Linux-Advocacy Digest #657, Volume #29 Sat, 14 Oct 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again (Marty)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Need expert for info on troubleshooting Linux (2:1)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Astroturfing (2:1)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (John Lockwood)
Re: The Power of the Future!
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (sfcybear)
Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles (Cannon Fodder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:57:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Nobody ever said everything they create is junk because they don't know
>> >> squat about designing operating systems. I said its junk because its
>> >> monopoly crapware, which only has to be good enough to keep people
>> >> locked in until the next version, and is therefore more profitable to
>> >> Microsoft the less functional it gets. But I don't know about D'Arcy.
>> >
>> >The 'monopoly' here is the OS, right? However, there are other OS
>> >choices:
>>
>> The monopoly is the OS *market*.
>>
>> >MacOS, Linux, BEos, OS/2, Solaris, Solaris on Intel, HPUx, AIX, Irix,
>> >etc.
>>
>> Of the list, only four are PC OSes. They are:
>
>That's a completely artificial separation.
Perhaps from a technical perspective, in your opinion, but we are
talking about marketing reality, not technical issues.
>The competition is in OS
>market, and Apple could easily have been a player there. Heck, the Unix
>vendors could have been, but explicitly chose not to.
>
>By your reasoning, I now declare Honda to be a monopoly in the Civic
>market. Let's go get them, shall we?
This kind of trivial 'every product is a monopoly in that product'
argument was dealt with more than two years ago. Perhaps you have some
catching up to do.
[...]
>> So two out of four were directly attacked by anti-competitive
>> strategies. All of them are marginalized. All of them are locked out,
>> generally (though Linux is making some headway, regardless) of the
>> pre-load market. It is not the existence of alternatives, but the
>> availability of the alternatives without disadvantage incurred to the
>> consumer, which defines whether there is a monopoly.
>
>Those are business decisions made by people with money to spend on
>making hardware. If you think there's a market for alternatives, go
>find a VC and convince them.
And if there weren't illegal prevention of competition in the PC OS
market, many people would be doing just that. As soon as you can
explain why this isn't occurring, without making assumptions based on
obviously flawed logic (predicated on some single product being so
popular that nobody wants alternatives, a scenario you cannot find in
any free market, because it doesn't happen, since the very popularity of
one product opens market opportunities for alternatives which are either
bettor or worse or more expensive or less or more convenient or more
rudimentary or....) you might have some point. Until then, you are
rehashing simplistic fallacies in place of providing reasoned argument.
>> Monopoly does not mean you are the only one with a product; it means you
>> are the one with the ability to control prices or exclude competition
>> through anti-competitive means.
>
>Such as? The price of Windows is cheap.
Compared to....?
""DOS being fairly cloned has had a dramatic impact on our pricing for
DOS. I wonder if we would have it around 30-40% higher if it wasn't
cloned. I bet we would!" (Bill Gates - August 6, 1989)
Perhaps you aren't aware of the fact that what 'cheap' is can only be
validly understood based on there being a free market with readily
available alternatives. IOW, the price of Microsoft Windows is
excessive, and this is proven by the fact that there isn't any available
alternative which could replace it. This makes the price, whatever it
is and however it compares to what *you* may be willing to pay, monopoly
pricing. It is, by definition, higher than it would be if there were
competition, which is to say that it is too high.
>That's why it worked. The
>price of the alternatives was high; that's why Apple lost. It's called
>marketing.
The price of Apple included replacing the entire hardware platform. Its
called a computer. Your desire to envision an entire proprietary
computer platform as competition for an operating system on a
non-proprietary computer platform is somewhat silly.
[...]
>Had Apple played differently in the 1985-1990 timeframe, it could have
>easily been different.
Yea, so?
[...]
>You could always buy Apple, or buy a machine from a local vendor (there
>are tons of them near where I live) who will build a machine as you want
>it built with whatever OS you want on it.
The question is not whether I could, but whether the market did. It
didn't, and there is more than amble evidence that many of the reasons
why it didn't were intentionally 'engineered' by Microsoft acting
criminally to prevent competition. This last consideration, that these
acts were illegal, which I imagine you'd disagree with, is based on the
fact that Supreme Court, in precedents written over a hundred years ago,
and still entirely in force today, decided that the entire class of
actions intended to prevent competition are in violation of Section 2 of
the Sherman Act.
--
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: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:52:41 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
> characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
> 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
> accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
> you will have to answer.
