Linux-Advocacy Digest #224, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft (mlw)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Steve Mading)
Re: KDE Whiners (Steve Mading)
Re: KDE Whiners (Tim Hanson)
Re: DOS2Unix (Bloody Viking)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (mlw)
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing (Steve Mading)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Windows guy. (Tim Hanson)
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else) (Bloody Viking)
Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft (Bloody Viking)
Re: DOS2Unix (Tim Hanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:02:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:32:20 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>>>> Or how about this one...
>>
>>
>>No, I'm sorry, You have speculated that the Scientific Method is
>>somehow different than a faith. Even impliying that "truth" can
>>be approched. I don't see how you can prove this and have mearly
>>given you some alternatives to the data you are observing.
>>
>>The burden is on you to "prove" the Scientific Method, without
>>using it in a proof.
> There is no burden. This forum is proof enough. This network,
> the machine you are blathering on, the house you are sitting
> in, the power grid that powers all three and even your very
> existence are all consequences of following the scientific
> method.
Strangely reminisent of the arguments of 500 years ago.
500 years ago they would say,
"What do you mean I need to prove God... All that you have and
all that you are come from him..."
>
> You having enough to eat, you being sufficiently sheltered
> from your enviroment to make it to adulthood, your ancestors
> surviving long enough to procreate, all are due to the notions
> that humans have about their universe that came about through
> the scientific method.
Yes, you believe your God is a strong God.
> [deletia]
> Demanding proof of the scientific method in this century is
> much like demanding proof that the sun exists.
Demanding proof of God 5 centuries ago was looked at quite the same way.
> --
> Common Standards, Common Ownership.
>
> The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
> and anti-democratic monopolies.
> |||
> / | \
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:12:25 -0500
"Ronald F. Guilmette" wrote:
>
> ``"We can build a better product than Linux," {Allchin} said.
>
> (Note: No date was given for when, if ever, such a product might actually
> be developed and/or sold by Microsoft.)
The "can" implies that they currently do not. Something we all know.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: 16 Feb 2001 02:00:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: All of what web servers? I see lots of Apache servers -- er virtual
: hosts (only a fraction of servers)-- but when you look at OS numbers,
You make this claim a lot, but do you take into account that
there are *also* factors that skew the numbers in the other
direction? There can be a single hostname that gets re-directed
to one of a farm of servers depending on load. In that arrangement,
there are MORE servers than are apparent from the outside.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: 16 Feb 2001 02:03:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> More BS from the troll I see -
:>
:> Chad Myers wrote:
:>
:> > All of what web servers? I see lots of Apache servers -- er virtual
:> > hosts (only a fraction of servers)-- but when you look at OS numbers,
:> > Linux is at the bottom in the >10% category. Usually, Linux falls
:> > into "Other".
:>
:> Nonsense, every measurement I've seen shows linux has a
:> very healthy slice of the pie -
: Web site? If you look at Netcraft, and then look at other sites that
: provide surveys and include the OS, Linux always way at the bottom.
: For Fortune500 sites, Linux is >2%.
Of course it's >2%. It's a LOT >2%
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: 16 Feb 2001 02:06:32 GMT
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: At the heyday of baroque absolutism, the nobility didn't bathe at all
: because it was supposed to be unhealthy. It's also noteworthy that
: most trailers feature better sanitation that your typical 17th century
: castle. Versailles, for example, had zero toilets, for lack of a moat
: <g>. The usual way of dealing with your bodily functions was just
: sitting down somewhere in a corner and letting the personnel take care
: of the residue.
"My God, sir, you look like the Piss Boy!"
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:16:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:27:52 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Mig wrote:
> >>
> >> A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:12:40 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > : Weird.... for me it looks like Ximian trus to sell a modified Gnome with
> >> > : some extra apps. Allways saw Gnome as the possible alternative to KDE in
> >> > : the distant future and not Ximian.
> >> >
> >> > You're under no obligation to buy anything from Ximian. You can download
> >> > *everything* that goes onto their CDs from their FTP site. Yet, this
> >> > still
> >> > seems to upset you somehow. Do you also get mad at RedHat for selling
> >> > CDs of their distribution? How about BSDI/Walnut Creek for having the
> >> > audacity to sell FreeBSD CD's?
> >>
> >> Im not upset by anything else then the avertising and that issue is
> >> cleared... so im NOT upset at all at the moment.
> >> I welcome commercialism in Linux and the BSD's since i believe that the
> >> quality and diversity of products will increase and i am willing to pay for
> >> it.. actually i have spent much more on Linux software and Linux
> >> distributions then on Microsoft software
> >>
> >> What irritates me is that Gnomers allways have given the impression that
> >> commercialism was bad and when suddenly one of their conmmercial entityes
>
> How much LESS of a clue could you have?
