Linux-Advocacy Digest #563, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 13:13:02 EST
Contents:
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)
Don't believe the hype ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler review. ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Whistler review. ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: linux jobs and skills. Why the sudden surge and increase? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: linux on a 486 (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: linux on a 486 (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Whistler review. ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Whistler review. ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:39:42 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:10:51 -0500;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>[snip]
>| Boy, you are an odd poster, aren't you? You seem to be arguing that OSS
>| is bad, in principle,
>
>Not all software can be developed profitably as OSS.
Not all software, believe it or not, can be developed profitably *at
all*.
>Linux is an OS. Perfect for the open source model. The entire Linux
>community use Linux including businesses and companies. One is
>guaranteed that Linux will continue to be developed. There'll always be
>those who will contribute.
As there were with the OS itself, which was likewise, initially, a niche
audience and userbase.
>What about applications that have a niche audience or userbase. Even
>worse, niche applications that require a lot of coding and a requirement
>for not much tech support or recreational apps. Games come immediately
>to mind. How will that market survive in an OSS setting. Yes, you'll
>have the game here and there, but not the booming market that exists in
>the commercial arena.
Bullshit. What you fail to grasp is that, if OSS isn't a commercially
feasible licensing model, then it isn't. There's no religious zealotry
going on here. The difficulty I have hearing Winidiots harping about
how the OSS model "won't work for some software" is that they are
convinced that they have the ability to point to what will and what
won't work. The same fundamental failure in reasoning which leads them
to be Winidiots to begin with: an assumption that their conscious
second-guessing of other people's actions is a valid substitute for free
market competition in making such decisions. It doesn't take a very
smart person, or even a real understanding of OSS, to guess that games
might well not *all* be OSS. You seem to fail to grasp the point,
however, that most games in the "booming market" gave away limited
versions as shareware until quite recently (now, they focus on demos and
cut-scene movies, a cycle which repeats continuously, shifting back and
forth between form and substance). People are more than willing to pay
a lucrative price just for professionally developed scenarios; you could
give the game itself away for free, in many cases.
The assumption which causes your position to be fatally flawed is that
you assume that wrapping copyright in a trade secret license is the only
way to profit on software.
>Take graphics editing software for instance. What is there for Linux?
>Which OSS efforts are underway .... The Gimp .... what else?
You still wish to forget that there isn't a free market. Why are you
trying to use the lack of free market competition to indict OSS or
Linux, then?
>| but that the existence of a monopoly is sortof
>| neutral. Is that it?
>
>No. That's not it at all. I *am* against monopolies. I have always been.
>MS is guilty of monopolistic practises to further their monopoly. I have
>no argument with that.
You just don't really understand it, that's all. Its nice you are
willing to agree with something you don't fully understand, but I must
point out that this is the cause of the conflict in your reasoning which
I've been addressing.
>Every commercial software vendor wishes to make a profit. They wish to
>do so by selling their software and they will only sell if they please
>their customers ... unless they are a monopoly. Therefore, they make
>their software attractive to their customers and then they make their
>profit which is their ultimate selfish aim, just as MS's selfish aim is
>to continue making a profit through their monopoly. They need to
>'nurture' this monopoly for it to continue or they can smugly feel it
>will continue no matter what they do and do any crap they like with
>their software. They can do the 'nurturing' in two ways. Either through
>cutsy fluff that will dazzle the passing ignorant user, or offering
>genuinely useful features that takes some effort and thought to
>implement. I disagree with you that the latter phenomenon never takes
>place in Windows development. In fact *both* take place.
You haven't explained why, if the less costly path is sufficient, and
the monopolist is interested in making the greatest amount of money
(what would be profit-seeking behavior, were they competing rather than
monopolizing), WHY would they EVER attempt to offer genuinely useful
features. And more importantly, what would make them care if it didn't
work?
>Win2k is a great improvement to me over NT. You may not find these
>improvements useful to *you*, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful
>to anyone else.
My issue is not that it is useless. Its that its crap. Crap can be
very useful for some things (no analogies, please.) The question isn't
whether it works at all; W2K probably works a bit better, in some ways,
than NT. But does it work so much better that it was worth spending
money on it? Particularly given that you'd already spent the money on
NT? Is it so much better that it merits abandoning the entirety of your
previous investment, and buying something that is only marginally better
than its predecessor?
Finally, is whether I find these improvements useful to *me* really what
should determine if W2K is a successful product? Or should a free
market be tasked with that decision, without the restrictions placed on
it by the monopoly, *forcing* to accept W2K simply because it is less
crappy than NT, in some ways, without any consideration of whether it is
useful enough to warrant the price?
Do you *really* think that consumers want to buy a new OS every couple
of years?
