Linux-Advocacy Digest #290, Volume #31 Sat, 6 Jan 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why NT? (Shane Phelps)
Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("2 + 2")
Re: Why NT? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: RPM Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: RPM Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("kiwiunixman")
Re: .NET and Microsoft Anti-Piracy (was: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm
pst.) ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Deja No News (SoneoneElse)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (Bob Lyday)
Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers. ("kiwiunixman")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:09:09 +1100
JAR wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> >With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
> >why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
> >
> >I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department would
> >deploy NT.
>
> Choose a typical box today, or one from a couple years ago… any box.
> Not talking expensive hardware here. Now calculate the amount of
> effort to Configure, Maintain and Install the OS. Duplicate that by
> 10,50,100+ …. That's why NT was/still is the choice. The name of the
> game is just how EZ is it? By far NT is. Also who you gonna
> call/blame when all hell breaks loose, when it really matters?
In my experience, multiple Unix boxes are easier to configure and
remotely adminster than NT. 1 NT box is easier than 1 *nix box,
10 probably come out square, *nix wins hands-down at 50+, especially
when you spread them over a wide area.
MS recommend single-purpose servers (eg 1 PDC, 1 SDC, 1 web server, 1
database engine, ...) so you'd probably end up with less *nix boxes than
NT Server boxes, which reduces NT's advantage in small deployments.
There are lots of support providers for the various unices, of
varying degrees of competence, just as there are for NT, so NT doesn't
have any advantage in that area.
>
> Only those with much experience are willing to bet on one of the free
If 're running a big site you'd bloody-well better have people with a lot
of experience, or you're toast anyway!!!!
> X's for any given solution. As for as the non-free UNIX's, you
> better have money to burn.
Does Solaris count as free or non-free? It's free as in beer for smaller
servers, but not as in speech. Little SPARC boxes aren't all *that*
much more expensive than x86 servers and you'd have to be seriously
one-eyed to think that any Intel box is going to come close to a Starfire
(maybe a Beowulf cluster could give one a run - it'd be an interesting
experiment)
>
> JAR
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 02:10:07 -0500
"The 2.4 kernel is compatible with upcoming generations of computer
microprocessors, including Intel Corp.'s (NasdaqNM:INTC - news) upcoming
64-bit Itanium chip, and supports symmetric multiprocessing, which allows
machines to run up to 32 computer chips at once."
See http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010105/tc/linux_torvalds_dc_2.html
Given the need of web sites to tighten expenses due to the dot.com shakeout,
Linux 2.4 will be very popular as a web server.
Dell is offering a 8 way processor server for about $30,000 with Linux
factory installed.
2 + 2
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:20:39 +1100
Todd wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Todd wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for
> free,
> > > > why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
> > > >
> > > > I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department
> would
> > > > deploy NT.
> > >
> > > Neither can I. We are deploying Windows 2000.
> > >
> > > Linux shouldn't be trying to compete with NT. Linux needs to be able to
> > > compete with 2000 - which I don't believe it can do yet, if ever.
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > W2K is actually NT 5, so this is a moot point :-)
> >
> > Could you please list some of the reasons you selected W2K over NT4?
>
> For workstation use:
>
> 1) Multi-language support ( *entry* and display )... most unices barely
> support display, almost none support the mutli-locale entry methods. Makes
> supporting multiple countries a lot easier. This feature alone made it
> worth it where I work in Asia.
>
> Server:
>
> 1) Better stability and robustness than NT. No more memory leaks.
>
> 2) Easier remote administration with terminal services.
>
> 3) Faster than NT and better SMP support.
>
> Those are just the biggies that I could think of at the top of my head.
>
> 2000 is just all-around better than NT. So far, no compatibilitiy
> problems - but then, most software we use is either designed for or
> certified for use with 2000.
>
> > I can't claim to have done any in-depth evaluation of W2K Server as yet,
> > but it doesn't appear at first glance to be all that much of an
> > improvement over NT 4 Server.
>
> It is. Once you use it, you will see. Active directory alone is a huge
> change - and a good one at that.
>
> > Are there any hidden compatibility gotchas (apart from SMB and RDP)
> > which are likely to break NT 4 applications?
>
> Haven't found any yet... most NT software has already been patched if the
> need existed - 2000 has been out officially for almost a year now.
