Linux-Advocacy Digest #109, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Feb 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How will I convert Linux partition to FAT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on (J Sloan)
Re: Peformance Test ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The gleaming linux boxes at Blackwells. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: OK, How do I get a debian distribution that supports 2.4.1? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Interesting article ("Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Mike Martinet)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Mike Martinet)
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Interesting article (Jim Richardson)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Jim Richardson)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:15:22 -0600
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:963v5o$bv8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Furthermore, Windows ME and Windows 2000 both have "Linux Stompers"
> built into their initial boot sequence. Even if the image is mastered,
> Windows will still attempt to disable Linux.
This is completely false. Please, be my guest. Explain how this works.
> > > and to delay the ability of Linux to support
> > > USB scanners, Cameras, and "WinPrinters".
> >
> > MS is not delaying any of these things. The market is.
>
> Correction. Microsoft has demanded that all vendors who support
> USB sign nondisclosure agreements which prevent BOTH the release
> of information to the Open Source community AND the deployment
> of Modules that can be shipped in binary form.
Excuse me? Microsoft doesn't own the USB spec.
> Microsoft attempted to do the same with PCI PnP, requiring that vendors
> provide only that information which would enable Microsoft to decide which
> drivers and configuration options to use. It wasn't until Adaptec broke
> ranks (after Microsoft broke it's promise to replace IDE drivers with SCSI
> and instead simply put the IDE driver into the SCSI configuration box).
> Adaptec decided that since Microsoft breached the spirit and intent of the
> agreement,, that they would break the spirit and intent of their NDA by
> providing Red Hat with the information required to decode Plug-N-Play.
No, hardware vendors don't want their competition to gain any trade secrets
from their driver source. That's why they don't release their source code.
> Phillips has broken the "code of silence" with their USB camera,
> providing binary modules that can be used with their Web Cameras.
Even if such contracts exist, they'd be illegal. Since a contract is a
legally binding entity, if it's illegal, you're not bound by it's rules. So
why would anyone follow one? MS couldn't sue you.
> > Because many clients WANT that.
> > There is also the option to buy systems without it.
>
> The key is that Microsoft has gone to most of the Fortune 1000,
> and roped them into Exclusive agreements that required Windows NT
> or Windows 2000 on all desktops, laptops, and servers. Only
> consultants have the right to use Linux on their own machines.
Not true at all. I've worked with more than 20 different Fortune 1000
companies over the last few years, and all of them have had non-MS OS's
running somewhere, sometimes even on desktops.
Hell, if this were true, IBM would be out of business, as according to them,
OS/2 related business brings in something like 7 billion dollars in revenue
every year. IBM's primary clients are the Fortune 1000.
> > > Consumer companies ranging from
> > > Banks to Insurance companies to Web sites
> > > are suddenly being squeezed into choosing
> > > between cutting jobs or cutting Microsoft.
> >
> > Well then, if that's true, MS's bottom line
> > won't look too good.
>
> The last two quarters Microsoft has relied on equity interests
> to cover shortfalls in revenue. They have artificially inflated
> sales figures by forcing customers to accept legal "sales" of
> presold licenses of Windows 2000 that were promised during the
> Windows NT sales.
And the rest of the market is also failing. Let's look at some upcoming
quarters when the PC market comes out of it's slump.
> > > Ironically, it was Linux that was
> > > driving the economic expansion of the last
> > > 7 years, which was actually riding a wave
> > > created by UNIX throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
> >
> > ????? The fact that you can say this with a straight face amazes me.
>
> Were you there when the first version of Opera was released? I was. Were
you
> there when the SLS Linux came in an "ammo box" of 100 floppies? I was.
>
> Were you there when Mosiac 2.0 came out? I was.
Depending on what you mean by "Were you there", yes. I've been on the
internet since 1991.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How will I convert Linux partition to FAT
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:10:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jimmy Navarro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 12:28:20 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>How will I reformat Linux partition to FAT or FAT32? I have /dev/hda1
>2.1GB as M$ Windows 98, /dev/hda5 and /hda6 with Linux Mandrake 7.1. I
>can't reload Windows nor Linux because the CD-ROM drive is not curently
>working.
