Linux-Advocacy Digest #208, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 08:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("Weevil")
Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The upgrade (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The upgrade (Pete Goodwin)
Re: start up commands ("Liang Cheng")
Re: The upgrade (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (pip)
Re: I'm "Giving Back": Free Distro Sets! (pip)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley)
Re: Linus responds... (pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 09:48:55 +0200
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> It's quite easy to detect, as well, right? I mean if it's a software
> switchable thing, then just install a base copy of Windows *.*, write a
> piece of software which monitors the setting every couple seconds and
> then just use the computer for a couple days for browsing, etc without
> installing any other apps. If the setting ever changes, than its
> Microsoft's doing. If it doesn't, than you've proven MS doesn't change
> it.
>
No.
About 1 year ago cīt demonstrated that it is a very simple operation to
bypass that BIOS-setting. You donīt *ever* change the setting of the BIOS,
You simply ignore it. It is done with just a few instructions.
So, if MS decided they would use it no matter what, you would be the last
person on earth to get it, because you decided for yourself to believe
all the BS the comes from MS to the last word.
I believe MS will get every hardware-ID they can get hold of in their
Reg-process for XP. These include naturally CPU-IDīs, Netcard-IDīs,
perhaps even IDE-disk serials.
Meaning they can go to hell. No XP *ever* for me.
Peter
--
Get the new Windows XP. Now with eXtra Problems included
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 10:36:09 GMT
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cui2m$nib$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <9cu8nu$8dv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mikkel Elmholdt"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >A quick (and non-scientific) overview of this newsgroup reveals that
the
> > >majority of posts are related to anti-Microsoft topics and not to the
> > >official topic of the newsgroup, namely advocating the virtues of
Linux.
> >
> > I'm sure it would be, if there weren't so many people trolling Windows
> > advocacy through here.
>
> Actually, it seems to me that the number of posts bashing Windows vastly
> outnumbers the Linux bashers here. But even so, you do have the right to
> ignore such postings.
>
> > >It's a well-known fact, that if you cannot really come up some good
> > >arguments for your case, then you can always fall back on hammering on
> your
> > >opponents weaknesses. Is that the case here? If it is, then I find it
> rather
> > >lame.
> >
> > Most of it is in response to said trolling.
>
> Hmmmm ...... maybe. But if I look at the most recent postings, we have
> within 24 hours these:
>
> "If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested..."
> "The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT"
> "Windows NT: lost in space?"
> "Windos is *unfriendly*"
>
> All MS bashing to boot. I failed to find any initial Linux bashing threads
> in the same period, however. Totally non-scientific statistics, I know,
but
> still ....
Oh, I see. You're simply lying.
That, or you lurked here for a long time waiting for a 24 hour period in
which Linux wasn't attacked by one of the many wintrolls in here.
Come to think of it, though, there has never been such a period in my year
or so of reading COLA. There is ALWAYS some thread with a title like,
"Another Linux OOPSIE".
So I was right the first time. You're simply lying.
--
Weevil
================================================================
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 10:57:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
> By: John Lettice
> Posted: 04/05/2001 at 12:13 GMT
>
> "AOL is considering what amounts to all out war on Microsoft and
> Windows XP, according to a document obtained by Betanews, which has
> been getting its hands on some corkers of late. If genuine the
> document is an AOL internal strategy memo listing "response scenarios"
> to XP. Practically all of them are seriously hardball, and at their
> most extreme they'd add up to recruiting an OEM coalition to topple
> Microsoft from the desktop while destabilising the XP rollout."
>
> I hope it's true. This could be a lot of fun!
And replace it with what? The AOL desktop?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 10:59:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Linux and Unix geeks, stay away !! :)
> > Been mucking around for months with w98se and w2k to get the 2 machines
> > networked, also trying to rig both onto one internet connection. Tried all
> > those "you beaut" apps like Winproxy, Wingate etc., trying to follow the
> > EASY instal & forget stuff, resulting in more frustration than coffee at
> > hand....
> > W98 dropping the network constantly resulting in endless logon/logoffs, 98
> > and 2k not talking on the same level, bugger it.
>
> Tell us again Wintrolls, how "easy" Windos is to set up ?
Funny I managed to do it ten minutes of faffing around. I even managed to
get Linux to talk to Windows (though it's a bit of struggle).
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 12:54:53 -0600
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>
> >Homosexuality obviously is a defect. Only a very small percentage of
> >the population are truly homosexual, indicating that homosexuality has
> >a low survival rate.
>
> An even smaller percentage of the population have physics degrees,
> write programs, play football well, or cook a decent soufflč.
>
> I suppose they have a low survival rate, too.
A true homosexual would never have reproductive sex. Hence the
statement that truly homosexual people will be very unlikely to
pass along their genes, and therefore, homosexuality is indeed
a defect.
