Linux-Advocacy Digest #949, Volume #29 Mon, 30 Oct 00 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (sfcybear)
Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux? (Terry Porter)
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Terry Porter)
Re: Oh this is a good one (Tim Smith)
Re: MS Hacked? (lyttlec)
Re: Oh this is a good one (.)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Bob Hauck)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Bob Hauck)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Weevil")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: MS Hacked? (lyttlec)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Why Linux is great (Ali Brauda)
Re: Why Linux is great. (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:02:34 GMT
In article <8tk7r4$oap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Either the patches give you a 98 as you claimed in the first
statement
> > or they don't as you claimed in the second. It is impossible for
both to
> > be true. you have lied or you do not know what you are talking
about.
> > What is it? is it lies of lack of knowage? I don't really care. It
is
> > clear to me that you will say anything true or false. I simply do
not
> > believe any thing you say at this point.
>
> CAREFUL! Calling him a liar...someone might sue you!!
>
> BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
I did not call him a liar. I asked him a question about his
contradictory statements.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 31 Oct 2000 00:05:45 GMT
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:43:16 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><snipped as useless>
<plonk another Wintroll>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:20:35 -0300
El lun, 30 oct 2000, . escribió:
>Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> "." wrote:
>>>
>>> > Mandrake is not linux; they completely redid the kernel headers and
>>> > broke massive amounts of legacy software as a result. Thats why
>>> > there are "rpm-mdk"s, brainiac.
>>> >
>>> > Do you have problems with SuSe, Debian or Slackware?
>>>
>>> So what do you advise? As you can see, I am running Mandrake,
>>> just because I am a newcomer to Linux, because it got excellent
>>> reviews in British mags, etc. A year ago, I had tried
>>> Caldera, and it went pretty well. Debian, I gather, is
>>> only for the knowledgeable crowd, to which I definitely
>>> do not belong. Slackware also? SuSe, I have read good
>>> reviews of, but I no longer know what to believe. Or
>>> should I stick with Mandrake until I know my way around
>>> better? (Better a lame horse than a legless horse)
>
>
>> Mandrake is an excellent distro. It is very newbie friendly yet it
>> includes lots of software that would benefit experienced users.
>> Whether or not it is true Linux is semantics, IMO.
>
>Its not semantics actually, its legalities. They changed the kernel
>without either Cox's or Torvald's approval; therefore it is not
>linux.
Dear ".", that's pretty much bullshit.
No distribution, except for perhaps SOME of the mini-on-floppy ones ships a
as-released-by-Alan-or-Linus kernel.
You can check it out.
[snip]
>> So what if it isn't true Linux, or if the elitist users look down
>> their nose at you for running it.
>
>Theres nothing wrong with running it; it simply shouldnt be included
>in a conversation about LINUX, since it isnt. :)
If Mandrake ain't Linux, Then no distro is Linux.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 31 Oct 2000 00:25:47 GMT
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:48:53 -0000, Nigel Feltham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I thought it was amusing when I installed win2k at work on a machine with
>NE2000 compatible netcard, probably the most common netcard available.
>Everytime it was rebooted it detected the netcard as an 'unknown device' as
>well as the correct device so I had to go down several levels of dialog to
>remove this unknown device before it would connect to the network, only to
>have to repeat the same process next reboot.
>What pile of crap is this that won't work with one of the most common
>devices available - even the first linux kernel to have net support can work
>reliably with these things.
>
>
Perhaps its a Windows tactic against Novell ?
Ive had this problem with Win95 as well, concerning NE2000 no name net cards
that Win95 just could NOT find the interrupt settings for, only
the mem i/o address of 0x300-0x330.
Yet Linux found them every time, starting with Redhat4.2 in 1997 :)
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Oh this is a good one
Date: 30 Oct 2000 16:32:58 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mymachine# whois microsoft.com
>
>Whois Server Version 1.3
>
>Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
>with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
>for detailed information.
>
>MICROSOFT.COM.SE.FAIT.HAX0RIZER.PAR.TOUT.LE.ZOY.ORG
>MICROSOFT.COM.OWNED.BY.MAT.HACKSWARE.COM
>MICROSOFT.COM.N-AIME.BILL.QUE.QUAND.IL.N-EST.PAS.NU
>MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SECRETLY.RUN.BY.ILLUMINATI.TERRORISTS.NET
>MICROSOFT.COM.IS.AT.THE.MERCY.OF.DETRIMENT.ORG
>MICROSOFT.COM.INSPIRES.COPYCAT.WANNABE.SUBVERSIVES.NET
>MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.NO.LINUXCLUE.COM
>MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.HACKSWARE.COM
>MICROSOFT.COM.FAIT.VRAIMENT.DES.LOGICIELS.A.TROIS.FRANCS.DOUZE.ORG
>MICROSOFT.COM
....
