Linux-Advocacy Digest #504, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:09:00 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>mark wrote...
>> >Why not. I mentioned installing it and removing it after two days. I
>> >spent hours on end fiddling with it. It's a passing experience certainly
>> >worth mentioning. :=) If you don't consider it worthy of mention, then
>> >say so and move on. Don't accuse me of blowing my BeOS experience out of
>> >proportion, because I didn't. I told it like it was. It's for you to
>> >decide whether or not you'll credit it any value.
>>
>> Your previous thread lead down a road of indicating there were
>> applications which you've used (or functional equivalents thereof)
>> on all of the OSs you've used.
>
>*You* led it down that road, not me. I've clarified this, I think three
>times now, and YET you persist.
No, you mentioned that you'd used these similar apps on all these
OSs. I just asked what they were.
>
>> That appeared to me to be the
>> main thrust you were using to demonstrate that Win2k could meet
>> your needs - ie., you have the apps you need. You also stated
>> various dates and OSs on which you'd been using them from I
>> think 1996 onwards (or maybe before, I can't remember and I'm
>> not going to look just now).
>
>Too bad for you. The thread isn't that long and what's worse, I requoted
>it all in this very message to which you're replying. This is how bad
>things are with you and the fact that you will not read, comprehend and
>remember.
Pointless stab, so far as I can see?
>
>> I don't see how the Beos fits in with this - only 2 days usage
>> is not enough time to determine whether you have functionally
>> equivalent apps, unless their function is amazingly simple.
>
>I said I ran and fiddled with it for a about 2 days. I said nothing about
>running equivalent apps. I requoted what I said in this very message. I
>won't requote again.
So why did you mention it?
>
>> These functionally equivalent apps (or possibly ports as I
>> suggested,
>
>You're damn right *you* suggested them. :=)
Since I was trying to offer other reasonable possibilities.
>
>> although they do not need to be), were used in
>> some context not made clear, although you did mention the
>> medical profession, so perhaps that's a clue, and perhaps it
>> 's not.
>
>Reread what I wrote about BeOS. That's all I meant. A simple sentence is
>all I wrote and not a paragraph. It's not hard to understand.
What's BeOS got to do with what context these apps were used in?
A paragraph and a sentence can be co-incident, this is simple
grammar.
>
>> I called them magical because they ran on so many different
>> OSs over a wide time range, and you later went on to say that
>> you'd used a friend's machine and decided that they were on
>> that one as well (a Mac?).
>
>You have manufactured all this in your head. I note, yet again, your
>resistance to any clarification on my part. Doesn't suit your agenda does
>it?
What is this list of apps? That's all I want to know.
These apps which you say run on all these different OSs,
or at least have functional equivalents. What are they?
>
>> >> >> >I had linux installed 4 times along the way. Just fiddling and
>> >> >> >familiarising myself really with what it's about and what it offers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you haven't used it, I guess you haven't had these magic
>> >> >> applications you previously referred to?
>> >> >
>> >> >What magic applications?
>> >> >
>> >> >You seem to be reading what you want to.
>> >>
>> >> I'm reading what you're writing. What are these magical
>> >> applications?
>> >
>> >You coined the term 'magical application'. I asked what you meant (see
>> >above) and I ask again.
>>
>> I've explained this loads of times - apps which ran on all of
>> these OSs at the times you stated etc., etc., etc., Just read
>> back, it's pretty simple.
>
>I have run no such magical apps that have been ported to all these OS's
>I've used. Not even StarOffice. I stopped using OS/2 before it was ported
>to it. StarOffice isn't available for the Mac either.
I didn't say that they had to have been ported to all these OSs,
I merely said that was one possibility.
So, we've got as far as saying that StarOffice *isn't* one.
Unfortunately, building a list of apps by eliminating all
those which have ever been written will take rather a
long time, so perhaps we could kind of cut to the chase
here, and just give the list?
>
>> >> >> >BeOS, I installed once. It lasted about 2 days on my system.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which is enough time to, err, well, err, not enough to find
>> >> >> these 'equivalent applications' you spoke of.
>> >> >
>> >> >I never spoke of any for BeOS. Where did I?
>> >>
>> >> You mentioned it 4 lines above, not me.
>> >
>> >I said I installed BeOS once above. How does that amount to finding
>> >equivalent applications for it. (Lie one)
>>
>> You mentioned the equivalent apps in the first place, not me.
>
>I explained what I meant and that it was contrary to what you *think* I
>meant. You persist on ignoring this.
