Linux-Advocacy Digest #63, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Feb 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit (CR Lyttle)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Bloody Viking)
Re: NTFS Limitations (.)
Re: The Wintrolls (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("mmnnoo")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Unknown Poster")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: how come you have to reboot when you change DNS servers in Windows? ("mmnnoo")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Steve Mading)
Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust...
Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust...
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Interconnect")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 00:58:09 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Clearly you were talking about simply recompiling for a different
> bitsize,
> > > and were asking why a port would need to be done.
> > >
> > Nah. I'm talking about hacking code together with microprocessor
> > specific "optimizations" and then loosing the process.
>
> What? This statemend doesn't parse. What exactly is "loosing the process"?
>
AKA, "loosing the recipe". You did it, it works (sort of), you forgot
why you did it or you forgot exactly what you did, you can't recreate
it, you are afraid to change it, so you live with it. I first came
across the phrase in the chemical industry and at Intel. At Intel, they
would make small changes to their process to try to improve yield. For a
series of small changes, yield would increase. Then on the next change,
yield would drop to near zero and no matter what they did, it never came
back up. This was "loosing the process". Sort of like what happened to
MS with the domain servers. The phrase is in common use most places I
have worked.
> The port to Itanium wasn't just "microprocessor specific optimizations",
> there were many major changes. Diff the sources to the ia64 directory of
> the kernel source sometime.
>
Send me the source and I'll diff them. You are talking MS aren't you?
What you say is true for Linux.
> > > Hell, Linux needed a new version to support Itanium too. The 2.4
> kernel.
> > >
> > 2.4 kernel has lots more than Itanium support.
> >
> > > > Well, it did take Mad Dog about 6 months to get the first Alpha
> running.
> > > > Linux doesn't need x86 support for existing binaries. Just rebuild the
> > > > application for the target. Sell the new binaries to your existing
> > > > customers who finally get decent computers.
> > >
> > > So where are those Itanium versions of Netscape 4.x?
> > >
> > Netscape version 6 runs on Itanium *and* 133 mhz pentiums under Linux.
>
> That won't help you to make sure that your web site runs properly under
> Netscape 4.x, now will it?
>
What does this have to do with the conversation? NT 6.0 runs under both
binaries. Haven't tried any version of NT4.x, so I don't know how it
behaves WRT Itanium.
> Fact is, you can't run Netscape 4.x on Itanium under Linux. But you'll be
> able to run it under 64 bit Windows due to the emulation layer.
>
MS has always been good at eventually making new cpus act like 8 bit
8080s.
> > > > So why doesn't MS just do a rebuild for the new target? Why can't MS,
> > > > with billions of dollars and thousands of elite programers do with
> > > > Windows what one man did with Linux for zilch in 6 months?
> > >
> > > How long did it take them to port Linux to Itanium? Quite some time.
> > >
> > Less than a year to develop Itanium specific code. The whole release was
> > about 2 years, but I am pretty sure they didn't do any Itanium specific
> > stuff until about 9 months ago.
>
> The same is true of Windows. They were using the Alpha to develop the 64
> bit code initially, then switched over to Itanium once the simulators were
> ready.
>
So why don't they market the alpha version?
> > > Do you really think they just "rebuilt for a new target" and suddenly
> > > Itanium worked without any code changes?
> > >
> > Mostly. There is the need to add some #ifdef ITANIUM switches and a bit
> > of Itanium specific code before doing the rebuild though. As soon as
> > that was done several thousand applications came over with Linux.
>
> "a bit" of itanium specific code. Diff the sources once. A lot of major
> changes there. Remember, different processors have different memory
> management systems, different interrupt handling, different page swapping
> requirements, different I/O systems..
>
Which are maintained in machine specific files in Linux. All other code
runs just fine without knowledge of the machine specific code. MS
doesn't code that way.
> > > 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.
> > >
> > So Linux was able to get an Alpha version running in about 6 months, and
> > Win2k still doesn't run on Alpha.
>
> There were publicly available betas of Win2k on Alpha, actuall up to RC1 if
> I recall correctly. Compaq decided to drop support.
>
I wonder why.
> > > > 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.
>
> > And what were the contradictions?
> > I maintain that :
> > 1) MS Stupidly hardcoded their OS for 16bit microprocessors, had a
> > difficult time getting them to run on 32 bit processors, and an even
> > worse time with 64bit processors.