>
> -Todd
Thanks for the summary. It's nice to see something objective on an
advocacy NG for a change :-)
(dons asbestos underwaer)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 6 Jan 2001 07:17:45 GMT
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:24:36 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 03:11:59 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> You've cleverly diverted this into a discussion about the conduct of
>> the Fl court as opposed to the Dems.
>
>The Florida Supreme court is 100% Democrat, every one appointed
>by former gov. Lawton Chiles.
I believe you're confusing "Democract appointee" with "Democrat".
Last I heard, the judges were not supposed to be affiliated with
political parties.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: 6 Jan 2001 07:28:17 GMT
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:04:58 +0000, Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>BradyBear wrote:
>
> That's not Linux, just one crappy utility. Perhaps your last line
RPM is not a crappy utility. It's not RPMs fault that both you and the
poster don't understand how it works.
>should have read "That's the Redhat Install Wizard". If you need a job
Bullshit.
>doing properly, do it yourself, without depending on some hugely
>complicated program to do it all for you.
You can do it yourself with RPM. All RPM does is maintain a list
of dependencies after you've built the package so you don't hose
your system by accident.
>new application. But now I've learnt my lesson; I stay in _control_, and
>install manually from source. It gives me optimised code, put exactly
You can "install from the source", with "optimised" code, with whatever
build parameters you choose with RPM.
Don't criticise what you don't understand.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: 6 Jan 2001 07:30:57 GMT
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 08:02:23 GMT, BradyBear wrote:
Look, KDE is the f*cking GUI for god's sake. Do you upgrade the Windows
GUI without an "operating system upgrade" ? The fact that Linux even gives
you flexibility to upgrade the GUI while leaving the rest of the
system untouched is a testimony to its power and flexibility.
The fact that you're not bright enough to do it properly is not Linux's
fault.
Hint: download the src.rpm packages and rebuild on your system,
or download packages that were built against your system. Duh!
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 6 Jan 2001 07:48:03 GMT
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:25:12 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 5 Jan 2001 22:59:34
>>They have a mandate from the majority of those who bother to vote. Those
>>who don't bother to vote don't count. Those who want to be counted vote.
>
>I'm afraid this is a flawed and even dangerous argument. Everybody
>counts;
As far as the election is concerned, those who don't vote don't count.
>>>So trying to circumvent a flaw, and succeeding, by negotiating with a
>>>leading candidate to consider your concerns, is a bad thing? I don't
>>>get it.
>>
>>No, the fact that the system needs to be subverted in such a way indicates
>>there's something wrong with the system.
>
>Subvert? Sounds like a dangerous term, in the wrong hands. That isn't
>"subverting" the system; that *is* the system.
You're saying vote swapping is part of the system ? That's news to me.
I thought vote-swaps were back door unenforceable verbal deals.
>OK, I see your point; I'm again being imprecise. I see a government
>determined by 'instant run-off elections' as sharing many of the same
>problems and dangers as a coalition government.
Such as ?
>They require a different form of compromise than a two party system. As
>counter-productive as the naked extremist partisan rhetoric we suffer
You think partisanship is unique to your system ?
>these days might be, it is worth considering that it only exists because
>of the inherent motivation for both sides to "stick to their guns", and
>maintain their principles, if you will.
But they don't, in fact the senate rules make it impossible for them
to do so.
> But they must, inherently,
>compromise on their activities, since there is no coalition to support
>them in straying from the moderate course.
I don't know why coalition governments keep popping up, or how they're
related to instant runoff systems.
However, the US system does effectively result in an uneasy coalition
between the Dems and Reps since they have to work together.
> In a coalition government,
>or one run by someone with the ephemeral 'mandate' that an instant-run
>off provides, the compromise has to only be enough to gain *control*,
>not enough to gain real *support*.
I don't see how this relates to instant runoffs (In fact one could argue
that the Dem/Rep "coalition" has gained control, but not real support,
due to the forced duopoly created by the electoral system. I'm not going
to pursue this argument further though, since I don't agree with it.)
>>Unfortunately, there's a widespread perception that voting for someone
>>who *has no chance of winning* is "throwing away your vote".
>
>That's what I said. So why are you encouraging this perception, by
>using it as an assumption in your presentation, if you know it is
>unfortunate, since it is not correct?