I have no idea what you're talking about here at all now.
>
>> >BTW, let me lay something straight with you. If I use application X in
>> >windows and I manage to find one in Linux that provides at least the same
>> >functionality with at least the same ease of use, I've found an
>> >equivalent application. That's what I meant when I said that. This may
>> >involve using ports of a some applications but this isn't true in most
>> >instances. I've made this clarification before but you choose to ignore
>> >it.
>>
>> Where did you make this clarification - I really didn't see it.
>
>Take the time to read. I took the time to quote what I said in some of my
>earlier posts with no effect whatsoever. Why should I do that now? I
>respect you enough to write to you and requote stuff to clarify things to
>you. You don't do the same. :=/
I've been requoting and rewriting and representing the *very* same
question each time.
What were those apps?
>
>> >> >> Indeed - that's what I was referring to.
>> >> >
>> >> >When I say seriously use, I mean, actually did meaningful work with it.
>> >> >I've however done more with Linux that many people have done with
>> >> >Windows.
>> >> >SLRN, Mutt, StarOffice all running. I couldn't get my scanner to work the
>> >> >I installed it, I configured it. I had WordPerfect, The Gimp,
>> >> >last time I tried so that's about when I backed off. I also generally
>> >> >didn't feel comfortable with the apps I tried. This is in contrast to
>> >> >OS/2 where the apps were generally better than the Win95 offerings at the
>> >> >time. I can't say the same now, since Win32 applications are now vast in
>> >> >numbers and some really great picks are out there if you look for them.
>> >>
>> >> Again, lots of words, but no apps referred to.
>> >
>> >Really? :=)
>>
>> That's an interesting cut resulting in an amazing misquote. I do
>> not see apps being listed which run on OS/2 and eg., Linux. I've
>> stil not seen when you were supposed to have used Linux either.
>
>I requoted what I wrote in my first message in this thread with you. I
>requoted and reformatted it so that you could plainly see it different
>from everything else in the message. The requote is in the message you
>just replied to. Read it!!
Which are these apps then? You've actually only mentioned
linux ones, so far as I can tell (although there may be
ports of those, of course - oh no, you're going to fly
off the handle about ports again, aren't you - never mind,
forget I mentioned the word). You're only concession to even
mentioning the apps for Win32 is '... are now vast in numbers...'
Well, they may be, but it doesn't tell me which ones you were
using or what they were funtionally equivalent to.
>
>> >You:
>> >
>> > According to your own history, you've not used NT, you used
>> > win9x, OS/2 and then Linux.
>> >
>> >My response:
>> >
>> > This is how it went:
>> >
>> > Win3.1 1994-1995
>> > Win95 1995-mid1996
>> > OS/2 mid1996-mid 1998
>> > WinNT mid1998 to Jan2000"
>> >
>> > During the OS/2 to NT transition, the latter three of the above
>> > OS's were installed on the same system, as well as RedHat Linux.
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > I did this with the aid of PowerBoot
>> > <www.blueskyinnovations.com>."
>> >
>> >Do you want more clarity that? You are neither reading nor interpreting
>> >correctly.
>> >
>> >I then said:
>> >
>> > I had linux installed 4 times along the way. Just fiddling and
>> > familiarising myself really with what it's about and what it
>> > offers.
>>
>> And I get very confused again - 4 times here and above you say once.
>
><sigh> One is a subset of the other. I speak of the OS/2 to NT transition
>as one period and from 1995 to the end of 1999 as the other time period.
>The former is a subset period of the latter. You're supposed to READ and
>understand this. It's simple English. Is English your first language?
So how long is OS/2 to NT transition - 5 mins? 1 year?
The word transition does not, to be at least, indicate any
particular period. It might be nanoseconds or less (eg., in the
case of sub-atomic particle transitions) to millions of years in
the case of transitions to and from ice-ages.
I also still have trouble seeing how 4 times and once can really
align, but perhaps that's because I don't understand what time
period you are bounding with the word transition.
>
>> Which is correct?
>
>Both.
4=1? Help!
>
>> >I did just, i.e., clarify that for you.
>> >
>> >Now, concerning BeOS, this was my initial statement:
>> >
>> > BeOS, I installed once. It lasted about 2 days on my system.
>> >
>> >From that simple statement, you're now asking me what equivalent
>> >applications *I said* I installed in it when I made no such claim. (Lie
>> >three)
>>
>> No, I said that you didn't have time to check for any equivalent apps
>> in the time you had it there.
