Linux-Advocacy Digest #573, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: LA Times article re. Microsoft... (Andy Newman)
Re: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Steve Mading)
Re: Don't believe the hype ("Snarf")
Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Netscape review. (bob_more)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:38:36 -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*.
Yes, but a lot of software cannot be developed profitably as OSS but
would do well and flourish commercially. That's my point and I think you
realise this but wish to just be difficult by making that silly
statement.
| >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.
*Anyone* using linux apps x, y and z will be running Linux. Not everyone
running Linux will be running all apps x,y or z. In fact, there may be a
large segment running none of those apps. Linux the OS applies to all
Linux users. Its development impacts on all users. This is why it will
flourish as OSS.
| >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.
Can you prove that us Winidiots are wrong?
| 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.
You are a second guessor yourself. Remember that I labelled you Mr.
Presumptuous?
| 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
Look. Giving away copies as shareware is eons away from making it OSS. I
believe you know this.
| (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.
You're just moving the goal posts further away from my point which you
haven't refuted one bit. Of what use is the bare game to me if I don't
have the scenarios to play with. I still have to pay for those.
| 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.
I never said it was. You have this habit of creating a criticism I have
into one which is all encompassing. I say you're unfair about your
criticism about MS's language support. I'm now a MS and monopoly lover.
I use Win2k and defend why I do so. I must be a MS lover, agree with
monopolies and condone monopolistic behaviour.
I now say that OSS development and production will not succeed in being
as profitable as commercial software development and production for as
wide an assortment and variety of software types. I'm now being labelled
as saying that it can never be profitable. What's your problem Max?
I've decided to completely ignore Mark because he doesn't read what I
write and twists my words. But you're doing pretty much the same thing
here by taking my specific critism of OSS and blowing it out of
proportion.
| >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.
There is no conflict. STOP the black and white assessment of my opinions
and you'll see. Do NOT attempt to place me in a partisan or extreme
position. You'll be frustrated as you are now. You're an extremist
yourself. Of course, since you tend to be so condescending and arrogant
while discussing you must have a big ego. You therefore must assume that
any rational individual would have an extremist view on things, ie., I'm
either BLACK or WHITE. I either think there's nothing positive about MS
and if I say *anything* contrary to that position then it *must* be that
I feel that everything they do is good and I love monopolies.
I constantly find myself being categorised as if this is what makes you
feel more comfortable or makes me a better target.
| >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,
Well we have managed to drill our disagreement down to what we consider
sufficient to maintain the monopoly.
Again, this is user dependent. I said this further down.
» 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.
If you find the enhancements to Win2k to be crap, then you'll clearly
feel the way that you feel and that no meaningful effort or thought was
put into making Win2k better, or that the customer was never considered
when adding these features.
| 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?
They do add genuinely useful features. They just aren't useful to you
and your egotistical mind tells you that if they aren't useful to *you*,
then they aren't useful, period.
| >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.
OK.
| Its that its crap.
Well don't be idiotic and use the word 'crap'. Go look in the dictionary
and see what the word crap means.
| Crap can be
| very useful for some things (no analogies, please.)
No, it can't, unless you wish to fertilise your soil.
| 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?
To you NO. To me, yes it does. Does the fact that *you* don't think so
mean it's not worth any money to be spending on it?
| Particularly given that you'd already spent the money on
| NT?
Actually I didn't spend any money on NT. :=) But that's besides the
point. Even if I had spent money on NT, I disagree.
| 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?
I didn't abandon my previous investment. I paid less for the upgrade
that the full license and I can still run ALL the apps I ran before.
| Finally, is whether I find these improvements useful to *me* really what
| should determine if W2K is a successful product?
No. But Max, if the damn thing works for me and works better for me than
the others, I'll use it.
| 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?
Yes, a free market should be tasked with that decision.
| Do you *really* think that consumers want to buy a new OS every couple
| of years?
No. As usual, you are blowing things out of proportion. Are you
exploring to see how I feel in this regard or are you already somehow
presuming that I like paying for upgrades every two 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"?
You lost me there.
| 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".
Interesting point, but I disagree with it. I use Windows to run
applications. I don't use Windows to run Windows itself.
| If there
| were free market in OSes and apps, you'd have migrated years ago, I'm
| sure.
