Linux-Advocacy Digest #198, Volume #31 Tue, 2 Jan 01 19:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Does Linux envy Microsoft? (hackerbabe)
Does Linux envy Microsoft? (hackerbabe)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (JM)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (JM)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (JM)
Re: Why Hatred? (JM)
Re: Why Hatred? (JM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 17:44:22 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> In article <92t60a$cks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > This way, the config file itself is the one who stores all the
> > > > options. If a new version, with new options, comes out, the same
> > > > tool, with absolutely no
> > > > modifications, be able to handle it.
> > >
> > > And probably screw it to death. Really.
> >
> > Not likely, not if both file & application are built correctly.
> > Why would it screw it?
>
> Because although it knows the options change, it has no idea of
> HOW they change. For example, if optionA is now deprecated, and
> those who set optionA to valueA should now set optionB to valueB,
> it won't know, and it will (in Gus Grissom's words) screw the pooch.
>
> Since you will have to validate the program against every revision of
> every program it is supposed to configure (except the first one, I
> guess), you just lost a big chunk of the savings.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Then it's totally orthogonal to XML. Therefore, please abstain to
> > > push your format by force of buzzword.
> >
> > Sorry about it, your pruposal is a bit too long.
> > And I'm not pushing *my* file format.
>
> Ok, please then don't push the concept by force of buzzword.
If you take away buzzwords, Windows advocates are lost...and naked.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 17:50:16 -0500
Martin Eden wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> > >
> > > goodbye, moron.
> > >
> > > *PLONK*
> > >
> >
> > Translation: Keldon Warlard realizes he's been outsmarted.
> >
>
> By someone who (by his own admission) can't get Windows to start up?
IF Windows crashes on boot up, that's not MY fault, moron.
>
> I'd say you two are in a league of your own 8*)
Windows crappy behavior is universally recognized by all but a few
LYING zealots like yourself.
Hope that helps, asshole.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 17:55:27 -0500
unicat wrote:
>
> There may be a sense of desperation on the part of MS in pushing for
> software leasing. Their stock is in free-fall again, geting close to
> $40/share,
> less than a third of its former value. (anyone want to put bets on how long
> before it reaches $10/share?)
>
> This in itself could be disastrous for MS, as their employees start to
> lose confidence in their (for lack of a better term) leadership, and demand
> to be paid in real money
> instead of worthless pyramid-scheme stock certificates. It has been claimed
> that
> having to pay competitive salaries to its workforce would quickly put MS
> into
> the loss column, leading to a downward spiral of decreasing stock value and
> increasing personnel costs.
>
> But more worrisome could be the reason that the stock is falling.
> Apparently, no one is
> buying the new versions of MS software, especially Win2K. They just don't
> seem to have enough new functionality to justify the purchase price.
>
> MS may not merely be switching to software leasing to increase profits,
> they
> could be driven to this move as a survival measure. Now that there are no
> more
> competitors to copy "innovations" from, some might claim that the
> incomptetence
> of MS management in the area of true creativity is finally showing through.
> Unable
> to create new value to customers, they could have to resort to forcing
> customers
> to repeatedly pay for the same software over-and-over again.
>
> And worse for MS, they lack the leverage they once had. Now that the new
> versions of MS software are no longer "must-buys", the seeming ability of MS
> to extort
> perpetual revenue out of users may be coming to a close.
>
> Some who dislike MS software are actively hoping that MS will resort to
> software leasing.
> The confusion that MS seems to have in discerning the difference between
> what is
> good for customers from what is good for MS seems to be leading them to saw
> off the branch
> they are standing on... creating a value equation so bad that even reluctant
> users will be
> starting to explore Linux as a cost saving measure....
All that's needed is for a couple of large corporations to put Linux
on the Desktop...and...MS will die (or a stockholder revolt will oust
Gates and his cronies).
My bet is that IBM will be the first major corporation to put Linux on
the desktop.
1) They already have their own in-house Linux help-desk.
2) Revenge for the OS/2 backstab.
>
> Nick Condon wrote:
>
> > [From The Register - www.theregister.co.uk]
> >
> > Your PC is about to become obsolete. Microsoft's recent acquisition of
> > 'hosted solutions' outfit Great Plains Software for a cool $1 billion
> > marks a significant advance towards the 'Final Solution' of reducing
> > software users to mere paying guests at the M$ digital banquet, and PCs
> > to mere access devices.
> >
> > We've long known that the Beast was inclining in this direction, but it
> > was not until they actually bought a successful firm dedicated to
> > software hosting that could one say the dream is being realised.
