Linux-Advocacy Digest #468, Volume #30 Mon, 27 Nov 00 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: What does KDE do after all (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Things I have noticed................ ("James")
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mark)
Re: C++ is very alive! (roger@invalid)
Re: Whistler review. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (mark)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! (mark)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 Quick Review (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:24:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:48:09 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, sfcybear
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:11:03 GMT
>> <8uire5$g1f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Hey, this is NOT the MS world were you stuck with one desktop. If you
>> >don't like KDE, DON'T USE IT! Use one of the other desktops! Geees.
>>
>> Or don't use a desktop at all. In my case, I use fvwm. It's an
>> older-style window manager (though not as old as twm) that
>> works reasonably well. I think it predates the "desktop" buzzword. :-)
>>
>> But I surmise there are some that don't use X at all, switching
>> between consoles with ALT-Fn. I do that occasionally as well.
>
>Here's one!
>
>I use X only when I need a GUI (ie xdvi, xfig, netscape or xevil2 or
>something). Most work, programming, word processing (LaTeXing),
>programming I do in the virtual consoles, at a nice, hgh resolution
>(132x50). It's really good.
>
>Under X I use FVWM2 (not the '95 look---that's ugly).
Well, there y'all go. :-) A perfect example of how Linux can satisfy
both the GUI and the CLI at the same time. :-)
(At work I use KDE, which works well enough, although I rarely fire up
kwrite or kedit.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 75 days, 11:14, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things I have noticed................
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:34:22 +0200
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Things I have noticed from my own experience and from reply's to this news
> group:
>
> 1. When wintel users argue a topic and they find that they getting beaten,
> they bring out the old GUI argument, the perfect example of this is in the
> whistler post, to sum it up, "Fuck the quality, what about the pretty
> colours", the amount of time Microsoft spends on the GUI, Bill Gates might
> as well be a fashion designer, "Bill Gates Summer Fashion Collection",
could
> you imagine an interview with Bill Gates (fashion designer), "this new
> summer collection is a combination of colour and patterns to compliment
the
> summer atmosphere, and as normal, we have stuck to the main selling
> principle, "More colour, less quality" ".
>
> This conclusion made from the "whistler" post by Ayende Rahien.
>
>
> 2. From who I know in the Wintel world, Wintel users tend to have the
worst
> taste in fashion and music. Two of them could not co-ordinate colours and
> patterns if their life depended on it :) God, music, listening to rubbish
> such as Five, Backstreet Boys, S-Club and Boy Zone. You are probably
> saying, "What has fashion and music un-cordination have to do with OS's",
> everything! This argument is no better than the GUI argument that gets
used
> by wintel users.
>
> This conclusion made from analysing Wintel user responses and people at
> university.
>
>
> 3. So-called ex-linux users using the excuse, "it is too hard" as an
excuse
> for not continuing to use Linux. Down the road at my local book store
there
> were hundreds of books, from linux for beginners up to programming linux
on
> servers, so for around $NZ99.95 (incl. GST) a user can get a book and a
> CD-ROM giving a complete guide on how to use Linux . Why should they read
a
> book? well, isn't reading a book better than looking at the idiot box
> (television) at night.
>
> This conclusion reached from all the posts from Claire Lynn (now known as
> Sir)
>
>
> 4. The so-called UNIX crushing NT4 never achieved what it set out to do,
it
> fact, it re-enforced the need to stick with UNIX, so in some respects, NT4
> was a god send for companys such as Sun Microsystems and SGI (Server
> Division) which gave them something to mock and use as a benchmark to
prove
> their system reliability.
>
> This conclusion reached from market information and Chad's conviction that
> NT4 is better than UNIX.
>
>
> 5. Wintel users who post here tend to have 6 months experience and can
click
> on the start button, hence, by Microsoft definition, they are an expert
> computer user. I, however started off using an Amiga 500, whilst at the
same
> time I also taught my self how to program on a BBC-Micro with 32K mem,
then
> I gradually moved on to a Pentium 75 with 8MB Ram (later upgraded to
40MB),
> used Windows 95a for around 1 year, got pissed off and moved onto Redhat
> Linux 5.2, then upgraded my machine to a Pentium 200MMX with 64MB Ram,
> installed SuSE Linux 6.0. About a year ago I upgraded to a Pentium 550e
and
> SuSE Linux 7.0 Professional, and here I am, next year I plan to either
> upgrade to a SGI O2 workstation or SUN Ultra Sparc Workstation. Compare
that
> time line to the typical wintel poster here with the typical story of, "I
> bought a computer, I must be a computer expert" mentality.