On the other hand, your analogy simply doesn't work, because possessing
a degree in physics does not negatively impact your ability to
reproduce.
> >> >(yes, your only TRUE purpose is to pass your
> >> >DNA on to the next generation)
> >>
> >> Says who?
> >
> >Says reality.
>
> What a sorry life, if all you want to do is breed.
Straw man. Nobody said that *ALL* they wanted to do was breed.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 13:00:15 -0600
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > Really?
> >
> > When we were in the hunter-gatherer stage, there was no science to speak
> > of. Certainly not the level needed to determine the direct linkage
> > between sex and the birth of a baby 9 months later.
>
> 1 People were no more stupid then than they were now
How do you prove this?
> 2 Information was probably passed on by word of mouth
Only if the language, and mental processes existed to analyze
and communicate such information.
> 3 It doesn't take 9 months before you know.
But the knowledge of pregnancy isn't aquired immediately after
sex.
One theory is that the greatest mental step that man kind has ever
taken, is to develop the mental process of "cause and effect".
Even as little as 1000 years ago, this capability was rare.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 13:03:36 -0600
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> OK, Aaron answre this...
>
> If homosexuality is such a sead end, how come it keeps cropping up n
> many, many formes of life, after hunderds of million years have, by your
> argument tried to get rid of it.
>
> If it's still here, there is probably a very god reason.
Because, quite simply, most people who define themselves as homosexual,
or heterosexual, do so because of societal pressure, when in fact they
are probably bisexual with a preference.
Bisexuals, even those with a strong preference for same sex contact,
are obviously capable of reproduction.
Also, homosexual contact has distinct advantages for primitive
cultures, increasing the survival rating of the group. Less so
for more modern cultures.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 13:20:53 -0600
Ian Davey wrote:
>
> False, homosexuals are still perfectly capable of propagating their DNA should
> they wish to. They always have been.
The point being, how ever, that they are less likely to.
You do understand, don't you, that evolution doesn't work on absolutes,
but by probabilities?
In a primitive culture, where life expectancy is low, a true homosexual
would be less likely to reproduce.
> No I'm not, I said "the two *don't have* to be connected", not that they're
> not. I don't know what time period you live in, but these days people use
> things like contraception specifically to avoid this biological propagation.
> In fact in Italy for instance the population is dropping because a lot of
> hetrosexuals don't want children at all.
True, but this discussion was re: evolution, and evolution doesn't
work over decades, it works over tens of thousands and millions of
years.
The relatively recent introduction of effective contraceptive techniques
is meaningless to a discussion of evolution.
It will, however, be very meaningful in 2 to 6 thousand years . . .
> >You know...like 25,000 years ago, when people didn't have the slightest
> >freaking CLUE about what created babies.
>
> Bollocks, even very primitive cultures have the intelligence to realise
> that, contraception has existed for a very long time.
Sorry, but not true. A few thousand years, no more. And a few thousand
years simply is not enough time to have an evolutionary impact, unless
some kind of natural disaster occurred in that time period.
We are so used to our "mental tools", that we don't realize that such
tools were not always available. The concept of cause and effect was
not always a "mental tool" that human beings had access to.
> >Any man from that time, with exclusively homosexual urges...is simply
> >a dead end on the genetic tree. A man with no genetic heirs, is,
> >biologically, GENETICALLY, a failure.
>
> Lot's of people choose not to have children.
Indeed. And those people end up being evolutionary failures.
> How many do you have for
> instance? If a homosexual man wants children, especially in this day and age,
> it is perfectly possible.
And your point is irrelevant, since "this day and age" is far to new
to have effected evolution.
> >Anything gene(s) which promote(s) genetic failure is a birth defect.
>
> In your theory of ever-increasing population explosion perhaps. Even if your
> view was correct, all that's needed is for the DNA of each family to be passed
> on. An individuals DNA isn't that important in the overall scheme of things,
> it's just a mixture of that what has come before, so the DNA an individual
> carries will be propogated by the species.
Not altogether true.
After all, it isn't the individual gene that evolution is truly
working with, it is the *combination* of genes. Considering the
synergistic relationship between genes, and considering the actual
mechanisms of evolution, having the individual's *COLLECTION* of genes
be propagated *IS* important.
Have you ever studied the Genetic Algorithm, or played around with a
program that uses the GA to perform search and optimization?
> DNA doesn't give a fuck about individuals either.
Yes it does. The whole point of an individual, from the stand point
of evolution, is that that person's *collection* of genes represent
a single point in the information space that the entire, valid set of
data points represent. If that single point happens to be a local
optimum, evolution will tend to care a great deal about that individual.
> >Not having offspring serves the interests of a man's DNA how, exactly?
>
> A man's DNA is shared thoughout the species, it doesn't require specific
> individuals to breed for propagation to continue.
