Linux-Advocacy Digest #116, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Feb 01 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: OK, How do I get a debian distribution that supports 2.4.1? ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum? ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Micro-Sinux Distro? ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit (Peter Hayes)
Re: Linux reference distro ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux reference distro ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit (Peter Hayes)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Good article ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Mart van de Wege")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 07:28:00 -0500
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?
Redmond, Washington.
>
> -Chad
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OK, How do I get a debian distribution that supports 2.4.1?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:23:53 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said John Travis in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 08 Feb 2001
> 17:59:31 GMT;
>>And spicerun spoke unto the masses...
>>:OK debian gurus,
>>
>><snippage>
>>
>>Grab the potato ISO and install 2.4.1? Just grab the source
>>deb for modutils from woody and compile it on your potato
>>system. Then install said kernel as usual.
>
> Pardon me, but... what's a potato?
>
Max,
>From another happy Debian user: the Debian group assigns
codenames to their distributions. Potato is the codename for the
current stable distribution (meaning all software is tested for
bugs, and properly integrated with the whole distribution). The
other 2 current branches are woody (testing) and sid (unstable).
Any mistakes are mine and I will happily accept correction.
Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:53:04 GMT
In article <iZsh6.339615$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "KLH"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a real purpose to this forum?
1) To advocate ( or dis-advocate ) Linux.
2) To keep all that crap out of the other forums.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:07:35 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> <95qlq0$brs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Pete please don't begin to make the assertatin that Microsoft innovated
> >with the concept of the GUI. This is NOT even close to being true!!!!
>
> KDE appears to be copying certain dialogs already present in Windows.
>
Yep, espacially that "OK" thingy is very suspicious.
--
Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Micro-Sinux Distro?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:56:24 GMT
> Nothing (except their arrogance). But what makes you think they'll have
> any success competing in an environment where they can't buy out,
> intimidate, or smother their competition?
Intimidate? No.
Buy out? No.
Smother? Yes. When you have that much cash backing out of your pee-hole
you can carpet-bomb a "market" like Linux.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:01:08 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:35:06 GMT, Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Alpha isn't x86 compatible, Sparc isn't x86 or Alpha compatible, PowerPC
> isn't any of the others, and yet linux was easily ported to all those.
> 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 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?
Marketing. Brand new version. A whole new rich seam ready to be mined and
swell the coffers.
> Answer : MS doesn't know what is in its messed up code base. They did
> x86 specific hacks instead of good programming (as if 16 bits was the
> end of the world). Thus they can't just change page size to 8k. They
> have to go through millions of lines of code and find everywhere someone
> used 4000 as a page size. I guess "wizards" like magic numbers.
That too
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux reference distro
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:02:10 +0100
In article <CCih6.67964$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Red Hat is on track to be profitable some time in 2002. To be
> honest, I'm not sure whether they look like a VAR or an ISV, or
> even an OEM. I think the folks at Red Hat would argue that
> there is a difference in their distribution, and that customers
> want what theirs has to offer, even if it can only be described
> in vague terms. What is clear is that they have changed their
> business model as time has evolved. They originally talked
> about becoming a web portal, and generating web advertising
> revenue. Today, they point to the growing parts of their
> business and say they're going to do more of that. I think the
> business model is simple: do what people want to pay for.
>
> -- Mike --
>
>
>
Mike,
I work in financials, and as a Linux user (and onetime RH6.2
user) I have been tracking RH on this very subject. For one,
they just posted earnings well above expectations, and they've
set their target for profitability as sometime this year (don't
have the exact date here, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
Their current business model is actually simplicty itself: RH
targets itself as a complete solutions provider (Servers and
Workstations) for businesses. One FUD tactic we constantly hear
is: "If something goes wrong with your Linux install you have
noone to blame". RH wants to adress that, they know that
managers *like* solid service contracts, and are willing to pay
good bucks for that. They have in fact stated publicly that
their distro is not aimed at home users. Of course, the money
they earn on corporate contracts gets used to pay their
developers, which ultimately benefits the home user as well. A
sort of trickle down economics if you want.
Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux reference distro
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 07:24:37 -0600
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a868e12$0$20218@reader3...
> I work in financials, and as a Linux user (and onetime RH6.2
> user) I have been tracking RH on this very subject. For one,
> they just posted earnings well above expectations, and they've
> set their target for profitability as sometime this year (don't
> have the exact date here, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
Isn't it amazing that Red Hat's financials have suddenly picked up since
they decided to start releasing broken versions of their OS (RH 7) that
generate lots and lots of support incidents?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 07:38:22 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >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.