>
>For the last time; no, I didn't. I never claimed that I did. Now quit the
>BeOS strawman argument.
I don't know what you're arguing about here, if you agree that you
didn't have time to check for any other apps, then I ask why did
you mention it? You can't have been checking for stability.
It just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the posting, and I
would like to know why you included it?
>
>BTW, if you visit the BeOS home page and have a look at the apps
>available for it, you very quickly realize that application support is
>not one of it's strong points. When I installed BeOS, it wasn't even to
>check for it's viability as an alternative platform for my purposes.
>That's pretty much a given. I was just curious to see what the OS was
>like.
Ah - so why didn't you say in the first place :)
>
>> >In fact it's so amusing what this has come to, let me requote all of what
>> >I initially wrote that started this whole thing.
>> >
>> > Mr. Presumptuous strikes again. I migrated from Win9x to OS/2 in
>> > 1996 because I disliked Win9x. It was too damn unstable and OS/2
>> > provided a better environment to work in. A better shell.
>> >
>> > I put aside all the Windows apps I was using and bought OS/2
>> > equivalents. I learnt how to use them. I also learnt OS/2
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > itself.
>> >
>> >It's that word there 'equivalents' that set you off. I have clarified
>> >what I meant above and you choose to ignore the clarification.
>> >
>> >I then said:
>> >
>> > Linux provides a better solution today than OS/2 did in 1996.
>> >
>> > If Win9x were all that MS offered, I'd either be still running
>> > OS/2 or now running Linux. There's no doubt whatsoever in my
>> > mind about that.
>> >
>> >You ignored that part since it doesn't suite your anti-winvocate
>> >obsession crusade. :=) Not to mention your accusing me of claiming that I
>> >migrated from Linux to Win2k when it came along.
>>
>> Er, no, I didn't, it just doesn't really say anything.
>
> ... that supports your strawman arguments?
If I'd said something else, then it might. If you start anything
with If, it often doesn't say anything.
>
>> > Win2k irons out a lot of the hangups I had with NT. I installed
>> > it in January and am yet to experienced a system lockup or BSOD.
>> > Do I need better stability that this for my purposes?
>>
>> So when did the Red Hat come and go? You're amazingly quiet
>> on the dates for this, and yet apparently able to be quite
>> specific for the other OSs which appear in some kind of order.
>
>As I said. I have no reason to lie. If I can't be specific then I won't
>be. Knowing when I ran the OS's with which I did my work would be very
>clear in my mind, especially the transition periods. Migrating to another
>is time consuming.
Not all that, since you said yourself you had Beos for 2 days. The
transition period for that must have been << 2 days.
perhaps we could get a little further by you defining these time
periods, because it's causing me huge problems in understanding
what on earth you're talking about.
Possibly your talking perfect sense, but I cannot understand it.
Maybe that's even entirely, totally and utterly my own foolish
fault, but if so, please help me out by explaining what these
things mean which I'm asking about.
>
>Specifically which time periods I had linux installed escapes me at this
>time.
Graakkk.
That just seriously dented my concentration.
>
>> At one point you say you've had linux 4 times, at another you
>> say you've had it once.
>
>I explained that.
>
>> Even your dated list doesn't actually show the NT5 installation
>> date.
>
>Does it have to?
No, I guess not, but it means that you're requiring me to
search several different posting just to get *your*
chronological list, in order to discuss something with you
which you raised and posted here in the first place. So
I think it would be polite for you to put it all together.
Or I'm just a lazy and selfish b*stard, of course :)
>
>Anyway, I actually did. I wrote in my initial post to you:
>
> Win2k Jan2000 to present.
>
>Look and read again.
>
>> >Now tell me; how in heavens name does that testimony on my personal
>> >experience with Win2k's stability, amount to this being the ONLY reason
>> >why I use Win2k over any other OS? You see, this is the sort of very bad
>> >interpretation of what I wrote that get's you into so much difficulty.
>> >You must not assume. It makes an ass out of you.
>>
>> I cannot see not having had a BSOD yet as being a good reason to
>> select an OS.
>
>I never really said it was since I had not used it prior to installing
>it. It's a statement based on close to a year of using it. The statement
>doesn't qualify itself. It's not all encompassing by any means.
>
>> I still see that statement and I still think
>> that it is less than rational.
>
>Taken in the context of it being *the* singular reason for using the OS,
>yes it's irrational. You wish to paint me as being irrational so if I
>choose to correct your error in interpretation, you ignore it.
