The independent software vendor
> >support [is not there]"
> >
> ><yawn>
> >
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 04:57:57 -0500
Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke wrote:
> >
> > Come on... I mean, heck, WINE should have a good copy of Win3.1 by now
at
> > least. That target stopped moving in 1995. That was 5 years ago.
> >
> > Does it?
> > Nope.
>
> Why do you think that is?
> You don't really think all 300-odd developers on the project are idiots
> (and have been for the past 7 years) do you?
>
> Anyone else? We've had the expected "MS Conspiracy" theory presented --
> what other reasons are there for Wine's limited success?
Theories? What theories? There are thousands of internal Microsoft emails,
available *online* (thanks to sunshine laws and a smart judge or two), that
change it from "conspiracy" to "recorded history". Everything MS does is
done to stifle competition and increase profits (not a bad thing in itself,
of course). Obfuscating their code, incorrectly and incompletely
documenting it, etc...they really and truly did these things deliberately,
to stifle competition, without regard to the debilitating effect it had on
the product itself (big, slow, buggy as hell, ridiculously complex).
Yes, they really did these things. They discussed this stuff in email all
the time. You can read it yourself.
jwb
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:06:20 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My dear friends, soon, really soon (ok, or a little later, but who
> > cares) Linux will finally have the DVD player it deserves.
> >
> > http://www.intervideo.com/jsp/LinDVD.jsp
> >
> > Hmm, I'm really looking forward to the release of this thingie, let's
> > wait and see.
>
> Unfortunately, the MPAA is doing everything they can to prevent this
> thing from coming to market. Furthermore, they are allowing Microsoft
> to do exactly what they are trying to prevent LinDVD and DeCSS from
> doing.
Intervideo's player is actually licensed you know? It's not running
DeCSS, it has a license!
[very old news about DeCSS case snipped]
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:09:49 +0100
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rtr5m$1bn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> Unfortunately, the MPAA is doing everything they can to prevent this
> thing from coming to market. Furthermore, they are allowing Microsoft
> to do exactly what they are trying to prevent LinDVD and DeCSS from
> doing.
>
Rex
You've posted this many times before, and have yet to provide any evidence
to your claim. I would be interested to see your answers to these
questions:
1. What exactly is Microsoft doing to prevent a Linux DVD player?
2. How are they going about this - what channels?
3. What evidence is there?
Cheers
Stu
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:19:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:bktE5.50461$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Actually, one of the main reasons Win32 is so HUGE (28 million lines of
>> code, or something in that neighborhood) is that Microsoft spends at least
>> as much time making the API a "moving target" (Bill Gates' words, not
>mine)
>> as it does actually trying to fix or improve anything.
>
>Which of course explains why all my apps inexplicably stop working every few
>months when they "move the target" and change *all* of the APIs.
>
>Come on... I mean, heck, WINE should have a good copy of Win3.1 by now at
>least. That target stopped moving in 1995. That was 5 years ago.
Ha. You forget; MS updates system DLLs with app upgrades; every version
of Office and IE have 'moved the target', as well as the 'service packs'
and such. You act like Bill Gates didn't actually admit to the scam
(internally, at least, but in now-public emails).
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:19:41 -0500
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WkvE5.28057$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:hJtE5.50506$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:%coE5.27950$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
>
> > Through illegal, anti-competitive, underhanded, and
> > downright evil practices. Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and a whole bunch
> > more, ought to be in prison. And you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
>
> Ah.. I see. Completely unable to see anything objectively. You've been
> so Slash-washed that you can't even think on your own?
"Slash-washed"? Hardly. I've been there a few times (less than 10). Don't
even have it bookmarked.
No, Chad, everything I write on this topic is based on publically available
documents and the fact that I lived through it. You can read about this
stuff yourself, if you care to. Straight from the horses' mouths. Gates,
Ballmer, and the rest, were pretty uninhibited in email they never thought
would see the light of day. And the worst nightmares of the most rabid
Microsoft-hater you can think of are planned out and executed, and
documented (thank God!) in their internal emails.
> Why so much hatred? Did you too lose your job to a more talented,
> more productive (and therefore less expensive) Windows developer?
No.
>
> > You really, really ought to be ashamed of yourself.
>
> That means nothing coming from you and your extremist wacko position.
>
> -Chad
>
The world is round, Chad. I know it sounds extremist, even wacko, but it's
true -- the world really is round. Oh, and Hitler didn't really have the
best intentions for his neighbors, either, no matter what he claimed. And
Jim Jones was not a saint.
