Linux-Advocacy Digest #64, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Feb 01 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Interconnect")
Re: The Wintrolls
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Donn Miller)
Re: What .NET is... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Sgt Detritus)
Re: Linux Uptime (Osugi)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Security bug in mozilla on multi user system [linux] (Bob Hauck)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (sfcybear)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (sfcybear)
Re: NTFS Limitations (.)
Re: OK, How do I get a debian distribution that supports 2.4.1? ("Spicerun")
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("surrender")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:55:03 +1100
I also purchase my software. It's an investment in Open Source.
Remember open source does not necessarily equate to FREE.
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If it is sooooooooooooo bad, then don't use it! simple as that.
> I have never declared it is the right solution for everyone, however
> wait a few months, when the new version of GNOME is released, kernel
> updates, and distros are better intergrated and stupi-fied, and you will
> find more people will adopt Linux. I actually run FreeBSD, and ACTUALLY
> buy my software, something alot of Windows advocates donot do, and it
> does EXACTLY what I want it to do, without any hassles, and better yet,
> I DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER MY SOFTWARE WITH THE "GATES WANTS MORE MONEY
> FOUNDATION"! that is why I choose to run FreeBSD. btw the Office suite
> I run is Vistasource Applix Office.
>
> Matthew
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 1. People are just not interested in Linux, and I'm not talking about
> > IBM I am talking about Joe user who makes up the lions share of the
> > market.
> > 2. It's all about ease of use, compatibility with the neighbors and
> > applications and Linux fails on all counts.
> > 3. Linux is FREE for God sakes and it STILL cannot get any sizeable
> > market share. Do you Penguinista's have any idea what would happen if
> > Gates took out a full page ad in the Sunday NY Times and gave Whistler
> > away for free? There would be riots in the streets. Why? Because Gates
> > makes something that people want, and Linux does not. Editors,
> > compilers and megabytes of half finished code fragments ala Freshmeat
> > don't generate interest in an operating system.
> > 4. Windows makes things so damm easy that screwing with Linux is just
> > not worth the time even if one manages to get it working properly.
> > I can walk into ANY computer store and you can put a blindfold on me
> > and I can pick out hardware and software that will work with Windows
> > without even looking. As long as you don't put me in the Mac section
> > :) and even in that case if it is USB hardware chances are good it
> > will work with Windows as well.
> > 5. Why in the world should I bet my job on some word processing
> > program that is trying to be MSWord? Why not use the real thing? It
> > came with my pre-load anyway? Install StarOffice? Why? It is free even
> > in the Windows world yet nobody is using it. Why is that? Exactly WHY
> > is nobody using StarOffice? Seems to me it would be a no-brainer to
> > save a fortune in licensing fees but yet there is very little interest
> > in even the Windows version of StarOffice. Why is that? Damm if
> > someone offered me a free Car I think I would take them up on it and I
> > wouldn't care if it was purple with green polka dots.
> > Answer is StarOffice is garbage.
> > 6.Hardware support under Linux is a highly mixed bag. You see LinoNuts
> > have to beg manufacturers to write drivers for Linux. Or they have to
> > reverse engineer the hardware in order to come up with their own
> > semi-functional drivers.
> > Why should I put up with using half the functions of a card or device
> > I paid good money for?
> > Windows drivers are on a CD included in the box. Where are Linux
> > drivers? Are there any Linux drivers at all?
> > I'm not even including Win_hardware here I am talking about everyday
> > hardware.
> >
> > 7. How about fragmentation. Linux currently has God knows how many
> > distributions with their own package management solutions and source
> > tree and so forth. Some are semi-compatible with others but unless you
> > really know what you are doing you risk rendering your system useless
> > mixing and matching.
> > Do deb packages work with RPM? Well sort of. Do SuSE rpm packages work
> > with RedHat? Well sort of.
> > How about Mandrake? Some Redhat stuff works and others do not.
> > How about Slackware?
> > TurboLinux?
> > Corel?
> > True Debian?
> > A nightmare for the uninformed.
> > So let's talk about the uninformed a little bit.
> >
> > Hope you have lot's of reading time on your hands because Linux
> > involves lot's of reading. Generally the process starts with How-To's
> > and then when you find that the How-To's are either outdated or too
> > generic you will start searching the internet where you will find many
> > people sitting in the same quagmire as you. Lost souls looking to run
> > Linux and the net is chock full of them.
