Linux-Advocacy Digest #102, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Feb 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Mike Martinet)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Mike Martinet)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (ZnU)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (pen)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Chad Myers")
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner research
for your reading pleasure) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Interesting article (Damien)
Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner research
for your reading pleasure) (Mig)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Damien)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Unknown Poster")
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses (J Sloan)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("WMH")
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("WMH")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 12:17:32 -0700
Mathias De Belder wrote:
>
<snip>
> Everything I need runs flawlessly under Windows for me, so why should I
> botter to go with a SLOWER (yes, stating that programs will run faster under
> Linux is purely FUD) solution, that isn't as polished and is incompatible
> with the majority of the software used in the world ?
>
> Don't get me wrong though, Linux is a great OS, but it is a SERVER OS ! The
> old programs (sendmail, wu-ftpd, postfix, slrn) are really well made and top
> of the line cmd-line programs. But the current trend to get everything
> ported to X is a drawback for the GNU-model. Face it : KDE and Gnome, and
> almost EVERY GUI program you can find for Linux is SLOW, bloated,
> non-functioning and extremely buggy. Every wanna-be coder wants to write
> some lines of code, and the result is disastrous. The KOffice package is a J
> O K E !
>
> So, to summarize everything : compareLinux as a desktop OS to Windows9X, and
> even the most diehard Linux user will have to admit that the windows gui and
> programs win hands down. BUT, if you compare Linux as a server OS with
> Windows2000, you get a different picture. Both have their merits and they
> are thightly matched. Linux is an *alternative* to windows as a server os,
> but certainly not a huge improvement.
>
> Just my .03 Euro's for this thread.
Before I spent much time in this NG, I would have agreed with you. But
just yesterday I read something that's near and dear to my heart - Linux
can play several MP3's at once. I had just assumed that the inability
of Windows to output a ding-dong sound when something went wrong while I
was listening to a WAV or an MP3 was a hardware limitation. It's not.
The OS is simply not flexible enough to handle two inputs to the same
piece of hardware simultaneously. Someone then posted a pretty funny
question - "Why would you want to run several MP3's at once? The din
must be horrible" - and I had to laugh. But, I love to seque songs.
One of the main things I do with my Windows OS is compilation
recording. To date, all I've used my Linux machine for is server tasks;
mail, firewall, gateway, etc. But now I'm going to have to take some
time and fool around with the desktop just so I can look into these
claims.
If this is the case, then it has implications for the other multi-media
type things that home users want to do with PC's - primarily, video
editing. Not to mention built-in copy protection which is growing like
a fungus in MS products. It won't be long before the Windows OS won't
let you download an MP3 to your RIO unless you can prove somehow that
you 'own' the MP3. That, in and of itself, could be enough of a reason
to give Windows the final boot.
MjM
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 12:20:28 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> Samba shines here, too;
> I can edit files residing on my WIndows box using my favorite editor
> (vi). :-)
>
Hear! Hear!
MjM
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:17:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:58:36 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug,
> which was quite moldy, G3, a dying weevil, wrote the following with
> his antennae:
> :)>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh McKee at
> :[EMAIL PROTECTED] )>wrote on 2/7/01 7:22 PM: )> )>>> 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 )> )>Bringing this back to the
> :consumer, who should have to touch hardware what )>it in fact says
> :is: )>"Windows 2000 works. Redhat 6 doesn't."
>
> And I've found Windows to be just as bad. Just depends on the exact
> hardware. There is no unix-like OS even close to being useful for the
> average consumer,
There will be next month: http://www.apple.com/macosx/
Naturally, it only runs on Apple hardware. But if Apple can do it,
someone else can. Of course, Apple's strenth is making complex stuff
easy, and Mac OS X has been a long, long time in the making.
But Apple's goal with OS X was to beat the ease-of-use of previous
versions of Mac OS. A very difficult task, especially given that the
average Mac user notices user interface issues more than the average PC
user. To make waves in the x86 market, a Unix-based challenger need only
beat or match Windows ease-of-use. Much easier.