>Linux is certainly not the holy grail for my purposes
>because if it was you'd see how fast I'd have migrated.
And people accuse me of self-referential arguments. You can't make a
choice without it being "the holy grail"?
And again we get back to the point of monopoly. YOU CAN'T KNOW whether
Linux suits your purposes, so long as you're not willing to admit that
what "your purposes" is defined by "be the monopoly product". If there
were free market in OSes and apps, you'd have migrated years ago, I'm
sure.
>A lot of our
>discussion has been about my not really choosing my OS and your feeling
>that I was suckered.
No, my *knowing* that you were suckered, along with the rest of the
industry. You're not any kind of special exception, Curtis. Neither am
I. I just happen to know that I was suckered.
>What do my disagreements on this have to do with
>being neutral or otherwise about monopolies.
Well, you keep saying you know MS is a monopoly, but you want to use
their products, but insist that you haven't been suckered. That makes
no sense except as an exercise is defense self-delusion.
>Also, if I were to use
>Linux, would I have made a choice then? If yes, why do you say that?
Because you would have had to choose to avoid the monopoly, in order to
use Linux. No such choice is necessary to use Windows (any flavor).
>Finally, Ayende brings up the fact that MS supporting his language is a
>good thing. Your retort was that it was not done with good or profitable
>intention but only to further their monopoly.
No, that's not quite the conversation which occurred, but I'll not worry
about that.
>I disagreed with that
>point. What does that have to do with my having neutral feelings about
>monopolies? The fact that I disagree with your point that a particular
>thing that MS does is to further its monopoly makes me support the
>existence of monopolies? Come on T. Max, that's a grossly unfair
>assessment.
Unfortunately, Curtis, it is not. It is the "missing piece" you seem to
fail to understand about monopolies. Monopolies *DON'T* have any
motivation to improve their product. The only motivation they have is
to get people to buy more of their product. Now, in a free market, one
of the mechanisms available to producers to get people to buy more of
their product is improving it. The other is lowering the price. In a
monopoly, the only mechanism available is monopolization. IOW, they
*force* you to buy more product. This can be seen in just about every
move MS makes, from changing the licensing terms, to making you pay
twice, to tying their product to others which you want, or simply by
coming out with a new version, which you, Curtis, have been *forced* to
buy in order to get a Windows-compatible OS that isn't quite as
worthless as NT, because OS/2 has suffered from the lack of a free
market for so long that its almost useless for your purposes.
You say you understand that MS is a monopoly, but you simply don't seem
to understand what that means. You're still under the delusion that a
monopoly engages in competition. I'm not sure where you got that idea,
but its blatantly false. If a monopoly needed to compete (or, from a
different perspective, was capable of competing), they wouldn't be a
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:39:48 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:16:01 -0500;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) posted:
>
>I have no problems with what you wrote but one small thing:
>
>| Microsoft is a dying company as nothing seems
>| to be stopping Linux growth. Microsoft's 1% growth
>| is just dwarfed by Linux's comparable 47% growth.
>
>Watch that statistic. Things are very different when looking at absolute
>figures. A 47% growth in MS's userbase is basically impossible at this
>juncture because of it's share size and how much of the total userbase
>it occupies. In fact it should disturb you that they're growing at all.
>1% growth for the juggernaut monopoly MS is pretty significant. probably
>more than Linux. We're talking about 47% of 15 million as opposed to 1%
>of 400 million.
You seem to be under the delusion that it is impossible for one person
to use more than one OS. 1% growth for the monopoly is very
significant; it indicates that their product really sucks, or their
prices are way too high. Your confusion over growth percentages versus
installed base and user base indicate you haven't really thought very
hard about these things at all.
--
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:39:59 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:53:49 +1300;
>> >"You must buy the latest version of AIX, or you can't have the machine"
>> >should also be illegal.
>>
>> IBM has a worthwhile (as opposed to "facially plausible") reason to
>> support only their newest hardware systems with their newest OS release,
>> and screw anyone who doesn't want to keep up.
>
>Of course, if the customer requested the machine with no operating
>system, I don't see any reason IBM should be required to support anything
>beyond hardware faults and issues. If the customer chooses not to buy
>the complete package, they should have that right is all I meant to say.
>If part of that right includes giving up IBM support, the customer should
>be made aware of it, and then be given what he asks for.
I won't go that far. If somebody buys a product from IBM, it is illegal
for IBM to refuse to support *that product* based on what *other
products* (possibly from competitors, but this is irrelevant) the
customer chooses to use the IBM product with.
>> >I can't help but notice that a lot of places wanted to charge me for
>> >Win9x/NT even when I asked for it to not be included... Our supplier
>> >doesn't even have an option on their website for "No operating system".
>> >We have to select one and put a note on the order and manually
>> >recalculate the price.