>
> NT was originally written on the MIPS processor line, then ported to x86.
> It was not "hard coded for 16 bit processors".
>
> > 2) Linux ports to new processors in about 6 months, max. That time is
> > getting shorter as the experience level with Linux grows.
>
> Then explain your comments about "requiring a new version rather than just a
> build option".
>
Linux is Linux, same version, on all processors. If I had time, I would
go back through your posts to find the place you talked about MS
creating new versions.
> > 3)Linux does not have to dumb itself down to support binaries of
> > existing applications. The Linux model pretty well isolates applications
> > from the underlying hardware. So most applications just have to do a
> > rebuild and link to the new libraries.
>
> Not entirely. For instance, anything that stores data in a binary format
> needs to be very careful about changing bitness. Reading in an int on a 64
> bit platform from a file that was generated on a 32 bit platform screws your
> data. Yes, many applicaitons use text data for files, but not everything.
> RPM doesn't, for instance.
>
I face this problem all the time.
> > 4)MS operating systems have lots of ways for applications to get
> > directly to the hardware. Applications that take advantage of those
> > holes, have to be rewritten to port to another platform.
>
> NT doesn't allow you to get "directly to the hardware" in any way but device
> drivers, and then you just need to rewrite the driver. Period.
>
That seems to depend upon how much money you pay MS. As a lowly
consumer, I don't even get to write good drivers. But we had this
discussion a couple of months ago. A short search will get you lots of
hits on writing virus software that does bypass the kernel and go
directly to the hardware.
> > 5)MS Office products make generous use of the holes in MS operating
> > systems and therefore have to be re-written to port to another platform.
>
> MS Office products use assembly code quite a bit. That's why they need
> porting.
That's right. Real dumb. That is why, if I thought MS would be broken
into two parts, I would buy MS stock. The OS part would get to go ahead
and write an OS, instead of trying to carry around that broken Office
code. Assembly code has to be re-written for every platform. I've often
puzzled over how many of the problems in MS operating systems were the
result of incompetence, how many were part of some nefarious plan, and
how many were there simply because Office would have to be re-written
from scratch.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: 9 Feb 2001 01:00:12 GMT
J J Sloan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Red Hat is by far the most popular distro, for many reasons.
A minority of people are still Slackware fans.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:07:56 +1300
> : This all is plain shit, naturally. Really no need to do it that way.
> : But they did (now THAT does surprise us, really).
>
> That's an error in the way Windows detects hardware, that's all.
> It gets tricked into thinking you have new cards when you
> change the thing they are plugged into (the motherboard).
Usually it re-detects a lot of system devices (system clock, PCI bus,
PIC, AGP controller, etc etc) due to the fact that they have actually
changed. It doesn't necessarily do this part very WELL... (ALWAYS
reinstall 9x after changing the MB!)
I guess the reason from MS would be that the new devices need new virtual
device drivers...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:07:43 GMT
In article <3a83247f$0$4520@reader2>, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>In article <ONog6.123$[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
Exactly. This is common knowledge for the Linux user.
It's one of the first things you learn.
EF has been posting pro Windows and Anti Linux bulletins
for years now. It's been years.
And he's never used Linux and I'll bet you a dollar to
a donought that he's never actually used FreeBSD either....
Being a former developer for Windows based gui products,
I can already tell from the comments of EF and Chad Myers
that the Windows camp came to town with unloaded guns.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:03:06 GMT
That you take such delight in the personal misery of thirty human beings
says more about you than I ever could.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:11:47 GMT
I agree that a rubber mallet would be better for you.
You can have the hammer back when you stop
hitting your thumb hoping for sympathy.
In article <5JFg6.2266$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And here I was thinking Linux was such a wonderful system.
>
> I asked The Gimp to print a picture for me.
>
> And what do I find on my printer...
>
> Several sheets of ASCII!!!
>
> Such a simple thing, print a picture.
>
>
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 9 Feb 2001 01:12:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> There's a few ...
: There _are_ a few. :)
:> integers are 32-bit numbers in Java.
: The larger problem is the plural. The term is "integer"
: without the "s".