> but your windows there only works right because it
> is the big boy. More people use it, so more people want hardware
> support, so it gets more. Jumper settings and special drive settings
> are just as much of a bitch in any OS. If jumper settings are
> correct, and everything is in as compatible a mode as possible, the
> OS should go in fine. Then you tell it what you have, or let it find
> it (or both), and then start messing around.
>
> And putting on any new OS, it often helps to start w/ a barebones
> default-as-can-be system (generic S3ViRGE 4mb, SB16/Awe32, etc.)
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 03:16:32 +0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's an subjective opinion, not a reasonable theory.
WMH wrote:
> > Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions,
> and
> > if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version
> of
> > the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy
> to
> > use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
>
> One of the worst 'gui vs cli' arguments I've ever seen.
>
> I've not seen a GUI where the graphical representations of reptitive tasks
> have had pictures changing from version to version. (unless you're referring
> to the mish-mash of icons under the Unix Gui model)
> You want confusing icons? Look at some under KDE. KMail is an example. Now
> look at the same 'pictures' under an application like Outlook Express. Which
> facillitates a quicker recognition of the task the picture represents? No
> contest.
>
> Then there are menus --isn't a meun just a more efficient way of presenting
> a common group of options?
>
> File open, file save, copy, so on and so on, have not changed so radically
> as to have you 'relearn' them from version to version. In fact, MS's GUI's
> have remained consistent with this for years. Now open a unix text editor.
> Is it ^o to save? or is it ^s? What are my terminal's keymappings? No
> contest in ease of use due to conformity in a standard GUI menu system vs. a
> CLI app by app non-standard usage of key combinations. Unix forces you to
> learn more than one way to perform a mundane task in many applications.
> Modern GUI's offer you one way to do the same thing in many applications.
>
> Yes, we're all lemmings because we don't see things as you do. Operating
> systems as religion is an example.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:21:20 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Now...once again...do you even KNOW what the fuck ".NET" is, and if
> > > > > so, then, explain it to us.
> > > >
> > > > .NET represents an environment, a programming infrastructure that
supports
> > > > the next generation of the Internet as a platform.
> > > >
> > >
> > > From what I've heard, it sounds like .net is merely an
> > > attempt to take the sort of open, working tools and
> > > protocols which are available today in the Unix world,
> > > and twist them into a proprietary, windows-centric
> > > model which can then be used to build a mechanism
> > > for extracting regular payments from windows users.
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Where do these idiots come from? Really? Where?
>
> Please sir, do not hold back your true feelings.
>
> Feel free to share your views, if you would like!
>
> Clearly, you have been deeply offended that someone
> would suspect microsoft of concocting a plan to divert
> funds from private citizens into it's own swollen coffers -
>
> To you, sir, I say, "wake up and smell the coffee".
BLACK HELIOCOPTERS! HERE THEY COME, RUN FOR COVER!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:23:17 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:962oma$7gd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <pM2h6.6086$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Well, I'm fed up with tpc.org. It's a site handled by a number of
> >> companies to advertise their products, and it has nothing to do with
> >> "independent benchmarks". Only a clueless ignorant Windows supporter
> >> could stop considering its useless data.
> >> Leave it aside and try with another one.
> >
> >Another example of "Windows won the benchmark, so the benchmark must
> >suddenly be wrong".
> >
> >It's really sad when you guys can't accept a major fact. Just because
> >you don't like that Windows is the highest performing transactional
> >processing OS doesn't mean that you can just throw it away.
> >
> Another example of Chad ignoring the answers he doesn't like so he
> can complain about the other person "Changing the subject" away from
> his original lie.
What answers? Some guy who simply can't except the fact that Windows
dominates over Unix so he wishes to simply close his eyes and make
it go away?
Perhaps you should open your eyes and read once in awhile.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner
research for your reading pleasure)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:28:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First up a little gem from April 2000: Did you realise you have to
> reboot Linux servers every week or two? In fact you need Windows 2000
> to solve your reboot problems:
FUD Snipped...