I'm not encouraging this perception. I'm merely pointing out that the
supporters of third party candidates often vote for a candidate that
they don't support, and when they vote for the candidate they do support,
it adversely and undesireably hurts their preferred main party candidate.
>>largely because if a candidate has no chance of winning and you vote
>>for them, your vote will not have any effect on the outcome of the
>>election (bar hurting the major party candidate who you might otherwise
>>have voted for, which is certainly not the effect the voter would hope
>>for)
>
>By definition, every vote is wasted, then, except those that were for
>the winner.
Not at all. The margin of victory or defeat is also important.
>>Why do you think run-off elections are so hard ? In case you don't
>>understand how they work, it's not necessary for voters to vote
>>more than once. They fill out ballots ranking the candidates in
>>order of preference.
>
>It is not the number of ballots, but the level of true consensus
>necessary, which makes the size too large.
I don't understand your point.
>>Australia has 18,000,000 and has been doing just fine with instant
>>runoffs. There are countries in Europe that are somewhat larger
>>and have succesfully deployed a similar system.
>
>To be honest, I wasn't aware of that. Does it result in picking the
>"most favorite extremist", rather than a moderate?
Usually, the moderates get in (that is, moderate in the local context.
A "moderate" leftist outside of the US is probably an extremist in the
US)
>I didn't say they were crackpot schemes. Merely that saying they are
>objectively preferable, and should be implemented in the US, would be a
>crackpot scheme.
I didn't say they were "objectively" preferable. It's pretty hard to
find anything that's "objectively preferable".
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can be made unstable, too.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 07:55:01 GMT
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 23:45:43 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >JM wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >Clue for the clueless: If you value your data, you *WILL* have the
power
> >> >for this system running off of a battery backup arrangement.
>
> >> But how much would that cost?
>
> >not that much. I have a UPS running at home (2 computers + telephone
system
> >connected to it, 1000 Watts power for about half an hour) and it costs
> >about 400 Dollars. I do not think that this is much, even if i live in
> >germany which has a very stable power grid
>
> 400 Dollars is a LOT if the power hardly ever goes out.
Undoing the damage from an inopportune power outage (and they happen
eventually regardless of how stable your power grid may be) costs more.
Especially if you're a developer or handle any sensitive information.
A UPS and a good backup plan are essential if you use your system for more
than playing games and surfing the net.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:10:36 GMT
The question is, how much did he pay for that phase. As most people know,
scientology IS the biggest con-jobs next to Microsoft and e-commerce.
kiwiunixman
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "." wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Linux had better get it's collective ass organized if it ever hopes to
> > > compete for desktop market share with Windows and Mac. In it's present
> > > state it is a conglomeration of disjointed half completed works.
> >
> > > I received my Mandrake update CD this week and decided to give
> > > Mandrake 7.2 another whirl, partly because I am bored at the moment
> > > and partly because I was hoping that this one was the big winner.
> >
> > That's a scientology term. Suddenly everything falls into place.....
>
> I'm not familiar with scientology lingo....what did you spot?
> (just curious)
>
>
> >
> > -----.
>
>
> --
> 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: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .NET and Microsoft Anti-Piracy (was: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released
at 4pm pst.)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:17:05 GMT
In New Zealand there IS a culture of hating large companies esp. Microsoft!
jump on any talk back station, and you hear the presenter bitch because his
bloody computer keeps crashing! Microsoft has NO supporters in New Zealand!
kiwiunixman
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adam Warner wrote:
> >
> > Hi ".",
> >
> > > Pffft, a dozen and a half warez-groups have been writing key-gens for
> > > exactly this sort of anti-piracy measure (which originated through
> > > the first generation Psygnosis in the time of the Amiga-anyone
remember
> > > that?) for at least 10 years.
> > >
> > > Go microsoft. Way to innovate.
> >
> > Maybe you haven't fully thought through the implications of an operating
> > system tied into .NET.
> >
> > (Below is speculation)
> >
> > Point 1: No-one has created key gens for Office 2000 or Windows 2000.
There
> > will be no keygens for Whistler either.
> >
> > Point 2: Microsoft could create a combined licence code at installation
time
> > based upon your licence code and your specific hardware.
