Linux-Advocacy Digest #41, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Feb 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Sun vs. MS (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ("IC24")
Re: I don't understand (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Simon Palko")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Simon Palko")
Re: I don't understand (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: IDE v. SCSI: Long-Term Review. (WAS: Crappy CDROM?) (Bloody Viking)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Josh McKee)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Josh McKee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun vs. MS
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:02:47 GMT
And why do you say that? After looking at Microsoft...A collective
group of companys/organisations develop and embrace and open
standard..however...Microsoft wants to re-invent the wheel again, so
they create C# and DirectX because they don't like using something not
developed by them. Given the chance, if Microsoft could, they would try
to replace TCP/IP with their own protocol just out of spite of the fact
that it was embraced my UNIX first. When it comes to analysing
Microsoft, they, in my view, they as a company are very childish.
Matthew Gardiner
Patrick McAllister wrote:
> I just thought this was funny....I liked his responses to MS, although I
> personally can't vouch for their accuracy.....
>
> http://www.sun.com/dot-com/realitycheck/headsup010205.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:07:15 GMT
In article <KL8g6.6536$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>Clearly you were talking about simply recompiling for a different bitsize,
>and were asking why a port would need to be done.
>
>Hell, Linux needed a new version to support Itanium too. The 2.4 kernel.
>
The 2.4 kernel is not Itanium. It's a peice of it.
But, it's not Itanium.
>
>So where are those Itanium versions of Netscape 4.x?
>
>
It's called Netscape 6.X.
>How long did it take them to port Linux to Itanium? Quite some time.
>
Less than a year. 9 months actually.
When will they ever get finished porting Windows to Itanium?
They've been at it now for 2 years.
>Do you really think they just "rebuilt for a new target" and suddenly
>Itanium worked without any code changes?
>
Isn't this the *EXACT* thing you said was being done a month
ago and I said the *SAME* thing to you?
Are you like just developing my opinions 2 months later or what!
Mommie! A strange man is following me here!
>
>No, for instance the Alpha port of NT and Win2k (until it was canceled) used
>8k pages as well. The point I was making is that it's not as simple as
>recompiling with a 64 bit compiler.
>
And so the Intel-Microsoft deal is finally revealed.
Hey Intel! Yes Microsoft! Would you hold off on releasing that Itanium
chip until we finish screwing with Windows to make it run on Itanium!
Well, okay Microsoft but in exchange for this evil deal we want you
to quit supporting Alpha! Microsoft: "OKAY! - DEAL NOW SPIT!"
>> Do you realise your answer makes MS look really stupid?
>
>No, it makes you completly incapable of sticking to your own topic, since
>you've contradicted yourself twice.
>
>
I think his rebuttal was just.
So Fukenbush, why did they drop their 64 bit version of Windows
for the Alpha to make a 64 bit version of Itanium?
This is a *VERY* legitimate question!
What loonatic would give up a working 64 bit os to go out and
develop another one! Why!
I don't really expect a legitimate answer from you EF
as you will just blow the question off.
That's just the kind of jerkwad you are.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: "IC24" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:48:34 -0000
i have to say, i run more MS products than i do linux, but there are many
features of linux i couldnt do without.
i have windows 2000 pro, Me, and 95 sitting in differant partitions, but i
still prefer to use linux whenever i can, it crashes less than any MS
product could ever manage due to the fact that linux isnt full of crap you
dont need (hmm dont get me started on the bloatware saga!) so all of you can
stick to windows (i do for the internet, damn windows has taken over the
modem market and i cant find a hardware modem anywhere!!) but i still prefer
to have linux sat on a partition somewhere on my computers!
- Drarok Ithaqua
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I don't understand
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:07:59 GMT
Hypothetically, it is meant to show the superior multi-threadedness of
each OS. Mp3 decode/encode require a bit of cpu grunt, hence, on a
properly threaded OS, this should be a piece of piddle. Personally, I
don't use that as a bench mark, because it is so unreliable and can be
influenced by outside factors, such as processor speed and memory. I
prefer the real world experience. For example, in my case..I run Applix
Office, Mozilla 0.7 and Mp3 at the same time without and notice-able
performance loss (mind you I have a PeeCee w/ Freebsd 4.1, 256MB RAM,
550 PIII Coppermine).
Matthew Gardiner
Edward Rosten wrote:
> It seems to be a standard measure among winvocates and some linvocates to
> quote the number of things you can do at once to prove the OS is good.