> >
> > Great Plains makes point-and-drool software for small to medium-sized
> > online businesses. It also successfully hosts such software, and this
> > bit, far more than the much-touted (by M$ PR bunnies) leg up in the Mom
> > and Pop business market, represents the ultimate dream.
> >
> > Don't be fooled by the chirpy half-truths in the company press release,
> > in which we are told that "the acquisition represents a major step in
> > [Microsoft's] entry into the small and medium business applications
> > market."
> >
> > Utter rubbish. It's Great Plains' success as an Application Service
> > Provider (ASP) that most tickles the Beast's hideously scaly underbelly.
> >
> > The lair of the white worm
> > So Redmond owns the software you use and controls access to your data.
> > It's for your benefit, after all; it's cheaper than owning it, and you
> > do love a bargain, don't you? It's more secure too, we are told, because
> > you communicate directly via a pre-encrypted client-to-client link in
> > which you have no opportunity to stuff things up. Hell, you don't even
> > know or have access to the key -- and what could be more secure than
> > that?
> >
> > Don't mind that the Beast has to maintain access to your network so it
> > can bill you accurately for use of its, not your, software. Don't mind
> > that the accounting is handled by a funky little chip pre-installed on
> > your mobo which awards you the distinction of being a 'trusted client'.
> > It's all for your protection. And don't mind that the magic chip
> > measures how much time you've spent using the software you no longer
> > own. This is all about trust; and trust is paramount, isn't it?
> >
> > All right, it's unfortunate that your data has to be stored on the M$
> > trusted network along with the software you use, but this could not be
> > helped. Your PC no longer needs, or even has, a hard drive. It has,
> > instead, a non-volatile ROM chip which identifies all the software
> > you're eligible to be billed for using, the amount of time you've spent
> > playing with it, and your credit details. It's brilliant, but God help
> > you if there's a stuff-up.
> >
> > Unable to connect your otherwise worthless and virtually empty PC to the
> > remote Microsoft server where your software and personal files are
> > stored, you have a problem and a half. Perhaps a Winter ice storm has
> > crippled your ISP; perhaps you've neglected to 'fund' the magic mobo
> > chip; perhaps you're simply broke.
> >
> > Generally, a broke company can do limited business so long as the lights
> > stay on, and so maintain hopes of extracting itself from imminent ruin
> > by the force of determined cleverness. Not yours, sucker. No, your
> > billing software is out of reach; your customer database is curtained
> > off; and so the means of rescue are off limits. You're flying blind.
> >
> > We hope you printed out all your crucial files; but as the Beast charges
> > you -- through its trusted-client magic chip -- for each hard-copy page
> > you dare to make, and because you thought you'd just economise on that,
> > there is no paper backup of whom you owe and who owes you. Truly, you
> > are fucked.
> >
> > You search in vain for a temporary remedy. The UCITA (Uniform Computer
> > Information Transaction Act) tells you that all the bizarre rights M$
> > claims, whether you read or agreed to them or not, are in full force,
> > and that all the common-sense rights which you thought you should have
> > are null and void.
> > Damn. Corporate flacks have been writing legislation again, and you have
> > no legal recourse. None at all.
> >
> > Redmond has spoken; the case is closed.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 18:00:46 -0500
WMH wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92tf08$hjc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I can understand why Linux users hate
> > > Windows, it is something we are
> > > too frequently forced to use even
> > > though it, as an operating
> > > environment, is terrible at best.
>
> I think you have this backwards. It is more often linux users who espouse
> disdain for a group of people based on something as ludicrous as what
> computer operating system they use. I've accepted this as fact based on the
> vast majority of people I talk to. Converse with just about any linux user,
> and the subject will inevitably come to some form of MS bashing. Talk to a
> windows user, and they'll usually confine the conversation to windows.
> If linux does enter into the conversation, it is almost always in a positive
> light.
>
> > Microsoft asserts that if users don't pay Microsoft about 20-30 billion
> > a year, that they will stop making software, all computers will become
> > nothing more than boxes with blinking lights, and civilization will
> > revert into the Stone Age.
>
> I know of no such assertion. This sounds grandiose , contrived, and
> paranoid.
> Reality, look into it.
>
> > When Microsoft decided to get into the Internet, it ignored all
> > of the standards and guidlines and began introducing it's own
> > proprietary protocols. Many of these "innovations" introduced
> > severe security holes, enabled the proliferation of viruses ranging
> > from benign Milissa type viruses to catastrophic "I Love You" viruses.
> > Other "Stealth" viruses, including some that may have originated in
> > Microsoft's labs, remain undetectable exept for the tell-tail dump
> > of an encrypted file at strange hours in the morning. It could be
> > your registry, your web browser "history", or maybe just your e-mail
> > log.