I'll let you know when I'm scared. In the meantime, get on with your life and
try not to be such a hypocrite in the future so that we can avoid these
situations.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:00:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> I understand your point, Erik. You are saying that MS couldn't have
>> used undocumented APIs in older apps, and then changed those
>> undocumented APIs while still having the older apps work. But I never
>> indicated that it was changing the undocumented APIs which these apps
>> used which was done to break other products. That is a straw man of
>> your own devising. I'm merely aware of the *fact* that Microsoft a)
>> uses undocumented APIs to benefit their own apps, b) has the ability to
>> change undocumented behavior which any other developer might seek to
>> benefit from, and c) engages in a tactic known as 'churn', which enables
>> them to maintain a monopoly product without having the API vulnerable to
>> competitive development.
>
>Saying so doesn't make it so. Even looking at Undocumented Windows (I
>forget the authors) doesn't show a whole lot going on here
Saying so doesn't make it not so, either.
"I doubt they [Digital Research] will be able to clone Windows. It is
very difficult to do technically, we have made it a moving target and we
have some visual copyright and patent protection. I believe people
underestimate the impact DR-DOS has had on us in terms of pricing."
(Bill Gates - May 18, 1989)
--
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: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need expert for info on troubleshooting Linux
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:59:52 +0100
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nigel Feltham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:08:55 +0100
> <8s9ine$jkhe8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>Of course, many people treat x.0 versions of all software with a little
> >>waryness.
> >
> >
> >I agree with this, especially windows 95.0 , 98.0 , ME.0, NT4.0 and 2000.
> >Windows 3.1 wasn't so bad though.
>
> It did come after Windows 3.0, though. :-)
Shit, I wouldn't trust software *derived* from a .0 version, nevermind a
bit of .0 software itself.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 11:07:41 -0400
You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
you will have to answer.
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
> > characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
> > 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
> > accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
> > you will have to answer.
>
> Just shut up, blowhard. This is the 5th time that you've repeated this
> blurb. How ironic.
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 11:08:02 -0400
You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
you will have to answer.
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
> > characterize my replies to your personal attacks and name-calling as
> > 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
> > accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
> > you will have to answer.
>
> I'll let you know when I'm scared. In the meantime, get on with your life and
> try not to be such a hypocrite in the future so that we can avoid these
> situations.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 20:07:25 +0100
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS/PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > > > What's wrong with Windows 2000?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stabilty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Still not ready for prime time.
> > > > >
> > > > > My Linux apps crash nearly every time, shit, half of them won't even
> > > start.
> > > > >
> > > > > My Win2K apps never crash. Who's not ready for prime time?
> > > >
> > > > Oh come on. I know how hard it is to rigorousl proove something, but
> you
> > > > don't even provide a shread of anecdotal evidence. If I complained
> that
> > > > mk Win2K apps crashed *all* the time, you would say that something was
> > > > wrong. Use your brain...
> > > >
> > > > -Ed
> > >
> > > What kind of proof do you need? I've got a stock Mandrake 7.1
> installation
> > > on an Abit dual 500 celeron motherboard, with 256mb ram, supported
> video,
> > > supported sound, supported modem, supported network card etc... The
> system
> > > is a walk in the park for Windows. Linux manages to see both processors,
> > > 64mb of the 256mb of ram and the applications which were automatically
> > > installed crash regularly or won't start at all. For instance, it has
> three
> > > news readers, ONE manages to open. Another of them opened ONCE then
> crashed
> > > and now won't start. Netscapes newsreader works. A number of other apps
> wont
> > > open or crash constistently. The worst is the "file manager" or whatever
> > > it's called in Linux, I open it and stare at the "working..." notice at
> the
> > > bottom of the window (for hours), which is a pretty ironic message
> > > considering that it ISN'T WORKING!
> > > I have nothing against Linux, one of these days they'll be able to
> compete
> > > with Microsoft, but they've got a LONG way to go before being ready for
> > > primetime in the desktop market.
> >
> >
> > When I said use your brain, I meant use it, not repeat the same stuff in
> > detail. There is probably something very badly wrong with your
> > installation. C corrupted filesystem or a bad harddisk or something.
> > There are kernel options to allow Linux to see more memory.
> > Try mem=256M or something like it.
>
> That's the point, my objective isn't to hack the kernel, it is to insert a
> disk, hover over the return key for a few minutes and have the thing work in
> the end. It's all I want it to do. If the OS won't go in and run the
> hardware and manage files without me having to go in and tell it how much
> fricking memory is on the board (of all things) to me that means it's not
> ready for the masses.
1 It's not hacking the kernel
2 All the computers I've used have detected *all* the RAM.
3 It usually does what you want.
> Hell yes there's something wrong with the setup, this is also the third
> install, and the exact same problems. There's definitely a problem. If it
> is a hardware problem so be it. Windows 2000 doesn't have any problems at
> all. I do not have a single problem with any of the 50 or so installed
> programs. It NEVER has crashed. I am CERTAIN that when I use it, it will not
> crash and I can get my work done without any problems whatsoever.