>
> That's bullshit, Erik; a fabrication imagined to excuse the maneuvering
> by Microsoft to prevent anything but Windows drivers from being made
> available, and the ability to use this to artificially prevent
> competition amongst peripheral manufacturers. That you can reverse
> engineer hardware by reading, as opposed to reverse engineering, source
> code is a bogeyman that denies the whole reality of producing hardware
> at a profit.
Well, if it's so easy, what's your argument then? Linux developers should
be able to just reverse engineer the hardware right away to create drivers
for Linux.
You should really think about how your statements erode your position before
making them.
The fact is, yes, anything can be reverse engineered, but it takes time.
Lots of it. And money. The 3-6 month advantage a company gains by forcing
their competitors to reverse engineer their work is plenty of lead-time in a
market that creates a whole new generation every 6-9 months.
> >> 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.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
> Seriously, though, I think it would have made a LOT of sense to include
> an "I am not a lawyer" denial of liability for such a claim, Erik. To
> suggest that all of Microsoft's "lock in" contracts are simply illegal
> and to be ignored is rather naive, if nothing else.
Well, if they're not illegal, then what's your beef?
Or is this another case of you jumping to defend your position before
realizing how you are opening yourself up?
> >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.
>
> You presume those desktops weren't originally purchased with a Windows
> license, and that by "right to use", Rex meant the inability to use
> Linux. I've seen Linux, and of course much Solaris, on desktops at many
> of the dozen Fortune 100 companies I've dealt with in the last few
> years, but certainly not as a mainstream implementation. At least half
> had a Windows machine available, though, even of the small minority of
> experts which didn't use it as their desktop.
He stated quite specifically that these contracts require Windows NT/2000/9x
on *ALL* desktops, laptops and servers. Never mind that fact that it's quite
easy to prove that lots of fortune 1000 companies aren't using NT or 2000
for their web servers. The statement is simply ludicrous.
> >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.
>
> Actually, a lot of that is server licenses, though OS/2, as a truly
> progressive and innovative OS design, does still have a large following
> on the desktop.
Which has nothing to do with Rex's statements, which are obviously false.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:25:00 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:09:44 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > 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.
>
> Since everyone in the OS division at MS is working on Whistler, it's easiest
> to add Itanium to Whistler.
And more profitable. No money in a sp for w2k.
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:25:13 +0100
In article <UGph6.45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip some stuff>
> Which licensing agreements are those? Specifically. Quote
> one, or link to one.
<snip some more>
Erik,
For your convenience:
http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-findings2.html
You just put your foot in your mouth again.
Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"!
Date: 11 Feb 2001 13:32:30 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> I know about the Ford quote, the mystery is what the devil
:> this has to do with postcript printing, which as we know is
:> a multicolor phenomenon.
: It has nothing to do with colour postscript.
: It has to do with "You can have any printer you like, as long as its
: postscript". Does that make sense now? I'm surprised I had to explain
: this one.
It seems to be some people's purpose in life to complain.
People complain about Linux lacking standards in areas where it offers
choices (like desktop environments), but then, when there is an
established, open, free, cross-platform and easily-implemented
standard (PostScript), they complain about that too.
There is however a small kernel of truth to some of Pete's complaints:
while the solutions are completely intuitive and natural to someone
with Linux experience, they may not be to someone who's unable or
unwilling to learn. If we want Linux to be usable by these people,
then we need to find and smooth out these sorts of rough edges.
Mafia$oft makes a generally shitty product, but believe me, it *does*
make sure that even relatively unsophisticated users can figure out
how to do simple things on their own. In the desktop arena, we need
to try to do more to "idiot-proof" some of our apps, not because users
are necessarily idiots, but because most of them are accustomed to
being treated as if they were.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 07:44:15 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9658kh$jct$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > But it's not owning it. And you can't do "whatever the hell [you]
want
> > with
> >> > it". For instance, you can't link it to proprietary code and
distribute
> > it,
> >> > nor can you modify it and remove copyrights or the license.
> >>
> >> I most certianly can link it to proprietary code and distribute it, you
> >> idiot. Time to read a bit more carefully, funkybreath.
>
> > Stop being such a moron.
>
> >> What I cannot do is cause the open source code that falls under the GPL
> >> to be non-functional in the face of proprietary, CLOSED SOURCE code.
>
> > No. I will quote:
>
> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>
> > "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
it,
> > thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
> > modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
you
> > also meet all of these conditions: "
>
> > ...
>
> > "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or
> > in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
be
> > licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
> > this License. "
>
> > Which means that you either a) License your proprietary code as GPL if
you
> > link to it, or b) if you don't have the right to relicense the
proprietary
> > code, you can't distribute the proprietary code that is linked with
GPL'd
> > code.