I don't actually wish to paint you at all, let alone as rational or not.
I'd be worried if I were worried about that at all.
>
>> You seem to be defining stability
>> here as 'it hasn't happened yet'.
>>
>>
>> >> >Another important thing. Can I now sample sound from various input
>> >> >devices in Linux. I sample music from my tuner, old vinyl's and tapes. I
>> >> >then burn them to CD. I didn't see any means of doing this in Linux. This
>> >> >is a recent requirement over the last year and a half or so. :=) I do
>> >> >this quite easily with DartPro (ever heard of it)?
>> >>
>> >> Does this mean that you've been using Linux over the last year,
>> >
>> >No it doesn't. How could that statement imply this. I also said in one of
>> >my previous posts:
>>
>> So when did you use it?
>
>Read my previous posts. It's said there.
No, because I don't understand what a transition period is. Why
are you so keen to avoid answering this? Maybe you just don't
realise that it's not clear.
>
>> > I have not installed Linux since installing Win2k.
>> >
>> >Would you please remember what you read? Or do you remember as it's
>> >convenient to you?
>>
>> Does that mean you have Linux on the machine still?
>
>No.
>
>> It really is not clear. Maybe I'm just dumb,
>
>You *are* making yourself out to be dumb. You're confusing yourself.
Possibly. Help me out!
>
>> but I haven't installed
>> Linux on my server for about 4 years, but that doesn't mean
>> it's not there.
>
>:=)
>
>> >> but now
>> >> that Win2k is here, it's just so much better? This reads as I noted
>> >> above to me.
>> >
>> >Oh, hush now. This incessant need for you to read negatively in my
>> >statements to suit your agenda, is getting tiresome.
>> >
>> >Would you please answer the question if you can, because I'm genuinely
>> >interested. Can I sample old vinyl and tape recordings, clean them up and
>> >burn said samples to a CD in Linux?
>>
>> There seem to be a large number of audio apps available, so I would
>> have said yes, I think that you probably can but I have not actually
>> done it. In fact, I put my SME pickup arm Garrard 301 and Shure V15/v
>> away 'cos the kids kept trying to trash it.
>
>I know that there are a lot of audio apps available. A simple visit at
>Tucows tells me this. That wasn't helpful.
As I said, it's as much as I know. Were I a b*llshitter by nature,
I might have spun a tale. Now you know as much as I do about linux
audio capabilities for the particular purpose of transcoding microgroove
RIAA audio to some digital type.
What I do know is that the quality of the a/d device you'll use
will have a huge impact on the quality of the transcoding. Things
like oversampling and the ringing effects of brick wall filters
deserve investigation if you're going to do a lot of transferring.
I know an awful lot more about audio recording technologies than
I do about linux audio, at least from the microgroove era, anyway.
>
>> >> >> >because I've never had it doing everything that I'd want to do with my
>> >> >> >computer. If you've found decent sanctuary in Linux, I doubt you'd
>> >> >> >migrate to a MS solution since Linux is improving.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You mentioned finding equivalent applications, you seem to be
>> >> >> backing away from that.
>> >> >
>> >> >As I said, I don't have to prove anything to you. If you don't believe
>> >> >me, that's your prerogative.
>> >>
>> >> You made the claim, not me. I think you can't prove because you
>> >> haven't actually done what you claimed.
>> >
>> >You aren't reading and assimilating. You're being stubborn. You're
>> >twisting my words to suit your anti-winvocate agenda. Most of all, you're
>> >ignoring my clarifications!!!! What *is* your problem?
>>
>> I want to know what these apps were which were available at all of
>> these times, and I also would like to know when you actually
>> did have linux, and if you still do, 'cos I really can't tell.
>
>You aren't reading and assimilating. You're being stubborn. You're
>twisting my words to suit your anti-winvocate agenda. Most of all, you're
>ignoring my clarifications!!!! What *is* your problem?
I can't assimilate information which isn't there. I know I have
lots of faults, but this one isn't mine!
>
>[...]
>> >> You've not clarified this at all. You specifically stated that you'd
>> >> 'not yet had a BSOD' and listed this as a good reason for using Win2k.
>> >
>> >I did just that. Now explain to me how that translates to being the only
>> >reason why I use Win2k over the other OS's. I guess, only in your biased
>> >head, it would.
>>
>> I didn't say that it was. I merely said that as a reason for making
>> any decision, it is very poor.
>
>for my decision.
>
>> >> Where is this clarification?