If you have a reasonably fast connection to the Internet -- or even if
it's slow; it just takes longer :-) -- you can install Debian over the
Net, or Red Hat. It's a bit tricky, but it works; you'll need to
carefully read the instructions, and you'll probably want
two floppies, for initial booting.
I installed a base system and now download using dselect when I need
new packages. The nice thing about dselect is it also allows me to
resolve conflicts and download other packages which I didn't know I
need (and shows me these other packages, as well, so I can make a
reasonably intelligent decision).
It's not perfect (what is?), but it's nice. :-)
(Oh, and I have a 56k modem. Can't get much slower than that. :-) )
If you really do want to reformat your Linux partition to FAT/FAT32,
reset the type back to 6 (FAT16) or delete the partition using Linux's
fdisk on your rescue disk (MSDOS's FDISK.EXE is too brain dead), then
edit/recreate the logical drive using MSDOS's FDISK.EXE.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:23h:37m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:13:47 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Correction. Microsoft has demanded that all vendors who support
> > USB sign nondisclosure agreements which prevent BOTH the release
> > of information to the Open Source community AND the deployment
> > of Modules that can be shipped in binary form.
>
> Excuse me? Microsoft doesn't own the USB spec.
Don't be coy, and please don't play dumb.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:27:49 -0600
"Mike Martinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > Mike Martinet wrote:
> > >
> > > >(Using any software other than that provided on the Linux/W2k disks
is
> > cheating)
> >
> > Such stupid statements are only designed to make your position look
better.
> > Nobody cares if you have to go to a web site to get a driver, or
download
> > some free software (like sendmail for NT). Big whoop.
> >
> > >
>
> You're right. That was unfair of me. Tell you what. Use whatever
> software you need to get W2k running on a 486-50 as a viable mail
> server. Don't post back in this thread until you're done.
I've installed W2k on a 486-66 16 meg using VenturCom's TargetDesigner (I
don't have a 50). I could have easily added Sendmail to the running
processes. TargetDesigner is a product that allows you to select which
services (such as security subsystem, GDI, etc..) that you want to use in a
system and is primarily used to create embedded versions of NT.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The gleaming linux boxes at Blackwells.
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:23:33 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:16:34 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Do you really think they'd stock Linux if it didn't sell?
>>
>>-Ed
>
> They have OS/2 at Borders books as well as Linux.
If they stock it, then they sell it. But I believe yttrx that you're
lying.
Oh and I forgot to mention, there is not a single Linux boxed set in the
discount section. Not one. Zilch.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OK, How do I get a debian distribution that supports 2.4.1?
Date: 10 Feb 2001 18:26:06 -0700
"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK debian gurus,
>
> With the demise of Suse <actually I don't want to support a president of
> an organization with such a crappy attitude towards open source>, how do
> I get an actual distribution of Debian that supports kernel-2.4.1.
Install potato.
Place these lines in /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian woody main contrib non-free
deb ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US woody/non-US main contrib non-free
# include the following if you like gnome
deb http://spidermonkey.helixcode.com/distributions/debian unstable main
Run `apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade`
Download kernel 2.4.1, compile and install.
Debian isn't easy to get into, but it is easier than any other
distribtuion after you get it going.
[snip]
Oh, and if you miss RPM functionality, you can get it:
apt-get install rpm
(alien sucks, IMHO)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:50:28 -0800
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >> >Another example of "Windows won the benchmark, so the benchmark must
> >> >suddenly be wrong".
> >>
> >> Hardly. Windows lost the benchmark, to begin with. But I think
> >
> >In the past ? Sure. This is now, and it's at the top of the list. Heck,
even
> >IBM [which invests millions of USD in Linux] to try to beat Compaq turned
to
> >Windows 2000.
>
> No, Windows loses the benchmark, currently. The only way it gets to
> "the top of the list" (one must understand and read the list, I'm
> afraid, or the fact that its 'at the top' is rather meaningless) is by
> submitting clustered systems against single-system Unix implementations.
IBM doesn't care, but they nevertheless prepare a Win2K cluster set up just
wanted to make some Windows sock puppets happy.