Enough bragging! Some windows users here have real qualifications and
experience of computers, such as building embedded systems way back in the
early 80's using the intel 8086 ICE (that is "in circuit emulator"). And
writing large programs in assembler, later PL/M 86.
Personally, I have used virtually all programming languages in my early
engineering years, including the nice Modula-2 (which I prefer to C/C++).
Before that I started on programming the Motorola 6800 in assembler. I even
used to write maths programs for my HP41CV. I have had more computers than
I care to remember, and currently have about (there may be more in the
storeroom) 4 (P3/733 256MB, P/233 MMX, Cyrix 150, 486) at home, another 2 at
work (Compaq EN P3/733 256MB, Dell P2/350). Plus an oldish laptop (Compaq
Armada).
Geez! Just because you have had a few machines you think you are now
"qualified" to critisize others who you don't even know.
What you guys don't realize is that nobody (> 99%) wants a difficult
desktop. Why make something more difficult than it has to be? The goal is
to use the desktop to access programs to get real work done. The object is
*not* the desktop.
Just because you're a mechanic doesn't mean a jalopy will suit you best. To
make the driver not need, or be, a mechanic *is* what is really hard to
achieve. To my delight, Mandrake/KDE is starting to achieve this (see my
previous post).
>
> This conclusion reached by analysising alf-assed efforts to rebuke the
> superior technology behind Linux.
>
>
> 6. When a wintel user get defeated by carefully phrased responses, they
> change their names, aka Claire Lynn/Chad/ and any other names you care to
> add.
>
> This conclusion reached by analysing alf-assed efforts to rebuke the
> superior technology behind Linux/UNIX.
>
> kiwiunixman
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:44:59 +0000
In article <XxhU5.25076$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:DEgU5.4513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> mark wrote:
>>
>> > Now, I wonder that lockup tight means? We know that a KDE app
>> > _might_ cause a KDE problem. We know that KDE _might_ cause an
>> > X problem. We know that an X problem will not stop the machine.
>>
>> I mean the whole machine hung, from KDE, to X, to Linux itself. I couldn't
>> even login remotely.
>
>I've seen this a time or two, but not recently. X basically has direct
>access to hardware through its video driver, so a bug there can hang
>the machine - be sure you are using the latest, and the best match for
>your card. Also, I suspect there is still some race condition lingering
>between gpm and X in dealing with the mouse even though that is
>supposed to be fixed now. If you don't use the mouse when you aren't
>in X it can't hurt to remove the gpm startup from your rc.d directories.
>
It always amuses me that the windows people seem to have stability
problems with linux, but the linux people don't, now why might
that be?
It's just not happened to me. I rebooted my Win98SE machine
twice today, (only twice because I'm managing to avoid using
Outlook now).
You can use gpm in repeater mode now, which avoids some problems.
Where I did have a problem in the past with that race condition
was on a Toshiba portable, the result was that X died. The machine
certainly did not.
Mark
------------------------------
From: roger@invalid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C++ is very alive!
Date: 27 Nov 2000 10:15:57 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw says...
>>
>> >How would you find the most important colors in a bitmap to create an 8
>> >bit palette?
>> >
>>
>> I'll look it up.
>
>where?
Your question shows how importrant it is to teach engineering how
to do independent research.
If your school did not teach you how to use references, the library,
the internet, how to search for information, then they have failed.
The most importrant skill in this age, is to learn how to find the
information you need.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:59:59 GMT
On 27 Nov 2000 11:13:21 -0600, "Conrad Rutherford"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hey Aaron, want YOUR hint?
>
>Hey, look at this car.
>Well, it's not really a car yet, it's just a bunch of parts made all over
>the world by different people and one guy stored them all over the place and
>you can get them from here and there and none of them are supported by the
>other parts but you could assemble them together yourself or pay someone
snip..............
Great post :)
claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:55:47 +0000
In article <8vsa0t$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vr8r9$5a7fd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>
>
>> >> Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
>> >
>> >Same mecanism you get one into a win machine.
>> >Lure the user to open it.
>>
>> No, the user needs to save it, give it executable permissions,
>> su to root, give it root/suid permissions, put it into the path,
>> add a script into /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d to get the trojan
>> started, modify the firewall scripts to open the required ports,
>> etc. etc. etc.
>
>We've been through this before.
>If the user execute the program, it can handle the rest on its own.
Not without root permissions, it can't. You really don't
understand the unix security model, which is causing you
to fully misunderstand why the scenario you describe
cannot happen.