> Fair enough, *but* why do some people claim thay can play several MP3s at
> once?
>
> Why in hells name would would you want to do that? The din must be awful.
>
> Just wondering
>
> -Ed
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:08:47 -0000
On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:44:35 GMT, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:46:01 +0000, Peter Hayes
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> almost coherently wrote:
>>Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:06:40 +0000, Peter Hayes
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >The one thing about X that I don't like is that there seems no way to
>>> >change resolution without keeping the desktop at the size of the highest
>>> >resolution, unlike Windows.
>>
>>> Why would you want to?
>>
>>Why wouldn't you want to, more like.
>>
>>Dialog boxes and error messages can and do pop up somewhere on your virtual
>>desktop but out of sight of your real desktop.
><snippage>
>
>Umm, that's not what I meant. Why would you want to set your
>resolution to something lower than the maximum you've allowed in your
>X-server? If you can't read the maximum, then change the maximum.
You might want to "zoom in" for awhile without completely
mangling your desktop arrangment. This is a nasty side
effect of on-the-fly resolution switches in WinDOS.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:40:18 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Palko wrote:
> > No it's not.
> >
> > I've got an HP Visualize C240 sitting next to me, but I'm more the
> > exception. The CAE guys tend to have a couple SGI or HP stations, but
they
> > ALL have a Windows desktop. That's the standard.
>
> Not for automotive CAD/CAM/CAE work.
>
> And at GM, Ford, etc....Applix is the standard office suite for these
users.
/me points at his header.
No, it's not. All the CAE guys I know have Windows stations as well. And
MS Office is the standard office suite company-wide.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:43:59 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Palko wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > YES....in fact, I ***DEMAND*** that anybody who does business with
> > > me do it in an honest fashion.
> > >
> > > Those who don't....suffer the consequences.
> >
> > Those being... losing your business?
>
> More than that.
Of course, I assume you're now talking about bringing suit for breach of
contract, or something similar.
> > How droll.
>
> Your imagination must be severely limited.
Well, since you were unclear on the level of Gates's "dishonesty", I
couldn't really be sure what you were talking about. I assumed you meant
the hyperbole of Windows reliability, not actual breach of contract. Can
you bring suit over hyperbole?
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I don't understand
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:10:36 GMT
From what I have read, Windows 98 is not threaded. However, I have
used Windows 2000 Pro, and when compared to Windows 98, it is a great
leap, however, when compared to the likes of freebsd or the latest Linux
Distro w/ the latest kernel (2.4.1), Windows 2000 Pro is left in the dust.
Matthew Gardiner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems to be a standard measure among winvocates and some linvocates to
>>>> quote the number of things you can do at once to prove the OS is good.
>>>> Fair enough, *but* why do some people claim thay can play several MP3s at
>>>> once?
>>>
>>>> Why in hells name would would you want to do that? The din must be awful.
>>>
>>> A DJ friend of mine carries all of her tunes on a small machine running 4
>>> 18 gig scsi drives in a 36 gig mirrored array. (FreeBSD mirroring, not
>>> hardware; its actually quite lovely). The control for her setup is a Thinkpad
>>> running Mandrake 7.1 w/kjukebox; which can handle and manage many audio
>>> streams at once without choking. This sort of thing is nessesary for DJing,
>>> because you spend alot of your time playing with redundant and overlapping
>>> streams.
>>
>
>> Computationally, it's a REALLY low-bandwidth task.
>
>
> Absolutely...under linux or freebsd. Under windows however, its a different
> story.
>
> She started off using Win98 but found it to be far too unstable, then switched
> to W2K (a certian very popular radiostation in the area uses W2K for the same)
> but found it to also be too unstable for DJ tasks. Plus, all the software
> licensing was too much; since this is her prime business, she needs to be
> 100% legit. When she happened apon linux w/kjukebox and an NFS setup between
> that and the drive array and discovered that the entire thing was completely
> free, she could afford to get two more 18gig SCSI drives and put every last
> tune she owns onto it. The whole setup weighs in at about 30 lbs (without
> amp, eq, speakers, etc) and fits nicely in the back of her truck. The
> computational side takes about 2 minutes to set up---plug everything in,
> plug both freebsd machine and thinkpad into an ethernet hub, and away she
> goes.