Each individual's *collection* of genes is, however, more or less
unique.
And it is the collection, not the individual gene, that evolution cares
about.
> Having too many offspring can make successful propogation of DNA more
> difficult, though starvation, disease and premature death.
It can indeed. And evolution responds by favoring smaller people who
are disease and starvation resistant, because it is those people who
end up being able to successfully reproduce.
See: SE Asia.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 13:47:11 -0600
Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> >By the same token, merely having homosexual attractions does
> >NOT make homosexuality...
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> Your definition would make a person heterosexual AND homosexual, even
> if they preferred heterosexual sex but once in their life experimented
> with someone of the same sex.
As I've tried to point out: the "homosexual" label is more a cultural
thing, than a reality. The reality is that the vast majority of people
who define themselves as heter or homo sexual are in reality bisexual
with a strong preference.
Those who are *MOSTLY* attracted (perhaps even ALMOST ALWAYS) to the
opposite sex, but who once or twice in a life time, engage in homosex,
are not heterosexual, they are bisexual with a strong preference for
the opposite sex.
The reason that people label themselves as homo or hetero sexual is
that this society forces us to polarize ourselves as a form of group
identification. Instead of allowing each of us to find their own
individual definition of our sexuality, we are forced to adopt a
rigid, extremely limited definition and then live by it.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:01:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Or my personal favorites from recent history:
>
> o The new Windows Installer that makes you reboot BEFORE you install
> the application and then again AFTER. (fun!)
Pretty dumb. At least it only does this once (assuming there aren't any
later versions out there).
Also, developing these installers I find InstallShield (spit! spit!)
insists on asking you if you want to _remove_ the package if you run the
_installer_ again!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:04:26 GMT
In article <9ctqoc$2hu3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Hmmm - according to the "Porter Principle" we obviously have:
>
> 1) When someone complains that Linux is hard to setup and use, then the
> following apply:
> - He is stupid and ought to stay away from computers
> - He is probably paid by Microsoft
> - He should RTFM, and Get A Life, and <whatever>
>
> 2) When someone complains that Windows is hard to setup and use, then the
> following apply:
> - He is making an educated and intelligent assessment
> - He is finally seeing the light
>
> Perhaps a bit unbalanced, don't you think Terry? Ever occurred to you that
> this Motorcycle guy perhaps needed to RTFM on general PC setup and such?
> (using months to network two WinPCs - really impressive!)
What did you expect? This is a linux advocacy group where everything
linux is seen through rose tinted glasses. Mind you, judging by the way
the commercial companies trying to make a go of linux, maybe its brown
tinted glasses.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The upgrade
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:09:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Challenge for you Pete - I installed Progeny on a 1.3Ghz Thunderbird machine
> with a SB Live, Geforce 2, all the good stuff, then powered down and dropped
> the HD into a 486 DX-100. Worked perfectly. Try it with Windows. If it
> works, the 486 is yours.. :)
Big challenge since I don't have a working 486 with enough memory to try
this!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The upgrade
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:08:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> > Did I leave out anything actually relevant?
> >>
> >> I thought so.
> >
> > Like what?
> I posted that my system detects sound cards, and that no manual intervention
> is neccessary, you cut that out and didn't even mark it 'snipped'.
Because it wasn't relevant!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Liang Cheng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: start up commands
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:26:51 -0400
The reason that just insering soundon into a system file doesn't work, is
probably caused by the fact that the PATH was not yet loaded, in which case
you need the full path name of soundon, there are quite a few ways of
locating it.
numero uno:
slocate -i soundon;
and then look through the output to find the path
or number two:
find / -type x -name 'soundon' -print 2>/dev/null
this my take a bit of time, but be patient.
if this doesn't work, email me,
This kind of question should probably be posted to comp.os.linux.help
E. Carrillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9chgeh$5frs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi guys:
>
> I have a small question, Is there a way to tell linux to start a
> program or module sort of the same way that windows starts programs from
the
> startup folder? I have to use the OSS sound drivers for my sound card
since
> it's not working with my distro, but OSS is doing very well. So, I have
to
> type the command "soundon" every time I turn on the PC. I'm running SuSe
> 7.1, Does anyone know how to start this module under SuSe 7.1? I tried
> typing the "soundon" line on one of the system files but it didn't work,
> maybe I placed the line out of place. Thanks.
>
>
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The upgrade
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:11:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> What's gone wrong today - 2 well known wintrolls posting 'Linux is superior
> >> to windows' messages.
> Its a Wintroll common technique, confuse the enemy.
I always post the truth - and if I make a mistake, I'll own up to it (and
I have done).
> > That's because I'm not a wintroll.
> Yes you are.
Like I said, I always post the truth. You are incorrect.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:13:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> It doesn't for me. I've had Windows magically change the time on me many
> times. Of course, any decent OS should be using UCT, not local time.