You might have a bad hard disk. Have you considered that?
WHICH APPS ARE CRASHING ON YOU. How do you expect to be believed if you
don't provide even the slightest speck of information.
> That wouldn't matter, the only proof that would be certain would be
> actually filming the problem and uploading the 50mb file. But I'd almost
> guarantee the footage would have to be edited using Win2k as an OS, or it
> would never make it to the web.
I'm not even asking for proof. Some word-of-mouth anecdotal evidence
would be better than what you have so far given.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:15:07 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>
> >> The monopoly is the OS *market*.
> >>
> >> >MacOS, Linux, BEos, OS/2, Solaris, Solaris on Intel, HPUx, AIX, Irix,
> >> >etc.
> >>
> >> Of the list, only four are PC OSes. They are:
> >
> >That's a completely artificial separation.
>
> Perhaps from a technical perspective, in your opinion, but we are
> talking about marketing reality, not technical issues.
>
That marketing reality was created by the failures of vendors competing
with MS. Apple lost fair and square in the 80's.
> >The competition is in OS
> >market, and Apple could easily have been a player there. Heck, the Unix
> >vendors could have been, but explicitly chose not to.
> >
> >By your reasoning, I now declare Honda to be a monopoly in the Civic
> >market. Let's go get them, shall we?
>
> This kind of trivial 'every product is a monopoly in that product'
> argument was dealt with more than two years ago. Perhaps you have some
> catching up to do.
By people wishing to ignore the existence of other options, perhaps.
>
> [...]
> >> So two out of four were directly attacked by anti-competitive
> >> strategies. All of them are marginalized. All of them are locked out,
> >> generally (though Linux is making some headway, regardless) of the
> >> pre-load market. It is not the existence of alternatives, but the
> >> availability of the alternatives without disadvantage incurred to the
> >> consumer, which defines whether there is a monopoly.
> >
> >Those are business decisions made by people with money to spend on
> >making hardware. If you think there's a market for alternatives, go
> >find a VC and convince them.
>
> And if there weren't illegal prevention of competition in the PC OS
> market, many people would be doing just that. As soon as you can
> explain why this isn't occurring, without making assumptions based on
> obviously flawed logic (predicated on some single product being so
> popular that nobody wants alternatives, a scenario you cannot find in
> any free market, because it doesn't happen, since the very popularity of
> one product opens market opportunities for alternatives which are either
> bettor or worse or more expensive or less or more convenient or more
> rudimentary or....) you might have some point. Until then, you are
> rehashing simplistic fallacies in place of providing reasoned argument.
>
That product is successful due to being 'goo enough' amd having
excellent marketing. Apple could have beaten it.
> >> Monopoly does not mean you are the only one with a product; it means you
> >> are the one with the ability to control prices or exclude competition
> >> through anti-competitive means.
> >
> >Such as? The price of Windows is cheap.
>
> Compared to....?
>
Other options, such as Solaris on a low end Sun box. MacOS on Apple
hardware until very recently
> ""DOS being fairly cloned has had a dramatic impact on our pricing for
> DOS. I wonder if we would have it around 30-40% higher if it wasn't
> cloned. I bet we would!" (Bill Gates - August 6, 1989)
>
> Perhaps you aren't aware of the fact that what 'cheap' is can only be
> validly understood based on there being a free market with readily
> available alternatives. IOW, the price of Microsoft Windows is
> excessive, and this is proven by the fact that there isn't any available
> alternative which could replace it. This makes the price, whatever it
> is and however it compares to what *you* may be willing to pay, monopoly
> pricing. It is, by definition, higher than it would be if there were
> competition, which is to say that it is too high.
>
You declare it a monopoly, and it is. Wow. You declare the price too
high, and it is. Mr. Devlin, meet Karl Marx.
> >That's why it worked. The
> >price of the alternatives was high; that's why Apple lost. It's called
> >marketing.
>
> The price of Apple included replacing the entire hardware platform. Its
> called a computer. Your desire to envision an entire proprietary
> computer platform as competition for an operating system on a
> non-proprietary computer platform is somewhat silly.
>
Back in 1985 - 1990 it did <not> include replacing; it was typically the
very <first> PC purchase being made. I owned an Apple IIe at the time,
and wanted to buy a Mac. I decided on a PC due to the $2000.00 price
differential.
> [...]
> >Had Apple played differently in the 1985-1990 timeframe, it could have
> >easily been different.
>
> Yea, so?
>
That's my point, the own that is apparently just beyond your grasp...