>
> Did you, like, take this from an anti-FSF playbook or something?
>
> Copyleft is not "anti-commercial". It is infact very much
> pro-commercial if you really think about it a bit. Some
> things simply should not be "owned" or subject to monopoly.
>
> It's bad for business.
>
> One proprietary competitor is weaker than 5 open ones together.
>
> [deletia]
> >Windows spell check, no doubt. I don't know any GNOME advocates who
> >believe commercialism is bad, and no one here is "[going] on attack on
> >[a] free project." Advertizing does not constitute attack. No one here
> >said anything bad about KDE, except for the kickback scheme from
> >TrollTech, which is simply their revenue model.
> [deletia]
>
> Personally, I never faulted QT for being proprietary. I thought
> it was a buisiness mistake on Troll's part. Howver I thought it
> was their mistake to make.
>
> I faulted KDE for using it.
>
> That's a rather subtle distinction that typically gets glossed over.
I think they don't just use it. They cling to it in a way that makes a
lot of people suspicious, including me. Had the KDE project been a
truly free software project, it would have encouraged others to develop
a truly free widget set as a replacement or supplement to the QT
libraries. As we all know, at the time project members openly
criticized an alternative being developed, openly stated here and
elsewhere that they would not cooperate with the Harmony developers,
would not update them on changes to the APIs, etc., that the now
non-existant Harmony project could just go fish. TrollTech only changed
its licensing model when it became apparent that Debian and Red Hat
weren't buying their scam, regardless of the minimalist, incremental
changes they were willing to make to the license, regardless of the
amount of crying done by members of the KDE team, and only when it
looked as though GNOME was gaining some traction. This is the project
which now bleeds all over the newsgroups about GNOME's advertizing.
This is not the way free software is supposed to work. It is the way a
team with something to hide works. I would like someone official from
the KDE team open source its funding, so we can see how much of the
effort is being financed by TrollTech as a front to sell QT commercial
licenses.
--
God doesn't play dice.
-- Albert Einstein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: DOS2Unix
Date: 16 Feb 2001 02:17:05 GMT
Mike Martinet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: How can you not love Linux?
[fun tale snipped[
I have my own fun tale of how I came to the Linux fold. My very first computer
was the old Commodore 64. I had it in 1984 and used it as late as 1993. During
my tenure as a Commodore owner, I mostly coded my own homebrew programmes in
BASIC, and using POKE, even managed to make a small TSR. I only played with
the TSR to do a homebrew light show machine on the RS232 fitting as I coded
away with the lights flashing. This was my first taste of multitasking. (:
I finally got a PC and played with Windows 3.11 until I found out how to back
out of the GUI and leave me at a command line. I then found the QBASIC
interpreter, and was again at home.
At one point I tried Novell DOS 7, a rare multitasking DOS. It was amusing,
but of course it wouldn't work well with Windows. I had at one time a funny
hybrid DOS, mixing and matching utils by creative editing of the autoexec
script for assigning paths. I bought a few pieces of software at the time,
including a Borland C++ compiler for DOS. I noticed the escalating price of
software at the time as well as the escalating system requirements of
software. By this time I was already on the net using a UNIX shell account.
Then, I found about Linux. I couldn't help but get curious about a freeware
clone of UNIX, an OS well-known to be found on big iron. I tried downloading
it, and it wouldn't work, as distros were haphazard. Then I bought a book with
an included Linux album. After much frustration, on July 10, 1994 I
successfully started up my own UNIX system, the Linux box. From the ISP, I
knew a small amount of shell scripting from making email filter bots, and used
it to experiment with mail bots.
In the fall of 1995, I bought a second computer with the intention of using it
with Linux. Also, I successfully networked both in a Linux LAN, both running
Linux, with telnet, ftp, NFS, and experimented with email. I never succeeded
with getting Samba to work with Windows 95 and the older box, nor did I ever
succeed at getting UUCP working to make an anon remailer. Oh, well. Can't do
everything. (due to my limitations, not the OS)
As time went by, I came to appreciate Linux more and more. At one point I
attempted to build a computer techie style to try Windows NT on it, but the NT
was a waste of money; the floppies were bad. All install attempts resulted in
a BSOD. Now I know better. I should re-open that computer project and use
Linux on it.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:21:07 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:96h6sc$oh6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bob Tennent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
> >
> > > Poor Microsoft! They're running to the government to protect their
> business
> > > model against those property-stealing anti-American open-sourcers.
