Linux-Advocacy Digest #701, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Robert Morelli")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (.)
Re: The nature of competition (Michael Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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 19:51:59 GMT
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0IgO6.34584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Kb1O6.15716$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > I don't quite get it. The C64 was slower; why prefer it?
> > > > >
> > > > Price and everyone one I knew had a C64.
> > >
> > > It held on for a while on its price, but in the long
> > > run PCs came down.
> > >
> > Yep, all of the 80s. Prices never came down until very recently to the
> > level of a C64 price, even then it was still more expensive.
>
> Weeeell. I daresay that by 1989, if you could
> find a original IBM PC 5150, it would be cheaper
> than a C64. It would also be older, of course;
> you could still buy a new C64 then, couldn't
> you?
>
New or used? New PC would cost you about $3500 for a 386, I know because
my friend bought his 386 PC in 1989, used I wouldn't know the price for the
PC. I told him he should was a couple of months for the 486s... A C64 with
Drive would cost you about $200 in 1989, maybe less. A used C64 with
drive could be picked up for around $50 bux or even less, I know a original
IBM PC at the time was about $300, and most likey it was a USED PC anyway.
> > It took PC 18 years to make it.
>
> The prices of *new* PCs didn't get down
> to the level of the C64 until very recently, but
> bear in mind that those new PCs kept getting
> better every year, while the C64 remained
> pretty much the same old C64.
>
> > I bought my first PC, it cost $2000, that was in
> > 1995. I could get a C64 and disk drive in 1984 for about $450, PCs
were
> a
> > lot higher in 1984, even an Apple II or Mac wasn't cheap. Thats why
C64
> > sold well to a home user in the 80s, it was cheap!
>
> It was cheap. There were cheap PCs
> too, but they were substantially inferior
> to PCs that cost $2000. PCjr anyone? :D
PCjr was a lemon, I could give you a list of Commodore's lemons. When
the C64 was introduced Commodore also introduced 4 other computers that
turned out to be lemons.
Also the PCjr cost quite a bit more than a C64.
>
> The fall of the C64 was gradual. You can't point
> to any particular year and say "at this point the
> C64 is dead".
>
> But it did still die.
>
Everything dies, something dies when it no longer being produced by the
company. I think 1991 was the last production year of the C64C.
> [snip]
> > > Yes. MS may not have had the hang of
> > > segment, maybe.
> >
> > Commodore went to MS for the Basic about 78 or so for the Pets, and
> > Commodore upgraded it Basic over the years, until the last version was
> put
> > out for the C128.
>
> That may explain it. More effort. BASIC proved
> quite inconsequential on the IBM PC, for various
> reasons. This must have been quite a shock
> for MS- their whole business had been
> BASIC, before the PC.
>
I would tend to agree, Commodore was such a big company compared to MS in
78, Commodore didn't have to put MS copyright on the title screen until the
C128 in 1984 or 85.
> [snip]
> > > Yes. A good optimizing compiler was out
> > > of the quesiton- it was too big for those little
> > > computers, and anyway optimizing 6502
> > > machine code is really hard.
> > >
> > Real hard? I never thought it was hard, just to alittle bit of time,
> for
> > a good programmer. I still remember when I took a C++ class, there
was
> a
> > student that his average program was almost 10 pages, mine on the other
> > hand was less than a page in all but one program.
>
> Source code size isn't really the point. The difficulty
> is in optimizing 6502 machine code. Doing that
> algorithmically is hard; programmers tend to do it
> experimentally.
>
I have never used a Assembler on a PC, but does it do optimizing of the
code? I could see what your getting at if it was a high level langauge but
the C64 really didn't have any, and when it did have one, they were very
good.
> The fool thing had only 3 8-bit registers and
> no cache. You benefit if you can keep stuff
> in registers, as on any computer, but it's
> profoundly hard to do it on a 6502.
>
Thats why you had to do everything in memory, I started out on a 8085, it
was a pain to work with the 6510.
> [snip]
> > > That's not a reason. They couldn't dominate because
> > > they had a great deal of competation that was
> > > comparable in quality and price, and they
> > > didn't have time to sort it out before the PC took
> > > over.
> > >
> > Apple 2, was over $1000, Tandy was crap, the only ones who liked it
was
> > Consumer Reports, the users hated it.
>
> :D
>
> The Color Computer wasn't all that
> popular, it's true. But it was cheaper than
> an Apple II, if nothing else.
>
Atari, Color Computer and C64 were all cheaper than the Apple II.
> > (I knew a few who had them.), Atari
> > X00 wasn't bad bunch of computers, and the only real competation in the
> > price range.
>
> Yes. But the C64 was able to undercut it in
> price. Which is why the C64 lasted so long.
>
Atari was that more expensive, maybe $10 or $20 at most, and alot of places
sold them for the same price. I remember a computer store near my house,
it used sell Atari and Commodore stuff, and the price were about the same.
The only thing I liked was they rented software. ;)
> > Europe there were alot of small 8 bit computers on the
> > market, but never made it outside of Europe, MSX from Japan never made
> it
> > big. beyond Japan. Did I miss anyone? If you want I could compare
all
> of
> > them, which is what I did, along time ago for a article I did...