> [...]
> >You could always buy Apple, or buy a machine from a local vendor (there
> >are tons of them near where I live) who will build a machine as you want
> >it built with whatever OS you want on it.
>
> The question is not whether I could, but whether the market did. It
> didn't, and there is more than amble evidence that many of the reasons
> why it didn't were intentionally 'engineered' by Microsoft acting
> criminally to prevent competition. This last consideration, that these
> acts were illegal, which I imagine you'd disagree with, is based on the
> fact that Supreme Court, in precedents written over a hundred years ago,
> and still entirely in force today, decided that the entire class of
> actions intended to prevent competition are in violation of Section 2 of
> the Sherman Act.
>
They didn't because (in general) the market chose to buy from MS and
it's partners rather than exercise other available choices. It's called
a free market; you might read up on it sometime. try starting with Adam
Smith.
> --
> 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! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 11:20:32 -0700
>So let's see... you call me dishonest, and because that "strikes a nerve",
>you're *RIGHT*?
>
I noticed that too. But consider the source, dude. It came from
Devlin. ;-)
John
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:31:47 GMT
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 10/14/00, 9:25:01 AM, Phil 'Guido' Cava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote=
=20
regarding Re: The Power of the Future!:
> Apparently Mr Black does not read the trade press.
> The issue of MS double charging corps who want to replace OEM windows =
images
> with their own has been covered quite heavily in the last few months.
> Likewise, the (very) slow migration rate to W2K Server from NT4 Server=
=20
has also
> been mentioned _a_lot_.=20
I don't think much of Mr. Black's insights. He should know about=20
these problems. The consensus is that the migration off NT and to W2K=20
will happen _eventually_. Meanwhile Gartner Group is blasting MS=20
about price hikes and costs increasing for MS shops over the next few=20
years as fees for software increase to help fuel MS's profit growth. =20
This slow migration is one reason MS stock is weak - another is the=20
trial and expected slowing growth in the PC market - so they say.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:30:08 GMT
In article <LYZF5.134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:bJSF5.893$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:00101318293500.28373@pc03...
> > > Allow me to give you the idiot-proof version of how to make a
> masquerading
> > > firewall between a LAN and the internet through a dialup link
using
> Linux.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Step 2: Configure a masquerading firewall.
> > >
> > > The command for this is as follows
> > >
> > > ipchains -A forward -s 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0 -j MASQ
> > >
> > > Replace 10.4.0.0 with your real network and netmask. Simpler
syntax:
> > >
> > > ipchains -A forward -s 10.0.0.0/24 -j MASQ
> >
> > You know, not once does it mention in the ipchains how-to this
command
> line.
> > It took many hours of frustration and fiddling the first time I set
up a
> > masq box. The documentation on this just plain sucks and is years
out of
> > date.
>
> Erik you should have tried pmfirewall, available here;
>
> http://www.pointman.org/PMFirewall/
You suggested the use of a comand line utility to a winvocate???? How
could you? From what winvocates have said in this group a CLI is
unthinkable. I mean really, to configure this thing you have to respond
to questions! Not only that, you have to let go of the mouse and type
"y" or "n" maybe an ipaddress or two or port numbers(unlikely). And all
of this seems beyond the reach of the winvocates. Never mind that many
routers have limited disk space (trying to fit on a floppy) and do not
run a GUI, if it is not a GUI tool many of the winvocates seem to think
that it's worthless.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Cannon Fodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:42:54 GMT
Wow,
I'm pleasantly surprised by all of the intelligent replies.
Here's an update on the new M$/Corel merger: It seems that M$
does not agree with Corel's continued distribution of Linux to
customers, and they want Corel to discontinue the distribution of
the OS. However, they are thinking of porting some things like
the '.net' utilities (anyone heard of those and tell us what
they are?) to the Linux OS.
I don't know about you, but personally I'm relieved that M$ is
taking this stance. Unfortunately, they are suing Corel over
this issue...if that makes sense considering that they now *own*
Corel. ???
<Babble> I also agree that Corel Linux was brain-dead (no offense
to Corel Linux Lovers). A colleague/friend of mine tried out
Corel Linux last year and nixed it (pardon the pun) when he
couldn't get connected to his DSL and fire up IP masquerading for
his other computers. We even convinced our teacher to let us
install his Corel Linux CD on a computer in the classroom so we
could help out and 'parallelize' the solutions. We discovered
that he would use 'dhcpcd' instead of RH's 'pump', and etc. But
no cigar. I have to admire him though, he bravely gave up
learning about Linux because he wanted to master advanced Cisco
routing and continued his studies in that area instead.</Babble>
Best Regards,
C.F.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
