Linux-Advocacy Digest #617, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Peter Hayes)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Peter Hayes)
Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure! ("dabean")
A very funny Linux story! "Red Flag Linux" (jtnews)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Bloody Viking)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Bloody Viking)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Dr S.J. Cornell)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 18:01:43 GMT
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 2 Mar 2001 17:53:44 +1300;
[...]
>These 'morons' were merely reading the license agreement, which states
>quite clearly if you don't agree to the license agreement you are
>entitled to return the product for a full refund.
Which is where Microsoft's duplicity becomes evident; the license itself
defined "the product" as the whole computer.
What seems funny is that, once I explained this to JS/PL and the rest of
the group last year, he's been using it to try to defend Microsoft. But
just how does Microsoft writing licensing agreements for a Dell or IBM
PC?
>> You have two choices, buy what someone decides to sell you, or don't. That's
>> the rules of the game. Get over it.
>
>You do actually have the right to enquire and deal with the seller. If
>he tries to sell you a system with windows, you're not doing anything
>immoral, illegal, or moronic by asking for a system without it.
"You're a consumer; you are powerless before the almighty god-given
exclusive rights of the producers. Now shut up and sit down."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 18:02:18 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:26:34 -0500;
>
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Well it seems all of you whining about the microsoft tax are missing the
>> > whole point so I'll spell it out to you.
>>
>> So glad you're here to clear up these misconceptions.
>>
>>
>> > It is not anyones right to demand that a certain product be supplied
>to
>> > them. And that's the whole gaping flaw in the argument.
>>
>> That's true, noone has the right to be sold any product. It is entirely
>> up to the seller whether they will sell it or not. However, it is up to
>> the CONSUMER what they BUY. If a customer says "I don't want Windows",
>> the supplier either GETS RID OF IT, or says "then I wont sell you the
>> computer".
>
>Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one who has
>ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to pay extra
>for an OS they didn't want.[...]
My, how pathetically stupid you are.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 18:12:18 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 01 Mar 2001 03:45:42 GMT...
...and Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Evolution is coming along though.
> In the Linux world, we tend to use seperate apps for the above functionality,
> as large monoliths are contary to the Unix philosophy (in general).
If you had informed yourself a bit, you'd know that Evolution is not a
large monolith. It's a shell wrapping several independent components
that export CORBA interfaces. At least one of those components can be
controlled from the command line, BTW.
mawa
--
Quality is not a cause of popularity; in fact, they are almost *never*
found together. MS Windows is the computer equivalent of burger chains
and bowling lanes. It is software that "works" only if you lower your
expectations to a point where you've [...] buried them. -- T. Moene
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 18:27:19 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:07:07 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Windows XP will ship in three major versions. Personal, Pro, and Server.
> Pro is equivelant to Windows 2000 today and will cost about the same.
> Personal has fewer features and will cost what ME costs today.
And will they have the same easy registry tweak to convert the one to the
other as NT4 had?
Oops, I forgot. As soon as you go online XP will report home and you'll be
stung for the extra cash or enjoy a visit from the BSA.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 18:27:20 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3 Mar 2001 13:34:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:47:48 +0000, Peter Hayes wrote:
> >On 2 Mar 2001 16:02:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:43 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
> >> >On 1 Mar 2001 04:29:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No, they aren't. But they have competition, which limits their freedom
> >> >to set prices however they want. Microsoft has a lot more flexibility
> >> >in that regard.
> >>
> >> Perhaps. But then, I don't see much evidence that they're using that
> >> freedom.
> >>
> >> The argument does seem circular -- MS can price as they choose because
> >> they have a monopoly and they have a monopoly because they can price
> >> as freely as they choose.
> >
> >It only appears circular to someone who is not aware of how Microsoft
> >achieved their dominant market position.
> >
> >Since you will know this history we can only conclude that your comment is
> >merely a diversionary tactic, much like Microsoft claiming that they
> >"innovate".
>
> Don't stoop to this kind of dishonesty.
Oops, sorry. ISTM that you were trying to defend MS.
> I am not a Microsoft fan and never
> have been. Unlike a lot of the Linux zealots, I use Linux as my OS
> at home, and at work. I haven't used Windows for anything besides games
> for more than 4 years.
