Linux-Advocacy Digest #817, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system. (Andres Soolo)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system. (Andres Soolo)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Colin R. Day")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Astroturfing ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:45:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Andrew J. Brehm in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Said Andrew J. Brehm in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> MS obviously doesn't have a monopoly on Office suites as there are
>> >> numerous versions out there (Wordperfect, StarOffice, Applix) that
>> >
>> >Certainly.
>>
>> It is not at all certain. The mere existence of other products is not
>> determinant of whether MS has a monopoly.
>
>Actually, that would _precisely_ be the determinant. The idea behind a
>monopoly is that there is only ONE supplier, as in "mono".
No, that would be the etymology behind the term. The *idea* is from,
literally, the Sherman Act, where it simply states "any person who
monopolizes, or attempts to monopolize, is guilty of a felony."
Check deja news, if you would, please, to acquaint yourself with the
months-long discussion I've had on the details of this precise issue, in
argument with other's who've said precisely what you have. Feel free to
repost, follow-up, or respond in email to any of them, but please don't
make me go over every bit of it again just to keep things moving so you
don't have to admit you are mistaken.
>> If they have sufficient
>> market power to control prices and exclude competition then they have a
>> monopoly.
>
>No, then they have the support of the customers.
"Support"? We're required to show loyalty to a company, simply because
we bought something from them? Get a grip.
>There is nothing wrong
>with having the support of the customers. You can call it "market power"
>(I would agree that it is indeed a form of power), but it is neither a
>monopoly, nor is it immoral.
Please; apparently you are unaware of the very specific context and
meaning of the terms "market power" and "monopoly power" and "monopoly"
(as well as "monopolization" and, quite crucially, "restraint of
trade".) I do not concern myself with morality; only ethics. It is
illegal, and that would tend to indicate (though not conclusively prove)
that it is unethical. In this case, everything else supports that
theory, except for people who apparently don't understand the concepts
sufficiently to discuss them reasonably. If you do, indeed, wish to
discuss this reasonably, I invite the conversation, and I say that quite
seriously, without a single iota of sarcasm or disengenuity. But I must
insist that you acquaint yourself with the aforementioned previous
discussion, at least partially. Don't worry; it was within the last
year. Deja will still have it.
>> Ergo, the "forced bundling" of MS Office on Windows systems
>> has, in fact, provided Microsoft a monopoly in Office suites.
>
>The supposed forced bundling does not affect me since I don't buy their
>products.
This is, ultimately, the problem with monopoly, particularly in the
technical markets. It does indeed affect you, in many respects even
more than those who buy their products. The depression of innovation
and the misdirection of costs in the current technical world is quite
startlingly clear and horrific, once you take your blinders off.
>If Apple started bundling Microsoft Office with their
>machines, I might not even buy Apple's machines any more, and go look
>for some other source of Microsoft-free products (I don't care whether
>Microsoft owns a minor share of Apple, I don't want to use their
>products because I don't like Microsoft's products, not because I hated
>Microsoft).
And thus we see the cost of a monopoly. In fact, the only reason Adam
Smith was wrong (he believed that monopolies could never even develop,
but he did not give due consideration to the practical realities; he
also believed anti-trust laws were impossible) is because it is, indeed,
possible to make it more expensive for a consumer to avoid your product
than to accept it (and for dishonest businessmen to take advantage of
this fact to take your money, whether you see it or not, and whether you
thank them or not.)
>Alternatives for me, if Apple was not giving me what I wanted would be
>many.
And why is Microsoft Office so "not what you wanted" that you would
change the decision you made about what hardware was your best choice?
Assuming that its merely crappy software, and you'd prefer something
else, would having Office included (bundled) with your Mac make it
impossible for you to acquire and use some other package?
>1. I could buy a PowerPC based Amiga and go on using Linux and my
>Macintosh emulator.
>
>2. I could buy some Intel-based machine and use Linux or BSD or
>whathaveyou.
>
>3. I could decide to want to use Microsoft products anyway, and buy an
>Apple Macintosh or some Intel machine that comes with Microsoft
>software.
