Linux-Advocacy Digest #446, Volume #33 Sun, 8 Apr 01 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("Mart van de Wege")
t. max devlin: kook (Anonymous)
Freedos (Anthony Campbell)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Phases ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Chimp in TV program downloads Linux to talk (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes ("cat cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: Baseball (Anonymous)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Lotus Notes on Linux (Paulette Poullain)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:26:12 +0200
In article <2oRz6.92517$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "WGAF"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Oh, maybe you've only got a text-mode system. Then you'd have to use
>> the "get tarred directory" feature that most Unix ftp servers have:
>>
>> ncftp ftp.kde.org
>> cd ...some long path...
>> get RPMS rpms.tar
>
> Snip...
>
>> Like RPM? I installed KDE 2.1.1 (upgrade from 2.1) by doing this:
>>
>> $ for i in qt kdebase kdelibs kdegames ...; do rpm -U $i/*; done
>
> As oppose to downloading a single executable, running it once the
> dowload finished and it's done? Linux really shines in that respect,
> doesn't it?
>
> Otto
>
>
Tell me again how all those Windows viruses propagated? Isn't this very
mindset of blindly clicking on downloaded binaries to blame?
If the administrators show this behaviour, how then can they blame the
users when they click on yet another .vbs?
Mart
--
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, yeah, write in C.
Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:30:34 -0600
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: t. max devlin: kook
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anything with a command line is easier to learn, of course, because it
> is simpler
i just wanted to see that again
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Campbell)
Subject: Freedos
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:22:20 +0100
I still use one or two Dos programs and also boot from Dos via loadlin,
which I find preferable to lilo.
I tried Freedos about a year ago but didn't get on too well. However,
I've now installed the latest version and it's fine, so I've finally
managed to get a completely Microsoft-free machine!
--
Anthony Campbell - running Linux Debian (Microsoft-free zone)
For electronic books (Homeomythology and The Assassins of Alamut), skeptical
essays, and over 120 book reviews, go to: http://www.cix.co.uk/~acampbell/
"Orthodoxy is my doxy, heterodoxy is another man's doxy."
[William Waburton]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:30:29 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 7 Apr 2001
> 18:25:28 +0200;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 5 Apr 2001
>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>>How can source code that doesn't contain a single line of
>>>>a library be a derivative work of the library, unless you
>>>>accept API copyrights (which no-one, including the FSF,
>>>>accepts)?
>>>
>>> There is a difference between infringement and plagiarism. A
>>> "derivative work" could be derivative through either means. You speak
>>> of plagiarism, not infringement, in your example.
>>
>>Nonsense. I've written source code that's not plagiarism,
>>and happens, for the sake of the argument, to contain the
>>single word "readline(..)". Does this make the _source_
>>code a derivative work of libreadline.so?
>
> No, nor does it prove it is not. Don't you understand even the
> slightest bit about the real world outside of "I am a programmer and
> therefore am god"? Programming details don't matter for *shit*; this is
> a legal issue, not a technical issue, that we are supposedly discussing.
Of course we are discussing the legal issue.
>>Does the fact that all 'C' code contain constructions
>>such as "for (i=0; i<10; i++)" make each and every 'C'
>>program a derivative work of "The 'C' Programming Language"?
>
> Technically, it is possible. Legally, you'd have a tough court case on
> your hands, but if you've got the lawyers, hey, go to it.
You're not getting the point, are you? Your reasoning
leads to the conclusion that every work is based on
the works in the same field that predate it. Without
Sherlock Holmes, Perry Mason would not have existed,
but that doesn't make a Perry Mason story a derivative
of a Sherlock Holmes story.
> Are you beginning to understand the point of copyright, at all?
> Copyright is not metaphysical; it is book-keeping.
It is what the law defines it to be.
But you suggestion that it is about bean counting
(it uses 'n' words or concepts or services that happen
to appear or be available in another work) is most
certainly incorrect.
>>For your education, I'll quote the definition of
>>"derivative work" as given in US Title 17, Chapter 1,
>>section 101:
>>
>>| A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
>>| preexisting works,[...]