>>
>> If you publish those prices, you may well be causing some sort of
>> contract violation for someone. Please, by all means, post them.
>
>Can you elaborate on this a bit? What kind of contract could be violated
>by me posting unofficial prices?
What makes you think these prices are in any way "unofficial"? You pay
them, don't you?
The prototypical OEM license includes a restriction from disclosing the
price they pay for Windows.
>I could say that every time we choose Win98 and remove it, the price of
>the PC drops by about NZ$80-90...
Any guess what that might be in US dollars? And could you give us a
real figure, instead of "about" and a range of $10?
--
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:40:17 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:57:00 +1300;
>> >turfing?
>> >How does grass has to do with computers?
>> >
>> If you have to defend microsoft, I imagine its probably essential.
>
>Yes, when I have to use an MS OS, I like to smoke a bit of the old grass
>beforehand to ease my pain...
I find that when I have to reboot, it takes about as long a time to
clean and roll, and sometimes smoke, a good doobie as it does for the
system to get back to a usable state.... ;-D
(I'm lying. Honest.)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Don't believe the hype
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:29:12 GMT
I have now used Linux for 6 months (Redhat 6.0)
According to the press its a stable operating system - YOU MUST BE
JOKING.
yp / ldap (take your pick - you will end up trying both!) just don't
work.
Gnome leaks and locks up frequently, machines reboot and run out of
memory.
In short most of the software may be free but it certainly isn't
finished.
If you value your time then Linux is not free.
Oh yes and I haven't even touched on gdb (use Visual Studio then try
gdb ; its like the dark ages - again IT DOES NOT WORK).
I would have loved to have found linux was stable and usable however
the truth is it lacks quality.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 30 Nov 2000 11:54:35 -0600
"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> > >
> > > This frog shit beats the hell out of whale shit.
> > >
> >
> > And ALL the windows shit beats the living hell outta the dinosaur shit
unix
> > drags itself though.
>
> How would you know?
Because I started in computers running unix and have graduated to W2K. You
might learn something if you moved up too.
>
> > .. go away troll.
>
> You are the Troll in comp.os.linux.advocacy and comp.sys.mac.advocacy
groups.
> M$ doesn't own these newsgroups, so take your arrogant Wintrolling
attitude and
> BSOD yourself with it.
Aaron is a known coma troll - I do not cross post to those groups (only
reply)
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 30 Nov 2000 11:54:55 -0600
"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> > how would you know?
>
> I've been there!
>
> > That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
>
> I run Linux because it kicks MSDOS3.x, MSDOS4.x, MSDOS5.x, MSDOS6.x,
> MSDOS7.x, Win9x, WinME, WinNT, and Win2K's ass (all of which I've tried at
> one time or another....and having to use Win2k here at work -- which you
> would have known if you had read one of my replies elsewhere in this
thread.
> But then again, asking a Winvocate Troll to Read before Posting is futile.
So this tells me that you don't know how to take full advantage of all the
features W2K offers. W2K is far superiour to Linux in every way I've been
able to determine.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: linux jobs and skills. Why the sudden surge and increase?
Date: 30 Nov 2000 18:47:26 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've recently been offered a programming position in an academic
>environment, writing free Linux software, and that's probably what
>I'll do next year.
Congrats... take it! You'll probably have more fun in that environment
than anywhere in some firm doing crisis application...
>Linux skills are pretty valuable because they have broader application
>than just Linux -- linux is built on standards, so your skills should
>be applicable to UNIX in general.
The similarity between Linux and Solaris makes it very valuable.
>I'd suggest that you set yourself up a nice home network and get a solid
>understanding of "sys admin 101", and back it up with some solid
>programming skills. See the books "Beginning Linux Programming" and
>"Professional Linux programming"
Every new Linuxer should do this... don't depend on automatic tools.
>I think the future for people with solid Linux skills will be pretty good.
>Linux seems to be the place where a lot of interesting development (eg
>KDE, GNOME) is taking place. As a general rule, I think people who develop
>broad skills on standards based technologies ( C, C++, UNIX ) have a
>better future than those who rely on proprietary technologies ( VB )
I am amazed how VB is still viable!
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petition: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: 30 Nov 2000 18:49:43 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Micah Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>i have a 81 meg hard disk and only 2 megs of ram. i would get more ram
>but it is the old 30 pin kind for IBM type computers. dose anyone have
>this kind or know how to get it cheap?
>
>and befor i fdisk the computer to laod linux is thare a help book so i
>dont kill the computer.(i am new to linux) the only system i know right
>know is ms-dos. so how differnt is linux from the other systems?