Yes, I guess apachectl stop, apachectl restart, or in a worst case
scenario, kill ( pid of httpd ), didn't happen to work for the company
that the micros~1 FUDsters cited in their article.
Here's a quote from a research manager at IDC:
"More than 40 percent of all spending on Linux servers is for
Internet-related applications," noted Michelle Bailey, research manager
for IDC. "Linux servers are now embedded in the Internet infrastructure
and are strong competition for NT and Unix entry servers." The majority
of Linux users surveyed also cited four nines availability with Linux,
or less than one hour of unexpected downtime per year.
I wonder who is more credible, IDC or microsoft when it comes to
reporting the experiences of Linux users?
BTW, I installed the IBM HTTP server and Web Application Servers on my
linux desktop last night. I had realized that the HTTP server was based
on Apache. I did not realize that it *IS* Apache just with
pre-installed module support for IBM's Java SDK and the ability to
preconfigure a DB2 setup.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Feb 2001 19:41:46 GMT
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:08:47 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a837a4c$0$17470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 04:00:19 GMT, Chad Myers
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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.
[*snip "clustered or not is irrelevant" argument about tpc*]
> > > Secondly, we have hackwindows2000.com or whatever it was called where
> > > no one was every successfully able to take down the Win2K box MS put
> > > up (despite tens of millions of packets per day).
> >
> > I remember that. It was windows200test.com and it was usually
> > unavailable. MS kept blaming it on router problems, but it was pretty
> > obvious from the logs that the machine was going down frequently and
> > couldn't handle the traffic.
>
> IIRC, it went down 6 times. 5 of which were for updates (the newest
> build, etc). 1 of which was questionable, I'll give you that.
No, I know first hand it was rarely available. When it was available
it was very slow. The guestbook especially was a problem. Usually I
tried to connect (every day for over a week) it timed out. The one
time I did get the page the submitting a comment didn't work.
> > There was a similar challenge offered by linuxppc.org in response. It
> > was rather amusing. The linuxppc machine was rather ordinary
> > hardware-wise whereas the W2k machine was top-of-the-line at the
> > time.
>
> It was? I don't remember that. I remember it being a late model
> Pentium III, but nothing super fancy. It was a Compaq Proliant
> mid-range server.
Yeah, it was PIII 500Mhz with I believe 256MB of RAM. It seemed
ridiculous to me at the time.
> > The linuxppc machine had a HTTPS server, MS put the HTTPS
> > server on a second machine. Same with the guestbook. Except MS's
> > guestbook didn't work. The PPC machine was to be given away to
> > anybody who could get access to it. MS offered no prize. The PPC
> > machine had to be rebooted once when it's too-small var partition
> > filled up. The W2k machine was repeated crashing and being rebooted.
>
> This is false.
This is what the logs said.
> > The Linux machine had it's root password posted on the website, (to
> > try and stop someone who was trying to brute force the pass via
> > telnet).
>
> The Linux PPC machines was rebooted twice under suspicious circumstances.
> The Windows box, a beta OS, was only rebooted once under suspicious
> circumstances.
The PPC machine went down once and was unavailable for a little while
when the cheap network cable came loose.
> Of course, in the later days of the trial, it went something like
> one month with <2-4% CPU utilization and no reboots, IIRC. The
> Linux PPC box continued to grow slower and slower and eventually,
> at the end, had those two reboots. Then, not ironically,
> the trial ended abruptly and no winner was announced.
This is false. The PPC machine was taken down because of the network
traffic it was causing. Soon afterwards it got a new host and was
cracked on Dec 25, 1999. (A mirror of the website defacement is on
attrition:
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/1999/12/25/crack.linuxppc.org/ )
> > MS posted it's administrator password in response, but
> > didn't offer and remote access services.
>
> They had NetBIOS open near the end when they posted the
> password, IIRC.
NetBIOS offers remote access? How does that work?