>
> Go ahead. Sounds interesting.
>
Finding the article might be alittle hard, it on a FD2000 (HD 3.5) disk,
and alot of the disks don't read. I just found that fact out a day or two
ago. When I hooked up my SX64, the drive works fine, but there seems to
be a problem with the disks. If nothing else most of the computers I
covered in the article have been emulated... I really makes me mad about
the disks, since I wanted to get my source code of the 3.5 disks, which I
can't now....
> [snip]
> > > Did this C65 get out of prototype?
> > >
> > No, but a company did sell the prototypes.
>
> Oh, that doesn't count. :)
>
It wasn't production model, but they were sold, and for a short time a
very HOT item.
> > > The C128 was like the Apple III; a fail attempt to
> > > nurse a geriatric technology on.
> > >
> > I think you mean the Apple 2 GS.
>
> No. The Apple III. The IIgs was actually
> a decent machine. It was too little, too late,
> but it wasn't bad per se.
>
> In 1981, could the IIgs have been made
> cheaply, it would have taken over the
> industry. It had large memory spaces,
> a faster 16-bit CPU, decent backwards
> compatibility with old II software, and
> an OS with a GUI and all the works.
>
The GS came out in what 1984 or 85, it was after the C64, I do remember
that, since the C64 had the best sound until the GS.
> The Apple III had all kinds of
> compatibility problems, and
> fundamentally it didn't offer
> enough; a 128k memory through
> bank switching on the same-old
> 6502 CPU. And it was unreliable.
>
Ok, I remember the Apple III, now... You right, it wasn't a good
computer....
> > The C128 was a great little computer
> > which sold over 2 million units. They had hardware problems when they
> tried
> > to release here in the USA.
>
> So did the Apple III. :(
>
The C128 hardware problems was the lack of RF sheilding, and had to be
redesigned, thats why you have the C128 and C128D (with built in Disk
drive). Commodore only wanted the 128D, one nifty thing is the European
very of the C128D, I believe even had a handle to carry it with...
> The C128 wasn't quite the dismal failure
> the III was, but it didn't exactly make
> the big time, either.
>
True, but I know alot of people who did buy C128, how many people do you
know who bought a III?
> > > The Amiga was like the Macintosh; an attempt
> > > to leapfrog the PC and produce something that
> > > was actually better, not just cheaper.
> > >
> > In alot of ways, it was better than the Mac and PC.
>
> Well, in a few ways. It had the 68000 CPU,
> but so did the Mac. It had decent multitasking
> and nobody else did, but then nobody cared.
> Even today, nobody really cares about the
> multitaksing deficiencies of Windows 9x
> or MacOS. Nobody but us advocates. :D
>
True, but I dislike the MacOS interface more than anything else...
> It had marvelous graphics though, which
> proved advantages in the home market
> and a few others.
>
I think thats the only saving grace with the Mac, if it wasn't for that,
Mac would a footnote along with the rest.
> > One little note, the
> > Amiga could run Mac, faster than a Mac at about the same speed. The
> only
> > problem with the Amiga was Commodore, itself.....
>
> I tend to agree. It's not enough to have a better
> widget, you have to sell it. The Amiga really should
> have been able to win more of a market for
> itself than it did in the early days.
>
Very true, the best widget doesn't win, the best marketed widget win,
example is Beta vs. VHS.
> > > As far as I know Commodore never found
> > > an equivalent to the Apple IIgs, an succeful
> > > way to nurse the geriatric technology on
> > > a big longer.
> > >
> > That would have been the C65, if had made it out of the lab....
>
> Was the 65 going to leap to 16-bit, then?
It used the 65816 chip.
>
> [snip]
> > > Yeah. 1985 was the year with the big price war.
> > > Blood in the streets, that one. Commodore won,
> > > if you can call that sort of thing winning. It was
> > > the apex for the '64, but cheap only goes so far.
> > >
> > The C64 dropped in price from $650 to $200, from introduction to late
84.
> > Dropped another $100 in 85, and the climbed to $139 by 1986.
>
> Yes. This slaughted the other low-end PC
> vendors. They simply couldn't make their stuff
> that cheap, never mind profits.
>
Commodore had an advantage, they also owned MOS who made most the chips for
the C64.
> A lot of them folded or pulled out of
> the business.
>
> > > PC prices in 1985 were so high that there was
> > > room for something cheaper. But as PC prices
> > > came down, that market segment vanished.
> > >
> > The market segment vanished because Nintendo, not the PC. You could
play
> > better games on the Nintendo than the C64, so it slowly died over the
> next
> > years. It still sold over 1/2 million units a year for the rest of the
> > decade.
>
> Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. You have a point;
> the C64 was being squeezed down into the 'games
> machine' market, where it woudl compete with
> stuff like the 2600- and win, the 2600 was junk.
>
The C64 was also a Game console but they never really sold any, the 64Max
or something like that...
> Facing a half-decent games console must have
> cost them dearly.
>
It started the downward spiral the Commodore couldn't recover from, even
with the Amiga.
