Linux-Advocacy Digest #60, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Feb 01 18:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (sfcybear)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Interconnect")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Security bug in mozilla on multi user system [linux] (Thorsten Moellers)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: The Wintrolls ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:03:30 +0100
Fermin Sanchez wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
> > from that MS-shit.
>
> Which parts of MS's TCP/IP implementation don't you like? On which Windows
> versions? Please be more specific.
>
MS took simply way to long to get it (sort of) right.
I know a bunch of guys whose sport it was to scan the internet for
dial-up-ip's. Then they sent some ip-packets and scanned again,
if those computers were still there. Who ever had brought down more
was the winner. They did not even bother with linux or OS/2, because
those were too hard to bring down. Windows (every version) was really
simple. NT for example could not be "crashed" the normal way, you
did it by the user himself (adding insult to injury), because he had no
other choice than to press reset or cycle power. In that case it was a
(very simple) IP-packet with forged source- and dest-address.
NT-Machines (no mattter how many processors) immedately went up
to 100% processor-utilization. It was for all matters dead in the water.
>
> > The WPS is way better than the Windows-desktop. It is also
> > better as a single-user-desktop than X.
> > X is better in flexibility. The windows desktop is good for nothing.
>
> And again: Could you be more specific and share your insight with us?
>
The WPS is completely object-oriented. It is very simple to add new
behaviour to it by DLL's. Windows tries to emulate that (remember,
Win95 came long after Warp3), but fails quite miserably. For someone
who did not use it, both seem quite similar. That quickly ends, when you
see the things someone does with a stock WPS, which aren't possible
even with a beefed up windows-desktop. For example (too hold it simple)
you could have a folder on the desktop with, say 10 Text-files, all ending
on .TXT. You could tell EACH of those files who they belong to, and if you
click on it, the right editor opens it up. So, that all are txt-files means
nothing, only for the user, because he knows they contain just plain text.
Nonetheless each belongs to a different editor, BECAUSE each is also
an object.
This object-orientation is the thing i miss most on linux.
The KDE-team was working on it, but for the time-beeing stopped it
for the sake of getting the new version (2.x) working.
Otherwise the X-desktop is VERY flexible. The new Terminal Services
of W2K are no match for that flexibility, not by a far shot.
For example: I've got a server-machine running under linux. It has no
X-desktop at all configured. It runs exclusivly in character-mode.
But there ARE X-programs on that machine, and they are perfectly
usable. They display on whichever X-running machine I like, usually
a second linux-machine. But I could just as easily have the output on
the OS/2-machine (which also has an X-Server) or a Win98-machine.
It simply does not matter, as long as a X-server is running. TS is quite
far from that flexibility. It's not bad, but not flexible enough for my
taste. Nice Try, but fell short somehow.
MS tried, to an extend, to simulate the behaviour of the WPS, but failed.
If you change which program opens a txt-file, all txt-files are then opened
by that program.
The windows-desktop is only superficially opject-oriented. Under the
hood it just sucks.
>
> Grow up. Other succeeded in doing that.
>
>
Think I've already done that. Still have a OS/2 machine around, but
now just for testing-purposes. Still use Win98 from time to time.
Run linux most of the time. I'm not locked to a single OS, but use
what's best for the task (no dual-booting, different machines, all up)
On the other hand, there are WinTrolls like Chad Myers, who claim
such outrageous things that even very inexperienced people know
he's simply making things up and lying. He will never grow up.
Have a nice day
Peter
--
Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media
We are Borg. Resistance is futile (Borg Gates)
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows?
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:58:42 +0100
Nigel wrote:
>
> > Nope, but I DO have the source of MS-DOS (older version)
> > Those guys who've written that stuff are probably now in the upper ranks
> > of MS. And it shows. I would be VERY ashamed of my work if I had written
> > that shitty stuff. If MS continued that way (and all is indicating in
> > that direction), then Windows-source is just as bad.. And who ever
> > traced into windows-routines during debugging knows same as well. Little
> > wonder those machines crawl along.
>
> Where did you manage to get the MSDOS sourcecode from - is it available on
> the net for download (I would be interested in looking at it too).
>
>
No, some years ago someone gave it to me on diskettes (7 or 8 of them,
if I remember correctly. Somewhere in my house they should still rot. Its
really not worth looking at that. Some of it is clever written (MS had at
least some quite good programmers), most is just plain bad.