Since when? I think this might be one of those differences
between American English and Aussie English. The set of
all mass nouns overlaps, but is not identical between the
two variants. ("Mass nouns" is what I call those nouns that
are difficult to categorize into plural and singular because
they refer to mass quantities. For example pudding, water,
air, etc. It makes little sense to plural-ize them until you
put them in a container or a measurement, and then you are
actually pluralizing the measurement noun. For example, it
doesn't make any sense to say, "I have 10 waters.", but it
makes sense to say "I have 10 glasses of water.", or "I have
10 litres of water.") "Integer" might be one of those words
that is considered a mass noun in one country, but not in the
other. I have never, not once, heard 'integer' referred to
in the plural without an 's' on it.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 9 Feb 2001 01:19:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Brian V. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : Perhaps, but we were talking about the apostrophes in this case. Mr (.) likes
:> : to leave them out altogether so he says "ill" instead of "I'll" and "elses"
:instead
:> : of "else's", which is hard to read and is worse than just disobeying a grammar
:rule.
:>
:> : You know, like when someone says "noone" instead of "no one". It is hard to see
:> : "noone" and pronounce it with two syllables.
:>
:> Yes, but "elses" is pronounced the same as "else's", and the only reason
:> "Ill" is confusing is because there is another word in English with
:> the spelling "ill". Without that other word there, "eyell" would be
:> just as valid a pronounciation for "Ill" as "ihll" is.
: The apostrophe indication of elision is convenient.
:> "noone" is a special case where you stick two vowels together so they
:> look like they combine to make a single sound. Words like "cant"
:> "dont" have that problem.
: "Cant" has the problem that it's also a word meaning "nonsensical
: speech",
: and in the English speaking community outside the US it's pronounced
: differently.
: Since "can't" is not ambiguous, i prefer it.
I don't see how the difference in pronounciation is relevant.
"can't" is ALSO pronounced differently outside the US (sounding
to my ears like "Cont".) , so use of the apostrophe doesn't
really change anything about this problem.
:
:> The only purpose grammar has that really matters is to remove ambiguity.
: A point worth consideration in the case of the apostrophe.
But it doesn't have any ambiguity. The "cant" as a type of speech
is a noun. As the contraction "can't", it cannot be placed into a
sentence where a noun would go. This removes the ambiguity - if
the word is used as a noun, it's not the contraction..
:> For example, it's important to know the difference between
:> "Kill Steve!" and "Kill, Steve!". But often times the grammar doesn't
:> remove ambiguity at all, and in that case I don't care.
: Another example was used by a poster recently:
: In punctuating "Woman without her man is nothing",
: a man wrote: "Woman, without her man, is nothing.",
: whereas a woman wrote: "Woman! Without her, man is nothing.".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:21:32 -0000
On 9 Feb 2001 01:00:12 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>J J Sloan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: Red Hat is by far the most popular distro, for many reasons.
>
>A minority of people are still Slackware fans.
Even some of us that Defected to Redhat so long ago that we've
defected to something else now are Slackware fans.
[deletia]
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:25:04 -0000
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:16:14 -0500, Steve Ackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:28:05 +1100, Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>One would hope so, because the egg's not on Jeb Bush's face,
>>it's on the United States's.
>
>...the United States'. ;-)
Far too many people forget the plural part...
[deletia]
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:26:41 -0000
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:25:54 +1100, Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
>> nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
>> with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
>> have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
>> in once they've made a bad initial decision.
>
>Whom are you quoting, Mr Knight?
If I was quoting someone, there would be a citation.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:28:51 -0000
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:35:30 +1100, Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> No, atheism is lack of belief.
>
>Scan the word. Atheism means "no God ism" (whatever "ism" is).
Sorry. "Scanning" the word would lead to the conclusion
that it is a "lack" of "theism", just like amoral is a
absense of morals.
[deletia]
An absence of adherence to any particular religious
dogma is one of the few things that all atheists
share in actual practice.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Unknown Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 20:25:18 -0500
"Tim Streater" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <dxxg6.286$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown Poster"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Unknown Poster wrote:
>
> > > DIY-shops don't target consumers then?
> > >
> >
> > Excellant Point, and I concede! How about we say this:
> >
> > *nix is not ready for the consumer who is not technically
> > inclined, nor will he ever be. This is the person who is
> > exactly like 90% of the Sr. Executives where I work. All
> > they know how to do is turn it on and use the software.