>
> The Microsoft browser is more compliant than the Netscape offering.
> The viral threat is easily tharwted by a competent admin.
> If you were to read as much pertinent information related to these topics as
> you do man pages, you would know this.
>
> > The Linux community watches their market go through quantum leaps
> > in terms of quality, reliability, ease of configuration, ease of use,
> > and innovation that Microsoft can only wish they could produce, only
> > to be "locked out" of the market with "Windows Only, no alteration
> > of boot sequence" contracts that prevent these innovations from
> > ever seeing a mass market.
>
> Linux is not ready for the consumer desktop. If it were, its acceptance
> would
> have grown of its own weight. It may yet grow to mass usage. --when it's
> able to.
>
Which is more popular, Unix or Windows?
Here's a clue.
Which of the two is sooooooooo popular that users decided to write
their own version, so that they could free themselves of having to
pay for upgrades, etc.
Obviously, there aren't enough people who love Windows enough to
write their own version and fix all the goddamned bugs.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:02:36 GMT
A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
"There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
Gates] or great companies [like Microsoft] are hated, and it has
nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
successful than everyone else.
Haters of the good [competing OSes and browsers] do not want the less
able to be raised up to the level of the great producers (which is
impossible); they want the great producers to be brought down. They
want to use government coercion to cripple the greatest minds so that
lesser minds will not feel inferior."
========
Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
reasons people dislike Microsoft?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:02:14 GMT
A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
"There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
Gates] or great companies [like Microsoft] are hated, and it has
nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
successful than everyone else.
Haters of the good [competing OSes and browsers] do not want the less
able to be raised up to the level of the great producers (which is
impossible); they want the great producers to be brought down. They
want to use government coercion to cripple the greatest minds so that
lesser minds will not feel inferior."
========
Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
reasons people dislike Microsoft?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:11:58 +0200
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:21:36 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("mud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> And his mother's minge smells of fish?
>...more lintroll maturity....
>plonk.
You REALLY do need to get a life.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:12:01 +0200
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 04:50:32 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("mud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Please plonk me, asshole.
>ok....
>plonk
>lintroll
Wow: I bet you're a fun person to be with.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:12:02 +0200
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 09:16:09 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)) wrote:
>JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
><snip>
>>>As is the case with windows. We are not talking W2K/NT here - we are
>>>talking home/small business. Why would we need most security patches?
>>>There isn't anything to be secured against! OK, there are malicious
>>>java bits and, in particular, VB scripting - which I won't allow. VBS
>>>is just too silly and disabling it doesn't prevent you using most web
>>>sites. At the end of the day though, at worst you will kill a machine
>>>and need a complete
>>At worst? You say that as if it's not that bad. Do you realise how
>>inconvenient it is to have to reinstall windows?
Especially when it's fucked up for hard disk and it won't start. And
it won't even tell you why.
>>>windows install is usually no worse than a Linux install nowadays.
>>Except with Linux you can just change certain parts instead of the
>>whole thing.
>and with windows it is easier for the average home/small business user to
>reinstall windows from scratch than to fix a problem caused by a security
>bug in Linux. Many of these people don't know what a CLI is remember, never
>mind how to use one! Otherwise I completely agree with you. Linux is more
>veratile in this respect - which is not necessarily a good thing in the
>lower end desktop market. People will "fiddle" with configs just to see
>what happens...
Mind you, 'fiddling' with configs is a good way to see how they work.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:12:04 +0200
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 03:32:29 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> > I doubt that. Don't you think she'd be on the phone to you after about
>3
>> > steps? "What's a mount point? What do I set these partition thingies
>to?
>> Why would she ask me about these things?
>>
>> All she did was click where it said "install kde workstation"
>> like I told her, and sat back to watch the pretty flashing screens.
>Strange, Neither Red Hat or Mandrake were that easy.
Then why haven't you explained why? YOu said they weren't that easy:
why weren't they that easy? You can't just send a post half-finished.
>> > After you've configured PPP.
>> I have cable, but whatever.
>>
>> I remember years ago when I had ppp, it was a
>> 3 minute task to go to the red hat control panel
>> and click on the relevant buttons and type things
>> like the dialup number, account and password in
>> the dialog boxes.
>After you found it. In Windows, all you do is boot up, and click the IE
>icon, then it goes through all the setup for you, including configuring
>email.
Supposing you're using IE, supposing you want a dial-up, supposing you
want to configure it yet.
>> > > To get mail, you click on the icon.
>> > After you figure out how to configure the mail program.
>> Not sure what you mean, please explain. Are you talking
>> about the MTA? that comes configured "out of the box".