Ultimately, in looking out for your best interests, it might be
worthwhile to consider the relative prices of your purchases, and
investigate what extra value might be worth extra cost. The basic
assumption that you can do anything you want is inherent in the
democratic society which I presume you live in. But economic decisions
are not abstract philosophy. Don't you mind that you might have to
spend more money in order to get what you want than it would be if there
were competition for Windows OSes and apps, even if you don't use
either?
>There are many options, none of which I have a right to. I can only
>choose among these options if they are offered, and I cannot force
>anybody to offer or not offer their product.
You have the right to choose, yes. You also have the right to ensure
that only the free market, not a monopolist, determines the prices and
availability of your choices.
[...]
>I decide what is best for me, and I have found that what is best for me
>is the PowerPC platform and Linux.
Yay. Sounds like a winner. You should be proud of yourself. And step
aside while others pursue the same availability of choices without a
criminal company making it more difficult for them.
>> Thus, the important thing to remember about markets is that they can
>> only find out what each and every person thinks is the best tool for
>> them when they are *free* markets, with many active competitors
>> providing commercially feasible and generally interchangeable
>> alternatives. Which brings us back to why "leverage" of market share is
>> illegal; because it prevents free markets.
>
>I still don't get why it follows that a certain market share is or
>should be illegal.
That is the point. There is no "certain market share" which is or
should be illegal. Your assumption that the term "monopoly" meant "100%
market share" is not at all unusual. In fact, it is, I believe, a
concept taught to you by a society which is "ruled", though not run, by
people who would prefer anti-trust laws were never enforced.
[...]
>I like this picture too. The GNU _menifesto_ already implies some
>communism of some sort, and anybody who has ever met Richard Stallman
>will tell you that he uses the word "community" more often than anybody
>else you have ever met. RMS is certainly one of the more talented
>software writers and I like his philosophy to an extent. I believe
>cooperation is better than competition, but I don't believe the result
>of this premise is to punish companies for winning in competition.
They aren't. Richard Stallman has a radically different method of
defeating restraint of trade. You could think of him as the Gandhi of
cyberspace. A remarkable man, with a remarkable idea. But still, the
British could not be defeated everywhere by pacifism, and Microsoft
cannot be stopped by the GPL alone. I find it quite distasteful myself
that the government needs to get involved, but you can only blame
Microsoft for that.
[...]
>> >Open Source advocates claim that if people didn't buy into Microsoft's
>> >marketing and would support Open Source development instead (use Linux,
>> >donate time or money), it would not have happened either.
>> >
>> >Personally, I believe both statements are correct.
>>
>> I don't understand how this is any kind of criticism of the judge's
>> decision. Could you explain?
>
>The first criticism is that without government intervention (aka
>copyright and patent laws) monopolies would be more difficult if not
>impossible to build and maintain in the software market. Thus, if
>intelectual property laws were different, we would not be in this
>situation.
But it presumes that there is some way that intellectual property laws
could be different, but everything else could be the same, I think. How
could you have intellectual property laws which did not support
copyright and patent as they do, but would still allow authors and
inventors to profit from their works?
>The second criticism is that the only moral defence against a monopoly
>of the Microsoft sort is to NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS, and to avoid future
>monopolies, invest in open source software instead.
I am not interested in moral defenses. Having to involve ones morality
in ones purchasing decisions is a rather abhorrent methodology. Free
markets are agnostic.
>Microsoft is a symptom of a bad system, not the single guilty party.
I would by no means try to say that Microsoft is the only monopolistic
(criminal) organization trying to restrain trade. They are a single
guilty party, and there's no reason to demand that anti-trust laws be
rescinded on your premise that its better to be under the control of a
monopolist because it strengthens your moral resolve.
>If
>the free market does not seem to work, the conclusion that freedom is
>wrong comes to the mind, but it is not the only possible result. Another
>result might be that the foundations were wrong, not the mechanism.
How about that Microsoft acted anti-competitively to control prices and
exclude competition? It seems a rather more plausible and obvious
cause, particularly once you read the evidence; no, not every company is
so willing to break the law, nor ignorant of it. Free markets work as
long as a company is not allowed to monopolize.