> Boo-hoo-hoo!
> >
> > Indeed. With every move by that bloated behemoth, they make themselves
> look
> > more and more like spoiled little children.
> >
> > Erik? Comments?
>
> Well, I don't particular agree with his comments in particular, though he
> does have a partial point. Open Source does threaten commercial software
> innovation. Why should a company (not just MS) invest millions into R&D
> when open source peoplewill come along and offer a free version?
What about Windows for Workgroups to kill Novell?
What about "DriveSpace" free with DOS to kill stack?
What about Free IE to kill netscape?
Sounds like someone is beating MS at its own game and poor little bill can't
take it.
>
> On a side note, why is it that the words of one man are always taken as the
> official word of MS? When Jim Clark sent a letter to MS begging them to buy
> Netscape, Barksdale dismissed it as not being an official statement of the
> company, yet he was the president, not just a VP as Alchin is.
Wasn't this an official interview with a VP at Microsoft? Hmm, I would think by
definition he is speaking for Microsoft.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: 16 Feb 2001 02:19:57 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I am no MS advocate. But, I will admit one thing: Windows Media player is
: much better than the video MPEG players I have used on Linux. For video
: MPEG, I usually use SMPEG w/ its plaympeg app to play videos.
[snip]
Microsoft is pretty good at making high-level applications. The
big problem is that they keep treating their OSes and their libraries
like they were supposed to be high-level applications too. They just
don't get the idea of building in clearly defined layers that don't
contaminate each other.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 16 Feb 2001 02:12:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dan Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Their is certainly a strong element of faith in science. We
: accept the existence of that we have no direct knowledge (muons,
: for instance) based upon the assurances of people we have no
: direct knowledge.
I've got some startling news for you - that's not science you
are describing - it's journalism: communicating the conclusions
of science to non-scientists. The actual scientists in the field
are NOT going to accept something just because some authority
says so. They will want to make sure the experiments are repeated
by others just to be sure. It's this little idea called peer
review.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 16 Feb 2001 02:16:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Robert Surenko writes:
:>> It also takes faith to believe the Universe is as appears to the 5
:>> senses.
:> I don't.
: Good, Materialist bore me.
How interesting an explanation is has no bering whatsoever on
whether or not it is true. The universe does not pander to
our amusements.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:05:19 GMT
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96gq9v$ce4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Chad Myers wrote in message ...
> >
> >No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
> >last 10 years?
> >
> >We still use telnet
> >We still use crappy old XWindows
> >Unix still has the brain-dead permission bits security.
> >Even though many Unix vendors have implemented DAC, many
> >people still insist on using permission bits.
> >
> >Nothing's really changed.
> >
> >-Chad
> >
>
>
> You have not actually tried using Linux, have you?
But I've been told, and scolded over and over again that Linux
isn't Unix.
So which is it?
-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: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:06:25 GMT
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:10:15 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >>
> >> > Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop".
> >>
> >> What is this I've been imagining the last 8 years then?
> >>
> >> The Unix systems I've used - Linux, Solaris, BSD - keep
> >> gaining new features and refinements, and contrary to the
> >> assertions of the misinformed, are still alive and well.
> >>
> >> > It's an old
> >> > picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago.
> >>
> >> Sounds like you've sat through one too many windows pep
> >> rallies there bubba -
> >
> >No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
> >last 10 years?
> >
> >We still use telnet
> >We still use crappy old XWindows
>
> You know, guys, I think we're all being had. Have you ever carried on
> a conversation with that ELIZA program that pretends to be a
> psychologist? Well, Chad kind of reminds me of that. I think we've all
> been suckered in by someone's AUI* experiment.
>
> *AUI= Artificial Un-Intelligence
Yet another post by the Penguinistas attacking the poster, rather
than the merits of the post.
By your ignoring the post, I assume you are in complete agreement.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:22:07 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >>
> >> Edward Rosten wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > He's talking non-interactive. With an interactive editor like
> >> > > Notepad or vi, one must manually open the file into the text buffer
> >> > > and do
> >> >
> >> > Vi can do noninteractive stuff. Wirte a script for the ex abck end
> >> > and execute that, just like ed scripts, but better.
> >> >
> >> > -Ed
> >> >
> >>
> >> "Ed is the one true editor...."
> >>
> >
> > Ed??!? You use ed? What a wimp! Anything above DEBUG is a waste of
> > resources. It's a little hard to duplicate graphics in hex, though...
> > :-)
>
> Pfeh! When I *really* want to get something done, I use cat.
>
> -ed
>
Sorry for the delay in responding. One of the LEDs above my front panel
switches is acting up. I get distracted and lose my place in the file.