> >
> > So why run Linux?
> >
> > I don't know. Really I don't. Maybe you hate Gates? Maybe you have
> > convinced yourself that Linux is better, I have no idea.
> > As far as I can see only a real idiot would put up with 1980's style
> > applications on their desktop. That's in a nutshell what Linux is
> > about.
> >
> > Don't believe me?
> >
> > I suggest you try Linux for yourself and make your own mind up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Flatfish
> > Why do they call it a flatfish?
> > Remove the ++++ to reply.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:55:15 -0000
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 07:28:26 -0000, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In article <dDEf6.29252$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> But I don't hate Linux!
>>
>>Sometimes you seem to, other times you don't.
>
>Pete, I think, is offering reasonable criticism (unlike flatfoot, who's
>just a Winshill). Linux can't improve if we all pretend it's God's
>gift to computing.
No, thinking that Microsoft is god's gift to computing is
actually far more dangerous. Indulging in the linux variant
is far less dangerous. Linux is not quite so tightly defined
as "Windows" or "Mac".
Infact, the openstep for GNU port started before Apple
decided to do likewise.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:58:44 -0000
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:49:34 -0500, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Thats not bad 33% decided to continue using it.
>
>That's not what he wrote.
>
>> Considering the level of vendorlock currently, that is
>> somewhat remarkable really. Also, 33% would certainly
>> be a nice chunk of the overall marketshare as well.
>
>Linux isn't even close to 33% of the US market.
I never said it was. Although, IDC claims that the Linux
desktop market is on par with Macintosh.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:00:14 -0000
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:58:06 -0500, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > check out http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/January/os.html
>> > linux 0% , windows 91% (and linux hardly beats Win 3.x :-).)
>> > Maybe the rest of linux users is busy compiling kernels or
>> > the yet have to figure out how to get onto the internet.
>>
>> I just took a quick glance, but that doesn't look like a very reliable
>> site. What specifically was it measuring? How did they do it? Are they
>> applicable to the topic under consideration?
>
>Typical, typical, typical.
>When a stat falls on the Linux side of the fence, it's to be put on
Why should anyone consider these data useful?
[deletia]
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:03:08 -0000
On 08 Feb 2001 12:50:00 +0000, Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen Cornell wrote:
>
>> >Ah, but these people had to install Linux themselves. Surely you can
>> >see that the task of putting together an installation program that is
>> >capable of detecting and configuring any possible combination of
>> >hardware is a formidable challenge, especially when some hardware is
>> >simply not supported or has to be reverse-engineered.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) writes:
>
>> #1. Suse and Mandrake and RedHat already do a fine job of autodetecting
>> hardware.
>
>I've installed Red hat five times (2x 5.2, 1x 6.0, and 2x6.2), and while
>it does an impressive job it's still far from flawless. Sound it
>typically the weakest point; second, I've never had a monitor
>correctly autodetected, and even when feeding in the correct specs the
>modelines created by Xconfigurator gave unusable output. Not to
That's peculiar. I have had the exact opposite experience
with odd monitors and Linux and Windos. Xfree even comes
with a nice sync tweaking tool that will allow you to
store positioning information for ANY supported card.
You need to run special vendor utilities to achieve the
same thing with windos. On a cheap monitor, this can be
rather handy.
>mention the difficulties getting X to work at all, if you're unlucky
>(cases in point: S3 Virge MX+ and Neomagic 256 under Red Hat 5.2)
...kinda like a Trident Blade 3D under NT5.
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 21:16:26 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Pete Goodwin 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.
You have to install Appsfilter6, if you want to print postscript to a
non-postscript printer. And then, make sure your printer is called
correctly in the call to lpr. For example, if Appsfilter configures
your printer as "auto1", then all some app has to do is pipe the
postscript file to "| lpr -Pauto1". So, do you have a PostScript
printer? PS is this wonderful standard most Unix apps like to use for
printing.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What .NET is...
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:25:28 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95ukta$95k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> It's late.
> >>
> >> Okay, seriously, I saw a book in the store about C# programming. Yeah
> >> yeah, C# != .NET, but still the two kind of go hand-in-hand, right? The
> >> advent of one brings on the other, right? Also, I turned down a job
> >> recently where the company was getting into .NET technology, but hadn't
> >> had much to do just yet.