> > > Thirdly, we have Win2K with a built in IPSec and QoS implementation.
> > > Linux may have an IPsec implementation, but does it have a QoS
> > > implementation?
> >
> > Since 2.1.
>
> Is it pervasive? or just a token setup?
Can you be more specific?
> Is it built into the kernel and every packet must be inspected, or
> are only certain applications compiled to use this feature?
It is an option that you can build into the kernel, yes.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner
research for your reading pleasure)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:38:32 +0100
Adam Warner wrote:
> Hi Mig,
>
> > The advocacy newsgroups dont have any weight. It looks as Linux is under
> > direct attack from MS at the moment... just look at their FUD-"actions"
> > just the previous weeks. I do recall comments about how they dealed with
> > OS/2 in phorums used by IBM OS/2 customers and expect the same behaviour
> > against Linux.
>
> Can you enlighten about what they were? I was once an OS/2 Warp user
> before and for a while after Windows 95 was introduced. I also experienced
> the incompatibities that Microsoft introduced into DR-DOS as well (the
> Windows ones I managed to overcome. The Microsoft CD-ROM extensions
> (mscdex.exe) that refused to run on anything but MS-DOS got me in the
> end).
Well, i was rather thinking about some comments i read last year that MS
had a specialized "assault team" that "invaded" OS/2 customers phorums
with malicious stories about OS/2 to discorage users from continuing to use
OS/2... I think it was on Slashdot or Linuxtoday.
Could one not expect the same today towards Linux since that seems to be
the main thing that makes MS wet their pants?
> > What i would like to know is what are the arenas they will
> > choose - i doubt advocacy groups have any interest since people here are
> too
> > "geeky" and cant be convinced this way.
>
> They're a place where hopefully we can keep each other informed about what
> is going on. It is my present opinion that Microsoft has already lost the
> Linux is not technologically suitable for the enterprise battle, no matter
> what FUD they come up with (that's why I find their articles rather
> amusing and leave it to the intelligence of others to see through the
> doublespeak). I enjoy the honesty and openness of many free software
> development processes. For instance it is so refreshing to see Linus and
> Alan having good-natured battles of wits in the interest of technological
> superiority.
I think that rather to be reactive about FUD assaults would be better to be
pro-aktive and point NT/W2K weaknesses and oddities. As someone that does
support for all flavors of Windows eccept NT4) i will see a lot of them
sooner or later. I think that people like me with their hands in the dirt
will have to come out and do comparissions on both systems. Linux will off
course win with ease (thats the reason i dont use Windows privately)
> But what I am greatly concerned about is that Microsoft may make Linux (or
> other open source servers) redundant by linking compelling client services
> into the necessity to use Windows servers (to date Microsoft's greatest
> success in this area has probably been in the field of Windows Media
> servers. .NET, if successful, will make this look like child's play).
I wouldnt worry too much here. Their streaming software is not very good
im hearing. Another problem is that they try to have streaming providers to
lock in to their systems.... thats not been succesfull.
> And secondly, if Microsoft starts flexing its patent muscles there'll be a
> lot of open source developers naturally worried. It may eventually lead to
> patent reform (but the interim would be very messy with some developers
> deciding to halt specific projects and splits in the community as some
> decide to ignore what might turn out to be overly broad claims). If
> Microsoft goes that route it will be terribly damaging to their image,
> even in the most non-technical of circles.
Do they have any pathents that can hold in court?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Feb 2001 19:44:58 GMT
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:05:25 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Microsoft isn't advertising .NET as WORA. Sun did, and failed to deliver
> (again) on that promise. The fact is, WORA can never be attained, since
> there will always be compatiblity problems between platforms.
Can you give me any reason why this is impossible? (I'll give you a
hint: It's not. Look up "Turing Machine.")
------------------------------
From: "Unknown Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:48:41 -0500
"Josh McKee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:57:12 -0500, "Unknown Poster"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> I believe your example is flawed, you're comparing apples with oranges.