--
God doesn't play dice.
-- Albert Einstein
------------------------------
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: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:11:33 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:10:15 GMT
> <brRi6.38966$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >>
> >> > Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop".
> >>
> >> What is this I've been imagining the last 8 years then?
> >>
> >> The Unix systems I've used - Linux, Solaris, BSD - keep
> >> gaining new features and refinements, and contrary to the
> >> assertions of the misinformed, are still alive and well.
> >>
> >> > It's an old
> >> > picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago.
> >>
> >> Sounds like you've sat through one too many windows pep
> >> rallies there bubba -
> >
> >No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
> >last 10 years?
> >
> >We still use telnet
>
> I use ssh. I also note that "crappy old telnet" has an SSL option
> on Debian, although I haven't tried to use it. My main worry is
> whether "crappy old" (i.e., "non-encrypted") telnet sessions can
> be disabled therein.
So basically, all you've done in 20 years or so is make telnet
with encryption. SSH is still telnet, just with a harder casing.
SSH isn't a real improvement, it's just making the original crap
more resilient.
> >We still use crappy old XWindows
>
> It's more intelligent than Win32 at the protocol level!
> Consumes less bandwidth, too.
Not RDP, though. X Windows is crap. Whether or not it is
fast over the net or not is irrelevant. Besides, it's a dog
compared to RDP.
> It was designed at the outset way back in '84 or thereabouts to
> allow for remote window display; most of the bugs are now gone.
> (If there were any -- I don't know admittedly.)
But it's still crappy. I could write five lines of code that
do nothing, and have no bugs, but it still does nothing. Saying
that XWin doesn't have any bugs (which doesn't seem to be the
case since it crashes all the time-- on Linux at least) is
irrelevant.
> >Unix still has the brain-dead permission bits security.
>
> As opposed to DACLs, I guess. I don't know DACLs from cackles
> (although I did once work for a time on Apollo DOMAIN Aegis, which
> had access control lists), so dunno if this is an issue, or not.
Um, it's a huge issue. By the way, it's not DACLs. There's
Discretionary Access Control, which is the industry standard way
of handling security CORRECTLY and PROFESSIONALLy, and then there's
ACLs, which is part of the whole DAC scheme. Permission bits is
kindergarten stuff with no flexibility, huge limitations, and
is unacceptable in secure installations.
> One worry, of course -- how long does it take to process the list,
> and is it dependent on the length of the list? One could do some
> extremely stupid things with DACLs (i.e., specifying each user individually)
> which might be better handled by a group ID check.
It seems to take no time in Windows. Windows is able to process files
as fast or faster than Linux according to some benchmarks.
Some Unix systems have DAC and ACLs and it doesn't seem to slow them
down much.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else)
Date: 16 Feb 2001 02:31:02 GMT
Walt wrote:
: In Los Angeles, thousands of illegal immigrants, along with people in
: local cemeteries, registered and voted in recent elections. And of
: course, they voted overwhelmingly Democratic.
And in Florida, the GOP does the same crap. And we all know about the election
debacle that ensued.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft
Date: 16 Feb 2001 02:43:06 GMT
Charlie Ebert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: And my verdict: YES, Microsoft is dead.
Not quite yet, but it is in its death throes.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOS2Unix
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:46:52 GMT
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> Mike Martinet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : How can you not love Linux?
>
> [fun tale snipped[
>
> I have my own fun tale of how I came to the Linux fold. My very first computer
> was the old Commodore 64. I had it in 1984 and used it as late as 1993. During
>
<snip>
I did the Atari 8 - bit: I had all the books, all the upgrades, two
dozen discrete components with two dozen power supplies, SpartaDOS on a
cartridge, and ohmygawd a 10 meg hard drive. When it became apparent
that not only was the South not going to rise again but neither was
Atari, I bought an XT clone. Amber screen, 20 meg drive, all bootlegged
software from the gitgo. There was a '286 after that, then a '486.
My intro to Linux was after I became thoroughly frustrated that IBM was
abandoning OS/2, right when Windows 95 was coming out. I put Windows 95
on my old 50mhz '486 Packard Bell, got frustrated because it was a
downgrade from Warp. I put my own computer together (first time! why
did I wait so long?). At the time I read a Byte mag article about
Lunux, so I bought a book with a Slackware CD on it, and installed. I
don't even remember the version anymore. It was before 2.0 by quite a
stretch. I couldn't get X working, so I played around with the command
line for a long time. Eventually I gravitated to SuSE. That '486 was
the last commercially produced computer I owned.
--
God doesn't play dice.
-- Albert Einstein
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