Please take a look at Eric Raymond's intro to unix, it
will help you no end with these quite hard questions.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:57:33 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>mark wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:22:51 -0500, Gary Hallock
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Oh yeh, right! PM 6.0 did not exist at the time Windows ME and W2K came out.
>It did not
>> >>exist when I had to use PM on Windows ME. And why should I have to spend more
>money to
>> >>upgrade PM?. What can't Windows provide upward compatibility?
>> >
>> >Because Gary, Windows (Microsoft) shouldn't have to worry about
>> >supporting backward compatability with every piece of software that is
>> >out there. If they did, they would be stuck in a rut and in many cases
>> >not able to advance.
>>
>> Microsoft should only have to worry about what their customers want and
>> what their competition is offering. Unfortunately, since they lack
>> the latter, they're not interested in the former. This means issues
>> of backwards compatibility are of no interest to them.
>>
>> >That is exactly what happend with OS/2 which
>> >tried to maintain compatability with Windows applications (Win/OS)
>> >while MS marched on and OS/2 died.
>>
>> I thought what happened with OS/2 was more to do with a microsoft &
>> IBM battle, I don't recall anything about backwards compatibility.
>>
>> >
>> >It is also the reason why Linux is mired in old technology, like it's
>> >file system.
>>
>> I like my data stored on a reliable, efficient, secure filesystem. Then
>> there's my work data which has to be stored on Fat32, which kind of
>> doesn't really meet any of that.
>> >
>>
>> >>Your Dos VFat argument is backwards. That's called backwards compatibility. I
>don't
>> >>expect to be able run a new program on an old OS. But I do expect to be able to
>run an
>> >>old program on a new version of the OS.
>> >
>> >I prefer the latest technology and if I have to upgrade to get it
>> >that's ok with me.Linux has broken many things along the way as well
>> >with Lib5/LibC and so forth. It's just that you guys love flittering
>> >around hoping to be the first one on /. to find the bug and fix it.
>>
>> Nothing was broken which couldn't be recompiled with the available
>> source. Or, if you use e.g, debian, then the libc5 stuff runs
>> just fine, and on my machine, even the libc4 stuff still does.
>>
>> I agree, I've been upgrading the machines for years. I've not been
>> filling Bill's pockets whilst doing it, though.
>>
>> >
>> >Linux will always be living in the past. It will always be behind in
>> >hardware support and it will forever be trying to have even a small
>> >amount of the high quality and broad range of applications that
>> >Windows has. Nothing but a huge influx of money and Linux going
>> >commercial, is going to change that.
>>
>> Linux is certainly my future, Windows is not. Linux is now edging
>> windows away from the kids machines. It won't be long before
>> windows has completely gone from my network, having been replaced
>> by debian GNU/Linux.
>
>Oh come on...you need SOMETHING around as a bad example of how
>NOT to do things...
Ah, okay, maybe I'll keep a copy of Wfw311 on an old 386,
next to the atari with gem for a comparison of equiv.tech.
The kids can play with pcmcia cards and see what happens...
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 Quick Review
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:58:56 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy wrote:
>"." wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > That's what I did but there is something wrong with the image.
>
>> No, there is something wrong with your brain.
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
>Stuff and nonsense! EVERYTHING is wrong with her brain.
>And with her image too. And with her mirror. Ain't that
>so, Sir Twatty Bird, darling? Here, let me answer for
>you, saves you typing:
lol :)
>
>> Dork.
>
>C'est ça, la galanterie française, mon chou.
>
>And let me improve on your review, here:
>
>> It sucks.
>
>Terser, to the point, hard-hitting, and a huge saving
>of bandwidth!
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:18:33 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:21:55
[...]
>No, corrupted registry is one thing, it *rarely* happens, as in once in a
>blue moon.
>Corrupted registry *entries* is another thing, and it can lead
>application/the system as a whole to be unstable or unfunctioning.
>If I put bad data in /etc, the result would be the same.
>
>GIGO
I don't know what "GIGO" is supposed to mean, but my response to your
statement is, "who cares?" If you want to try to rest your support of
monopoly crapware on pedantic details like "it isn't the registry that
causes frequent unreliability, it is registry *entries*", then I guess I
can't stop you. But I'm sure as hell not going to take stuff like that
seriously. There's only one "person" that cares about the difference,
from my perspective, and that's Microsoft. Either Windows is a reliable
platform, or its not. And its not.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:18:37 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:34:51
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vp23m$58vlq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
>> >> The actions of a monopoly
>> >
>> >No, the actions of a company whose interest is in profit.
>> >It wasn't worth it to localize Windows, because most of the people could use
>> >the english version.