>Whats that, you say microsoft does its own DNS with windows2000?
>
>I see.
There's a book on DNS from O'Reilly. If you'd like to not look like an
idiot in the future, you might consider reading it. If that's too much
trouble, at least learn how to read a domain name (hint: the most
significant part of a domain name is on the *right*, not the *left*).
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:40:38 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > That's just it. Many of MS's tech support people (those people that
> write
> > > most of the samples) *ARE* still in college, or are very recent
> graduates.
> > >
> > Thats obvious. Would the college they are still in or recently graduated
> > from be junior college? They sure don't know much about either
> > programming or their OS.
>
> You seem to have an awfully high regard for college education. 10 out of
> every 10 computer science graduates i've interviewed could tell me the
> textbook definition of OO, 1 out those 10 could tell me the difference
> between a class and an object.
au contrair. After years of dealing with them, I have a very low reguard
for the MS help desk. The Junior College I graduated from (my first
degree in 1965) gave an education superior to most 4 year schools today.
The grade school I completed in 1958 bosted a higher standard than most
high schools today. 99% of one school here in Az failed the graduation
tests! And those tests were at the 5th grade level for my old school!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oh this is a good one
Date: 31 Oct 2000 00:42:41 GMT
Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>mymachine# whois microsoft.com
>>
>>Whois Server Version 1.3
>>
>>Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
>>with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
>>for detailed information.
>>
>>MICROSOFT.COM.SE.FAIT.HAX0RIZER.PAR.TOUT.LE.ZOY.ORG
>>MICROSOFT.COM.OWNED.BY.MAT.HACKSWARE.COM
>>MICROSOFT.COM.N-AIME.BILL.QUE.QUAND.IL.N-EST.PAS.NU
>>MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SECRETLY.RUN.BY.ILLUMINATI.TERRORISTS.NET
>>MICROSOFT.COM.IS.AT.THE.MERCY.OF.DETRIMENT.ORG
>>MICROSOFT.COM.INSPIRES.COPYCAT.WANNABE.SUBVERSIVES.NET
>>MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.NO.LINUXCLUE.COM
>>MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.HACKSWARE.COM
>>MICROSOFT.COM.FAIT.VRAIMENT.DES.LOGICIELS.A.TROIS.FRANCS.DOUZE.ORG
>>MICROSOFT.COM
> ....
>>Whats that, you say microsoft does its own DNS with windows2000?
>>
>>I see.
> There's a book on DNS from O'Reilly. If you'd like to not look like an
> idiot in the future, you might consider reading it. If that's too much
> trouble, at least learn how to read a domain name (hint: the most
> significant part of a domain name is on the *right*, not the *left*).
I was drunk.
:)
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:43:44 GMT
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:37:20 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Of course it is 'arbitrary'. If you expect it to reach a 100% bug-free
>state you don't understand software development.
No, it'll never be bug free. I know that. I also know that I trust
Linus' judgement about when it is close enough more than I trust
Compaq's marketing department, or Rex for that matter. Linus is more
trustworthy partly because he doesn't have, or at least hasn't had, the
pressures Rex is talking about.
>You are way, way, off base here, and if you want to argue this
>direction please give some specific examples of open source
>software that has changed the world by holding off release
>until it was perfect (well, let's leave TeX out of the picture...).
That isn't my argument, exactly. My argument is that Compaq issuing
press releases to try to pressure Linus into blessing something is not
the way to go about things. While nothing is ever perfect, releasing
based on what "mutual fund managers" say is pretty much guranteed to
cause the release of crap eventually. I don't want to see that
precedent set.
And it is a no-win situation anyway. If he blesses it now and it isn't
"good enough", then Compaq will issue another press release stating
that Linus really screwed up releasing that buggy old 2.4 kernel. If
he waits, then he's blowing Compaq's investment and killing the
momentum.
If you think it through, the best course to take in this situation
might very well be to delay it some more.
>Those aren't even close to the facts. The facts are that none
>of the other 'stable' x.x.0 releases were particularly stable
>and this one almost certainly won't be either.