>
>
>
>
> -----.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: IDE v. SCSI: Long-Term Review. (WAS: Crappy CDROM?)
Date: 8 Feb 2001 00:12:55 GMT
Milton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: You mean like this:
: http://www.bigstorage.com/release_iRAID.html
: http://www.bigstorage.com/release_EMusic.html
Yep, that's the concept. It wouldn't be super fast, but would have super
storage, good to hold a backup but not good for day to day server operation.
One of the things I found is that a hard drive with data but normally not used
can hold information for a long time, even for years. A crude backup method
would be to make a funny cord with two slave IDE drives, but you have a
selector switch just before starting that switches the power supply to the
slave drives of an IDE fitting. Hard drives in a pseudo-hot-swap setup can
make for some dirt cheap backup storage.
To recover, you'd need a boot floppy with utilities to do the restore from the
normally unused drive switched on for the restore. This type of data backup is
cheap but crude, the type of thing you might find in third-world countries or
the like.
For a server, you'd use SCSI normally, but use the IDE for backup only taking
advantage of the giant size storage available dirt cheap. No other backup
method can compare with the restore speed of an IDE hard drive intentionally
used for data backup, certainly not for the price.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh McKee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:22:06 GMT
On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:46:00 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh McKee at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote on 2/7/01 4:40 PM:
>
>>
>> In other words it wasn't the OS at all.
>
>Um if windows 95,98,and 2k all find hardware that red hat and derivatives
>don't it is the OS fault if I have to reconfigure perfectly working hardware
>configs to get linux to see them.
Doesn't matter. If the current configuration of the device prevents an
OS from recognizing it, and the device would be recognized if it were
configured differently, then all it says is that the device is
incorrectly configured for the OS that doesn't recognize it. It
doesn't matter if other OS's recognize it or not. The device is still
incorrectly configured for that OS. Thus it is not the fault of the
OS.
Josh
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh McKee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:18:17 GMT
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:02:56 -0500, "Unknown Poster"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"> >>
>> >> This doesn't make sense. If you keep up with service packs implies
>> >> that what you had prior to the service pack was not fine.
>> >>
>
>By your logic, since you patch Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc., then they are
>not 'fine' either.
That would be correct...no OS is perfect. Did I make any such claim /
statement that unix was "fine"?
>> >Gee, why do you patch HP-UX, or AIX, or the AS/400 OS, or
>> >any other? Because none of them are *perfect*, and they all have
>> >problems. I see more Linux/Unix problems being posted than I do
>> >Win2K these days.
>>
>> But you said that the OS is fine, as long as you keep up with the
>> service packs. Installing service packs implies that the OS was not
>> fine before the service pack. Which is contradictory to what you
>> wrote.
>>
>
>Again, following your 'logic', your assumed God-Like Unix OS's aren't
>'fine' either.
That would be correct...no OS is perfect. Did I make any such claim /
statement that unix was "fine"? Did I make any such claim / statement
that unix was "God-Like"?
>> >For the same reason you patch any OS; Security Holes and potential
>> >problems.
>>
>> "Potential problems" implies that there is a problem with the OS.
>> Which is contradictory to what you wrote.
>>
>
>No, every OS has 'potential problems'.
That would be correct...no OS is perfect. Did I make any such claim /
statement that unix never had problems?
>> >I've patched Oracle a few times, MS-SQL, Exchange, NT.
>>
>> Why did you patch MS-SQL, Exchange and NT? According to you, they are
>> stable.
>>
>
>They are stable.
If they are stable, then why apply service packs?
>I simply apply the Service Packs to ward off the *possibility* of having a problem
>that is solvable with the application of a Service Pack.
Potential problems means that you acknowledge that there are problems
that requiring fixing. If circumstances are such that the criteria for
one of those potential problems has been met, then you have a failed
server. Which is contradictory to your claim that NT never crashes
because you install the latest service packs / hot fixes.
