Linux-Advocacy Digest #690, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 07:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux takes Hollywood by storm! (GreyCloud)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: RIP the Linux desktop ("Matthew Gardiner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux takes Hollywood by storm!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:24:11 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 18 May 2001 16:37:33 -0400, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mart van de Wege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > In article <vY4N6.1434$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Well, it would be nice if you included the link.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In any event, I can imagine that they might use linux for their custom
> > > > >> stuff, since they used to use SGI's (and probably still do), but I can't
> > > > >> imagine them converting their modeling stations and such that are using
> > > > >> common rendering software.
> > > > >>
> > >
> > > The article I posted says that Maya has been converted to Linux which
> > > means that even the modelling workstations the animators use are running
> > > Linux, along with the render farm in the back office. Houdini was also
> > > ported to Linux as well a while back.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> From ZDNET... looks like Linux has pre-empted Windows NT recently in
> > > > >>> Hollywood.
> > > > >>> Read the article and see for yourselves... LucasFilm ltd. has converted
> > > > >>> mostly to Linux!
> > > > >>> And a few other film producers as well. After all, they do want to cut
> > > > >>> costs.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> V
> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > Well I haven't read the article yet, but there were a few Linux uses
> > > > > before in computer rendering and animation. Mostly Linux was used until
> > > > > now as the backend: ie a large cluster of Linux machines rendered the
> > > > > final result.
> >
> > Titanic is the classic example.
> >
> > > > > I believe the modelling is done on workstations running
> > > > > other software (perhaps, gasp! even NT).
> > > >
> > >
> > > true but a lot of companies are now using Maya on Linux (instead of Maya
> > > on NT) to model the movies and then use Linux again in the render farm.
> > >
> > > > Which is actually very common. Lots of companies (including ILM) use
> > > > NT workstations to run things like Lightwave and SoftImage. But they also
> > > > use macs, Linux, and IRIX, depending directly on circumstance and media.
> >
> > And I believe Softimage has been ported to Linux. It was demoed at New
> > York's Linux World Expo running on a dual 1.2GHz AMD Athlon.
> >
> > And Microsoft once owned Softimage.
> >
> > There's also Houdini for Linux, plus Blender which is awesome considering
> > it's free and runs on many platforms.
> >
> > > >
> > > > -----.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > "George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
> > >
> > > maybe, but then again, George wasn't the one crying b/c he lost every
> > > single recount. Even now after 2 additional recounts Bush still pulls
> > > ahead......are u saying he is still paying liberal newspapers to put the
> > > results in his favor? even after he already won? Bush won what counts,
> > > the electoral votes. It has happened before that the President-elect
> > > lost the popular vote but no one ever said *that* was illegitimate.
> >
> > Wasn't Kennedy elected under those circumstances?
> >
> > Anyway, if your brother was State Govenor, your campaign manager ran the
> > count and your political allies had a majority on the Supreme Court
> > wouldn't you expect to win?
> >
> > And let's not forget the fiddling of the voters roll in Democrat Counties.
> >
> > From this side of the Atlantic it looked pretty crooked, together with a
> > daft voting system relying on people pushing buttons hard enough to punch
> > holes in "chads". It also seemed that the candidate the majority wanted
> > was Bill Clinton, but constitutionally impossible.
>
> Unfortunately, far TOO MANY people are allowed to vote in the United States.
>
> Many are intellectually and psychologically incompetant, and due to the
> ramifications to taxation, criminal law, and government spending, shouldn't
> be allowed anywhere NEAR the election process.
>
> Thomas Jefferson had the right idea...even those born IN the United States
> should be forced to take the same tests which immigrants do before having
> the privileges of citizenship.
>
Back then it was property owners that could vote.
> >
> > Peter
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
--
V
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 04:30:20 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> That's what I thought. Why bother when Windows is already there? Ack!
Well yeah, I suppose Windows is better for a desktop system aimed at the
end user. However, Linux and the other free unices offer, firstly, and
alternative to Windows. This is ignoring the desktop. Maybe certain
users don't care about what their desktop looks like? There's a
psychology involved here, because most Windows users have been
conditioned to believe that Windows is the ideal desktop, and that we
really need all those gadgets and conveniences. Unix is more terse, and
is founded on the belief that the quality and underlying infrastructure
are what's important. I've been using unix for 8 years, so my mind is
conditioned to the unix philosophy. I personally don't really find
Windows ME, for example, ia any better, easier, and convenient to use
than FreeBSD running XFree86 and Window Maker. Is there any reason to
prefer Windows over the latter setup I just described? No. Our
subconscious minds are programmed by our environment, and if your
environment consists of using Windows every day, you have this image of
what the ideal desktop should be.