>> Or are you taling about having to type in the name of
>> your mail server etc, just as you would in any windows
>> mail program?
>Windows streamlines this in a single configuration program.
Does it? I thought it was the mail program that did this. Windows
didn't automatically configure my version of Kaufmann Mail Warrior for
me.
>> > > To start the word processor you click on the icon
>> > After you figure out how to install it.
>> Not sure what you mean, it comes installed with the distro.
>Depends on the distro.
As with Windows.
>> > Install something from a tarball? Unless you already know the syntax to
>> > tar, you'll spend an hour figuring out how to do it. Then you'll spend
>an
>> > hour trying to figure out what you're supposed to do afterwards.
>> Why would mom install anything from a tarball?
>Because that seems to be the only way to install many kinds of programs.
Then why doesn't she learn how to use it? It's not like it's going to
take 5 years.
>> She would click on the kpackage or gnorpm icon,
>> then select the package in the file menu, and
>> click "install".
>Right, and then when she downloads programs from the net, she'll wonder why
>those programs that end in .exe don't work.
The same way that a new Windows user will wonder why those Linux
executables don't work?
What a stupid thing to say.
>> > Ok, contact management software. Where is it? CAD software equivelant
>to
>> > AutoCAD or other high end CAD tools? What about MIDI tools?
>> First of all, that's not OS functionality, it's apps.
>Users are all about the apps.
We're discussing the OS, not the apps.
>Most could care less about the OS as long as
>it works and the App does what they need it to.
So why are we discussing which OS is best? Have you just changed your
mind about what you want to discuss half way through a post?
>> Yes, windows has had a huge head start, but these things
>> all exist in some form, and are quickly becoming more and
>> available under Linux.
>None of the things I mentioned exist in any form other than pre-larval.
Like he said, Windows had a head start.
>> What was it you people were saying a couple years ago?
>> "Linux has no 3D hardware video support, so it will die" -
>> but now we have support in place and rapidly maturing.
>rapidly maturing? There are only a couple of 3D drivers, and one of them
>was just bought by nVidia and will probably drop support.
And that is the fault of the OS?
>> > > I was a windows user, and I tried Linux.
>> >
>> > Oh, so that means all Windows users that try Linux have the same
>opinion. I
>> > understand now.
>> huh?
>The only way your comment makes sense was if you were trying to say that
>because you found Linux the best thing since sliced bread, then all other
>windows users must have as well.
When did he say that?
>> > > Guess what? I now prefer Linux, and really don't like using
>> > > windows anymorel. windows now seems much too limiting.
>> > What do you do with it?
>> - web browsing with rich multimedia content
>> - email communications (several hundred messages per day)
>> - participating in newsgroups like this one (check my headers)
>> - document processing (word, excel files)
>> - programming assignments for classes
>> - chat via irc, aol, yahoo etc
>> - playing internet games like unreal tournament or quake 3 arena
>> - playing CDs
>> - ripping CDs to make mps
>> - playing mp3s
>> - downloading/uploading mp3s on napster
>> - all my work as a system administrator and webmaster.
>In other words, you don't do much of anything serious non-internet related
>with it. You don't use it to mail-merge million record databases. You
I thought we were talking about average end-users. You talked about
your mother having her dial-up and mail programs easily configured: no
mention of her having a million record database.
>don't generate large presentations with it. You don't create complex
>databases easily to handle workgroup tasks. You don't handle 10's of
>thousands of contacts and manage your sales process. You don't do generate
>complicated reports based on millions of rows of data for CEO's.
And the average end user will want to do that.
>> > Where did the 200 million Windows users come from?
>> kmart, target etc - any place where joe 6 pack buys a
>> pc and has no choice about what OS comes with it.
>Home users are only a tiny fraction of the PC business.
And since when do people using it at work have to configure the
internet settings themselves?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:12:06 +0200
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 18:15:46 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)) wrote:
>Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
><snip>
>>don't forget about all the fun viruses available. That's another thing
>>Windows users can brag about. They got more viruses than we do. It just
>>makes you wanna cry b/c windows users get all the fun.
>>
>
>yeah. Where's the fun in writing viruses for Linux? There arn't enough
>floppy disk users on that OS to let them spread well! Come to think of it,
>there arn't enough users for it to be fun at all!
>
>On the other hand, all those nice ascii config files, put in a nice,
>standard directory tree, would be great fun to edit with a very simple
>virus wouldn't they?
>
><grin>
>
>(Don't comment about Linux security here - this is a joke - don't take it
>to heart guys!)
Too late: we're already frothing at the mouths!
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