> >Why oh why didn't they use a Linux cluster to destroy and humiliate
Compaq
> >and Microsoft ? It's not like they didn't have the money.
>
> Its not like anyone but the sock puppets care, either.
Nor IBM which especially prepared a cluster set just to please the Windows
sock puppets.
> >> Giuliano's point was that it isn't a useful benchmark, so the fact that
> >> Windows lost it so badly, only being able to post reasonable numbers by
> >> pitting a Windows cluster against single machine Unix systems, doesn't
> >> cast as bad a light on your "favrit OS in the whole world", Chad.
> >
> >Where is the UNIX cluster that kills
>
> Its being used to make money; sorry if nobody has the time to prove to
> you what everyone with more than half a brain already knows, which is
> that Windows performance sucks, compared to competitive systems.
So far, in TPC-C, the competition is is behind a sucky performing OS,
doesn't look too good for the competition.
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> But that's a lie, Chad. It isn't a question of wanting to avoid the
> >> truth; we'll proclaim the truth from the rooftops. You're the one who
> >
> >I don't think that anyone has the monopoly on truth [or deception for
that
> >matter]. Anyone who thinks so is deluded, IMO.
>
> I don't think your comment has any purpose or meaning, frankly, but as a
It's okay, just ignore it then.
> veiled attempt to insult me. One is reasonable or one is not; bringing
I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just pointing out that neither you nor
Chad nor me for that matter possesses such a monopoly [you'll be hard
pressed to see me say: it's the truth ! you lie !]
If one believes that s/he, or her/his side does, s/he is IMO deluded. But
it's okay to be deluded, I have my delusions too.
> up some fanciful 'monopoly on the truth' issue doesn't put you into the
> class designated 'reasonable', I'm afraid, though the statement itself
Of course, but I'm aware that I don't possess it or that my opposition has
the monopoly on deception [IOW, you'll be hard pressed to see me calling you
a liar]
> is certainly reasonable in its own right.
Thanks.
> >> wants to hide it. Pretty humorous, of course, how you are trying to
> >> "hide it in plain sight", by pretending that TPC shows Windows as
> >> high-performance, when the actual results are precisely the opposite.
> >> But more annoying than anything else. And getting tiresome.
> >
> >Well it's at the top of the table [faster], and less expensive to boot.
>
> Less expensive? Are you smoking crack?
Ooops, you're right. More bang for the buck, sorry. :)
The top Win2K cluster costs 10003826.00 US $
The top UNIX server costs 9560594.00 US $ but is more than twice as slow as
the top Win2K cluster.
There are 2 Win2K clusters which outperform the top UNIX and cost half as
much.[5305571.00 US $ ]
> >Advocacy aside, it is better to be slower [for whatever reason] and more
> >expensive ?
>
> Advocacy aside, your point is too flawed to bother responding to.
Of course. :)
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:32:29 +0000
In article <b0kh6.11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:963k05$dm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> Hell, Linux needed a new version to support Itanium too. The
>> >> >> >> 2.4 kernel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If 2.4 wasn't in the works at the time, 2.2 would have supported
>> >> >> it, but everyone was working on 2.4.
>> >> >
>> >> > And you think this is any different for Whistler?
>> >>
>> >> WTF are you talking about. You claimed that Linux needed a new
>> >> Kernel. I contend that claim. I said it didn't need a new kernel,
>> >> but support did come with the new kernel. If the Itanium was
>> >> avaliable a year ago,
>> >> 2.2 would have itanium support.
>> >
>> > Your point was that since everyone was working on 2.4, it was easiest
>> > to just add it to 2.4.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>> > Since everyone in the OS division at MS is working on Whistler, it's
>> > easiest to add Itanium to Whistler.
>>
>> That makes sense, but what is your point?
>>
>>
>> > Same thing.
>>
>> I wasn't talking about Whistler. I was pointing out that your statement
>> about Linux needing 2.4 to support Itanium was incorrect. Why bring
>> whistler in to it?
>
> YOU are the one that brought whistler into it. You were asking why a
> new version of Windows was needed for 64 bit support. That new version
> is Whistler, Duh!