What exactly is a "desktop", anyways? For me a desktop is the machine I
have sitting on my desk, churning out work. I find unix to be an
adequate desktop, because, I dunno, I can get all my work done with just
FreeBSD and Window Maker. Isn't that what counts? Windows and unix are
simply founded on differing cultures and philosophies. They are both
the way they are because of a certain mindset, which led to a differing
philosophy between the two.
So, the concept of "desktop" will differ between groups of people.
Myself, I honestly don't really find one more convenient than the other,
because I just adapt to the philosophy and way of thinking of the
operating system I'm using.
Therefore, Linux (or FreeBSD, or any other unix) can't be losing on the
desktop, because there really isn't any objective definition of what a
desktop is. It's 100% subjective, so which one is "winning" or "losing"
depends on your personal concept of a desktop. The fact is that Windows
is turning over users to BSD and Linux, not the other way around, so it
is really Windows that is losing on the desktop. If people are leaving
Windows for unix systems, they must have the concept in their minds that
unix is a better desktop than Windows.
But, if your definition of "desktop" is a Windows-alike, you're still
wrong, because KDE and GNOME are becoming more accessible to those
people who have a desktop concept in their minds similar to Windows.
So, it all depends on what particular concept of "desktop" has been
programmed into your subconscious by your environment, beliefs, and
philosphies.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:23:32 +0200
GreyCloud wrote in message
>Maybe its because you never worked for the gov. at all.
>Maybe you spent too much time trying to pass your pyhsics classes
>without much thought to original thinking... I can't thing of one
>original thinker... Gallileo. Are you by chance a naysayer?
>Be being a naysayer, one can't possibly progress.
>
You're reaching the final stages of madness - first you spouted
techno-babble, now it's just plain babble.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:27:58 +0200
GreyCloud wrote in message ...
>> >
>>
>> Well, the National Institute of Standards and Technology seems to have
>> been able to measure the speed of light in a vacuum.
>>
>> http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=universal_in!
>>
>> Gary
>
>I wonder what the NBS would say? Doesn't say what the setup was. I
>would more fully trust a measurement in outer space at some great
>distances.
>
This may come as a surprise to you, but laboratory equipment can produce
harder vacuum than outer space. Space is not empty. Even inter-galactic
space has particles in it.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:35:50 +0200
GreyCloud wrote in message >
>Taking into account the electronic devices limitations, and the small
>distance available, I do not believe an accurate measurement can be
>taken.
>
Although you have no idea about physics, how about maths? The speed of
light in vacuum is approximately 3x10^8 meters per second. This is about 30
cm. per nanosecond. Electrical signals in a wire propogate at around two
thirds of the speed of light (the exact figure depends on the material, the
resistance of the wire, amongst other factors, but this will do for now),
i.e., 20 cm per nanosecond. This is a serious limitation in high-speed
circuits. I have a 2.5 Gigasample oscilliscope on my desk - with some fibre
optic lengths I could easily measure the speed of light through the fibre
optic (also about two thirds of the speed through a vacuum, IIRC).
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:45:58 +0200
GreyCloud wrote in message
>It figures... Eric, get out of your narrow Paradigm! Start doing some
>original thinking for yourself instead of letting a professor tell you
>how to think! Crap indeed! Even Gallileo is rolling over in his grave.
>Tell that crap to the NBS!
>
To paraphrase - "why believe what thousands of scientists have proven again
and again? Be original - make up your own science as you go along."
One of the American states (Maryland, IIRC) decided that it was too
complicated for schools to teach about "pi" being 3.14159..., so they
redeclared pi to be 4 and insisted that this be taught in schools.
Fortunately, this did not last long. Perhaps GreyCloud is following this
philosophy.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 06:16:45 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip- unbearable repititions AARD silliness]
>
> > > > I know ho m$ did it. First they lucked out with IBM.
> > >
> > > I agree with this, but I wonder if you know
> > > anything about it, beyond the sentence you just
> > > wrote.
> >
> > I wonder if you know anything about anything. IBM--> Gates --> Kildall
> > --> Gates --> monoply.
