Linux-Advocacy Digest #496, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (J Sloan)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (J Sloan)
Re: The Server Saga (J Sloan)
Re: The Server Saga (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (J Sloan)
Re: The Linux Show! (J Sloan)
Re: Why Hatred? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (J Sloan)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:27:09 GMT
In article <eVC86.3399$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on 14 Jan 2001 20:39:41 GMT
>> <93t2qd$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:Rrj86.2343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>>
>> >>> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > [snip]
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
>> >>> > > worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
>> >>> > > shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
>> >>> > > mean dittly squat.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Where did you work? At a gas pump?
>> >>>
>> >>> 1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
>> >>> Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
>> >>> hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
>> >>> 2000 was the prime choice. It was the best performing, most stable
>> >>> server software to serve to both the Mac and PC video editing machines.
>> >>> Never failed us once.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2.) My current employer is releasing a product based on EJB. There is
>> >>> very little support, if any from major web application platform vendors.
>> >>> Some provide it, but it's a use-at-your-own-risk type situation. Sun
>> >>> Solaris and Windows 2000 were the platforms of choice.
>> >>>
>> >>> We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
>> >>> Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Chad
>> >
>> >> One more thing I forgot to add...
>> >
>> >> Bottom Line:
>> >
>> >> Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
>> >> the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
>> >> tasks.
>> >
>> >Let me know when you can run w2k on a 244 node S/390 cluster.
>>
>> Would www.bochs.com work? :-)
>
>To (.):
>
>Let me know when Linux even appears on any major industry benchmarks
>or shows itself beating the heavyweights in any of the major enterprise
>arenas.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Okay! GOOGLE!
Or how about IBM and their Cray beating Linux Cluster.
How about the large Philly Linux cluster deemed largest
computer in the world.
If anybody askes you to go into the bathroom and enter
a palm print contest Chad, DON'T GO!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:29:30 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> I don't really consider Mindcraft or ZDNet major industry benchmarks,
> necessarily. While relevant, TPC and similar industry benchmarks
> are more reliable and standards based.
>
> c't is just FUD all around no matter what they're comparing.
Spoken like a loyal wintroll -
c't is one of the few magazines that don't worship ms.
c't is excellent and technically accurate - they do tend to tell
it like it is, and let the chips fall where they may.
Perhaps chad didn't realize the magazine is in German,
and that's why none of it makes sense to him?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:30:49 GMT
In article <Gxr86.2952$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13
>> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> > Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
>> >> > worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
>> >> > shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
>> >> > mean dittly squat.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Where did you work? At a gas pump?
>> >
>> >1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
>> >Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
>> >hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
>> >2000 was the prime choice. It was the best performing, most stable
>> >server software to serve to both the Mac and PC video editing machines.
>> >Never failed us once.
>>
>> I'm sorry, there comes a point where your fabrications become so obvious
>> that no reasonable person could possibly believe they are anything but,
>> in fact, fabrications. That you 'happened' to 'absolutely need' a
>> single file to be larger than 2GB, I can barely believe (it is one of
>> the favorite "what Linux can't do" in many misinformed and ill-informed
>> discussions, generally resolving to a mistaken belief about the
>> relationship between files and data stores <and an assumption they're
>> identical>).
>
>
>No fabrication Max. Sorry that you're incapable of comprehending it,
>but we worked with several minute long, high definition digital videos
>that would range from 1GB to 8 or 9GB in length.
>
>We were low on budget and my boss suggested I look into linux.
>
>If you look in the archives, you'll notice I posted an open request
>to several Linux newsgroups asking what the optimum configuration for
>my storage needs would be (how to properly set up mac connectivity,
>how to best squeeze file serving performance from Linux, etc).
>
>It was then that I learned that Linux couldn't handle >2GB files on
>a 32-bit platform (something that it still has a problem with today!).