>For the first argument http://www.gnu.org has a lot to offer, for the
>second Eric Raymond has an excellent argument (I think
>http://www.tuxedo.org links to his site which resides there).
Neither addresses the commercial issues. The GNU/Linux way is to
prevent commercial development in order to avoid commercial
exploitation. I support it, fully, as far as it goes. But it isn't
just software that wants to be free; consumers have a right to demand
freedom, as well, as do other producers.
--
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: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Date: 22 Oct 2000 23:44:41 GMT
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No operating system will ever be fully developed ( if win95 was fully
> developed there would be no need for 98 and winme - if NT4 was fully
So, SCPX, PB/OC, CP/M and OS/2 are fully developed because there won't be
any new versions?
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applause, n:
The echo of a platitude from the mouth of a fool.
-- Ambrose Bierce
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 02:02:01 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
> >> Unlike windows which does a lot of things (poorly) on a bunch of
> >
> >Insert necessary Windows bash. Can't help it, can you ? :)
>
> What can we say? Its crap. Blame Microsoft, not us. Or whoever taught
What for ? I'm just a little making fun of someone who can't talk about a
product without getting all riled up, that's all.
> you to reason, because you've apparently blinded yourself to the truth.
The truth !? And you wield it ? Max, do me a facvor, spare me the
sanctimoniuos and smug rhetoric.
Of course, if you absolutely need it to bolster your confidence or make you
feel like a knowledgeable person, well carry on.
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> [...]
> >No ! No ! No ! You have it all wrong, it's all MS's fault.
>
> Thanks for the straw-man. It looks cute out their in the October
> breeze.
It's called sarcasm, Max. If you were following the thread, you'd know that
mlw laid the blame on computer technological state squarely at MS's feet. MS
and Apple brought computers to the laymen, UNIX was nowhere to be found
because of AT&T and infighting, as mlw kindly explained to me.
So his original point of laying the blame squarely at MS's feet was wrong,
hence the sarcasm. The UNIX world has its share too.
> Yes, FUD is all Microsoft's fault. They're the ones doing the FUDding.
I don't recall mentioning FUDing, and you talk about strawmen ?
> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
Link doesn't work.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Date: 22 Oct 2000 23:47:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>A correction: Linux will probably never be `fully developed'.
> As opposed to what?
Not opposed to anything. I know very few things that are really fully
ready. Most of them are obsolete.
> Are you using a 60's mainframe? If not then I doubt you have a single software
> package on your system that isn't under development.
Well, I do :)
The original K&R Hello, to be exact.
The Hello concept, of course, is currently under development and a new GNU
version should be out soon, but the K&R Hello is now ready.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In success there's a tendency to keep on doing what you were doing.
-- Alan Kay
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:48:45 -0400
Andy Newman wrote:
> Colin R. Day wrote:
> >Of course, trying to run UNIX on such computers as were used for
> >XENIX would be like trying to drive a Lamborghini in rush-hour
> >traffic.
>
> I used SCO Xenix on a PDP-11. Seemed fine. As fast a V7 on
> similar h/w.
I had read that Microsoft's version of Xenix ran on a computer with a
20-meg hard drive. The article said that the OS could barely get out
of its own way.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:50:10 -0400
Grant Edwards wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Colin R. Day wrote:
>
> >> Microsoft offered a Unix, XENIX, and users stuck to DOS despite Microsoft's
> >> advocacy for XENIX.
> >
> >Of course, trying to run UNIX on such computers as were used for
> >XENIX would be like trying to drive a Lamborghini in rush-hour
> >traffic.
>
> Eh? XENIX _was_ Unix. It was Microsoft's version of AT&T
> System 3 wasn't it?