>>
>> No, the actions of a monopoly do not fail to co-incide with profit,
>> they exactly align. If pleasing a customer can be avoided, then
>> a monopoly will avoid doing it. Microsoft will try hard to avoid
>> that if they can.
>
>"It's the evil empire!" cries are getting tiresome.
Yes, they certainly are. Please stop doing it, then.
>> I believe that some Government pressure in the
>> end caused them to change their minds.
>
>IIRC, it was that they were offered by Iceland goverment to get paid for
>doing the localization.
It becomes pretty obvious that they're monopolizing rather than
competing if they turn down an offer as guaranteed as this.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:18:39 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:59:57
+0200;
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> This is why monopolies can chase profit quite happily, whilst
>> completely avoiding providing what the customer *actually* wants.
>
>Do this, and you are no longer a monopoly, because other people will give
>the customer what they actually want, and the customer will go with them.
Well, if you presume that the monopoly does not do what monopolies do,
which is control prices and exclude competition, perhaps. But actually,
what you are presuming is simply that the monopoly is not a monopoly,
but a competitive business. This is not the case.
>> >> I believe that some Government pressure in the
>> >> end caused them to change their minds.
>> >
>> >IIRC, it was that they were offered by Iceland goverment to get paid for
>> >doing the localization.
>>
>> *Exactly* Nothing pressurises a monopoly more than cash.
>
>No, if there is money in it, it will be done.
>If there isn't money in it, it won't be done.
>Basic rules of economics.
>Localizing windows wasn't worth it.
>Getting paid to localize windows was worth it.
>Simple.
You seem to want to discuss economics, but ignore commerce. How does
that work? Companies do not produce because they've already gotten paid
to do so. If a company has such power, then they are a monopoly, quite
obviously. "First you pay, then maybe if we get around to it you might
get some value for your money, if you're lucky." If there wasn't money
in it, why would they offer to pay to have MS do it; there must have
been a 'market demand' to provide such an offer. Yet, if there was
money in it, then why wouldn't MS have merely localized Windows?
Could it be that they are unconcerned with whether the customer gets
what they want, but merely need to ensure that no user can avoid
Windows? After all, MS already had Iceland "locked in" with the English
version, since most people speak English. The small minority which only
spoke Icelandic were most probably not the ones complaining, I'll bet.
It was those who wondered why localizing Windows wasn't worth it, when
there was obviously a market demand that exceeded the cost of doing so.
If MS was motivated by profit-seeking, rather than profiteering, the
issue would never have come up because; there's either a market demand,
or there is not. The Iceland incident, contrary to your presumptions,
Ayende, is a rather clear example of a profit opportunity being avoided,
because it would not further the monopoly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:18:44 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 02:38:11
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>There are plenty of alternatives, and the barriers you are talking about
>are, what?
There are plenty of *possible* alternatives, *technical* alternatives.
There are no commercially feasible alternatives, however, since MS
doesn't produce a competitive product, but merely locks in a monopoly
product. Which means they have the (illegal) power to prevent these
potential alternatives from finding a large enough market to break the
Win32 application barrier.
>Mac: High cost, now this is eliminated.
Not Win32.
>BeOS: Lack of drivers, any new info about this? I've not looked into it in a
>long time.
Not Win32.
>Linux/Unix: Lack of application, taken care of, unfriendly, taken care of,
>not yet complete.
Not Win32.
>OS/2: ???
>Amiga: ???
Guess.
>What are those barriers that you are talking about?
The only barrier anyone is talking about is the *application* barrier,
which you seem to have remained brain-dead ignorant about.
>What would prevent me from moving to linux/beos/mac/amiga/ Os/2 ???
You tell us. What prevents you from moving to a technically superior
alternative which costs less money? Huh? What?
>I can get applications to do much the same things that I do in windows, I
>can read windows files, I can do everything I can do in windows on other OS.
>(And in 9x & especially ME case, a lot more)
>
>What prevents me from moving OS?
Win32 and Microsoft's illegal behavior, which results in an application
barrier. It would not be as convenient (and time is money, as well as
the most profitable commodity possible) and therefore Microsoft makes
using alternatives *more expensive* than it would be if they weren't
around to begin with.
[...]
>> Thus, in a non-monopoly, one of the competing organisations
>> would have provided a localised version; in a monopoly, it
>> was necessary for a Government to pay the _only_ supplier
>> to do it.
>
>No, they could do a whole lot of other things.
>Go with Macs, BeOs, Unix, Linux, a lot of other things.
And again we find a Winvocate who is a bit behind the times in his
argument. A lot of people go with alternatives, do they? Then what's
with the 90% monopoly?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