If I stumble on them one day I would do it, but I won't invest any time
in searching for that stuff. Espacially the ASM-stuff is at times really
good, most of the time I wrote much better code. Same is true for the
C-Code of the programs (Base MS-Dos is in assembly).
Peter
--
Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media
We are Borg. Resistance is futile (Borg Gates)
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:07:08 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > Here's a FAQ for you to read
> > >
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/techart/faq111700
> > > .htm
> >
> > That's what I got:
> >
> > "The page you're looking for has been moved or removed from the site."
> >
> > This, I believe is the best possible explanation of .NET, with "hands
> > on" experience. Thank you.
>
> Perhaps if you actually noticed that the link wrapped before posting, you
> wouldn't make a fool of yourself.
Perhaps if you used a decent mail client (which can tell the difference
between a link and plain text) you wouldn't make a fool of yourself!
Unfortunately it wouldn't be a Microsoft Mail client.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:09:19 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
[snip]
> Not even close. MS is putting an orders of magnitude more effort, money,
> and skill into .NET than Sun ever did for Java in the entire 5 years of it's
> history.
Where they're going to get the required skills? From their people which
doesn't know how to write a mail client?
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:02:44 GMT
In article <95un7e$40a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>
> Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
So? Does this mean Linux the OS has failed? No, It means that there is a
lot of compitition out there and there will be winners and loosers.
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:12:57 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >
> >Well, MS jumped upon Java, made is as crappy as they only can do, and
> >what's the result?
> >Any reason why .NET should be better? From a company which is forced to
> >outsource to a Linux company its DNS's because they're not able to set
> >them up them properly? Please, try to be serious!
>
> Thank You! This is exactly my point!
>
> They HAD a working model from Sun.
> All they had to do was copy it like they copied Windows
> from the MAC.
>
> It took them years to get started and when they finished they developed
> a mess which cratered under it's own weight!
>
Well, they copied it "like they copied Windows from the MAC". You said
it! Even copying requires skill!
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:19:10 +1100
With the exception that your posts be regarded as dogma?
MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95u85f$949$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Yes, without the wintrolls we could have some nice
> > discussions about TCO, about strategies for windows
> > to Unix migration, the fine points of Linux vs FreeBSD
> > vs Solaris, success stories, strategies for dealing with
> > PHBs, LUG meeting announcements, and all sorts of
> > other useful odds and ends. But, as it is, we suffer the
> > endless yapping of wintrolls instead.
>
> If you're posting to cola, you have no intention of doing anything other
> than bitch-slapping with the trolls, or dick-sizing, or pretending to be
> experts in some field. I'm not saying there isn't a good deal of knowledge
> in cola, only that anyone with any traction in the IT field doesn't have
the
> time for the ubiquitous inanity that is passed off as fact --cola
> style. --Not to mention the flood of BS from your 'experts' --
>
>
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:26:20 GMT
Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Johan Kullstam wrote:
> >
> > Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
>
> > > >
> > > > One simple question: If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the
> > > > Universe need one?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for budding in, but isn't that merely shifting the problem?
> >
> > no, it's *un*-shifting the problem.
> >
> See below for my reaction.
>
> > > Aren't you essentially turning the universe into a non-created
> > > entity?
> >
> > as something without a creator, sure.
> >
> OK. So where did it come from then?
i have no idea. it was already here when i became aware of anything.
however, invoking a creator doesn't help. immediately, one asks, who
made the creator? and so on. ok so you stop somewhere. maybe the
creator doesn't need to be created. fine. maybe the universe doesn't
need to created as such either. this doesn't mean god or gods or
whatever didn't create the universe, it just means that it's not
*necessary* to have them do so. you can have your creator. it's your
argument which i find bogus.
> > > And if not, could you explain - in a clear and non-ambiguous way (*) -
> > > how the universe came into being?
> >
> > only if you can explain -- in a clear and non-ambiguous way -- how god
> > came into being. invoking a creator of the universe adds complexity.
> >
> A religeous person does not need to explain the origin of God (and he
> will freely admit that he can't).
i don't see why the origin of the universe needs explaining. it
*wants* explaining, i mean, i'd sure like to know how it got here.
but nothing collapses just because we don't bother trying anymore than
god would fail to exist because we don't explain his beginning.