Yes, it was/is a version of UNIX, but from what I have read,
the hardware was somewhat cramped.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:14:24 -0500
"Bob Germer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:39f2fed1$1
> Politicians can accept campaign contributions legally. They cannot accept
> gratuities or gifts of other than nominal value (defined as less than $50
> in most jurisdictions with some lower and a few higher) without breaking
> the law. When a federal employee receives a gift of more than nominal
> value, he or she must hand it over to the government which then appraises
> the gift, gives the receipient the right to purchase it, or holds it for
> government use. Other than ELECTED officials, no federal employee can
> engage in political activity without losing his or her job.
Gee, I guess that would mean that government officials are suddenly unable
to receive christmas or birthday presents from relatives or friends. That's
simply not true, unless said gift is in exchange for some official duty.
> The same is true of most civil service, postal service employees, etc. at
> both the state and federal level. In Friday's Camden Courier Post was a
> story about the ELECTED Surrogate of Camden County who chose to resign his
> $85,000+ a year job because he campaigned for James Florio in the
> Democratic Gubernatorial Primary. Likewise, his assistant who stuffed
> envelopes and manned a phone bank was suspended without pay for 30 days
> since she did those things at the direction of her boss. Three clerks who
> worked for her were suspended for 7 days each without pay for helping her.
Elected officials campaign for others all the time. It's common practice to
have the president come to a state fundraiser to campaign for local state
congressman of the same party. That may be the case in your local area, but
it's certainly not the case everywhere.
> Allenwood Federal Prison was the residence of a couple dozen ELECTED
> Philadelphia Municipal Court Judges who accepted $300 from the Teamster's
> Union as personal gifts, not political campaign contributions. Each was
> sentenced to a year and had to serve 10 months.
And I'm suspposed to accept this statement, for what reason?
> Did you ever hear of Abscam? It was a little sting run by the FBI during
> the Carter Administration. Several Congressmen, a New Jersey Senator
> (Harrison Williams), and the Mayor of Camden all went to prison for
> several years for accepting gifts in return for either taking or promising
> to take official acts on behalf of the donors who were actually FBI
> personnel pretending to be Arab oil barons.
Which is illegal because it was in conjunction with official duties.
> So, Fuckinliar, you are again proved an idiot tool of Chairman Bill.
You have the weirdest definition of "proved" that I've ever heard.
> > The money does not appear to be for performing an official duty, but
> > rather to perform an unofficial duty while lending their position as
> > credentials.
>
> That is against the law as well when it involves a controversial matter.
Really?
> Why, for example, don't you see liberal governors, senators, etc.
> endorsing environmental groups? It's because they cannot legally do it.
> They can and do endorse non-controversial eleemosynary activities like the
> United Way, Jerry's Kids, etc.
I think it's pretty obvious why. Environmental groups have significant
clout on their own, they don't need endorsing from political figures. In
fact, it usually works the other way around. Environmental groups endorse a
candidate. These are lobbying groups primarily, whose sole purpose is to
get new laws written that favor their cause.
The other activities you mention, United Way, Jerry's Kids, etc, use their
money to fund research or help the community rather than to lobby for new
laws.
Even so, many candidates state they support certain lobying organizations,
such as the NRA. For instance, Pensylvania State Senate Democratic Leader
Robert Mellow has stated on several occasions that he is "a pro-NRA person".
> > What's wrong with your reading comprehension, Joseph, that you can't
> > notice the words "Besides that" in my statements. That means, "Even if
> > it were true".
>
> FIrst of all, that weak assed attempt to paint shit white didn't appear in
> your message. Secondly, it is bogus. You are a flat ass liar.
Here's my original message:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=684307879&fmt=text
Or are you going to say that I've somehow modified the deja archive?
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:56:17 -0400
"James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> >
> > > I have not spent that much, and a lot of what comes with linux is
> > > duplication. Eventually I will learn Linux, but it will take time, but I
> > > have to get my lab reports done, and my drawings finished. Now I may
> have
> > > software that will do with what I have on Windows 2000, but I do not
> know
> > > what I have installed under linux. I do not know half of the 1,500+
> > > applications that came with my linux distribution. BTW what comes with
> Linux
> > > that Windows does not have on the CD?
> >
> > TeX, emacs, gcc, xbill, perl, python,
>
> And they are used for what?