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >This is my last post directly to you on this matter. Of course, like a
>> >> >typical kiddy and in true form, you'll very likely say that I'm backing
>> >> >out because I can't stand up to your questioning, but as I've said to Max
>> >>
>> >> I've some kiddies of my own, 4 and 6 years old. I'm rather older than
>> >> that and may be older than you.
>> >
>> >Oh dear. This only gets worse. If you were indeed a kid it would reflect
>> >better on you. :=(
>>
>> Why?
>
>If you were a kid I'd understand your pedantic game playing, but as a
>grown supposedly mature man, I'm at a loss.
I usually find that when I've got to my most exasperated with my kids,
it's usually because they don't understand something which I think
is absolutely plain. The reason they don't understand is because
I haven't explained it to them.
'Their' problem is quite simply my own failure to explain.
Maybe yours is the same here.
>
>> >> I suspect you're backing out because you don't have the information
>> >> to back up your claims.
>> >
>> >:=) There's nothing to back out of. All this is really pointless.
>>
>> What is the point of advocacy - why do you come here anyway?
>
>This is not about advocacy. This is about stubborn word twisting and
>misrepresentation.
So, what are these apps, and what is the (in my view) arbitrary
time period you allocate to transition. And can you explain
how many times you have had linux installed. Because none
of this is yet clear to me. I'll pop back later and add the ?s
These are just questions, they are not any kind of representation
at all. They are all based on what you've already posted.
>
>> >> I expect you to be able to give me some clue as to what magical
>> >> package was available for all these different systems at the dates
>> >> you claim. Or some functional equivalent. I still haven't seen
>> >> the answer.
>> >
>> >I covered that already.
>> >
>> >BTW, you didn't answer my question. Do you expect me to remember the rpm
>> >package or not. Do you think it reasonable that I would forget
>> >considering this was over a year ago.
>>
>> I said that I expected you to remember or be able to give some hint
>> or clue as to what it was. That's a *yes*, but with reasonable
>> fuzziness to allow for normal memory failings in real people.
>>
>> I was trying to be reasonable!
>
>LOL!
Arrghhh - I wuz, yur honour!
>
>> >> >> >> I'm fascinated by exactly what applications were available for
>> >> >> >> Win9x in 1996,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A lot.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> you cut the 'and which were also available for'...
>> >
>> >Now that I've reread my posts, would you care to do the same and show me
>> >where I said "and which were also available for". I can't seem to find
>> >it.
>>
>> No, I said that and you cut it. You said the bit about using
>> functionally equivalent packages (or whatever the exact wording
>> was).
>
>This "I said .... you said ... but i said you said" stuff still continues
>despite numerous clarifications. Hmmm. Where's the advocacy in this?
Doh. You removed the link, it changed the meaning, I pointed it out,
you misread this as me saying you'd said it, I corrected that, you
complained. Don't remove the words and the whole thing won't start!
>
>> >> >A more decent question would be what applications were available for
>> >> >OS/2. If I'm labelled as being a Winvocate as you did later, I'll not
>> >> >waste time writing those down. My knowledge of those are a given being a
>> >> >Winvocate and all. :=)
>> >>
>> >> That was not the question, nor was it your claim.
>> >
>> >My original claim was stated above, which has been clarified. Will you
>> >persist?
>> >
>> >[..]
>> >> >I'll leave the Windows applications from way back then alone, OK? Not
>> >> >worth mentioning. :=)
>> >> >
>> >> >> and you missed (ie., cut) 'and also available for'
>> >
>> >Where did I cut 'and also available for' from.
>>
>> All the places I put it. But I've added it back.
>
>You never cut it from anywhere. You simply added it and you KNOW it.
I didn't say I cut anything. I really think you're having trouble
following this thread. Count the indentations and then you can
see which things you said and which things I said.
mmm.
>
>Please quote me specifically. The entire statement please which contained
>the phrase 'and also available for'. I'm sure you will not be able to.
>
>> >> I am still waiting for this list of magical apps which was
>> >> available for all of those systems at the times you claim.
>> >
>> >I have already clarified what I meant by equivalent.
>>
>> So what were they called? This is a really *trivial* question
>> to answer.