>
> I am just trying to make sense of an illogical argument.
>
> >Furthermore, the definition of Microsoft's monopoly doesn't solely rest on
> >their ability to set their prices independent of any consideration of
> >market forces, which is my interpretation of your statement "they can
> >price as freely as they choose." Microsoft's monopoly is defined by their
> >ability to restrict or curtail competitive activity within their field of
> >operations. Their ability to "price as freely as they choose" then follows.
> >
> >It's not chicken and egg at all.
>
> So you're saying that we know that they have a monopoly, and you're stating
> that this implies that their prices must be excessive because of that
> monopoly (and not the converse) ?
"Excessive" never entered anything I wrote. Just that with 93% control of
the market they can "price as freely as they choose".
> Well we know what the prices are, and those speak for themselves.
>
> >> To show that MS would reduce their prices, you would need to show that
> >> someone else would offer much better prices. No-one's offering better
> >> prices at this stage.
> >
> >Linux is free (in the "free beer" sense on this occasion). How much "better
> >prices" do you want?
>
> The packaged box sets are not "free". Copies of other OS's aren't "free"
> either. For example, Sun gives away Solaris for "free", but the media kit
> is $80.
One of these packaged box sets could be used on thousands of machines
within an organisation. I accept they'll probably buy several for
flexibility, but the cost amortised over the whole organisation tends to
zero.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "dabean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure!
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 18:28:50 -0000
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > Ask Sun. Their developer forums are IIS/ASP driven.
> >
> > If it works, don't break it.
> >
>
> Proof requested: Show that their developer forums are
> IIS/ASP driven; show that Sun the company actually hosts
> those forums.
>
The only IIS driven ones are "Dot-Com Builder Discussion Forums" outsourced
to remarq
http://dcbforum.sun.com/list/discuss.dcb.xml
cmd> GET /list/discuss.dcb.xml HTTP/1.0
cmd> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0
cmd> Host: dcbforum.sun.com
cmd>
text/html => discuss.dcb.xml
Document = discuss.dcb.xml
RequestDone Error = 0
StatusCode = 200
hdr>HTTP/1.0 200 OK
hdr>Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 18:03:20 GMT
hdr>Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
hdr>Pragma: no-cache
hdr>Content-Length: 36517
hdr>Content-Type: text/html
hdr>Expires: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 07:00:00 GMT
but what is more interesting is sun doesn't seem to have standardised on
anyone http server product as...
Hosted by sun
cmd> Host: www.sun.com
hdr>Server: Netscape-Enterprise/3.6
cmd> Host: supportforum.sun.com
hdr>Server: Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1
Hosted by javasoft @bbnplanet sj1
cmd> Host: forum.sun.com
hdr>Server: Web Crossing/3.1
cmd> Host: developer.java.sun.com
hdr>Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix)
Hosted by sun @navisite
cmd> Host: www.jiro.com
hdr>Server: Apache/1.3.14 (Unix)
Hosted by sun/netbeans @alabanza.com
cmd> Host: cgi.netbeans.com
hdr>Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.0 mod_ssl/2.2.8 OpenSSL/0.9.2b
now logically you would have expected sun to be completely running iplanet
server software, yet apache is far more popular with them hmmmmmmmm.
------------------------------
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: A very funny Linux story! "Red Flag Linux"
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 18:31:14 GMT
I read this article on CNET and found it quite amusing,
especially when one thinks of what a "red flag"
means in the United States.
On a more serious note, I really don't understand
why China is having such a hard time learning
how to use Linux. It's not like the source
code is hidden or there's a lack of adequate
documentation on the Internet.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 3 Mar 2001 18:37:41 GMT
Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Wait until someone writes the XP-deregister virus, encounter the
: uproar then. 2001 will be the start of an MS avalanche, right.
Sadly, the virus coder fuckwits are helping the Linux cause, and a deregister
virus would be a hilarious undoing of Microshit. Goes to show that MS OSes are
vunerable in terms of any security. Just wait until "whistler" rolls out and
some arsehole codes that virus. People will get zapped in the pocketboot and
either switch to Linux or bust up their computers.