Get the Linux Installation and Getting Started or whatever it is called
now. The Linux Network Administration Guide is also helpful. These
were both drafts in PS files at the time I got started... at least one
is a book from O'Reilly now. The basic system administration book from
O'Reilly most likely covers Linux now. In 1994 it didn't but was still
very useful.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petition: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: 30 Nov 2000 18:51:17 +0100
In article <9060ed$9m0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Micah Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i have a 81 meg hard disk and only 2 megs of ram.
>
>Ouch. I haven't seen a Linux distro which could run
>in that tiny a space. The smallest rating I've
>seen for a *usable* distribution is about 100MB of
>hard drive space and 4MB of RAM. Slackware's
>"ZipSlack" distribution for running in a 100MB DOS
>partition won't even fit on your system.
I ran mine in 80 MB for three years. I do recommend more than 2MB RAM.
That was the minimum back in 1994, and even going up to 4MB would be a
significant gain. You ought to be able to get that from a scrap heap
somewhere (some unused machine in someone's closet).
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petition: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 30 Nov 2000 11:57:20 -0600
"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Leonardo wrote:
>
> > "Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > >
> > > > how would you know?
> > >
> > > I've been there!
> > >
> > > > That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
> > >
> > > I run Linux because it kicks MSDOS3.x, MSDOS4.x, MSDOS5.x, MSDOS6.x,
> > > MSDOS7.x, Win9x, WinME, WinNT, and Win2K's ass (all of which I've
tried at
> > > one time or another....and having to use Win2k here at work -- which
you
> > > would have known if you had read one of my replies elsewhere in this
> > thread.
> > > But then again, asking a Winvocate Troll to Read before Posting is
futile.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Then why don't you tell your boss that You Will Never Use Windows Again.
>
> As a matter of fact, I did. That's why I'm now setting up computers that
we're
> going to use to completely replace Windows.
I don't believe you - that is unless you boss is less interested in
productivity and interoperability and profit then he is using the latest
trendy anti-ms warez.
>
> > Looser, HAH
>
> Obviously, speaking for yourself. I've been winning on Linux here.
Winning what? Linux and making money are words that never appear in the same
sentence unless it's something like "Linux and making money are words that
never appear in the same sentence"
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:47:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
No-Spam wrote:
> You seem to be establishing yourself as a Wintroll Goodwin, is that
your
> intention ?
Since I regard you as one of the lesser advocates here in this group,
this kind of remark doesn't bother me in the slightest. I kinda expected
it from you.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:49:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Its the real McCoy, v2 is definately out, the time between the
> pre-release and final was pretty short, I think because the distros
> wanted the most up-todate pre-release, that is why the "official"
> pre-release was announced, like most companies, they (distro
companies)
> did not want to wait until the full and complete version was ready
> because of the delay.
Yes, but how can I tell if mine is the prerelease or the final release?
If I look at the about boxes, it says "KDE Release 2.0". If I do
konqueror --help
it says
KDE 2.0pre
So what do I believe?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 30 Nov 2000 12:00:19 -0600
Chad, there won't be any company left to visit after they take the road down
linux loosers lane... I mean, I don't know anywhere they've dropped windows
for linux and survived more than a fiscal year. In fact, I consider it an
automatic lie when I hear "We replaced our windows boxes with linux" - I
read: I snuck a copy of linux into a partition I resized with partition
magic (nothing like it in unix world of course) and it's running my own
private ftp site so I can leech files I download at work home.
"Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ikFU5.433$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Leonardo wrote:
> >
> > > "Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > how would you know?
> > > >
> > > > I've been there!
> > > >
> > > > > That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
> > > >
> > > > I run Linux because it kicks MSDOS3.x, MSDOS4.x, MSDOS5.x, MSDOS6.x,
> > > > MSDOS7.x, Win9x, WinME, WinNT, and Win2K's ass (all of which I've
> tried at
> > > > one time or another....and having to use Win2k here at work -- which
> you
> > > > would have known if you had read one of my replies elsewhere in this
> > > thread.
> > > > But then again, asking a Winvocate Troll to Read before Posting is
> futile.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then why don't you tell your boss that You Will Never Use Windows
Again.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, I did. That's why I'm now setting up computers
that
> we're
> > going to use to completely replace Windows.
> >
>
> What company? Just wondering, thought I bid on unscrewing your mess after
> they realize what a pig in a poke you sold them.
>
> > > Looser, HAH
> >
> > Obviously, speaking for yourself. I've been winning on Linux here.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:02:14 GMT
Unfortunately I don't have the patience to programme, thats why I only
programme as a last resort.
kiwiunixman
mitch wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:53:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> In terms of databases, I dispise Access, I prefer
>> using Filemaker, much easier, and producers the same/better results that
>> Access.
>>
>
> I can`t stand windowed database apps - I am only comfortable with
> pl/sql.
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