Very likely. :=) The monopoly however exists which narrows my choices.
However, there's still a choice to make. I see you use the word 'choice'
as loosely as the word 'crap'.
| >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.
The only time I felt suckered was when I discovered OS/2. I couldn't
believe what everyone else was using while OS/2 existed. I still can't
believe that Win9x is so widespread when the other choices exist. It's
those users who've been suckered in my view; suckered because they don't
know what else is out there.
I paid less for this Win2k license as I did for OS/2. I'm familiar with
paying for a commercial OS. Was I suckered then?
| >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.
You use the word suckered loosely.
I know why I have arrived at making Win2k my choice. I know it's because
of the Windows monopoly. I know that this is so because the other
choices haven't been given a fair chance in the market place. My only
relief is that I do find Win2k pleasant to use and comparably usable as
the other choices.
Suckered means that you have been fooled without knowing it. I felt
suckered when I discovered OS/2. I realised that my using Win95 was
clearly one based on ignorance.
I, as a single person, couldn't have prevented the monopoly from
occurring and neither could you. If you consider being suckered the fact
that you have to be using Windows despite how you feel about MS, then I
agree that we've been suckered. :=)
| >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).
So you have made a choice when you have chosen the hard way out. Aaaah,
I see. We see things differently here Max. If you see point A and point
B and choose point A, then you've made a choice, no matter how much
easier point A is than point B and no matter your misgivings about it.
| >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.
T. Max, it's for you to convince me of that point in the context of MS
which I tend to disagree with. This is what I disagree with. This
doesn't make me support monopolies and monopolistic practises.
I disagree with this because I have seen improvement in their software
over the years. They would only improve their software if they were
motivated to or they were motivated in some other way that led to
improvement of their software as a side effect.
| The only motivation they have is
| to get people to buy more of their product.
That's the motivation of any commercial software vendor. This is not
unique to monopolies alone.
| Now, in a free market, one
| of the mechanisms available to producers to get people to buy more of
| their product is improving it.
Yes.
| The other is lowering the price.
Yes.
| In a
| monopoly, the only mechanism available is monopolization.
Well, NT to Win2k was certainly an improvement. I don't know why they'd
do a thing like that.
| 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.
Actually, I can't say I prefer OS/2 to Win2k. I definitely preferred
OS/2 to NT.
| You say you understand that MS is a monopoly, but you simply don't seem
| to understand what that means.
You seem to think that if I oppose anything you say, then I oppose
everything you say. I get this impression from you.
| You're still under the delusion that a
| monopoly engages in competition.
In terms of MS and Win2k, I'd say yes, that they're engaged in
competition. They have less than 30% of the server market and are
fighting to maintain this. The pro version of Win2k is benefitting from
this.
| I'm not sure where you got that idea,
| but its blatantly false.
Why is it BLATANTLY false. You use such categorical words. Why is it
blatantly false that MS isn't competing in the server market and that
they aren't working at actually improving their Win2k line of OS's to
maintain or increase their present server market share?
| If a monopoly needed to compete (or, from a
| different perspective, was capable of competing), they wouldn't be a
| monopoly.
This is why I disagree that they're a monopoly in the server market
while I agree that without a doubt they're a monopoly in the desktop
market. Win98 to ME is not the same as WinNT to 2k. One is an upgrade
offered as a monopoly and the other isn't.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: LA Times article re. Microsoft...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:52:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I agree. The only people who believe Microsoft is the best software
>producer are hiding from the facts.
Or have the facts hidden from them. MS have done a fantastic job
of exploiting a largely technically ignorant marketplace and convincing
(emphasis on the first syllable) them that MS products are the best.
There's an Orwellian-ness to their press releases and public statements
that sometimes makes me think they're actually in a completely different
universe within those buildings up in Redmond.
The attempts by MS to apply their methods in more demanding technical
environments (and in court cases) are, ahem, interesting. Most, up to
now, have failed. The same methods don't work well with demanding users
who want solutions to technical problems first, not to be a cash flow
source for MS.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:47:04 GMT
Pete, just ignore him and he will go away.
kiwiunixman
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Perry Pip open his mouth and uttered forth a pile of drivel:
>
> [snip]
>
> Hit a nerve did I?
>
> When someone dare's to challenge the Linux advocates here, down into the
> muck they go! Out come the insults! YEEHAA!!