>
>Well, it was unfortunate, because that was one of the critical
>requirements for this server. Sure, the video team could've broken
>up these videos, but that just adds yet more time to their arduous
>video editing process and they wouldn't have been very happy with me.
>
>> But that it 'never failed you once' is not in the
>> slightest bit credible.
>
>Hmm, well, whatever. The linux system probably wouldn't have failed me
>either, but the problem was, I couldn't use it at all, oh well.
>
>Really, the Win2K SFM stuff is really great. The server was set up
>soon after Win2K was released and as far as I know, it's still going.
>I left that place in June of 2000.
>
>Before that, we had an NT server 4.0 doing the job and it had an up
>time of around 300 days. It had failed me once due to a power failure
>that affected the whole block for 6 hours. I don't consider that NT's
>fault.
>
>This box served up several terra-bytes to the clients and about
>as many to the DLT tape backup to which we archived all the finished
>videos. The file system, nor NT, nor the services for Macintosh ever
>hick-uped once.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Of course Chad is refering to his experiences in 1991 when Linux
didn't cover files over 2 GB in length.
But then again, this is when they didn't have a kernel either.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:38:01 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> > >I setup exports and I ran linuxconf. Remote system reported "Permission
> > >denied", so I checked access to the directories. Everything seemed fine.
> >
> > What's in /etc/exports? If you use host names, those hosts have to be
> > in DNS or /etc/hosts. It might also pay to check that nfsd is running.
>
> /home/shared/kits bigpc(rw)
>
> bigpc was in hosts
>
> bigpc couldn't access NFS - Permission denied.
A this point, I would have tailed /var/log/messages to see
what the nfs server had to say about the incident.
As a preliminary to actually trying to mount the volume,
however, I would have done a quick "rpcinfo -p servername"
from the client, where "servername" is the name of the nfs
server. If that returned something, I would then do a quick
"showmount -e servername", also from the client. If those
steps were promising, I would then proceed to the actual
mount. You did attempt the mount as root, right?
> I don't use DNS - shouldn't need it for a network with just two nodes!
You must provide some way for the host to resolve the name -
If not dns, then a host entry, as long as it can find it.
If you use nothing but hosts, you ought to configure /etc/nsswitch.conf
accordingly -
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:40:53 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > It is theoretically possible for software and hardware to configure
> > itself, but I've yet to see any practical solution that actually
> > works.
>
> It's called Windows.
>
What planet are you living on Pete?
With Linux, things may not be immediately and intuitively
obvious to a raw newbie, but there is a system and a way
to learn where things are, and one you do it all makes sense.
Windows OTOH is black magic, and if it doesn't want to
work, there's nothing you can do. I've got a ton of windows
horror stories just from trying to set up a simple windows pc
for my wife.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:41:53 GMT
In article <6KI86.36526$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>pip wrote:
>
>> This is what I asked myself and I have no sensible reasons. Human error
>> :-)
>> It is a pain in the proverbial.
>
>My theory is it's a bug in Linux Mandrake installer.
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
My theory is it's a bug using the linux.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:44:26 GMT
In article <93tk7a$f4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Interconnect wrote:
>If I wrote a BAD piece of software that forced Windows or Linux to hang does
>that make the OS unstable?
>A. No.
>
>
Well the beautiful part about Linux is if you have a crappy app
your OS doesn't die. The app dies but the OS doesn't.
Now, Windows on the other hand can and does let a crappy app
either bluescreen the OS or lock up or some combination
leading to BS.
That is unless Microsofts inferior security doesn't just
let a bunch of asians steal everything you have and burn
it on a cdrom to sell to people in India.
Charlie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:53:31 -0500
In <c1.2b5.2YyXH8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/15/2001
at 09:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>You won before you started - earlier this month Mr Metz claimed that
>IBM running Linux on a mainframe was a hoax. So much for credibility
>...