>
> Yes, quite possibly more than you do. But at
> least you aren't repeating some of the silly
> stories I've heard.
>
> I guess we are on the same page on this one.
Gee.. ya think. Glad you're not inthe twilight zone on this one.
>
> [snip]
> > > You don't say how they managed it. You don't
> > > say why these vendors had to accept MS's
> > > deals rather than using some other software
> > > instead.
> > >
> > > Other software *did* exist. IBM would sell
> > > you genuine DOS, not to mention DR-DOS.
> >
> > Pricing. The CP/M offered by IBM has hugely overpriced, as you have been
> > told.
>
> CP/M was a Digital Research project.
Duh.
I repeat:
Pricing. The CP/M offered by IBM has hugely overpriced, as you have been
told.
> IBM had a deal with MS so they could sell MS-DOS themselves;
> they renamed it PC-DOS but it was the same code.
Duh.
>
> > DR-DOS was sabotaged. First by messages inthe window$ beta, then by the
> > window$/apps budling/licensing - as you have been told.
>
> You need to get your timelines straight. The Windows 3.11
> beta happened *after* the ascendancy of Windows; it
> can't explain how Windows became ascendant, still
> less how DOS did so.
>
you need to ubderstand the market. window$ "ascendancy" (gee, did that
scare you?) began with winodw$ 3. 1, and 2 were pretty much shunned by
the marketplace.
DOS became a monoploy by m$ predatory anti-competitive actions.
> > > There was GEM instead of Windows 1-3;
> > > There was OS/2 instead of Windows 95 or NT.
> >
> > Not in the beginning. GEM didnt run window$ apps.
>
> GEM ran *GEM* apps; and I believe it had
> its first 'killer app', Ventura Publisher, before
> Windows first (Excel).
>
> Had GEM taken off, we would know be
> arguing about whether Digital Research
> had unfairly crushed Microsoft. :D
>
Would we? are you sure Killdal had the same lack of ethics and morals as
Gates et al? From reports it is doubtful.
> > > There was even Unix.
> >
> > Didnt run window$ apps.
>
> Ran Unix apps, though.
>
Didnt run window$ apps.
> > > Why did these OEMs let MS push them
> > > around?
> >
> > predatory, anti-competitive behavior.
>
> You never exactually connect the dots;
> that's why it comes across like black
> magic. Apparently if Microsoft passes
> mean-sounding memos around, the OEMs
> somehow all have to submit.
>
> This makes no sense.
Only to the terminally stupid. The memos outline plans that ar carried
out.
>
> [snip]
> > > No. Developers follow the *tools*; that's why
> > > Photoshop and PageMaker were Mac apps
> > > not PC apps.
> >
> > You... are... wrong. Developers follow trhe money.
>
> Why did not Aldus make Pagemaker for the PC,
> first and only? That was where the bulk of the
> market was.
>
There WASNT a market. The Mac, laserwriter and Pagemaker MADE a market.
> [snip]
> > It seems to me, froom doing a little diggin and research (something you
> > dont see,m to be able to do) the dBase was out before the PC. It was
> > ported. im not sure from what.
>
> It was a upgrade and port from the "Vulcan Database";
> I think this ran on CP/M.
>
Do you have a cite for this, anything at all?
> It was considerably enhanced in the process.
>
> [snip]
> > > They can, just like Apple IIe's can use >48k.
> > >
> > > But *for developers*, it still sucks. It is a serious
> > > impediment.
> >
> > Too... BAD.
>
> Yes, it was too bad for the PC that important
> products were developed on the Mac, because
> it provided better tools in areas that mattered
> for those products.
>
Page layout was delveloped for the Mac because the Mac was a bette
product for it. Still is. Page layout migrated to the PeeCee becasue of
sheer bulk of numbers.
> No amount of marketshare could change this.
It did.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:16:41 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9ebrtc$6f6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May 2001 11:39:40
>> >Edward Rosten wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
>> >> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little
slower
>> >> > than the speed of light.
>> >>
>> >> Radio waves travel *exactly* at the speed of light, since they're the
>> >> same stuff.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
>> >It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
>> >copper wire.
>>
>> Through air, maybe; through the vacuum of space, it's a lot closer to
>> 100%.
>
>So, you are ignorant about more then just computers, T. Max?
>
>C is the speed of light in vacuum, it moves in 100% C in vacuum.
>
And the speed of light through air is closer to 98% or 99.8% of c than to
88%.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:14:44 +0200
GreyCloud wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 02:28:47
>> [...]