>
>Look, I never ran any magic apps as you describe them. I therefore cannot
>name them. I never ran any apps that were ported to each platform as I
>moved along. Please note that as I said before, I used 4 OS's primarily,
>Win95 then OS/2 then NT and now Win2k. From Win95 to OS/2 involved a
>complete change of applications except for Corel WordPerfect Suite which
>I ran in WinOS/2 and Netscape for which there was an OS/2 version. The
>apps I changed to were 'equivalent' in that they offered me at least the
>same functionality I had when using similar type Windows apps. Moving to
>NT involved a similar overhaul since many new Win32 apps had come on the
>scene. However a few of the apps I used in OS/2, now had Win32 versions.
>These included Embellish, PMView, PMMail98, Getright, ICQ, Object
>Desktop.
Ah, okay. And what do Embellish, PMView, Getright do?
>
>WRT Linux, I never seriously used it. I however, installed the OS on 4
>separate occasions, all different versions of RedHat Linux starting with
>version 4 and ending with version 6.1 in a NT-VMWare VM. I've installed
>and fired up various applications which I mentioned before, fiddling with
>them to see what they were like. I had printing going. I could dial up
>with my modem. I even had sound ( I had an SB AWE 64 at the time so that
>wasn't hard). Since uninstalling NT, I haven't felt the urge to reinstall
>Linux. This is mainly because I really haven't had the time. I now have
>some time on my hands and will soon install it again using VMware to see
>where things are with this rapidly progressing OS.
Which is really getting to the point, I guess. It also begs the
question, why are you posting in a linux advocacy group the joys
of using Win2k over linux when you've not really seriously used it?
>
>> >I wouldn't expect otherwise. Mine wouldn't have a problem with any OS you
>> >place them in front of either, considering the context in which the OS is
>> >being used.
>>
>> My 6 year old likes setting up and playing multi-player doom games.
>
>Geee, isn't that sweet? Doom?
Yeah, he plays the 4 year old. Also, they play as a good team when
the guys come round, they are *very* difficult to beat on the wads
they know well, but can be very naive on ones they don't.
The 6 year-old has a much better grasp of the subtleties (ie.,
how to use timed power-ups to best effect, how and when to
use health etc.,), whereas the 4 year old tends to get used
by the 6 year old to bait traps.
No need to be sarcy - I'd be interested to see if you could
beat them.
>
>> >> With
>> >> all your claimed experience of all these OSs over this huge period
>> >> I would expect you to be capable of running anything.
>> >
>> >That's not a huge amount of experience. That's only 5 years of computing.
>> >:=) Are you now going to claim that I said I have a huge amount of
>> >experience with the OS's I've had the opportunity to run at some point?
>> >That would be typical of you.
>>
>> No, but you've said you've run every not entirely obscure OS which
>> has existed over the last 5 years. That's pretty impressive,
>> and far more than most people ever do.
>
>Indeed. For an user with pretty average needs it is damn unusual.
>
>You of all people should be aware that most people have only used
>Windows.
I'll treat that as some kind of complement! Indeed, I agree with
the statement as well.
>
>> >> >BTW, I'm not a Winvocate. I'll defend Linux when appropriate. It's just
>> >> >that there's so much crappy generalisations being made about Windows,
>> >> >that I'm busy enough talking about them. Afterall, I chose to use Win2k
>> >> >and disagree that it's merely unstable monopoly crapware. :=)
>> >>
>> >> Ah, yeah, you used to use Linux, but now that Win2k is here, win2k
>> >> really rocks, right?
>> >
>> >Using Windows, doesn't make you a Winvocate. Ask T. Max about it. He
>> >posts here using Forte' Agent. Saying that Win2k is a better solution
>> >than Linux as a desktop OS and defending this claim doesn't make you a
>> >Winvocate. There's way more to Windows and MS than using Win2k as a
>> >desktop OS. In fact, it's really a minority of individuals that use
>> >Windows as a desktop OS, that use Win2k. Most use Win9x/ME.
>>
>> I agree with the whole of this para.
>
> ... and from what you write immediately afterwards, you seem to be
>assuming that I said it just for the hell of it. Again, here is a classic
>example of a clear implication being made and you choose to ignore it
>because it doesn't agree with your aim.
No, I just don't understand how you can utter the former para and
then not answer the question! (which is what I then say)
>
>> So why don't you tell me
>> what these apps are, and back up your claim regarding the desktop
>> OS question? Otherwise, you are, in my view, Winvocating.
>
>You keep repeating yourself. I guess that's the only way to continue all
>this, but I'm done. If you don't feel it's time to back off at this
>juncture then I don't see myself getting through to you. I'll either not
>be answering or trimming a LOT.
Well, yes, I'm trying to get the the answer. Back off - but hell
hasn't frozen over, now why would I do that ;)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