> >>
> >> Your friend's father won't have had to **INSTALL** Windows on his
packard
> >> bell, it'd come installed. If he bought a Mac, MacOS would come
> >> **INSTALLED**. No **CONSUMER** expects to **INSTALL** their OS, they
> >expect
> >> it to come **PRE-INSTALLED** with printer, scanner, sometimes even down
to
> >> the modem and the isp settings, the whole shebang. That's the nature of
a
> >> consumer based business. Until Linux is offered **PRE-INSTALLED** you
> >> cannot make comparisons.
> >>
> >
> >
> >What about OS Upgrades? What about those situations
> >where there is a catastrophic hard drive failure? I don't
> >know of a single computer manufacturer who will reload
> >the OS and all of the user's applications in that event.
>
> That's because most manufacturers like Gateway provide a recover CD.
If he's got a recovery CD, he never uses it. I don't by
pre-manufactured systems (except laptops) because
everytime he's called me over to 'watch' (read that as
keep him company and drink a beer or two), he's
always loading '98 from the disk/CD Windows 98 set.
>
> >My neighbor has a Gateway that has lost its' hard drive 4
> >times in the past 6 months. He reloads Windows 98 himself,
> >because it's easy enough. If it were Linux, he'd be lost.
>
> Linux itself isn't that difficult to install. The difference is that
> Gateway is providing the user with all the correct drivers /
> configurations necessary for Windows. They most likely are not doing
> the same for Linux. Thus the difference is more related to has the
> vendor used Linux compatible hardware and do they supply the correct
> drivers for Linux. If not, then of course Linux is going to be
> difficult to install compared with Windows. Go with a Linux system
> from some place like VA Linux and you'll probably find it is just as
> easy to install because VA Linux has assembled a system with parts
> known to be supported by Linux.
Ok, I'll concede that as a truth. But..I've also priced VA Linux
systems, and they are about $265 more than a comparible Gateway--
which comes with a 1GHZ processor, 64MB more RAM, soundcard
with speakers, and a CD/RW. The VA Linux system is $1464, while
the Gateway is $1199. Price drives a lot of users.
>
> >Having Linux pre-installed still does not help.
>
> It sure would because if it were pre-installed it is reasonable to
> assume that the vendor used, or provided drivers for, hardware that is
> compatible with Linux.
>
> Josh
Yes, it is reasonable to assume that, although not always.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:00:03 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
> He did not write well. He just made some crap up and spued it forth for
> those that are so vehmonently anti-MS that they'll believe ANYTHING that
> paints windows is a bad light. there is not a single shred of truth in his
> enitre article.
The rage and confusion within the windows religion
is telling at times like this. "How dare these heretics
question the perfection of our beloved windows 2k?"
They love to talk about "linux bigots", but see how they
riot when someone dares admit that windows is not
perfect?
This hints at a certain "instabilité mentale" which would
make any thinking individual question whether windows
is the sort of religion one would want to sign up for...
jjs
------------------------------
From: "WMH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:06:02 -0500
> I just realized (i'm slow, so sue me) that you are here for emotional
> reasons and have no interest in rational discussion.
>
> Goodbye.
Gee, something I said?
(-:
------------------------------
From: "WMH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:08:36 -0500
> >Oh. HIS assertions are 'valid conclusions' and seem reasonble. Gee, I
wonder
> >why?
> >Could the 'facts' being kind to Linux have anything to do with it?
>
> No. The fact that he is NOT kind is what is relevant.
Careful, you capitilized a word. Usigi won't like that. Things like that
seem to get up his nose.
> [deletia]
>
> He simply fucked up in his FUD. He made a comment that he
> thought would be uncomplimentary, when actually it implies
> something rather positive.
Well, disingenuous fud is what makes the cola-go-round
fi
> ANY AltOS achieving a 33% share in even niche markets would
> be a remarkable improvement over the current situation. Such
> niche strongholds would allow such an AltOS a stronger
> position from which to expand.
Agreed.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