> It seems to me you are simply
> replacing the term "God" with "Universe" (I noticed you even write it
> with a capital)
maybe you should look again.
> which, more than anything else, would typecast you as
> a religeous person.
> > > (*) I can't help but noticing that the more cosmology advances, the
> > > more its publications begin to resemble Genesis (there should really
> > > be a smiley here, but then again...).
> >
> > only in a very superficial way.
> >
> Hmmm....
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:31:04 GMT
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> 2 + 2 wrote:
>
> > The article compares OS/2 with the Win9x/Me code base in terms of
> > innovation.
> >
> > Microsoft's real innovation with its OS products was with Windows NT/2000.
> > And it competes with Linux and Unix.
> >
> > And OS/2 is no match for Linux in particular.
> >
>
> Well, in my experience, that depends:
> I've NEVER seen anything which comes even close to the
> speed of an OS/2 server if you use SMB protocol. OS/2 runs
> rings around Win(everyVersion) and Samba.
> OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
> from that MS-shit.
> The WPS is way better than the Windows-desktop. It is also
> better as a single-user-desktop than X.
> X is better in flexibility. The windows desktop is good for nothing.
>
> IBM got lots right with OS/2, their marketing sucked big time.
> I used it very long, now I have linux. Windows sucks.
>
> --
> "The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then
> hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog and
> smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism."
Aren't you a bit excessive? What harm did you the dog?
And what will you do with a .DOC attachment, or, God forbid, with a .PPT
attachment?
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:31:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walt writes:
>> The dictionary definition of "atheist" is, "one who denies the existence
>> of God."
> Make that "_a_ dictionary definition": at best an approximation. I (an
> atheist) prefer this definition: "one who denies the existence of your
> imaginary friend while not claiming to have one of his own".
About half the dictionaries say "belief" the other half say "deny".
This one is interesting, note the name in the link:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/glossary.htm
But this argument doesn't make sense to me.
How can you know, think, affirm or deny anything if you don't
believe anything?
"The Earth is positivly, absolutly not flat", implies that I have some
beliefs concerning the shape of the Earth.
Please give me one example of a subject that I deny a statement,
but don't have any belief associated with it.
I couldn't find any definitions explaining the difference between
"active" belief and "passive"?? belief.
>> That is definitely an active belief.
> "Does not believe" is not "believes not".
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 22:45:45 GMT
Fermin Sanchez wrote:
>
> Hi Peter
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
> > from that MS-shit.
>
> Which parts of MS's TCP/IP implementation don't you like? On which Windows
> versions? Please be more specific.
>
Why, is there a MS TCP/IP implementation which isn't shit? Is it still
in beta? When is it coming out? Up to now all have been one worse than
the other.
> > The WPS is way better than the Windows-desktop. It is also
> > better as a single-user-desktop than X.
> > X is better in flexibility. The windows desktop is good for nothing.
>
> And again: Could you be more specific and share your insight with us?
>
May I reverse the question? Could you please tell us if there is
something the Windows desktop is good for? It would be an astounding
new.
> > I used it very long, now I have linux. Windows sucks.
>
> Now that's an interesting statement, considering also this:
>
> > --
> > "The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then
> > hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog and
> > smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism."
>
> Grow up. Other succeeded in doing that.
Doing what? Handling HTML posting? Grown ups don't use them.
> --
>
> With kind regards
> Fermin Sanchez
> MCSE+i, MCT
Oh, now I understand! Well if you didn't find anything better... All my
sympathy. Do you have a hobby? It helps to forget an unpalatable work.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 8 Feb 2001 22:45:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Ian Davey wrote:
:>
:> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
:>
:> >A theism *IS* a belief....specifically a belief in the null postulate.
:>
:> This seems more the typical Christian expression of Atheism, trying to
:> position it as a belief system.
:> It means "without theism"
: You can choose to read it that way, but the grammatically correct
: parsing is: (a(the))ism). A system of thought (ism) in which the
: central hypothesis is an absence of God.
Why do you say that is the grammatically "correct" way to parse it?
Since when did English start having a clearly defined order of
operations in which prefixes and suffixes must be interpeted? Where's
the rule that says the a- is "closer" to the "the" than the "ism" is?
Face it, it's ill-defined. It's one of the many areas where English
grammar has two legal forms, and it is ambiguous which is correct.