I know it's hard to deal with, but there really are some sorry sons of
bitches in the world. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are two of them.
jwb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:35:18 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
>How do you know?
(Re. Yahoo using BSD)
Because they say they do. They also use NT.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 10 Oct 2000 10:25:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What metric would you use to measure "explanatory power"?
> Cubit meters of hot air per hour? :-)
Kilograms of bullshit per second? (You'd have to standardise the
temperature and pressure of the hot air with your suggestion. :^)
Donal.
--
"[He] would have needed to sell not only his own soul, but have somehow gotten
in on the ground floor of an Amway-like pryamid scheme delivering the souls
of kindergarten students to Satan by the truckload like so many boxes of Girl
Scout Cookies." -- John S. Novak, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: westprog 2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:37:07 GMT
In article <8rtl2t$4uj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rtf3u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 3) Notepad is a trivial windows application. (Defined as an
> > > application a good Windows programmer could complete in a week or
> > > two).
> > Are you saying that you would expect a good Windows programmer to
> > take a
> > week or two to implement Notepad? Is that a reasonable estimate of
> > the time it would take for a program like that?
> I'd have said 4 days -- the Printing part is the hard bit.
Depends on the programming tool being used. Using Delphi, it would be
possible to throw something together in a few minutes. For the purposes
of the discussion, we should probably assume bare-bones Win-32, and in
that case I suspect that a week would be quite tight for someone not
very experienced at API level.
Still, putting together a complete text editor with the functionality
of Notepad in a week or so is quite impressive - and it is only
possible because there are common controls available which provide
useful functionality to all Windows programmers.
The problem with Win-32 is not that it provides rich functionality - it
is that it does so in such a disorganised and sloppy way. This is
something MS belatedly realised - some later extension API's are more
self-contained, and use a COM interface rather than the less flexible
DLL's.
.NET is another attempt to get it right, after making a mess of MFC and
Win-32. The language-neutral feature is promising. Making Windows (all
flavours) so strongly C-oriented was one of the many things MS blindly
copied from Unix which turned out to be a bad idea.
--
J/ (Looking Backward)
SOTW: "Tangled Up In Blue" - Bob Dylan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:58:23 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>>> [repetitive comments snipped]
>>>>>>> Sorry David, you lose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>> I wasn't the one preaching about off-topic posting while writing such
>>>>> postings.
>>>> You were the one preaching about "stop being a hypocrite and grow up",
>>>> Marty.
>>> Very good, Dave.
>> So why did you bring up "off-topic posting", Marty?
> Just staying on topic. Look at the thread topic.
I'm looking at what you wrote, Marty.
------------------------------
From: Martin Svensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Video software for linux
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:25:39 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
Does anyone know of any video software which works both in windows and
linux ? I'm thinking of applications such as Netmeeting, CuSeeme etc but
they don't support linux.
If you do .. please reply via email!
Thanks
--
Martin Svensson
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Rick Urdahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:30:48 GMT
This is just a replay of OS & NOS Wars of past. The same arguements have
been made years ago about Windows when it was 3.0/3.1. Back then no one
thought it would catch on. No one believed NT would beat Novell in the
server market. Well here we are and the same things are being said again.
It's just different people saying it. One thing I see now is that Linux has
the same advantage that windows had then. Shorter developement turn around.
M$ has gotten to be very big and it has let its product line get stale. How
long did we wait around with WinNT v4.0 and Win'98, too long. I was an early
adopter of WinNT v3.1, and now am looking seriously at Linux. Have been
using it since RH v5.2, and have seen huge improvements with each release,
v6.0, v6.1, v6.2, v7.0. And it has not taken 5 or more years to see it
happen. This is a very important point. The marketplace is where this is
going to be hashed out. Economics drives all industries, and this is no
differnet. Many times a better product is not marketed well and fails to get
market share, (PowerPC chip). Businesses are going to make decsions based on
cost, and this includes training costs. Not just implimentation. Linux is
gaining ground in the server markets, especially in the e-business area
because the ones using it don't need a lot of training. ie professional
systems people with unix backgrounds. With v7.0 it will begin to creep in on
the corporate servers in smaller shops, and for Web/FTP servers. The
administration tools are getting to be a lot better, and there are more
X-Windows interfaces for the underlying utilities. Let's face it Windows is
what people are used to. 95% of the desktop PC's run Windows. When Linux can
have the ease of replacing the windows network and provide the same types of
(X)windowed interfaces it will have really won. M$ with NT v3.5 had a little
utility to in place replace a Novell server. Simply point it to the Server
to be replaced and it would create the accounts, build the shares, and setup
the printers. All you had to do then was turn off the Novell server and the
users could start logging in. Switching from Novell to M$NT was a breeze.