>
> Yup; that's enough for me. All software which requires GPL libraries
> are derivative, until you prove different in court, because they are
> "based upon" those libraries. Case closed.
No. It's elementary legal practice to read the definition as
a whole. If the law meant "based upon" in its broadest sense,
the definition would have read as you snipped it. It does however
qualify the broad term "based upon", and these qualifications
are as important as the first part:
| A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
| preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
| dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound
| recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
| other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or
| adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
| elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent
| an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
The definition clearly requires that the original work be
recast, transformed, adapted, revised, annotated, elaborated or
modified. This does not apply to a work that contains a reference
to (an) other work(s).
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Phases
Date: 8 Apr 2001 13:04:18 GMT
Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> My work goes a lot more quickly under Linux because it's more reliable
:> than 'Doze, and has free first-class tools for everything I do (I'm a
:> software developer, and do a little writing as well).
:>
:> Joe
: The reliability is a given. You can automate much more. Scripting can save
: much time. Just helped a colleague change a large IIS web site. The owner
: of the site had just changed their company name. My colleague was
: struggling with 1000's of files using Interdev. In 10 minutes, I wrote a
: Perl script that made all the changes. Regular expressions and Perl's
: powerful string handling made this an almost trivial task. Under Interdev,
: my colleague would be clicking away for days.
What's hilarious is that even in a 'Doze environment, people who need
to get real work done eventually have to rely on ports of bash, Perl,
Python, and other tools that were created mainly for *n*x
environments.
For some very simple tasks, VBScript and the tools that ship with
Visual Studio would work, but the lack of regular expression support
makes something even as simple as what you just described tedious at
best, unless you can supplement your toolkit with things that weren't
made in Redmond.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Chimp in TV program downloads Linux to talk
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:11:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bloody Viking
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 8 Apr 2001 00:26:39 GMT
<9aob7v$3p6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Kelsey Bjarnason ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: So let's put this in context. Who are the Lone Gunmen?
>: They're a group of socially inept ultrageeks with an
>: extreme paranoia about business and government being
>: "out to get" them, and the little guy in general. Now
>: certainly not all Linux users fit that category, but if
>: you look around, there do seem to be a few vocal ones
>: who do. You draw the conclusion about the choice of
>: picking Linux for the show. :)
>
>The funny part is that a chimp is easier to convert to
>Linux than the Windows sheeple. Would you rather be an
>ape or a sheep?
Chimps don't get brainwashed by ad campaigns such as
the "99999" one (which translates to < 1 second of
downtime per day, or about 315.36 seconds = 5 minutes,
13.36 seconds a year). :-)
Mind you, I think Win2k could do it. But I also think
Unix has been doing this since I don't know when.
Congratulations Microsoft for finally making it into
the 1990's. :-) (Or maybe the 1980's?)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:21h:58m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: "cat < nonsense > cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:14:28 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said WGAF in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:24:45 GMT;
> >
> >"667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> 41% is not rules. Anyway, since Linux is is Unix, let us combine the
> >> Unix and Linux scores. Now it reads:
> >
> >Except for the fact that Unix is not Linux and one shell not combine them
> >into one. Unless one knows nothing about either of the OSes....
>
> What the hell are you talking about? *UNIX* is not one. If shell did
> combine it, shell can combine Linux, as it is little more than a
> freeware Unix. Would you consider FreeBSD Unix? Linux is a hell of a
> lot more popular, thanks to the GPL.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not to some - Not to business - Certainly not to a business that
develops embedded products. I am talking about business; mind you, business
for profit. Not the dot-com madness or the IPO of the month club, or the
next near-great warm and fuzzy thing on Freshmeat.
Based on my readings of late, the far less restrictive philosophy of
FreeBSD is attracting most of the serious inquiries from people looking to
make money. Why? -because they are NOT GPL. Besides, I would consider
FreeBSD more stable and secure, given their collective philosophy. More than
the popular Linux distros such as Red Hat, that's for sure. Please do not
take this as a condemnation of the GPL. It is not. Not to toot, but I
foresaw, and predicted, the coming FreeBSD - Linux torture test coming back
in 97. It was a no-brainer given what had attracted most new Linux users in
the first place. (Being different - getting away from Bill, blah, blah) The
more experienced (older) Linux users will switch to BSD(s) as Linux twists
and turns under the pull of Red Hat and its cronies looking to make a buck
on something not conducive \ meant to make a buck on. The more popular, read
(commercial) Linux becomes, the more of its core constituents will want to
move on.