At which time Rex will post about how we're all doomed because it isn't
perfect. We know it won't be perfect. Therefore, if Compaq is hoping
for 2.4 to be some great white hope then they are deluded. If they
need to ship product now (and that's what started this, Rex saying that
Linus is holding things up), then they should be using a 2.2 kernel.
>Sure, Linus doesn't 'owe' the world a new release. He can hold
>off forever if he wants a different hobby. That doesn't change
>what people need.
Yup. And if he does that then people will come up with a new
mechanism. If people "need" 2.4, then they can use it today.
>It will change the number of copies in actual use by several
>orders of magnitude. You can pretend that isn't important,
>but it is.
But it won't solve the problem Rex is addressing, that being the
supposed need for a reliable 2.4 by yesterday. For the appliance
applications he cited there is little need for 2.4.
>> Again, Microsoft has far more to answer for regarding delays than
>> Linus does.
>
>But they weren't anyone's 2nd choice with an obvious alternative.
>Linux has no locks on any market share.
And a couple months delay of 2.4 is going to kill Linux? Will it kill
it worse than a more-than-normally buggy 2.4 release now? Sounds like
a judgement call to me. Who do you trust?
>Are you offering to explain to them why their files are limited to
>a tiny (these days) 2 gigs?
Newbies are going to be creating 2 GB files on their internet
appliance? That's what we were talking about. Somehow, I doubt it.
For servers, Compaq does offer a 64-bit CPU, and so they can offer
large files today with 2.2 if they need that feature.
>More to the point, Linus's judgment has a proven history
Yes, which is why attempting to pressure him into doing things by
making press releases is a bad idea. Rex wants him to bless the 2.4
kernel right now for Compaq's benefit, yet it is his reputation on the
line, not Compaq's.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:43:47 GMT
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:23:42 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Yes it is funny what multi-millions of marketing dollars can do for
>>your name recognition.
>
>Microsoft don't make all the products listed.
I don't belive I said they did. Intuit, for example, spends lots of
money on making sure you know what "Quicken" is. The FSF does not
spend millions making sure you know what "Emacs" is. The names are
equally ininformative by themselves.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:43:50 GMT
On 30 Oct 2000 17:46:56 +0100, Bruce Scott TOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't understand these memory leaks. Is the cause of this known?
Writing giant applications in C and/or C++.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:43:49 GMT
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:28:58 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Compaq **could** put 2.4 on their appliance, but the investment
>community would consider it an excessive risk.
They could put 2.2 on an appliance and nobody would know the
difference.
>I don't know where the pressure is coming, but someone's pushing Linus
>very hard to NOT release 2.4 in time for Christmas.
Maybe he's a contrarian and doesn't like being pushed around by "mutual
fund managers".
>There is one internet appliance that is Linux powered, and it is on
>display. You can't tell it's Linux, and it works pretty good. At
>$300, the price is right too. But it isn't a full-blown
>KDE/GNOME/Linux system with all the trimmings.
KDE2 and Gnome both run fine on 2.2 kernels. You don't need 2.4 for an
appliance. Compaq doesn't even need 2.4 for large file support, being
as they offer a 64-bit cpu. Golly, there's a competitive advantage
over Dell, why aren't they doing something with that?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:49:22 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9vkL5.5076$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:MQbL5.10328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > This is true, because ints in 64 bit computers are 64 bit, thus
allowing
> > the
> > > file system to be a signed 63 bit integer.
> > >
> > > However, this also illustrates another problem. It's physically
> > impossible
> > > to take such a formatted disk and put it into a 32 bit computer. For
> > > instance, suppose I have a 2.5 GB removable disk that I want to share
> > > between my Alpha and Intel PC's. Can't do it.
> >
> > You seem to be confused between accessing a storage medium and accessing
a
> > file on that storage medium. It is obviously not "physically
impossible"
> > for a 32 bit system to use a removable disk > 2 GB. If it were, then
> > floppies could never be bigger than 64 K on 16 bit systems (such as DOS,
> WIN
> > 3.x, etc). A filesystem need not address the storage medium down to the
> > byte level, though the closer it gets, the more efficiently it uses the
> > medium. That's why FAT16 is so hugely inefficient.
>
> I was a little unclear in that statement. I meant, if you have a single
> file on that 2.5GB removeable disk that spans the entire disk. You can
> access part of that file, but not all of it on 32 bit Linux systems. I
> understand that the 2.4 kernel solves some of those problems, however it
> doesn't solve the key problem that the C Runtime Library uses a signed 32
> bit integer for file access, which means any program using it to access
> files (you know, like vi, more, tail, etc..) won't be able to access a
file
> over 2GB.