> >>
> >> My question is, has anybody besides the folks at Wrox (company that
> >> published the book, you know, the line of books with all the
> >> funny-looking guys on the covers) had occasion to work with any of this
> >> stuff yet? Diddling or tinkering or actual workplace implementation of
> >> betas or what-not?
> >>
> >> I'm genuinely curious. I don't have a Java bias or anything.
> >>
> >> Sent via Deja.com
> >> http://www.deja.com/
>
> > NOBODY knows what the fuck .NET is.
>
> > It's vaporware. That's why the descriptions are sooooooo vague.
>
> Now, thats not fair. .NET really is a real thing, its just a poor idea
> stolen from other, more innovative companies, rolled out in an effort to
> once again lock the populous at large to the MSOS regime.
>
> It wont work. Microsoft is wasting its money.
and running out of acronyms and marketing phrases to slap on existing
technologies.
------------------------------
From: Sgt Detritus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:18:35 GMT
In article <tEFg6.2241$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
Try reading both, in chronological order.
--
Any man agitated enough to lift a 300lb. ape
without noticing is a man with way too much on
his mind.
~~Terry Pratchett, Guards, Guards~~
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Uptime
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:33:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have the exact same results with Linux here but I have a different
> experience with Microsoft products.
[snip]
> Our secretary is using 98 and shuts her machine down
> every night. She can go for a month or so before we have to put
> in the compaq restore disk to rebuild the machine. This is a process
> which takes an hour to do.
I understand that this is your experience. It is not my intention to
tell you that your experience is "wrong" or anything like that. But I am
now going to give my experience, which is a little different.
I use linux at home. Love it. (Almost) never crashes, and now that i
have it set up just how i want it, it is even more stable.
But I have to use windows at work. Fortunately, my office doesn't have a
very strict software rules, and i have installed lots of extra software
on the win98J machine. Everything from tweakui to homesite to emacs, the
gimp, and even latex (slowly sneaking gnu software into the office!).
What has really surpised me is that my machine is actually fairly stable
(as windows machines go that is). I have been doing things that in linux
are normal but are no-no's in windows on a regular basis for over a year
now. No noticable increase in instability.
Of course this machine gets shutdown every night. I doubt it would last
a second day if it wasn't.
I am not saying that this windows machine is rock solid - like all
windows machines, it crashes occasionally, and programs screw up
sometimes. But we have never had to do a reinstall.
It has far exceeded my expectations. Maybe I just lowered them a little
too far?
(Still, I wish I could work on a linux box.)
[snip]
> --
> Charlie
>
> **DEBIAN** **GNU**
> / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
> / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
> /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
> http://www.debian.org
>
cool sig - is it published under a free license? I'd like to borrow it.
--
Osugi Sakae
I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?)
Reply-To: bobh -> haucks org
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:43:40 GMT
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:51:37 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 1. Binary portability precludes use of platform specific features. Yet
>> MS is claiming that a deficiency of Java is the lack of platform
>> specific features. How is .NET going to support platform specific
>> features and yet be platform neutral?
> One way is with managed/unmanaed code. In VC++ 7, you can mix managed
> and unmanaged code, delegating the unmanaged code to platform specific
> or computationally intensive tasks. This means porting only the parts
> that are native for a new platform.
Which, translated to English, basically means that you have to write the
platform-specific stuff for each platform, just like with JNI. Which is
my point. Your argument boils down to MS making nifty tools that they
claim will "make it easier". Only, why would they care? They want
people to stick with MS platforms.
>> 2. By controlling the specification of .NET, MS puts itself in a
>> position to squeeze out competing platforms that it doesn't like.
>If it means so little, why did Sun refuse to let ECMA "rubber stamp" Java?
Oops, it turns out that MS hasn't either, really, according to your
other posts on the subject. They've only submitted a part of the
enchilada. What was your point again? That MS isn't out to push
developers to their platforms but Sun is?
But in any case the answer is simply that Sun does not have a desktop
monopoly. If they want to control the direction of Java, they cannot do
it via platform specific non-standardized extensions. If Sun comes up
with some Solaris specific extension to Java, only a minority of
customers will use it and it won't influence the usage of the language
much. MS, however, can do it that way because their desktop monopoly
gives them huge leverage. If they can get their ISV's to use an
extension, it becomes de facto a part of the language or runtime or
whatever is being extended.