I never understood it at all. Move away from proprietary, monolithic
companies products to the joys of open source and Linux, then fight for the
proprietary, monolithic companies to embrace you. Rather like the beaten
wife syndrome, don't you think?
>To exclude it from Unix, in a
> comparison against Windows, is ludicrous. Granted, Windows is a single
> manufacturer, but that is because it is a monopoly, not a niche. Linux
> is certainly not a niche, as much gastritis as that might produce in
> your Windows-loving ass.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Keep up the stellar Advocacy. I see the traffic on freebsd.org spiking with
your every post.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 07:19:39 -0600
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Baseball
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:39:05
> -0600;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:44:45
> >> >aaron wrote:
> >> >> Anonymous wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > > Maybe Microsoft will go the full monty and deliver a stable OS for once?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while
> >> >> > retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
> >> >>
> >> >> It's been so for well over a DECADE, jackie.
> >> >
> >> >so you're saying that in 1991 there was a unix system as easy to use as
> >> >windows is today?
> >>
> >> To someone who knows how to use it, Unix is easy to use. To someone who
> >> does not know how to use it, Windows is hard to use.
> >
> >which one is easier to learn to use?
>
> Unix, without a doubt. I've taught ignorant people both, and there is
> no comparison. Unix is more powerful than many people feel comfortable
> with, of course, as they're insecure and unimaginative, as they've been
> taught to be. But Unix is undisputably easier.
the emperor's new OS
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:28:14 GMT
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9anard$p1u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> WGAF quoth:
>
> > In some respect you're right, KDE can lock up as much as Windows :).
>
> I've never that happen in v2.1. I have application crashes, and
> application lockups ( so far, only knode in v2.1 ), but that is a
> simple PS -A, kill PID. Or XKill.
Hmm... Tha application locks up but you kill X. Did you say that the X never
locks up?
> I said better integration between the browser and applications. Can
> you specify that you want to use an image editor to open images in
> IE? Can you select what application you'd like to use to view
> source? Can you specify what mail client you'd like to use? Which
> news client? How much configuration can you do on your key bindings?
> Can you open zipped and gzipped files without uncompressing them?
> Can you set HTTP user agent?
Sure you can, there's MS Outlook and Outlook Express mail clients.
> Simply untrue. The only application on my desktop that I do not have
> full cut-and-paste capabilities with other applications is Mozilla.
> And that's because the project made a poor choice of widget sets to
> work with.
Therefore the copy/paste doesn't work doesn't work within apps on the Linux
platform.
> > From the tipical end users perspective it doesn't really matter what
> > the OS is. Most of them don't know it anyway. Nonetheless they get
> > more usability out of Windows or more concisely from the
> > applications running on Windows.
>
> Not really. About the only microsoft application you can make a case
> for being superior to its counterparts on linux is office. And even
> that is open for debate. In terms of visual Office software, I
> prefer ABI Word to office for word processing. Spreadsheets are
> spreadsheets. The only real advantage office has is its presentation
> software. Some people might justify spending a few hundred on that
> piece of functionality. I cannot.
Really, how about Visio?
>
> > there are
> > lots of games, 10 zillion different text editor with little or no
> > relation to each other. Not to mention all of the interesting
> > looking apps what Linux has.
>
> Holding aside the games ( since I don't use them ), my system came
> configured out of the box with a screen magnifier for the visually
> impaired. CD burning utilities, fax sender/viewer, babelfish,
> advaned text editor, basic text editor, and a binary editor ( all
> superior to their counterparts on windows ), postscript and pdf
> viewers, the gimp ( you won't really try and compare MS paint to the
> gimp, will you? ), screen capture software, ftp, chat, newsreaders,
> email, html editors, word, illustrator, spreadsheets, calendar,
> organizer, palm connectivity, and a host of other applications all
> comparable or better than their counterparts on windows ( if they are
> even available after a windows install ), and I don't even have half
> of what I could have put on my desktop.