>
> Efficiency of your file system at the level we're talking about is largely
> irrelevant. The computer will be faster than the disk drive.
The computer is always faster than the disk drive, no matter what filesystem
you're using, or how many bits you use to address its contents. I'm not
sure what point you're trying to make.
> FAT16 is only inefficient because it uses 32k clusters for partitions
larger
> than 1GB and causes lots of wasted disk space in sector slop. It's
actually
> quite efficient speed-wise.
Not that it has anything to do with the conversation you're having, but
that's not the only thing that makes FATxx systems inefficient. They are
also cursed with a crude scheme for data placement, which causes the
filesystem to slow down over time unless you constantly spend time
defragging it.
FAT filesystems are excellent for floppy disks, however.
jwb
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:50:32 -0800
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tku4f$m9g6c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >Whan was the last time the Unix world did anything to make life easier
for
> >Microsoft?
> >
>
>
> What about the time microsoft released a supposedly unix compatible
> operating system called Xenix and then found out it wasn't totally unix
> compatible so instead of fixing their own product they made unix licence
> code from microsoft to fix the compatibility problem - and until earlier
> this year when SCO was bought by Caldera the licence costs had to continue
> to be paid to MS on a yearly basis for code that was only there to fix a
> problem in an MS operating system.
Bizarre story. One of those anti-Microsoft urban legends I assume.
> >As for Apple, without Microsoft it would be dead, dead, dead. Without
Word
> >and Excel there would have benn zero reasons for anyone in the business
> >world to allow Apples in.
> >
>
>
> What about wordstar / wordperfect and Lotus 123 - without MS introducing
> non-standart proprietry formats Apple users wouldn't have needed Word or
> Excel.
All of those had non-standard proprietary formats as well. And they died
(for the most part) from self-inflicted wounds.
>
> >And without Microsofts infusion of cash, Apple would be toast.
>
> And without MS's criminal business tactics Apple wouldn't be in trouble to
> start with.
Another Linux/Mac anti-Microsoft urban legend.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:50:04 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Question : who approved the code with "goto" scattered throughout for
> > release? I'm sure the junior programmers didn't.
>
> We're talking about sample code here, not OS code. Samples aren't approved,
> they're provided "as-is". Most samples are created because someone called
> up tech support and was willing to pay for the sample to be written and
> given to them. This is done by 2nd level technical support people for the
> most part. These samples are later added to the SDK. Other times tech
> support people are given the tasks of writing samples to help familiarize
> themselves with new technology. In either case, we're talking about people
> that are working phones, not writing code for a living.
>
So MS thinks the people working phones are good enough to represent them
with published code? If a company is that sloppy with its public face,
what is it like inside? Publishing that code sends the signal that MS
doesn't give a damn.
> > One incident in my carrier involved a new grad who made a mistake that
> > got released. His boss was demoted and his bosses boss was fired. He was
> > given extra trainig with no mark at all on his record. He wasn't
> > expected to know better. His boss was expected to teach him, and his
> > bosses boss was expected to check both their work.
> > So who got fired from MS for releaseing code with "goto"?
>
> Having been through military technical training myself, I know that training
> gets the lowest priority. They get the oldest equipment, often well after
> it's been in the field, and the materials are often completely out of sync
> with what the real processes are in the field.
I've been in units like that. I also transfered quickly to other units.
Once even to a unit in combat because I thought it would be safer than
the non-combat unit. The same goes for the code I use. If I don't think,
based on posted samples, code is going to be good, I won't use it.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:53:15 -0800
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tkujs$ncmt2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >If they have to they will come out with Microsoft Linux and make sure
Word
> >and Excel ports only work on that version of Linux. It will look a lot
like
> >Corel Linux, the most user friendly Linux.
> >
>
>
> And how will they get round the GPL licence on all the code - anything
they
> do to the kernel or to X will automatically be forced to be open-source
> too - Current distros modify the kernel but under the GPL are forced to
> supply source code including their modifications
Thats what Lawyers are for.
> - the only thing MS could
> do without distributing source is write a window manager and installer
which
> is what Corel did -
Theres an option.
>Nobody would buy something where changing window
> managers breaks the applications so they cannot do the protection in there
> either.