Another liar heard from. I claimed no such thing.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:52:42 -0500
In <93u3bg$l4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/15/2001
at 12:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) said:
>I didn't change the meaning by adding "any", I clarified a slightly
>ambiguous statement.
You didn't "clarify" it by adding the word "any"; you simply created a
straw dummy by totally changing the meaning. You claim later on that
you believe that the sentence can be read two different ways, so what
you did was to chose (the wrong) one of those ways and then attempt to
attribute it to me.
Had you been interested in clarifying my statement, you would have
asked whether I meant "some" or "any". Instead, you knowingly
misrepresented my position. Saying "I knew perfectly well what you
meant; I was just ribbing you." is an admission that your argument was
specious, not an excuse.
>when I'm clearly right
Claiming to be right doesn't make you right. Especially when you've
already admitted to prevarication.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:47:42 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > Painful as it is, we need to acknowledge that Unix
> > is by far the superior server platform, and will most
> > likely always be so.
>
> But it's not and obviously you are not the "windows lover" you claim to be.
Ah, how could I not love windows? but come now, let's
be honest, it does crash quite often, and the performance
as a server will most likely never approach that of Unix,
especially Linux or FreeBSD.
I cheered along with the rest of you when windows finally
got close to Linux in the specweb benchmarks. Still lagging
a little, but respectable. But then we all found out that they
used a special web cache in front of their web server to
try to get it to run as fast as Linux. Sad, sad state of affairs.
Let's be honest, windows has it's place, but it will never
replace Linux, and honestly, it shouldn't even try.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:51:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:23:28 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >What did you expect from windows?
> >
> >BTW I just went there with Netscape and its all good....
> >
> >The show link works with either mpg123 or xmms -
>
> You were able to view the trailers in QT4 format under Linux?
>
I have no idea what you're talking about -
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:57:24 GMT
In article <U4x86.152$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93u2n6$9ce$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> : Sure, show me a single counter-example of Linux displacing every copy of
>> : Windows on every desktop of the world.
>>
>> At least you could *pretend* to know basic logic. Replacing all
>> of them is not necessary to make your claim false. Do you know what
>> the word "can" actually means? It doesn't have to imply "likely".
>> Linux *CAN* replace Windows, but it isn't *LIKELY*. Can you see
>> the difference?
>
>Fine, I'll reword it just for you. Linux cannot replace Windows as the
>major OS of choice today.
>
>Happy?
>
>
This comment is totally idiotic. There is absolutely NO REASON what so ever
that Linux running GNOME can't replace windows in every business and home
in the world today.
My wife and I battled about this for several years.
Finally, she was sick and home last week and spent some time on my
Debian box. The Debian box has every feature she uses.
She does word processing.
She works on spreadsheets.
She listens to MP3 with Napster.
She plays card games.
She changes backgrounds and screen savers.
She e-mails and browses the internet.
She plays midi.
She uses AIM and ICQ.
She runs a scanner and prints.
She builds web pages.
She plays quake II.
She plays CD's.
She faxes other offices using the PC.
Debian supported all of that.
Now for me at work, I use a terminal window into
a mainframe using NT.
Linux certaintly supports your choice of shells.
Attorney's at my club are using Corel Linux as it's
the ONLY Word Processor THEY WILL USE.
We lost our WIN98 machine to Debian last weekend.
And my wife is very happy with it.
When she started working at home this made the difference.
Word, IE, Outlook, they all run very slow on 98.
I have the exact same machine she does.
They are both Pentium III 500 with 128 mb of ram.
My machine just runs circles around the Win98 box.
My machine runs Debian 2.2R2.
She was impressed with multiple desktops instead
of minimizing everytime you wanted to use something
else.
She was impressed that she could use it for 3 days
straight and not have it lock up or be forced to
reboot.
Everything she used was faster than on the Win98 box.
She was impressed at the various memory and CPU graphical
readouts she didn't have on Win98.