All of those software and you can't even copy/paste between them...
> > Windows comes
> > You'd have hard time naming some
> > commercial grade application for Linux. Even if you do, they won't
> > be free.
>
> Again, what came bundled with my system is superior to what comes
> bundled with windows, and there is more of it. Most every piece of
> software on my system is commercial grade. As to what commercial
> grade software I have on my system compared with windows for free
> versus what comes with linux, there is no comparison.
>
> Visual Age for Java Free
> DB2 Free
> Perl v 5.6 Free
> Python Free
> Apache Free
> Cocoon Free
> Tomcat Free
> PostGRESQL Free
> gcc/gpp Free
>
> etc.etc.etc...
And most of those software is also available for Windows as well for free,
what's your point? The DB2 which cite the second time is a personal edition,
with all of its limitations, and not full blown DB2. Tomcat can't hold a
candle to Jrun 3.0. Etc, etc....
> > Provided that KDE could provide the same applications as Windows
> > does, which it can't do.
>
> No, it provides more and better applications.
Garbage...
> > And even if they do provide free software with the OS, MS is called
> > names and accused of monopoly. Go figure...
>
> Microsoft is reviled because of their business practises. if you;d
> like to get into that discussion, I'll be happy to. But let's be
> clear. I'm not calling microsoft names. I'm saying that their
> software is worse than what I have with linux. The operating system
> is worse. The applications they bundle with their operating system
> are worse. And both the operating system and its applications are
> improving at a slower rate than those that come with linux.
And I'm saying that Linux software is worse than I have with Windows. As for
the OS, once you compare Windows to Linux with GUI and its apps, there's no
difference between the two on the stability level. Except that Windows has a
better finish and application integration. Sure, you could just compare the
Linux kernel to Windows and draw your conclusion, which is what you seem to
do.
> > Linux is about 3 years away from Windows 2000. Since 90+% of people
> > use some form of Windows, one could say that people voted with they
> > wallet. You can dice it whichever way you wanted, but you can't deny
> > that fact.
>
> Linux wasn't a commercial desktop option until the end of last year
> or early this year so that's really a silly comparison. As for being
> 3 years away from the current incarnation of win32, I don't think
> we've gotten that far ahead of windows 2000.
No, it didn't. Linux is left behind in the dust. As for Linux not being a
commercial desktop option until now, that in itself says a lot about all of
the arguments from last year.
> I hope you have licenses for all of those copies. If not, you are
> admitting to a criminal act in a public forum.
The licenses came with the PC from the OEM, which isn't really a copy of W2K
anyway just a restore CD. Nice of you to assume that I don't have the
necessary licenses, typical Linux mentality since that's what you would've
done.
> > You're kidding, right?
>
> Not at all. I've made the case for Linux being superior with the
> applications that are bundled with it. If you'd like to make a case
> for windows plus a bunch of commercial add-on's, don't forget to
> throw in the costs associated with each purchase required to bring
> it's suite of applications up to or above what I have for free on
> linux.
And don't forget to mention that, just like with anything else you get what
you pay for.
> > It is easier to improve something on the lower level...
>
> Which makes me wonder why microsoft simply isn't improving as quickly.
That's funny...
> > With everything being equal, which isn't IMHO, the lack of
> > applications is still a hurdle what Linux needs to take.
>
> I can basically guarantee that I have more applications on my linux
> system than you do on any of your windows systems.
You forgot an adjective, let me correct it for you. "more useless
applications on my linux
system than you do on any of your windows systems."
> > And if I tell you that being an NT admin and had to explain to Unix
> > admin that he can not telnet to Solaris 2.7 as root user, what does
> > it tell you?
>
> It tells me that your unix admin was probably an inexperienced hire.
> Holding aside the root issue, he must be inexperienced if he is
> thinking about logging onto a production machine with telnet as *ANY*
> user. If you are more experienced, you should know better as well.