Sure. Sell Office for Microsoft Linux. Give Microsft Linux away.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:54:58 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "John Fereira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8tk5ji$rf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <rGPK5.116711$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bruce Schuck"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "Matt Kennel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > >> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> > > :Look at Oracle. You pay for the software by the mhz of the
chip
> > you
> > > >run
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > :on .... as if that was any of their f**king business.
> > > >> > > :
> > > >> > > :Upgrade the processor and pay more money!
> > > >> > > :
> > > >> > > :Talk about extortion.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Why? I see no relation.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I guess you are blind.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > The problem with Microsoft's business practices is that they
were
> > > >> > intentionally
> > > >> > > designed to thwart agreements between the Microsoft client and
some
> > > >other
> > > >> > > third software maker by means other than offering a superior
> > product.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > They were designed to strongly encourage companies that sold
hardware
> > to
> > > >> > sell only Microsoft software in the same way GM, Ford, and
Chrysler
> > > >strongly
> > > >> > encouraged franchisees to only sell cars made by the company that
> > sold
> > > >them
> > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^
> > > >> > the franchise.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Note the PAST TENSE, as this is *ILLEGAL*.
> > > >>
> > > >> A sizeable portion of auto-dealers, IN AND AROUND DETROIT--RIGHT
UNDER
> > > >> THE AUTO-EXEC's NOSES sell cars and trucks from multiple
> > manufacturers...
> > > >
> > > >A sizeable portion? Are you trying to tell me dealers sell both Ford
and
> > GM
> > > >and Chrysler cars?
> > > >
> > > >Never seen it.
> > > >
> > > >Or are you talking Ford/VW and GM/Volvo.
> > > >
> > > >That I've seen. And I've seen Auto Malls where multiple separate
dealers
> > > >sell cars.
> > >
> > > Are you sure they're separate? Out in the south SF bay area there is
a
> > > company called the "Lucas Dealership Group". It's one company that
owns
> > > mulitple dealerships that include almost all of the major domestic and
> > > foreign models. I've seen the same thing in several other places.
Each
> > > dealership might be limited to one or two manufacturers but they're
all
> > owned
> > > by the same company.
> >
> > Sounds like a way around the Big 3's attempt to keep one dealer from
selling
> > cars from multiple manufacturers.
> >
> > I found this link
> > http://www.openhere.com/shop1/automotive/dealers/dealership-groups/.
> >
> > It seems dealership groups are just groups of companies -- each company
> > having a dealership for one brand of car.
> >
> > I think Aaron is running a con when he says Dealerships can offer
different
> > brands from the Big 3.
>
> Come to Detroit....and LOOK.
Post a URL. Then I'll look. You've lost. Admit it. Quit whining.
------------------------------
From: Ali Brauda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:51:24 -0500
and I agree 100%
-Ali
mlw wrote:
> Where else can you find a system, which can be downloaded for free, or
> any price for that matter, that has:
>
> Object Relation SQL database.
> C/C++ compiler
> Programming editors
> Office Packages
> Debuggers
> Network file servers
> Printer Servers
> Entire Internet service package
> remote administration tools
> e-mail servers/clients
> Choice of desktops
> Various programming languages besides C/C++
> Calendar programs
> CDR tools
>
> The list continues, 100s of utilities and tools, most (if not all) of
> what anyone would want to do with a computer.
>
> There is no reason to buy Windows or NT!
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: 31 Oct 2000 00:50:18 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>I hate when the seeming majority of messages are either defending Linux
:>against some idiotic press release, or a dialog initiated by a troll.
:>
:>Lets talk about why Linux is great, and a pleasure to use.
: 1. It comes with VI and EMACS!
That *is* a goot thing. Were you trying to be sarcastic? You failed.
: 2. 'ls' beets the hell out of Explorer
True. Were you trying to be sarcastic? You failed.
: 3. KDE is realy slow.
So? Don't use it. I prefer the look of Gnome anyway. (But I like a few
of the KDE applications, luckily in opensource people tend to cooperate
for mutual benefit, so I can use a few KDE apps with a mostly Gnome
system and it works fine.)
: 5. X is realy just for running xterm's.
Wh'samatter, Tim? Haven't learned how count yet?
(Hint, the number that comes after "3" is not "5".)
And yes, I do use X to run lots of xterms mostly. This just points at
the power of the command-line. Idiots like you think that just because
Microsoft's command line sucks that UNIX command lines suck just as bad.
They don't.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