:> in the same way that
:> amoral means "without morality".
: That's unambiguous because it has only two elements,
: "a" and "moral".
:> So you can argue semantics, and some may try
:> and turn Atheism into a belief system,
: It is. A test is this: ask an Atheist if they have room in their
: philosophy for any possibility except the absence of God.
Okay. I'll be that atheist. It's entirely possible that a
god might exist. Then again, it's also entirely possible
that leprechauns exist - after all they can't be disproven
either. I put god and leprechauns in the same category, with
regards to their likelyhood of existing: Technically they *could*
exist, but I have no reason to entertain the notion that they do
unless more evidence shows up that I don't currently know about.
:> especially Christians because they
:> like to paint it that way. It's not something you practice or follow though,
:> you don't actually need to do or believe anything to be an Atheist.
: Except for that one thing: denial of God.
Go take that Websters' dictionary where you found the atheism
definition, and go look up "deny" also. The way they use it,
it can mean *either* believe not or not believe.
: Stories are good, when they're good. For good reason, i feel a need
: for the stories of Socrates, and Jefferson, and Linus Torvalds.
Yes, and for the same reason I feel a need to the stories of
Robin Hood, King Aurthur, and so on. The difference is that
some good stories are fiction and some are non-fiction.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thorsten Moellers)
Subject: Security bug in mozilla on multi user system [linux]
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:49:50 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hallo!
I found this newsgroup on the mozilla homepage as a newsgroup suitable
for mozilla problems and bugs.
I run a linux system with several users for different purpose
(one user for testing new programs, installing Software that
might be insecure and so on, another one for "important" things
like storing pgp-keys, online-banking and so on.
Now to the bug:
I started mozilla from both accounts, first from the insecure,
than from the more important account. But the second started
mozilla overtook the bookmarks from the first started.
That means, any user starting mozilla after me on the same machine has
access to my bookmarks, and still worse, the
passwords stored in the password-manager are available to the other
user, too.
I use version 0.7, build ID 2001012900.
Where may I sent this bug-report without subscribing to a
mailing-list?
Thanks
Thorsten
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 8 Feb 2001 22:57:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The prefix "a-" for "not-" implies "anti-", not "without-"
False. Here's some examples:
apathetic - without pathos
apolitical - without politics
asymmetric - without symmetry
agnostic - without gnosis (knowlege)
atheism - without theism (belief in god)
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:54:59 +0100
In article <ONog6.123$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal
>> > options for
> each
>> > processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386
>> > and others,
> you
>> > increase the efficiency of the kernel.
>>
>> So how is that in any way different from the Linux kernel?
>
> Here's how you configure and compile a FreeBSD kernel:
>
> cd to /sys/i386/conf, copy GENERIC to whatever name you choose.
> Edit the new file and comment out or add options that are
> fully documented in the LINT file, cd to /usr/src and type make
> buildkernel.
>
> Configuring your linux kernel is MUCH more involved.
>
Umm, like "cd /usr/src/linux ; make xconfig ; make dep bzImage
modules modules_install ; mv arch/i386/boot/bzImage
/boot/vmlinuz-<version> ; linuxconf ; shutdown -r now"?
That's 6 simple commands and a graphical config utility with
comprehensive online help. Eric, if you state that editing a text
file on FreeBSD is simpler than that, that just proves that
you've never even been NEAR a Linux kernel compile, let alone
attempted it.
Mart
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:08:29 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> THOSE LAYOFFS WERE ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES.
>
> NONE OF THE UK SUSE PEOPLE WERE LAID OFF.
>
> I cant believe how incredibly dumb you are.
What's got your goat?
I thought this article was fascinating - the CEO of SuSe doesn't think his
business model for Linux is working. All you can say is "you moron"?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:08:59 +0000
Nigel wrote:
> Out of curiosity, what part of the UK do you live in - I live in Bristol.
NW London. Right out on the edge...
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:09:38 +0000
Mig wrote:
> Nope
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-02-08-002-20-NW-SS
>
> Again the wintroll (the 130 MB file one) is not using his head
Depends which article you read, doesn't it?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:10:21 +0000
sfcybear wrote:
> So? Does this mean Linux the OS has failed? No, It means that there is a
> lot of compitition out there and there will be winners and loosers.
Who said anything about Linux the OS failing? This is very revealing... 8)
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