I guess I should've spelled out what I said to the Solaris admin.
Nonetheless, you missed the point that there are incompetent admins with any
OS.
> > You mean those manpages which start at year 1900? But you're right,
> > it is not easy to read the Linux manuals and one needs to learn how
> > to read them first.
>
> Start with the how-to's. My system came bundled with most of them.
And read through on the history of Linux and how great Linux Torwald is? No
thanks.. Besides, what the hell the pronunciation of his name is doing in
the how-to's?
> > That's bs at its best. Those documentations are written with
> > competent Linux users in mind which makes it harder for a newbie to
> > learn Linux.
>
> I see. Now we're taking issue with targetting useful documents to
> competent users. Less competent users can start with the how-to's.
> My system came with how-to's, info pages, man pages, Administrator's
> guides, programmer's guides, etc. Yours came with a set of generally
> useless popup windows.
And my Mandrake 7.0, Caldera 2.4 came with generally useless man pages. Not
to mention the fact that some of the how-to's aren't set up correctly by the
installation program and can't be accessed by the shortcuts.
> > I understand more about MS licensing than I care to disclose.
>
> So you understand why there are many times more linux systems
> deployed than there are systems licensed. Why not just concede the
> point and have done?
Because I don't agree with you on that point, pretending that there are more
Linux installation than the actual figure is rubbish.
>
> > Furthermore, lately Linux functionality is getting licensed and cost
> > money too. Yes, the base OS is still free but there are signs that a
> > robust Linux system will cost as much as NT.
>
> Right. Like how you need to pay big bucks to do clustering with
> Beowulf? Or big bucks to handle SMP on a single system? oops. The
> only additional cost associated with linux is usually the cost of
> licensing a product like oracle or db2 or a best in class server like
> Tux. But then you aren't paying for linux, you are paying for an
> application.
Yes, Linux can do all of that albeit not as well as a commercial grade OS.
>
> > It is a lot easier to grow from less than a single digit to couple
> > of digits vs. growing 90+%, agreed?
>
> Yep. Windows has nowhere to go but down.
Statistics seems to disagree with you, get used of it.
> > That sentence seems to contradict your previous claims...
>
> Not at all. Whatever may be going on in server-space, NT has a
> larger client-base.
And NT also has a larger server market share what you seem to forget.
> > Even Linux realized this and trying to make it easier for
> > the admins and end users to use the OS. Even traditionally CLI only
> > devices, like routers, load balancers, and firewalls are giving the
> > end user the choice to use GUI. And that's how it should be.
>
> I agree. But with linux, they aren't locked into a gui, and that's
> also how it should be.
Geeks will be geeks...
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:35:35 GMT
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 14:05:24 GMT, "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Dave Martel wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 03:45:47 GMT, "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >You'd have hard time naming some commercial
> >> > >grade application for Linux. Even if you do, they won't be free.
> >> >
> >> > TCLPro, Corel PhotoPaint, WordPerfect, Snif+, not to mention the
usual
> >> > apps like GIMP and XEmacs. There's bunches more but it's been a long
> >> > day.
> >>
> >> Sorry, for a win-advocate (such as WGAF), unless Microsoft produces an
> >> application for Linux, then everything else that runs on it must be
> >> sub-standard!
> >
> >As oppose to a lin-advocate for whom quality doesn't matter as long as
the
> >software isn't from Microsoft, right?
> >
>
> You're confusing glitz with quality.
>
And you're confusing media blitz with quality...
>
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:36:19 GMT
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> WGAF wrote:
> >
> > As oppose to a lin-advocate for whom quality doesn't matter as long as
the
> > software isn't from Microsoft, right?
>
> You see... now you're getting the hang of things my boy!
>
> [recites the "down with M$" chant]
You missed the temple part...:)
------------------------------
From: Paulette Poullain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Lotus Notes on Linux
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 15:40:50 +0200
Hi there.
Do you have references or sites where I could find experiences of
people and advices from them regarding the use of Lotus Notes
server on Linux machines ?
Thanks.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