--
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 3 Mar 2001 18:38:26 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 15:39:42 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>JD wrote:
>>
>> For example, for fun, link a GPLed library with your own code. The entire
>> work becomes redistribution encumbered (you must be able to provide source
>> code), especially if there is no other GPLed library with the same
>> interface. Not only is the GPL a restrictive license, but it invokes the
>> much hated interface copyright concept (per RMS.)
>>
>> By affecting your freedom (the owner of the code), by having to make a
>> choice between using the library or not by giving your source code to the
>> recipient, the software is no longer free. Therefore, the GPL takes your
>> freedom away, and the software library that was licensed under the GPL is
>> certainly not free.
>
>So you're saying that using the standard C/C++ libraries as embodied in gcc
>means your software is encumbered. Horse shit.
No, he's not saying that at all. The C++ library includes a "special
exception" (namely, software that's compiled with gcc), so strictly
speaking, it's released under a *modified* GPL.
glibc seems to be LGPL, that was my understanding from the copyright
notice in stdio.h (for example)
Code that links to readline or gbdm is encumbered.
Code that links to libstdc++ but is not compiled with gcc is encumbered.
So for example, I can't bundle the <sstream> header with my library code
without encumbering my software.
The GPL is a lousy license for releasing library code, because the *users*
of the library are people who "make derivative works", so the GPL places
restrictions on who can use the library. OTOH, the LGPL serves the purpose
that the GPL is supposed to (namely, keeping people from hoarding your code)
without having intended side effects.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: 3 Mar 2001 18:43:13 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 15:34:48 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>Bill Gates used resources of the Harvard computer center
>to run a business, and got his wrists slapped.
>Looks like he won't get even a wrist slapping this time.
>What a travesty. The most nauseating worms are the
>slipperiest.
OTOH, the timing of the case could not have been better -- it's
forced them to back off, and this has probably made it easier
for Linux to drum up third party support. For example, over the
last few years, several hardware vendors and OEMs have announced
Linux support. This would have been a more difficult choice if
they'd been threatened.
While I've rejected the arguments that their prices are excessive,
there is little doubt in my mind that they were an abusive monopoly.
(For example, strong arming the OEMs was a severe restrraint of trade)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 3 Mar 2001 18:50:10 GMT
On 03 Mar 2001 08:10:28 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>> This is standard GPV zealot doublethink. You *cannot* remove freedoms from
>> the original code. That code is now, and will always be, free. If that were
>> not the case, then the BSD codebase would have disappeared into SunOS a
>> long, long time ago.
>>
>> Freedom must necessarily include the freedom to do things that piss you off,
>> or else it is a hollow shell. The BSD license does, and the GPV does not.
>> That is why calling the GPV free is a baldfaced lie.
>
>Enforced freedom.
>
>Whether it's an oxymoron or not depends on who you are.
To me it certainly is.
However, we should also look at what the GNU crowd mean by "free". They
talk about the software being "free", as if the software has rights. If
you believe that the "rights" of the software outweighs the rights of the
user, then use the GPL. If you believe that the "rights" of the community
outweigh the rights of the individual, get yourself a copy of the communist
manifesto, move to China (or Cuba), and use the GPL.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 3 Mar 2001 18:51:13 GMT
CR Lyttle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: sales, MS probably has 97-98% of the US PC market. The only way to get a
: PC without Windows is to build one yourself. I know because I tried to
I demand a recount! (:
The sales of the Winblows OS is 99 percent at worst for desktops as the
homebrew systems are never counted as they can't be counted. Now, a better
comparison would be the sale of MOTHERBOARDS and OSes people install or have
installed before sale in a complete computer set.
Nearly all complete computers sold have Winblows pre-installed, while a few
mavericks homebuild a computer from a motherboard, which of course contain no
OS. So, a count of all motherboards sold to any entity would be a more
accurate recount. Entities to be included are PC manufacturers and all
motherboards sold alone to homebrew builders.
My bet is that among people building computers from scratch motherboards are
nowhere near unanimous with choosing Winblows of any sort. So, let's have a
recount.
--
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 3 Mar 2001 18:56:12 GMT
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:31:45 -0500, JS PL wrote:
>
>
>But your IQ theory only applies to those in the 50 to 120 range. Since I'm
>160 I can see the obvious. There's no possible monopoly when theres always
>been a huge number of OS choices.