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:49:48 GMT
hmmmmmmmmm, are you sure you didn't get the Dutch version of Mandrake
Linux? :)
kiwiunixman
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>> when KDE2 loads up, does it display the start up screen with a dragon
>> and four green buttons that light up as the loading progresses, if so,
>> it is the pre-release. They replaced the start up screen with something
>> a little more conservative in the full release.
>
>
> No, it's a picture of a jolly penguin wearing a boiler suit behind a bunch
> of oddly drawn cogs.
>
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: 30 Nov 2000 23:44:33 GMT
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Our servers will stop and start 5000 programs
:> per day. At ususally the 6500 pid level
:> they will start failing, one by one.
: Why so many? (Curiousity factor here...)
I don't want to speak for Charlie here, but I just wanted to
point out that no admin in the Unix world would consider 5000
processes per day to be "many". It's fairly normal, and not
a big deal at all. (Granted, many of them are very small
processes that don't actually end up doing anything.) For
example, I just set up a CRON job that checks for new files
every 2 minutes in a directory, and if there are some, it
moves them elsewhere. It's a very simple script, but since
it runs every 2 minutes, that script alone is run 720
times per day. (30 per hour * 24 hours). It's pretty easy
to get a total 5000 processes per day without the system
breaking a sweat. (Much of the design/evolution of Unix
involved using lots of little tiny processes to do various OS
tasks instead of one large monolithic process. As a result,
the process management techniques of UNIX are fast and leak-free,
such that the system doesn't mind having oodles of little
processes all over the place, with processes being spawned and
exiting every minute of every hour of every day.)
Often Unix programmers are surprised to learn that this isn't
considered the norm everywhere else, and have to alter their
programming habits for Windows (where forking lots of processes
for tiny tasks is a Bad Thing.) That is why sometimes direct
ports of Unix tools to Windows are less than optimal, especially
internet server programs. (that tend to spawn a full subprocess
instead of just a subthread when a new client connection comes
in.) In most Unixen the performance difference between launching
a full process and merely launching a thread isn't large enough
to worry about it - so threads are only used in UNIX when the
programmer actually wants the child and the parent to share the
same variables in memory. The rest of the time he uses a
subprocess, since it's safer. (If a programming error causes
the child process to die prematurely, the parent doesn't go
down with it, so the service (web, ftp, or whatever) is still
available for new connections.)
------------------------------
From: "Snarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Don't believe the hype
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:45:52 -0500
Reply-To: "Snarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
the wintroll has spoken...
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:29:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I have now used Linux for 6 months (Redhat 6.0)
> >
> >According to the press its a stable operating system - YOU MUST BE
> >JOKING.
>
> Linux is stable if it sits running in cli mode in the back of some
> closet somewhere serving up web pages or directing traffic. If you
> attempt to run X and then some real applications under kde or Gnome
> that is where Linux starts to collapse. Sure most of the time Linux
> itself doesn't crash but to the user browsing or running her
> application what's the real difference except that the other users on
> the box may still be up.
>
> I have found even the latest version of Mandrake 7.2 to be abysmal
> compared to Windows 2000. It's not bad as far as Linux is concerned,
> but it looks like crap and it is quite unstable with kde locking up
> all the time.
>
> >
> >I would have loved to have found linux was stable and usable however
> >the truth is it lacks quality.
>
> In terms of usability, consistency and quality of applications,
> especially the kde and Gnome applications, it is pathetic how
> amateurish these applications look compared to Windows applications.
>
> But still, if you want that all and powerful cli and love to type
> commands and churn out code and control literally every aspect of your
> operating system, Linux may be the ticket.
>
> claire
>
>
> >
> >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: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version
Date: 30 Nov 2000 17:52:06 -0600
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3937182.html?pt.ms..feed.ne_home
I can't blame them, lack of interest is why MS dropped support for other
chips in W2K.