Until corporate administrators have some of these type of utilities how can
a corporation even consider replacing its infrastructure with Linux. One
server at a time, manually would take forever. Sure if all you have is one
server at the house no big deal. I switch back and forth at home in just an
hour or so. But for those companies that have hundreds of servers, both
local and remote. no way. Not to mention having to change the client side of
thousands of computers. For new companies without an existing network Linux
makes a lot of sense, and can be done in a short amount of time for not a
lot of money, if you have an experieced administrator. For now I'll keep
using Linux at home, to keep up with the technology got to be ready for when
Linux does make it, but I'm not ready to bet my job on switching to Linux at
the Corporate Office. Which is better comes down to what you are needing to
do and what your individual situation is. One of the best things in life is
being able to make choices.
"Mark F." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Job well said mlw! And just to back up your statement. I'm a Windows
> 9x-WIn2k Power User who has switched over to linux about 4 months ago.
And
> there definitely is no arguement of question that Linux is more stable,
> powerfull, and just plain old better do to its architechture.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Mark F.
>
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ICQ: 2164331
> AOL IM: DaRacerz
>
>
>
> SimGo, Your SimRacing Specialists!!! Web Site:
> http://members.xoom.com/DaRacerz/
>
>
> SimReview.com
> http://www.simreview.com
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This is an obvious flame bait but I give it a shot.
> > >
> > > We don't want compilers.
> > I don't who the 'we' to which your are referring, but me and my friends
> > want them.
> >
> > > We don't need 200 different text editors.
> >
> > No one needs 200 different editors, of course not, but 200 different
> > people may each want their own editor.
> >
> > > We don't need all kinds of freeware libraries and fragmented programs
> > > that do specific functions, most of which are useless to all but other
> > > programmers..
> >
> > Here you are confused. Linux is not Windows, as such, program structure
> > is different on Windows than on UNIX. In UNIX the strategy is to make
> > small libraries and programs which do a specific job. Higher level
> > programs use them as utilities.
> >
> > > We don't need 90 percent of the software on Freshmeat.
> >
> > Then don't use it.
> >
> > > We don't want to return to the 1980's playing with config files.
> > These '1980's' config files are no different, conceptually, than the
> > bloated single point of failure registry in Windows.
> >
> > >
> > > We have gone through Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files ad nauseam with
> > > Qemm and Qualatis, playing with Himem.sys to gain that extra 5k of
> > > free memory.
> >
> > Windows 98/SE/ME still use autoexec.bat and config.sys. Window NT and 2K
> > still read environment settings from autoexec.bat, and maybe (I never
> > tries it) from config.sys.
> >
> > It makes no difference WHERE or HOW you store configuration variables as
> > long as there is a way to modify them as necessary. There are plenty of
> > GUI configuration utilities for Linux.
> > >
> > > This is 1980's stuff and it is gone, goodbye. We don't want to
> > > resurrect playing around with text files.
> >
> > This is simply MS propaganda. What is the advantage of a binary registry
> > database for configuration over text files? One can still put confusing
> > entries in Windows' registry, just as one can in a text configuration
> > file. At least in the text files one can integrate comments.
> >
> > >
> > > We don't want half assed implementations of Windows software either.
> >
> > Believe me, no one in their right mind would implement software on Linux
> > as they would on Windows. Windows is just a poorly designed environment.
> > NT would not be bad if it did not have to be saddled with the idiotic
> > Win32 subsystem.
> >
> > > If you choose to clone it but can't clone it completely, including all
> > > ease of use features, don't bother at all. it will only make you look
> > > silly. The current crop of mp3 players are a good example. Damm things
> > > can't even remember the song directory.
> >
> > I frequently laugh at these "ease of use" claims from Windows zealots. A
> > Windows system administrator, very experienced in Windows, said to me
> > Thurs. last week, "You know Windows, it is probably in their, but its
> > remembering the arcane series of mouse clicks to get you to the right
> > place that sucks." Where as in Linux, I did a grep for the name I was
> > looking for and found the setting in the etc directory.