Debian 2.2R2 is a VERY impressive distribution with 4,200
packages in it. Very powerful.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:58:27 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> I wish you people would stop joining into the middle of the
> thread and misquoting me.
>
> He said that ReiserFS was shipping, which is a lie.
"Shipping with SuSE" sure sounds like "shipping" to me.
"Used in production environments" is also a telling fact.
It's not clear what you're on about, at any rate...
> In either case, it's still nothing like NTFS5, so this whole
> argument is irrelevant.
Your are probably correct, and I would venture to say
that is a very good thing for Linux -
I hear that with their latest file system, microsoft has finally
taken some baby steps towards some of the features Linux
users have enjoyed for years, can you confirm? I mean, per
filesystem quotas for individual users and/or groups, hard and
soft links, etc - by the way is this making any sense to you?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:03:07 GMT
Bones wrote:
> > In article <93rmod$uhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
>
> > Keep in mind that it is Linux/UNIX that has over 70% of the server market,
> > and Windows NT/2000 that struggles, using $Billions in ads, to retain 20-27%
> > of the server market (depending on which niche you are checking).
>
> Jeez Rex, I hate to play MS Advocate, but which server market it this? I'm
> positive that it isn't servers out on the Internet (perhaps Apache has
> somewhere in the 50% range including all of the platforms it runs on)
Looks to me like Rex is right on -
Fact: Unix/Linux has ~70% of the web server market, that much is
immediately obvious - apache alone accounts for over 60% of the
web server market, with the rest of the 70% figure easily accounted
for by Unix servers running netscape, thttpd, zeus, aolserver etc.
jjs
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:03:28 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
17:11:25 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> No, most "beginner students" (new users, they're called) start out with
>> shell scripts. There's no reason at all to launch yourself into
>> compiled code for years to come. Not with stuff like perl and python
>> around.
>
>Shell scripts != (Python or Perl).
Read carefully: "...start out with shell scripts. There's no reason at
all to launch yourself into compiled code for years to come. Not with
stuff like perl and python..."
I didn't say that perl or python were shell scripts.
>If novices would learn through shell scripts, doom would be expected with
>relief. Perl would suck, but not nearly as much. Python is a nice student's
>language.
You don't understand; you're a competent, educated, professional
programmer. Your opinion is worthless, in this matter.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:07:14 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
[...]
>So, you don't just want apps to do your job, you want two competing
>ones for each task, so you can hesitate. And we are supposed to
>provide?
Forgive me, but I think you are having problems with English again. The
word you wanted was "compare", not "hesitate".
>Excuse me if I find the necessity a bit less than urgent.
I'm not worried about you, but your boss, who's going to tell you what
to write so that he can sell it to me.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:08:45 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:56:24
GMT;
>You Linsux zealots are going to hammer this one till someone literally kills
>themselves, aren't you.
>
>Yea, some dork got a cameo in some movie that'll be on Video cassette before
>you can say "The New York times said..."
>
>Sort of like Linux.
>
>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> You know, there is a linux desktop guy doing a cameo in one of the most
>> recent Hollywood big budget movies. Hint, it ain't Matthias Ettrich!
Well, if it was enough to get Kyle to squeal, I must presume that its
none other than Linus Torvalds. So what's the movie?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:08:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>
>> What the hell are you talking about? Word 98 is the *MAC* version. Word
>> 97
>> is the PC version as is Word 2000. Nobody "jumped on the bandwagon" and
>> converted to Word 98 unless they also converted to Macintosh, in which
>> case they're not going to be converting back.
>>
>>
>Word in ANY version is just plain shit.
>I have NEVER encountered a software so riddled with bugs that even
>Windows(any version) will just pale in contrast.
>Has anyone actually tried to insert any sizeable number of pictures into a
>text and did NOT experience the weirdest things (like text moving somewhere
>else, picture moving somewhere else, text AND picture totally vanished
>after saving etc etc), THAT is Word
YIP!
WYSIWYG is not what you see is what you get with word.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