> Windows refuses to do that.
I've never seen this. You mean UTC don't you? Universal Time Coordinates?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:15:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Other than those inherent in the fact that it is Win98 SE, I presume.
> I'm afraid you must have misunderstood something someone else said;
> "offer the full system" doesn't make any sense if you know anything
> about computers.
I meant a functional desktop as compared to such cut down ones like fvwm2
or icewm. They barely offer anything.
> Sounds like an issue with the software for that card. Is it GPL or
> proprietary? Either way, the OS is open, so unlike monopoly crapware,
> this is a trivial problem which is will allow a zero-cost solution
> without any need to replace the hardware.
Unless the drivers aren't going to be updated. It's a Voodoo 5500 running
XFree86 4.0.3. 2D performance is not good under Linux. Under Windows 98
SE it flies.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:18:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> You've tripped over your own rhetoric: you wanted to say this was a step
> that Word doesn't need. But you are correct; Word is simply incapable
> of doing it.
You're grasping at straws.
I wanted to say Word does not need the extra step. Lyx does, and needs a
filename. So what if Word is incapable of doing it?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:19:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Interesting. Unless this is a different RPC (the one I'm familiar
> with is Sun-based), that makes life slightly bodgy, though. :-)
It's probably different enough to prevent people from using it with other
non-Windows platforms.
> Unix has had named pipes for quite some time as well.
>
> 'man mkfifo'
It's where they came from?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:22:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > It is? I've just demonstrated in another post that it takes far less
> > steps in Word to write and print a letter.
>
> So ease-of-use equates to how many times you have to click?
No in the number of extra steps you need to do to make it work.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 12:38:22 +0100
+------------------------+
| |
| PLEASE |
| |
| Do not feed the troll. |
| Thank you. |
| |
| The Management |
| |
+----------+--+----------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
* @ @ ( ) * @ )|@ | / @ \ * * @* * +@
_)_()_(_(_|(__)_)_(|(_|/__/__)(_(_))_(_/)_
( Courtesy of WesTralia (TM) )
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm "Giving Back": Free Distro Sets!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 12:44:49 +0100
Gregory Keith Day wrote:
>
> I'm so thankful to the countless people who've helped me install, use,
> admin, and eventually develop Linux that I'm giving back in a small but
> hopefully helpful way. If you want a distro, just mail me! Reply to me,
> not the group, and we can have a few email exchanges. I realize it
> sounds rather shady, but I'm willing to mail a complete bootable CD-R set
> of Redhat 7.1, Mandrake 8.0, or Debian Potato 2.2r3, for $5 a set. That
> covers media and shipping.
>
> Just reply back if you are interested, or know someone who might be.
> This is just my way of giving back to all who've helped me. You guys
> ROCK!
Sounds like a very good idea - well done.
Wintrolls: Notice the community spirit? "Linux : a nice place to be."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 12:49:57 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> writes:
>
> That line of shit was debunked ages ago, IN COURT! No vendor has ever been
> prevented from selling other OS's installed. Even the DOJ's witnesses affirm
> that fact.
This is just untrue.
> At the hieght of per processor licence aggreements only about half of the
> OEM's opted for that type of licence, of that half, about 25 OEM's still
> shipped other os's on the same proccessor with full agreement of Microsoft.
> MS has always strived to provided customers with exactly what they want.
> It's 99% of the reason everyone chooses their products.
What an inane paragraph. You are either delusional or in the pay of
Microsoft. I fancy the former.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus responds...
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 12:54:22 +0100
"tx.rd@" wrote:
>
> And I think you missing his point.
>
> The point is for the end user, they do not care how something was build
> not how it works nor if it open source or closed source.
>
> The end users just care for one thing: Does it work for me? does it
> do the job I want? is it easy to use?
The point is that they SHOULD care and become "informed" users and not
just brain dead zombies.
I feel like a brain dead zombie every time my car need fixing as I have
no knowledge to question the advise that is given me. However I am AWARE
of the issues which is why I choose mechanics based on personal
recommendation - so I still don't need to know - only that some people
DO.
In the Linux space some people (like me) KNOW how to program and how to
chance/alter things, and while you may not, you can still come to us to
do your bidding.
You may know about cars - I know about computers: the point is that one
(computer) route offers freedoms and the other offers nothing but cost
and restriction. In the end you are right that the user is just
concerned with "using" the computing, but bear in mind that this is THE
WHOLE POINT OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT. People HAVE woken up to the fact
that things need to be easy for people who want it - yet still as
powerful for those who also want that. So in other words watch this
space. The idea of freedom should NEVER be underestimated - even from
end users who are pissed off with the constant "upgrade" path that they
are forced to tread : not from technical merit, but a marketing machine
geared to make you part with your money.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