>http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
We should be clear about what is meant by the term "monopoly". If you use
the definition used by the courts (which would seem appropriate in a
discussion on the DOJ case) The fact that it is *possible* to obtain an
alternative OS does not mean that MS does not have a monopoly.
BTW, how many choices of OS were there on consumer laptops 3 years ago ?
You couldn't buy one without paying for a Windows license. Not from anyone.
Is that not a monopoly ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 3 Mar 2001 18:59:00 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 14:27:24 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>In article <OmZn6.420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:97ph28$ceo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Scott
>>> Gardner"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:50:59 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>Joel Barnett wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dr. Peanut wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> <snip>
>>> >
>>> >>What part of "You *CANNOT* buy a computer without Mafia$oft shitware"
>>> >>do
>>> >> you not fucking understand...
>>> >
>>> > I haven't been forced to buy a MS operating system since 1990.
>>>
>>> Unless you buy a laptop.
>>
>> IBM and Dell both sell laptops with Linux.
>
>Not on every model.
IBM and Dell don't even offer Win2k on every model.
BTW, www.aslab.com have Linux on every model.
Why do I bring this up ? My point is that Linux users need to get behind
the vendors who offer genuine Linux support, rather than dollar-voting
for those who make half-assed stabs at it (like Dell and IBM) or those
who don't do it at all (like Dell 3 years ago, or Compaq, or Micron)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 3 Mar 2001 19:05:05 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 11:53:53 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>I don't follow. The GPL disallows more restrictions, so the software
>maintains its level of freedom, where as the other ones can lose it.
Software doesn't have rights, and it doesn't have a "right" to freedom.
The only "freedom" that is relevant is the freedom of the users of the
software.
The GPL would seem to favour the rights of the collective over the rights
of the individual.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dr S.J. Cornell)
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 03 Mar 2001 19:06:16 +0000
> > > Stephen Cornell wrote:
> > > > What I want to know is: if Microsoft increased their share of the
> > > > desktop market from 89% to 92%, what were those 3% using before?
> >
> > Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > MS-DOS. Versions 3.1 and 5.0 are still running lots of systems around
> > > the world.
> >
> Stephen Cornell wrote:
> > Er, doesn't the `MS' in MS-DOS stand for Microsoft? So the 3% who
> > switche *to* MS can't have been using MS-DOS...
> >
CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MS insists that Windows is not DOS.
But that's not the point. The article stated that *Microsoft*
extended its share of the desktop market. This cannot be explained by
people switching from DOS to Windows, since both are Microsoft products.
Stephen Cornell.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 20:04:58 +0100
Adam Warner wrote:
> Hi Martigan,
>
> > I have used both, but for me Gnome seems better, Well haven't tried KDE
> > 2.1 yet but what does every one else think? Why is one better than the
> > other? I'm not looking for Windows similarity!
>
> GNOME has a superior architecture. KDE is more polished.
And what would that possible be?
Since you probably think Bonobo would you care to explain why its "better"
and for what?
> GNOME's greater potential explains why a lot of big development support is
> going the way of GNOME:
>
> HP to use Gnome Interface
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4683471.html
>
> "[Gnome] also has been embraced by Sun Microsystems for its Solaris
> version of Unix."
>
> etc.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2530760.html
>
> "As expected , a raft of corporations today announced membership in the
> newly created Gnome Foundation that will control the interface. The
> companies include Sun Microsystems and Hewlett-Packard, both of which will
> gradually make Gnome the default interface for their versions of Unix.
> Also on board are TurboLinux, Red Hat, Compaq Computer, IBM, Eazel, Helix
> Code, VA Linux Systems, Henzai, Gnumatic and two nonprofit
> organizations--the Object Management Group and the Free Software
> Foundation."
Lets not forget that KDE is the default desktop for the majority of
professionaly oriented Linux distributions like Caldera, Mandrake, Suse -
only exceptions are RedHat (dont know about Debian). There must be a good
reason for that :-)
We dont even need to speak about Gnome 1.0 and partially 1.2 that where
famous for their instabilities (my Gnome 1.2 in Mandrake 7.2 still sucks
-but that could be my installation).
[cut]
--
Cheers
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