>
> Idiot, linking to code does NOT nesessarily mean USING HUNKS OF GPL'D CODE
> IN YOUR CLOSED SOURCE CODE.
Using even one line of GPL'd code is enough. The point is, you can't do
"whatever the hell you want" with GPL'd code. The GPL imposes several
restrictions which can be quite severe. You don't own the GPL'd code unless
you yourself wrote it and copyrighted it.
> You've never done a lick of programming in your life, have you. All youve
> done is read books.
This has nothing to do with programming. It's about the license. The
current GPL doesn't distinguish between dynamic linking and static linking,
that's why the LGPL exists, specifically to address the situation you are
pretending you know about.
> I could write a sleek, cool linux installer that covered every goddamn
> piece of hardware in existance entirely in C++, compile the whole damn
> thing and NEVER release the source. I could then take said closed source
> application and package it with any piece of GPL code that other people
> have written for linux (see mandrake-redhat, suse-debian) and sell it for
> as much as I felt like selling it for.
You cannot link in GPL'd code into your program and do so. Period. Stop
twisting, admit you're wrong.
> > So stop making a fool of yourself.
>
> >> For example, I could not make the operating system non-functional
without
> >> the presence of internet explorer.
>
> > There is no such clause in the GPL. None at all.
>
> Yes there is actually, and you just quoted it.
>
> This isnt the first time youve grossly misunderstood the GPL, and god
knows
> it wont be the last
The clause i quoted mentioned nothing about "non-functional". Stop lying.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 07:53:09 -0600
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a869379$0$20233@reader3...
> In article <UGph6.45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip some stuff>
> > Which licensing agreements are those? Specifically. Quote
> > one, or link to one.
> <snip some more>
> Erik,
>
> For your convenience:
>
> http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-findings2.html
>
> You just put your foot in your mouth again.
Sorry, this document lists no evidence of MS preventing an OEM from
installing a dual boot system with two operating systems. Care to point out
the specific paragraph?
Perhaps you should understand what the subject is before you go making such
statements.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good article
Date: 11 Feb 2001 13:46:44 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Interestingly enough, Apache is probably less troublesome and works better
: on Windows NT than IIs. If you can't run an open source operating system,
: at least stick to open source software as much as possible.
In general, I agree.
One should not, however, expect the same performance or reliability
from the NT ports of Apache or Postgres, or any other server software,
as from the real thing running on a real OS.
: I wonder what
: the general experience is running Apache on NT vs. IIs? That's be
: interesting. Probably not as good as Apache on Linux, but Apache on Win NT
: is probably better than IIs.
: Anyone?
No firsthand experience comparing the two, but a few others who've
tried tell me that while Apache on NT is far more robust and
predictable than IIS, it's MUCH slower than Apache on *n*x on the same
hardware, and can be slower even than IIS, since Apache, unlike IIS,
must use the publicly documented Win32 API, while IIS likely has hooks
into the kernel in order to bypass as much of Win32 as is necessary to
maximize performance (and minimize stability, or so it would seem).
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:52:28 +0000
KLH wrote:
>
> Is there a real purpose to this forum?
>
> Either the discussion is about:
>
> A. Some bug in GNU/Linux or an Application that runs on GNU/Linux that
> should instead be mailed to the bug reporting mailing list or other more
> appropriate place.
>
> B. Some general, broad-sweeping statements that you people not only try
> futiley to prove, but try so over and over again and wonder why you continue
> to fail. In otherwords, general arguments that keep getting rehashed in an
> infiite loop.
>
> C. Trolls and Zealots in every way to get the mindshare of those who think
> they are serious.
>
> D. Point to some article on the web and say how it proves your point all
> along. Then the thread goes into B. above. Then eventually to C. above.
>
> E. Spam.
>
> Have I missed something? Does this forum actually have a useful or noble
> purpose to it? If so, I would love to hear about it!
This is precisely why ALL advocacy groups exist. It is a good forum for
flame wars!
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:47:29 +0100
In article <Ktwh6.236$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Erik,
I see that you did find the time to argue semantics with Max,
but that you haven't found the time to refute my posting
regarding Microsofts OEM licenses.
As long as you conveniently ignore everything that does not
conform to you MS-centric worldview I don't think anyone is
going to take you seriously.
Honestly Erik, you make so many basic mistakes in your debating
style that refuting you is just not fun anymore. You're just too
easy a target.
Have a nice day,
Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:50:58 +0100
Erik,
I see you are arguing semantics with Max again, while completely
ignoring my post giving you proof of Microsofts OEM licensing
practices. Honestly, your debating style breaks so many laws of
rhetoric, that arguing with you is just not fun anymore, you're
just too easy a target.
Have a nice day
Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