> > If the system says 'Domain Controller Not Found' because
> > they've forgotten to plug in their network cable to their
> > NIC port on the laptop, that's when they call the Help Desk,
> > and that's when I get dispatched to plug them in, because they
> > won't accept 'phone help'.
>
> A system that says "Domain Controller Not Found" is obviously not for
> consumers, unlike a Mac which would give a hint about cabling.
You will note that I said Senior Executives. You can't run
our company on Macs; it's not a business system. Show me
one CRM system, or CMMS system, or ERP system
that has a Mac client.
Besides, when the company was small they *had* Macs.
This gentleman didn't use a computer because in his words
"That d*** Mac laptop was the worst piece of s*** I've
ever seen. It kept breaking on me."
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 9 Feb 2001 01:24:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Geoffrey Tobin wrote:
:>
:> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
:> ...
:> > DEMONCROOK ...
:>
:> Abuse makes for a very unconvincing argument.
:>
: Merely characterizing them for what they are.
This only would convince someone who already agrees that
they are crooks. If you are trying to show that they are
crooks, then your intended audience won't listen to you
seriously if you do that. It's the same reason that it
makes no sense to say things like "Microshaft" or "Mickeysoft".
It doesn't matter if they humourously point out something
true, the persons you argue with will dismiss what you have to
say the instant they see you using terms like that.
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how come you have to reboot when you change DNS servers in Windows?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:33:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ben Reiter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> Could someone with more experience in Windows programming, maybe even MS
> OS design, show me a reason why this change requires a restart? Or,
> rather, why the TCP/IP stack, 'once initialized it can't be changed'?
>
> \Ben
Probably not. What are you, an industrial spy? The license gives you
the right to use the software on one computer, and specifically forbids
investigating how it works.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: 9 Feb 2001 01:37:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : This all is plain shit, naturally. Really no need to do it that way.
:> : But they did (now THAT does surprise us, really).
:>
:> That's an error in the way Windows detects hardware, that's all.
:> It gets tricked into thinking you have new cards when you
:> change the thing they are plugged into (the motherboard).
: Usually it re-detects a lot of system devices (system clock, PCI bus,
: PIC, AGP controller, etc etc) due to the fact that they have actually
: changed. It doesn't necessarily do this part very WELL... (ALWAYS
: reinstall 9x after changing the MB!)
: I guess the reason from MS would be that the new devices need new virtual
: device drivers...
But the thing is, the software interface to those things is IDENTICAL
to what it was on the old motherboard. Having to 're-detect' them
is just a stupid Micorosoftism. I have done the motherboard and
hard drive transplant thing, and Kudzu (the redhat device detector)
noticed no new hardware, and everything ran fine with no changes to
the settings at all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust...
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:49:22 -0000
On 8 Feb 2001 17:25:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jeepster wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>>>
>>> Alas poor suse...
>
>> Guess I'll have to go Debian after all.
>> See? That's the difference with proprietary software: If Microsoft
>> goes belly-up (*), what distribution should Windows users change to?
>
>Get the whole story first. Reacting to rumor without thinking is a
>classically windows-ey thing to do. :)
IOW, Suse is perfectly fine on their home turf.
[deletia]
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust...
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:50:17 -0000
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:56:58 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>spicerun wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Darren Winsper"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/02/07/2040225&cid=159
>> >
>> > Please get your facts straight before putting together a post.
>>
>> Even more interesting reading is listed on linuxtoday from IT:Fairfax:
>>
>> http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/breaking/20010208/A20552-2001Feb8.html
>>
>> I was going to try Suse until I read this....now I'm looking for some
>> other Linux distribution.
>
>Hey, this is only what the responsible Linux advocates have been saying all
>along.
Those "responsible" Linux advocates just have a little tact.
>
>Nobody makes money on an operating systems except Microsoft. Microsoft, only
>because they have an illegal monopoly.
>
>The only way to make money with free software is to sell services.
--
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:53:52 +1100
So you're telling us you don't run IE?
ono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95scnj$3gs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > So why run Linux?
> >
> > Why are you running Windows? I'm running it because I've yet to see
> > Netscape or KNode take out my desktop. Sure I've found other problems,
but
> > in general usage, none so far.
> I've yet too see IE take out my desktop!
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