>There were the notable problems with Service Pack 6, but Microsoft rather
>quickly recalled that SP and issued SP6a.
In other words problems still exist even if you have installed the
latest service pack.
>> >I also forgot to mention our lovely problems with Citrix that require
>> >routine patches and updates.
>>
>> I'm not interested in Citrix problems.
>>
>> >Not to mention our 5 Netware servers that get patched routinely.
>>
>> I'm not interested in Netware problems.
>>
>> >Oh yeah, and the 6 HP-UX boxes running Peoplesoft
>> >and a custom billing application. The Unixheads have had them down for
>> >patches more in the last year than our NT boxes.
>>
>> What was being patched? The OS or the applications? What do you mean
>> when you say "down"? Do you mean the OS failed? Do you mean that the
>> application failed?
>>
>
>Peoplesoft I think has been patched 2 or 3 times. the CRM application
>is down frequently.
Peoplesoft / CRM is not the OS.
>The Unix Servers themselves are down an average of 2-3 times a month not
>directly related to the applications we are running for 'patching and maintainance'
> according to our Hosting Service;
In other words routine maintenance, not an OS failure.
>usually during *our* business hours, since we're a 6am EST to 10PM EST
>operation, thanks to the hours that our Billing and Customer Service works,
>not to mention frequent outages during month-end for Accounting; the major
>users of Peoplesoft.
As the system is unavailable due to routine maintenance, this is
irrelevant.
>
>> >I've had the NT Boxes down exactly once for Service Packs. Exchange I
>> >have had down twice--SP 3 and SP4.
>>
>> Service packs (note the plural) would denote more than "exactly once".
>> If you're installing a service pack, you have to reboot. Since you
>> installed services PACKS <<<---not the "S", you would have had to
>> reboot at least once for each service pack.
>
>Well, we installed 1 NT service pack on each of 30 machines in the last
>year. That's 30 instances of a Service Pack, and the last time I checked
>30>1, so it's Service Packs.
"Service packs" indicates more than one service pack, not a single
service pack installed on many systems. If you meant a single service
pack installed on many systems, then you should have written that.
>> >MS-SQL has only been down a handful of times.
>>
>> When did MS-SQL become an OS?
>>
>> >The Oracle Boxes have had only their MMS software patched--about 10
>times.
>>
>> When did Oracle become an OS?
>>
>
>They are not Operating Systems, but they are *reasons* I had to bring down
>NT.
I have no doubt that they were. Sad isn't it?
>I could have also listed ArcServe, our FaxServer software, or the
>Laboratory Information Management System, or our monthly power testing.
Again, sad.
>My point is that I never reboot an NT server to fix a problem;
You just said so above.
>and the servers themselves do not experience problems.
Apparently they did if you had to bring them down.
>> >> >The 5000 NT 4.0 workstations and laptops we are using have been as
>> >> >stable, with the exception of pushing Service Packs,or hardware
>> >> >problems.
>> >>
>> >> Again I ask: If they were so stable, then why bother with the service
>> >> packs?
>> >
>
>It's called 'Routine Maintenance'. Isn't that something Unixheads do?
Routine Maintenance is not a system problem for either NT or unix.
The problem I have is your claim that NT is stable if you keep up with
all the latest service packs. That implies the possibility that the
system may not have been stable without the service packs. And common
sense leads one to believe that the latest service pack hasn't fixed
all the problems. Thus there is a very real possibility that the
system could crash. A possibility that shouldn't exist based on your
original statement (i.e. Windows doesn't crash if you install the
latest service pack / hot fix).
>> >For the same reason you patch any OS; Security Holes and potential
>> >problems.
>>
>> You see, I have a problem when you write "potential problem". That
>> implies that there are problems that are present until the service
>> pack is installed. But what about the "potential problems" that aren't
>> fixed by any service pack?
>>
>
>There are always 'potential problems' with any OS. There are no
>problem-free Operating Systems. I need to clarify that I am including
>Security Holes as 'problems'.
Security patches have hardly any bearing on a discussion about system
reliability. And please, let's not get into the technical discussion
about security vulnerablities being exploited to cause system crashes
(ie the ping of death).