TeX (and LATeX) typesetting. Granted, I'm a math teacher and not everyone
wants to print math stuff.
Emacs. Text editor of the gods. Includes modes for TeX/LATeX, C, C++
gcc. Handy if one needs a C/C++ compiler
xbill. A popular game among Linux sysadmins. The object of the game, to
stop bill from converting your network to toasters.
Perl and Python are scripting languages.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:56:57 -0400
Haoyu Meng wrote:
> You can get TeX emacs, gcc, perl, and python on Windows too.
But you said on the CD.
>
>
> "Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> > "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> >
> > > I have not spent that much, and a lot of what comes with linux is
> > > duplication. Eventually I will learn Linux, but it will take time, but I
> > > have to get my lab reports done, and my drawings finished. Now I may have
> > > software that will do with what I have on Windows 2000, but I do not know
> > > what I have installed under linux. I do not know half of the 1,500+
> > > applications that came with my linux distribution. BTW what comes with Linux
> > > that Windows does not have on the CD?
> >
> > TeX, emacs, gcc, xbill, perl, python,
> >
> > Colin Day
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:25:24 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Idoia Sainz wrote:
>
>> GNU/Linux is a big opponent ... as a server.
>
> HA! Thank you.
>
> This is the thing I find STILL everybody is just clueless about!
>
> Catagorization! Linux can't be treated that way.
>
> The GNU/GPL is going to shape up as one of the
> most powerful documents to affect mankind.
>
> It marks the end of a period and the beginning of
> another.
>
> And yes it has been responsible for some Microsoft
> Server damage but also,,, it's eating away at the
> desktop's also. Especially in Europe, South America
> and Asia.
>
> America will follow the world into this revolution.
> We will be last.
Quite possibly. However, SUN have basically given up on s/w.
They tried to split their h/w and s/w (sunsoft) but their
money comes from h/w. They now all but give Solaris away. And
why buy their compiler products when gcc is free?
Microsoft have lost the Internet server market. .net is a feeble
attempt at trying again. The target moves to fast for Microsoft
and they just cannot compete in markets where they don't dominate.
The future looks good to me. Lots of open competition. Since
Linux has been taken seriously my major companies we are seeing
what can be done with OSS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:40:31 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> M$ doesn't just want most of the market, they want all of it. The existence
> of alternatives erodes their power to dictate how things are done and to M$
> that power is more important than the money.
How true. I think Microsoft, too late as usual, realise the threat
from Linux. They bought all those shares in Corel so that they have
an entry point into the Linux area with .net. .net is typical
Microsoft hype and will go nowhere along with C# and anything else
they dream up. Microsoft is now having to compete which is good for
us but bad for them as they don't know how to do it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 01:34:43 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Very true.
> Kind of makes you wonder WHY Suse got so big over there.
> The average European is a very selective person.
>
> Most of the things we treasure here in America come
> from Europe.
>
> Europe is the heart of our Western Culture.
>
> Anything which comes forth from Europe generally
> ends up spreading across the world.
>
> Linux isn't BIG in the USA because American's
> are generally complacent people who resist change.
>
> This is why the notion that America will survive in
> the 21st century as an information economy doesn't
> wash.
>
> Information economy? Information on what?
> Information about how a bunch of dead bagworms
> continue to hang on to Windows?
SuSE is an excellent Linux distribution. They provide so much on their
cd's (or dvd) that you have everything you need in one package. Their
support is excellent and the SuSE mailing lists will answer most of
your questions should you have problems. I'm sure most PC users would
be quite happy with a preinstalled and configured Linux system. It is
up to the OEM's to make this an atractive option by showiny how much
money they save by not paying the Microsoft tax.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:58:57 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hmmm...
Election.com pulled off an online election in Arizona which was legally
binding and hopes to eventually expand to national elections online.
Bill Gates is becoming more and more interested in politics.
Election.com is switching to Win2K datacenter server designed by Bill Gates'
company.
Seems like there might be something to this.
;-)
Maybe some anti-ms zealot should run with this set of circumstances.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