> >
> > Point 3: Your licence code and your combined licence code could be your
> > ticket to .NET services. Microsoft would have all legitimate license
codes
> > in a central database and compare against those. Microsoft could also
check
> > that the combined licence code is still the same as when you first
> > registered for .NET services. If that combined licence code changed you
> > would have to purchase another hardware licence for the same original OS
> > license.
> >
> > Maybe Microsoft won't do this. But such a plan would be virtually
fullproof.
> >
> > I am relucant to even call this anti-pirary because the measures would
be
> > designed to stop you installing the OS on a different (updated?
upgraded?)
> > computer even if you removed the software from the prior computer.
> >
>
> And Americans, being the sheep that they have become,
> will bend over and take it from Bill like they always do...
> :-(
>
> > Regards,
> > Adam
>
>
> --
> 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: SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Deja No News
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:18:02 GMT
Reply-To: Truthteller
Sad to say it may be fruitless too.
How do you know that they haven't already deleted them.
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 02:49:53 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'm posting this message to point out that I am stripping that annoying
>petition request from my signature. This should be the last post
>showing it. I know its annoying, and I no longer think there's any
>chance that, if the situation is going to be corrected, it will be
>furthered in any way by whether or not I post the link to this page.
>
>I find the situation very pathetic, and disturbing, to be honest, and
>join with at least thousands, and hopefully millions, of people who
>consider Deja's actions and response to be reprehensible. It does not
>take an extremist mind-set nor a socialist canter to believe that the
>archives Deja has amassed from Usenet are not theirs in an unencumbered
>fashion, and they are ethically and even legally and commercially
>required to ensure that they are available economically and without
>undue restrictions, or that they are allowed to be maintained by those
>who will do so.
>
>I'm sick of being reminded of this depressing state of affairs every
>time I read one of my own posts, so I'm chopping the sig.
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:35:21 GMT
The comparision was very generalised on my part, however, as a general rule,
UNIX is more expensive in a small organisation than in a large, hence the
popularity of NT in the small business world, however, Linux is becoming
easier to administer, hence, in the small business world Linux is becoming
increasingly popular, esp. amoungst those who wish to cut their running
costs.
kiwiunixman
"Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > Also, an UNIX box costs more to setup due the lack of UNIX
administrators
> > (because of the onslaught of Microsoft "if you can point and click
you're an
> > administrator" message).
>
> Have you seen what MCSE certification manual sets can cost?
>
> (I am quite comfortable with my little stack of O'Reilly's)
>
> > Hence, pay a UNIX admin $NZ120K a year or $NZ45K for a wintel admin?
>
> Pay 1 unix admin for the productivity of 3 wintel admins ... 1 unix
> admin who can manage machines all around the globe from a single
> location ...
>
> Here in Canada, the disparity between salaries is not so extreme. I
> wager the productivity ratio is valid everywhere.
>
> --
> Porsche Boxster 88,295,285 Club-Z points away
> Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
> --
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:41:54 GMT
"Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > Also, an UNIX box costs more to setup due the lack of UNIX
administrators
> > (because of the onslaught of Microsoft "if you can point and click
you're an
> > administrator" message).
>
> Have you seen what MCSE certification manual sets can cost?
>
> (I am quite comfortable with my little stack of O'Reilly's)
They're far more effective than the aforementioned MCSE manuals.
O'Reilly publishes the best technical references on the planet!
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:39:28 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> > Worst of all, they *lock* you into Microsoft.
> > I wonder where the idea for WinModems came?
> >
>
> A scheme to reduce hardware costs by using software to provide error
> correction and data compression.
>
Then why do they only work with Windoze if that is all they are?
Isn't there more to it?
--
Bob
In the interest of the Christmas spirit, the nasty anti-Dubya sig has
been put aside. Don't despair, it will return shortly. ;) However,
spammers will get no mercy during the holidays. Therefore, you must
continue to remove "killthespammers" to reply. ;)
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:50:50 GMT
a new microsoft sponsered-degree, Masters of Crashology, the study of
computer crashs and how to make them look different in each version of
Windows/MSOffice/Lookout!
kiwiunixman
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:935gtf$8t3l6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >How dare you criticize Microsoft's right to innovate.
> >
> >(Innovating *what*, exactly, they are reluctant to say...)
> >
>
>
> That's obvious - each new version of their software crashes
> in new ways so they are innovating in unreliability.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