The benefit they gain by going to ECMA is in the marketing, where they
get to ask why Sun hasn't been so magnanimous, without mentioning the
different market positions of the two companies. MS and Sun are really
not that far apart as far as their desire to control the platform.
>> 3. Given #1 and #2 above, why should anybody who isn't already an MS
>> slave support .NET? All the FUD that MS has put out about Java applies
>> equally to .NET even if you leave out all the licensing nonsense.
> 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.
Oh, so the answer to why the same arguments that apply to Java don't
apply to C# boils down to "well they are going to spend a lot of money
on it". Yeah, that always helps, just ask Fred Brooks.
The FUD about "write once, test everywhere" will still apply, no matter
how much money MS spends or how many Wizards they make. The FUD about
"they're trying to tie you to their products" will apply in spades. The
FUD about "lack of security" will probably apply too, given MS's less
than stellar history in that area.
All the skill and money in the world won't make platform specific code
not be platform specific. And given the history of MS, I would be much
more than very surprised if the non-MS implementations of .NET aren't
marginalized by MS-developed platform-specific extensions, ECMA or no
ECMA. The very fact that they are "farming out" the port to the most
directly competitive platform says a lot.
You see, the reason the FUD doesn't matter is not that MS has solutions
to the known problems of cross-platform development, it is that .NET is
really intended to tie you to MS and eventually get you to pay them a
fee every time you use an app. The cross-platform crap and "going to
the standards bodies" is just a smokescreen. What they tried to do to
Java is what they are going to do with .NET, and everybody seems to know
it but MS shills.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Security bug in mozilla on multi user system [linux]
Reply-To: bobh -> haucks org
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:43:43 GMT
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:49:50 +0100, Thorsten Moellers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I found this newsgroup on the mozilla homepage as a newsgroup suitable
>for mozilla problems and bugs.
You were mislead then.
>Where may I sent this bug-report without subscribing to a
>mailing-list?
The bug reporting system can be found through <http://www.mozilla.org/>
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:39:02 GMT
Ah, pete has f*ucked up his configurations again and wants to blaim
Linux for his mistake...
In article <5JFg6.2266$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[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.
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:40:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Pete Goodwin 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.
> >
> > Such a simple thing to setup the correct printer.
>
> No kidding. What kind of moron installs the wrong printer in an
> operating system and then publicly humiliates themself by ranting
> about it on usenet?
Pete does this type of thing all the time.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
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 15:58:23 +1300
> 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.
Heh... if the object of the debate is to have both of us admit that Win9x
is brain dead in its decision making, then I think our mission is
accomplished... =)
What version of Redhat involves Kudzu? I've never used it or seen it in
action, but the latest version of Redhat I've seen is 6.0...
------------------------------
From: "Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OK, How do I get a debian distribution that supports 2.4.1?
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 02:59:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I actually make my living using Windows and I look forward to the day
> when I have a stable OS for a desktop like Linux.
>
If you're waiting for Windows to be a stable OS, you'll be waiting a long
time. But I think you know that. :-)
Meanwhile, Linux has been a stable OS for my desktop -- and I get to use
it for work too. I'm just looking for the day when our company kicks MS
out enmasse.
------------------------------
From: "surrender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 15:52:29 GMT
In article <95u8fq$g40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "MH"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote something like:
>> > check out http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/January/os.html linux
>> > 0% , windows 91% (and linux hardly beats Win 3.x :-).) Maybe the
>> > rest
>> > of linux users is busy compiling kernels or the yet have to figure
>> > out how to get onto the internet.
>>
>> I just took a quick glance, but that doesn't look like a very reliable
>> site. What specifically was it measuring? How did they do it? Are they
>> applicable to the topic under consideration?
>
> Typical, typical, typical. When a stat falls on the Linux side of the
> fence, it's to be put on billboards for all to see. When a stat doesn't,
> the stat provider is branded 'unreliable', or paid off by MS. What a F'n
> load of BS you people perpetrate. Much worse than ANY stat published
> anywhere. Thank god you're not in the media.
>
> Those black helicopters are still circling boys.
You still haven't told us what they measure and how they do it?
--
Greets
surrender
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