I don't recall saying that. Please post a deja link, or take it back.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:38:31 -0700
The fundamental point of my post was, the more difficult/expensive MS
makes Windows (through Whistler copy-protection and .NET) to
get/maintain, the bigger the market will be for Linux.
I like that. Erik Funkenbusch has taken me to task on some minor
points, which I answer here. If you're bored with obsessive
nit-picking, avoid the rest of this post. If you want to see me eat
e-Crow, read on.
> > > > Mike Martinet
> > > > Future versions of MS software (upgrades, service packs*, add-ons) will
> > > > only be available online through .NET. This looks like an attempt by MS
> > > > to force people to pay for software on a monthly basis - like cable TV.
> > >
> > > Erik Funkenbusch
> > >You stated specifically, as fact that this was true. Now you are trying to
> > >use the words of some analyst giving his opinion and claiming it's fact.
> > >It's not.
You're right. I did. I assumed that the upgrades etc would only be
available via .NET. What I have read about .NET led me to believe this.
> > > > Mike Martinet
> > > > So, you change your NIC card and in order to make use of your monthly
> > > > software subscription to get the new driver you have to wait on hold
> > > > with your computer's configuration list for someone to re-enable your
> > > > machine so you can download the software you're already being billed
> > > > for. This sounds neat.
> > >
Erik Funkenbusch
> The fact is, even if you replace every component, you've got 50 days to
> activate it. You can do so at your leisure.
According to the article:
"One or two peripherals can be swapped out of a system and the hash
would be preserved, but a major overhaul or new system would require the
user to call Microsoft to confirm that they have rights to the software
to get it activated."
It doesn't say anything about 50 days here and this not the Gartner-guy
talking. I take it to mean that the 50 days pertains only to the
initial install. After that, if you blow up your MB, you'll have to
call to get the OS up again. I could be wrong.
> >
> > READ THIS PART, Erik,
> >
> > ...the prior generations of Windows have been notoriously corruptible,
> > forcing users who tinker with their system to reinstall the OS and
> > applications from scratch several times per year. "I don't believe
> > people will try to get around it for piracy reasons, I do think they
> > will try to get around it for nuisance reasons," he said."
>
> You've never used Win2k, have you? In the year since the final release,
> I've never reinstalled it, and I've never heard of anyone needing to do so.
I've used everything from DOS 3.3 to W2k Server. But you got me there -
I haven't had to reinstall a W2k yet. For professional reasons, I
haven't had the same W2k machine more than 2 months yet, either. I HAVE
had to reinstall every previous version of Windows I've had, from 3.1
through NT4 though, so the jury's still out.
MjM
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:43:51 -0700
Ray Chason wrote:
>
> Because of that, Le Tocq said Microsoft is not getting the upgrade
> revenue on Office, which is almost half of the company's total
> revenue. "Microsoft is hurting big time because Office is not
> getting renewed and they are pulling out all the stops so the cash
> their company depends on keeps coming in."
>
> THIS is why Linux is my primary OS. THIS is why I put up with Linux's
> various user-interface and hardware-compatibility bogosities. THIS is
> why I use Linux, even more so than actually being able to fix my computer
> when it breaks, even more so than having fewer crashes than Win9x. Linux
> to me is about being able to use my computer--my property ferchrissakes--
> without having to get Microsoft's permission first.
>
> Call me a Linonut, if you must. But we'll see who's the nut this time
> next year when I'm still using my computer, and flatfoot can't because
> she didn't pay her Bill bill.
>
By flatfoot, Do you mean flatfish with the Hayes abort string in his/her
moniker? Flatfish is a she?
Hm...
I like the 'Bill bill'. That made me smile.
MjM
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:49:52 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:964q3p$lov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <b0kh6.11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:963k05$dm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> Hell, Linux needed a new version to support Itanium too. The
> >> >> >> >> 2.4 kernel.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If 2.4 wasn't in the works at the time, 2.2 would have supported
> >> >> >> it, but everyone was working on 2.4.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And you think this is any different for Whistler?