>> >In air or media like glass or water, yes ... contains photons. But in a
>> >vacuum???
>> >An experiment in space someday will answer that question. There may be
>> >some observable phenomena from a great distance that may shed some light
>> >on this. Certain spiral galaxies are a long long ways away in terms of
>> >light years. These galaxies diameters are also measured in light
>> >years... (the particular one in mind is one slanted at an angle). The
>> >far back edge of that galaxy is farther away from the observer than the
>> >front edge is. Q: why is that spiral arm in such nice proportions then?
>> >It would seem that the back edge would be skewed by quite a bit.
>>
>> But in proportion to the distance to the galaxy, I should think. IOW,
>> you would simply need both a very large and very far away galaxy to see
>> the difference, statistically. Perhaps even a galaxy which is more
>> light years across than it is light years away?
>>
>> I don't think the idea that light is not made of photons when it is in a
>> vacuum is unsupportable by any valid theory, as far as I know (though I
>> must admit that you should know more about this than I to begin with).
>> So I can't help but think that in your "physics jumpstart" lessons, some
>> of the math might have been analytically distinct from the lingual
>> explanations you were given. Yet it is ironic that I should say this,
>> as I know far far far less about the math involved, and probably the
>> physics theory, then you do.
>>
>> I think perhaps, though, your speculation that photons cease to exist
>> when matter is not around might dove-tail with the current speculation
>> that "empty space" is a "seething foam of sub-atomic particles". But
>> claiming that lightwaves aren't made up of photons in empty space is
>> even more counter-intuitive, yet still supportable at some level of
>> abstraction. Certainly in the macro world, it doesn't make a damn bit
>> of difference if you believe photons still exist even when they're not
>> bouncing off of something, since the only way to tell they are there is
>> to put something in their way to be affected by their 'bouncing'. The
>> entire standard model of physics indicates photons are "real" particles,
>> and string theory does not turn them into illusions, but quite the
>> opposite; makes photons only a special case of matter. One "vibrating"
>> in a "frequency" or "pattern" that _means_ "moving at c through three
>> extent dimensions".
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
>You have helped to make me think more about this... the light wave
>itself is without body, but for people to see light they need that
>photon to perceive. In distant space, it would need the full pressure
>of the light wave to propel a photon... but this would necessitate a lot
>of energy to get the photon from a distant star to here. Other words,
>attenuation and also radial dispersion of the photons. Also a lot of
>time would be needed to get that photon from there to here. Even EM
>waves attenuate over the inverse square of the distance. How would it
>be that there is infinite energy to propel that photon from the farthest
>distances then?
>
I think the two of you have been reading way above your heads. You've heard
of wave-particle duality, and have grasped some of the ideas without
understanding the basics. Light does not swap between being particles
(i.e., photons) and waves as though these were two different states. It is
both at once. It is just a matter of what aspects of the light you are
considering at any particular time - light behaves both as a particle (for
example, you can produce or detect individual photons) and as a wave (it
exhibits defraction and interferance like a wave).
And GrayCloud - try learning some basic Newtonian physics before jumping
into quantum mechanics. Movement does not require any energy whatsoever.
Acceleration requires energy, as does fighting against a force, but to
continue moving in a straight line when there are no significant forces
takes no energy. A photon of the same frequency has the same energy whether
it travels to your eyes from your desklamp or from a galaxy a billion light
years away.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:22:14 +1200
> Could be... but Washington State is not business friendly. The State
> taxes the hell out of everyone.
Whats the tax rate like?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:22:46 +1200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quantum Leaper wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9e5tq9$hpa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Most of them are now wandering Seattles' 1st avenue hanging around
the
> > > > soup kitchens on skid row! :-))
> > > Seattle, the home to the two biggest cons, Microsoft and Boeing.
> > >
> > Boeing is moving to Chicago....
>
> Hehehe... I know! :-) You should have seen the face on Art Schell
> (Mayor of Seattle) when Boeing announced the move. Its just the
> beginning.
That would have been priceless :)
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:26:49 +1200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9ec11j$oql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > And once again, who cares? What is it to you or any of us? Linux
> > was just fine before it was noticed by money chewing corporate
> > types (like yourself) and will be just fine after.
> >
> > We didnt make it for *you*.
>
> No wonder Linux is an also ran in the desktop.
>
Pete, that sentence has syntax error's, please correct and repost.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