> >
> > Windows is idiotware, it trades hierarchical (hieroglyphic) complexity
> > for linguistic complexity. It is for people that can't (or don't) think
> > past a 6th grade level.
> > >
> > > We are willing to pay for quality software that works out of the box.
> > > And Windows has plenty of it.
> >
> > I would not use the word quality. I agree there is plenty of it,
> > however.
> > >
> > > Example: Norton Internet Firewall, BlackIce, Zonealarm (free BTW).
> > > Compare this to trying to set up a firewall under Linux using
> > > IpChains, ipforwarding and such....What a waste of time, as well as a
> > > potential security risk for those setting it up that don't know what
> > > they are doing.
> >
> > Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
> >
> > >
> > > Sorry but my data is worth $30.00 or so, to have a professionally
> > > designed program that works out of the box and is easily customized.
> > > Also I don't have to scour the net for config scripts that may
> > > actually compromise security. The products I use, and pay for, are
> > > used by corporations everywhere, and if a flaw should arise, and they
> > > do, a fix is released....
> >
> > Yes, but you are in the position of trusting companies without the
> > ability to audit security.
> > >
> > > Browsers?
> > >
> > > Netscape, says it all. Even Windows users think Netscape sucks.
> >
> > Netscape really sucks, but if you want to see a sucky browser that
> > frequently takes down the whole OS, just use IE.
> > >
> > > Email?
> > >
> > > Anything like Eudora yet?
> >
> > Lots.
> >
> > > Sorry but I don't feel like configuring sendmail today, or any day for
> > > that matter.
> >
> > One does not need to configure sendmail to use e-mail. Sendmail is a
> > replacement for something like "exchange server" only it is better and
> > cheaper.
> >
> > >
> > > Linux still lags far, far, far, far, behind Windows and this is
> > > evident by the number of sales of Windows ME.... Why would people pay
> > > for what really amounts to a minimal upgrade instead of getting Linux
> > > for free?
> >
> > I just read an article that said sails of MS-ME were dismal, and the
> > sales that are being seen are OEMS that install it.
> >
> > > They are not interested in Linux, that is why.
> >
> > The word is spreading.
> >
> > >
> > > Linux has had it's day in the press, let's do every desktop user a
> > > favor and put it out of it's misery once and for all :)
> >
> > There are a lot of people backing Linux and for good reason. It is
> > better than Widows, more stable and faster. Cheaper than MS-ME and more
> > powerful than 2K. The only thing in its way is a criminal monopolistic
> > marketing department. And, of course, it is gaining marketshare.
> >
> > >
> > > I along with everybody else in the world would LOVE free applicaitons,
> > > but not at the price that running Linux involves.
> >
> > Running linux is not difficult at all. I don't know what your problem
> > is.
> > >
> > > claire
> >
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
>
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:41:02 GMT
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >
> > not even a hardcore Linux geek can in his(always is) wildest dream think
> > that Linux will take
> > over from Windows on the desktop...C'MON!!!
> >
>
> I, for one, do. Get a reality.
hehehehe...Colin...grow a brain will U?
>
> Colin Day
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:10 +0800
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
> > >>>Apparently, humans colonized America long after the `monkey's were
> > >>>gone. IIRC, it happened some 15000 or so years ago, when the first
> > >>>people made it to Northwesteern America from Northeastern Asia.
> > >> I heard it was 30,000 years ago.
> > >Was the NE-Asia inhabitated by then?
> > >I'm not sure, so you might pretty well be right.
> >
> > The eatrh didn't evan existe back tehn, moran.
> >
>
> The earth is about 4.6 billion years old, Tim.
Not unless Tim is a hard-core Christian. Those idiots actually believe the
earth *was* created only 10,000 years ago.
Sheesh. I don't advocate Linux, but I'd use it forever and never touch
Windows again if we could rid the world of religious lunatics. Ah well...
wishful thinking I guess.
-Todd
>
> Colin Day
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:37:19 +0000
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:32:33 -0400, "David T. Johnson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 03:16:15 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
>>
>> >"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Marty wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> [repetitive comments snipped]
>> >
>> >Sorry David, you lose.
>> >
>> >Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>> >
>> >"[repetitive comments snipped]"
>>
>> I agree with this post.
>
>Considering that the source of this monumental thought is someone who
>posts with the tag of '[EMAIL PROTECTED],' I will provide the
>appropriate comment:
And what comment is that, DT?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