>> >If there weren't poor programming practices, we wouldn't have need of the
>> >memory protection. Personally, I use Win 9x to play games on, and Win2K
>> >to do any real work. I usually write my adventures in Word on one of the 98
>> >boxes here that has MS-Office on it. I don't have problems when running
>> >Microsoft products on it. If a problem does develop on the 9x boxes, I just nuke
>> >and reload. Nothing is lost because I partition the drives with a data side to hold
>> >data.
>>
>> A good practice on your part. But why would you need to nuke and
>> reload? I can't recall the last time I had to re-install Solaris. In
>> fact, I don't believe that I ever have re-installed Solaris.
>
>I've never had to reinstall NT Server.
I wish I could say the same. It doesn't happen often...usually
stopping a service or restarting the system takes care of it.
>I nuke and reload Win9x because I don't have time to troubleshoot some
>crappy 3rd party game (the only time I've ever crashed Win 9x, BTW) at home.
>I don't care about it enough. My wife plays exactly 3 games; Solitare, Freecell,
>and some logic puzzle game, I think it's called 'Sherlock'. I play Baldurs Gate or
>MechWarrior, and the occasional mindless time waster called 'Flight Simulator'--which
>has never crashed my 9x boxes.
I really don't care about Windows 9x/ME systems. I only care about
Windows NT/2000 systems.
>> >Sure you do. We had an MMS software database upgrade that killed one
>> >of our Unix Servers.
>>
>> Exactly what do you mean when you say "killed"?
>>
>
>The Unix server went into what the consultants called a 'kernel panic' after
>the upgraded application was installed and was ran for the first time.
That would be a system crash.
>> >Everything worked fine on the test server, but when we
>> >put it into production, we were sunk. As it turned out, the Unixheads had
>> >loaded a recent patch to both servers, but loaded it to the Test server
>> >*after* we had performed the upgrade. In testing, everything was fine. We then
>> >upgraded the Production server and everything went south on us. The vendor hadn't
>> >tested the software with the most recent HP-UX patches. In fact, they were 3
>> >patch levels behind--a fact they neglected to inform us of.
>>
>> This doesn't make sense. You apparently didn't perform the test with
>> the same configuration. Who's fault is that?
>
>We had no idea the configuration wasn't the same.
And this is the fault of the OS?
>Both of those application groups are outsourced entities, and our internal IT staff
>has no
>level of rights or access (other than user) to any of the Unix Servers. .
>They are outsourced at a third party vendor. I am not at liberty to disclose
>their name because we are in litigation. We have eliminated the MMS Vendor
> and taken control of it internally.
Well that just said a lot about their competency and did serious
damage to your arguement.
>> >It was down for a week, and cost a few hundred K
>> >in idle time across the country. We opted to move to a different MMS
>> >vendor at that point, and just completed the implementation last year.
>>
>> Sounds like it was more a proceedural issue and not a technical issue.
>
>Nope, bad third party application.
So then why are you in litigation with the support vendor? Is it
unrelated to the problems you are experiencing?
>Gee, that sounds like the Unix Party Line FUD about Microsoft.
I would make the same claim if it were a Windows system. If you're not
testing with the same configurations, then you can't blame either OS.
>My point is simply this: Bad third party applications causing
>reliability issues with an OS are universal problems, and not just
>limited to Microsoft.
Did someone claim that they were limited to Microsoft?
>We've investigated pulling our Unix applications in house,
>and running them ourselves.
Why?
> We have interviewed potential
>candidates for a Unix Admin position at our HQ.They all ask
>for more salary than the IT Director makes *with* his annual
> bonus. Not only that, but there wouldn't be enough work to keep
>a Unix Admin busy for 40 hours a week.
Would that be because the unix system, relatively speaking, require
less support than their Windows counterparts?
>We can hire 2 experienced NT Admins and a desktop
>technician for that price.
You bet. There are many more Windows NT "Admins" than there are unix
admins. And unix admins, in general, tend to have a broader background
than do their Windows counterparts.
>As a result, we're searching for solutions
>that can run on NT, so we can eliminate our dependence
>on Unix and run everything in house. We've solved our MMS problem,
>and are close on our Financial solution. We just need a CRM
>application.
Windows is certainly lower cost. But it doesn't always mean lower TCO.
Josh
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