Just amusing to see RedHat following the dollars and not technology for
technologies sake.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:51:53 GMT
Especially at the 2 pence per-minute toll on calls in the UK, wow, that
would have set ya back a few bob. :)
kiwiunixman
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Mig wrote:
>
>> Youre right. I get fllowing with "kicker --v" and other programs
>> Qt: 2.2.1
>> KDE: 2.0pre
>> The KDE Panel: 0.9
>
>
> Me too:
>
> Qt: 2.2.1
> KDE: 2.0pre
> The KDE Panel: 0.9
>
>> Youre using Mandrake 7.2 right? Self burned ISO's? It looks like the
>> special version of Mandrake shipped a few days before the official release
>> is the base of the downloadable ISO's. I know a major store in the US got
>> 7.2 with prerelease KDE software. This could explain why i dont have
>> taskbar icons for Kppp when im dialing and why i cannot import Gtk+
>> themes.
>
>
> Downloading ISO across a 56k modem isn't really viable 8). I bought mine
> from the Linux Emporium here in the UK - they seem to have their brand on
> the CD.
>
>> Anyone there with a selfcompiled KDE2 missing those icons?
>
>
> I'd like to know too!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: bob_more <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:47:46 -0500
spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chad Myers wrote:
> When you're done smoking, mark, would you come down and
> join the rest of the real world?
How would you know what is in the real world when you are living exclusively in a
Bill Gates World?
> Is MS is a monopoly, then why are Mac and Linux doing so
> well.
Yep, you're obvious an MS attorney who used this statement in court.....Along
with trying to tell us that Netscape/AOL could merge now and become a big
company. What your selective memory won't let you remember is that until MS was
in court, nobody had a shot at the market.....Merchants didn't dare let anything
not MS around on their shelves or in their business for fear of MS retaliation.
While MS was in court, Merchants could finally allow competitors around them
knowing that if MS retaliated, MS would be answering for that in court.
As far as Mac doing so well, I think it is a combination of putting out a better
product and OS, and MS shooting themselves enough in the foot in the court trial
enough that several users decided it might be time to try the competition. A Mac
advocate could address this issue much better then myself.
As far as Linux doing well, MS hasn't been a real factor in how well it does....A
lot of people found shortcomings in Windows for years, searched for alternatives,
and started using Linux (or any other Free Unix OS). The number of people
finding Linux/Free Unixes have been increasing. The MS effect on Linux has been
really interesting since with Win98, Win2K, and the Court Trial, MS have shot
themselves in the foot worse than anybody would have ever thought....and Linux
suddenly have record number of people trying Linux to get off that unreliable MS
OS.
> You and your kind repeatedly tell us how wonderful
> Linux or the MacOS is doing and how it's much better than
> any OS MS ever put out.
You and your kind have been pushing MShaft on Amiga, Atari, Commodore, and Apple
users for year. In fact you Wintrolls have been pushing MS on anything not-MS
related. Were you really so stupid as to believe there wouldn't be a backlash
once it was found out what liars/FUD spreaders you guys were? And even today,
you represent your type well. Here you are again advocating (actually beyond
advocating) Windows in other newsgroups not concerned or caring about Windows.
You Wintrolls obviously think that you own all of these newsgroups. Welcome to
the backlash where you find you own nothing! It is also obvious that you
Wintrolls apparently can't navigate the internet well enough to advocate windows
in a windows newsgroup.
So please don't give us a lecture on 'our kind'. Your kind is the worst kind
ever in the computer world.
> What then, if MS has a monopoly on OS software, is Linux?
Linux is a pain in MS's side since MS can't get Linux off the market or out of
distribution like they can with OSes produced by a central company that can be
bought up or run out of business. Linux happens to be much more stable,
reliable, and, even, robust than Windows available on many more platforms that MS
ever considered.
> Or MacOS for that matter?
With the advent of OSX, a contender to MS that will probably be as stable as the
other Free Unices......MacOS has a good chance to overtake MS.
> -Chad
Actually, more of a 'hanging chad'
I agree with some of what you say, As far as the mickeysoft die hards go in
lieu of the DOJ affair, I have to laugh. They sit back and look all innocent
about the fact that they mediocre products and predatory business practices
have come due, and they are always pushing their ware down anyone else's
throats with this "we're the onlt REAL game in town" mentality I think, because
they want to put aside their own insecurities.
Mac (Although honestly, I dont care much for the platform), stands on a loyal
user base that doesnt seem likely to change soon. And Unix/Linux grew out of
their own merits long before windows and the MS platform ultimately isnt a
factor in it's history, the MS'ers have a hard time seeing past the desktop.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