> >> >>
> >> >> WTF are you talking about. You claimed that Linux needed a new
> >> >> Kernel. I contend that claim. I said it didn't need a new kernel,
> >> >> but support did come with the new kernel. If the Itanium was
> >> >> avaliable a year ago,
> >> >> 2.2 would have itanium support.
> >> >
> >> > Your point was that since everyone was working on 2.4, it was easiest
> >> > to just add it to 2.4.
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Since everyone in the OS division at MS is working on Whistler, it's
> >> > easiest to add Itanium to Whistler.
> >>
> >> That makes sense, but what is your point?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Same thing.
> >>
> >> I wasn't talking about Whistler. I was pointing out that your statement
> >> about Linux needing 2.4 to support Itanium was incorrect. Why bring
> >> whistler in to it?
> >
> > YOU are the one that brought whistler into it. You were asking why a
> > new version of Windows was needed for 64 bit support. That new version
> > is Whistler, Duh!
>
> I don't recall saying that. Please post a deja link, or take it back.
You're right. It was Charles Lyttle who said it, not you. But the fact
remains, this thread is based on the statement about Itanium support
requiring a new version of Windows to support 64 bit code.
I wasn't the one that brought it up, Charles was, and each succesive
statement was based on that statement.
Message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:44:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Matthew Gardiner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very interesting the way Microsoft is going, however, even UNIX vendors are
> not this paranoid. For example, IRIX 6.5.10, which is quite an expensive OS,
> yet does not require "forced registration" or "node locked" registration,
> neither does SUN, IBM or HP require this, the only time I have seen it,
> however, is with the likes of SUN Workshop C/C++ which was node locked, and
> required registration.
Yep, when Rational started to do this with Rational Rose, I threw it out and
bought ObjectDomain. I still had about a year on my Rational maintenance
contract too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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 00:14:48 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:13:55 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9608a8$mkl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >It's also interesting to note that in the "Unix Administrator's Handbook"
>> >they take the time to bash Microsoft.
>> >
>> >Why is it that whenever I read technical documentation by Microsoft or
>> >about a Microsoft product, I never see any bashing of alternative
>> >products, in fact, they usually have a section in the back of the
>> >book detailing many of the possible alternative (including, occasionally,
>> >Linux-based alternatives).
>> >
>>
>>
>> The technical documentation for Linux and other unix docs explain how their
>> system interacts with other systems, such as special considerations when
>> using Linux as a router on a network of Windows machines. This is not
>> arbitrary bashing
>
>No, when you see things like "but brain-dead M$ Windows requires you to..."
>
>Hardly professional, and hardly necessary. What is it about you Unix/
>Linux people that you feel the need to incesently bash MS in an
>infantile manner?
If you see brain dead actions, call them as such...
>
>> - it is essential configuration information. You will
>> find that docs for most systems contain references and information about
>> others - the only exception is M$ docs, which are often very limited in
>> information regarding interaction with other systems, because they are not
>> supposed to interact - M$ would prefer that there were no OS's other than
>> Windows, so they prefer not to talk about them.
>
>Quit changing the subject. Most, if not all, Linux HOW-TOs are extremely
>poorly written, rarely have even half of the information necessary
>to accomplish the task at hand, but never seem have any qualms at taking
>a paragraph or two to bash M$ for apparently no reason.
>
You are complaining about amatuers playing at a game that M$ excells, bashing
the opposition. Amusing.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:27:18 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:13:37 +1100,
Geoffrey Tobin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>....
>> The whole Constitution is founded upon the principle
>> that government can't be trusted....least of all those individuals in
>> government who LIKE being a part of it.
>
>Now i'm really frightened of Ronald ("happy, happy") Reagan.
>
Why? he's out of the picture.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:40:49 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 08:23:51 GMT,
Pete Goodwin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <95v9ni$btv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Don't be such a bloody twit. If you use the wrong driver unser windoze,
>> you get pages of ASCII as well.
>
>I installed the correct driver and I even printed a test page. That
>worked. Why not this? Windows doesn't do this kind of thing.
>
>--
Sure does, what's more, the same page doesn't even print the same twice all the
time. Case in point, co-worker wanted to print a doc from word, first one was
hosed (graphical elements shifted around) printed it again, worked fine. Go
figure.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