> [snip]
> > > The C64 wasn't just cheaper than most of its
> > > 8-bit competitors; it was in many ways a better
> > > home computer too. That was very hard to beat.
> >
> > True, it had the best sound of any computer until the Apple GS.
>
> Did not the Amiga beat it out before the IIgs
> hit the scene?
>
I really know....
> [snip]
> > > > I didn't mean for the code, but for the programmer. I have tried
> just
> > > > about EVER compiler for the C64. I liked Buddy 64 for Assembly with
> > > > Metabasic filling in the holes.
> > >
> > > I don't understand. A "compiler for the programmer"? You
> > > compile programmers? Doesn't that hurt? :/
> >
> > I mean an easy to use compiler, just compare Commodore Assembly, you
had
> > to write the code in an editor, save the code, load the compiler,
> compile
> > the code, load the code, and then final run the code. With Buddy (and
> some
> > others) you could use the built in Basic Editor, then type RUN to
compile
> > the code and run your code with SYS command. It made programming alot
> > easier. It made doing Assembly not much harder than writing Basic.
>
> Oh, I see. What you are talking about is an IDE
> (Integrated Development Environment) not a
> compiler.
>
I really wouldn't call it an IDE, you had to run each module, though
GEOProgammer could almost call it a IDE.
> Lots of 8-bit PCs had those. It was nice, but it
> didn't save you from writing assembly. It just
> made it a bit more civilized.
>
And a hell of alot easier...
> [snip]
> > > The C64 had no way to grow. It got futher
> > > and further behind.
> > >
> > Because Commodore never made it better, with chips like the 65816 and
> > others. The Amiga was their focus....
>
> Yes. In many ways thet was the fate of the Apple II,
> though Apple showed *far* more support for
> the old warhorse. Remember "Apple II Forever"?
>
No, I don't remember much about the Apple other than my friend's dad, sold
Apple computers.
> You have to wonder what would have had there
> been a Commodore 64e, with faster disks,
> a better keyboard, and 80 column text support.
> Had to still been cheap, it might have been
> very succesful.
>
It called a C128. It may not have had a better keyboard, but it did have
80 column text and faster drives.
> [snip]
> > > Yeah, the C64 always had a problem with disk
> > > speed.
> >
> > If you want speed, try JiffyDos, 10X-15X speed increase with most
> > programs.
>
> I wonder how it works. as I recall, the C64 had intelligent
> controllers in its disk drives, and these guys controlled
> the speed. Thus you had to upgrade the disks to speed
> them up.
>
It was a simple Rom swap, if I remember correctly they programmed around
the bugs in the VIC(?) chip. If I remember correctly, they reprogrammed
the handshaking between the C64 and drive. I do know they told all about
the changes they did in the front part of the JiffyDos manual. The also
include a Dos wedge, making sending commands to the drive easier.
> > The funny thing, the C64 wasn't designed with a slow disk
> > speed, but because of compatibly with Vic20 hardware, they kept the
> Vic20
> > screw up.
>
> The Vic 20 had *disks*? Whoa. I did not know that
> such things were available for it.
>
The 1540 was designed for the Vic20. It was a single drive based on the
4040 Pet drive, the number of bits in the gap header was different. Make
they read compatible, and not write compatible. The 1541 drive was a
redesigned 1540 drive and they also chaged the color of the drive.
> > The C128 finally fixed the disk speed. The disk speed should have
> > been about the same a Pet with its IEEE interface. They couldn't use
> IEEE
> > in the C64, because the price when though the roof for cables and other
> > parts.
>
> Surely they could have found something else that was
> fast.
>
They did, but they wanted to mantain backwards compatibile with the 1540.
They could have fixed the problem in the 1541 but they finally fixed the
problem in the C128. Too little too late....
> [snip]
> > > Lots of programmers could do it by *hand*;
> > > if you could have written a program to do it
> > > that would run on an 8-bit PC, you would
> > > have revolutionized the industry.
> > >
> > And if you could do in 64K, it would have been a mircle. The problem
> was
> > speed of the CPU and memory. Opimizing code takes time, even on my
P75,
> > compile a simple C program could take a minute or two.
>
> Yes, also it uses a lot of disk and RAM, and
> those computers didn't have much of either.
>
C64 did have a Ram Expanison Module (REU 128K to 512K or 2M with a hardware
hack) or RamLink (up to 16 Megs, with 1 or 4 megs simms, just wished my
Ramlink worked). The really problem was speed, more than anything. I do
wish I had tried the C compiler for the C64, never got around to trying it.
> [snip]
> > Not really, when your limited by the hardware, you can make it do
> > remarkable things. The computer after 8-bit computers, all you did was
> > throw more hardware at the problem instead of solving the problem with
the
> > resources.
> > GEOS was a complete replacement and nearly a complete OS for the
C64/128,
> > you were limited to Basic or Assembly though....
>
> This is an example of what I find so remarkable. It was
> very difficult to do a GUI for the 640k IBM PC 5150;
> Microsoft never managed to keep acceptable
> performance out of Windows on such machines, and
> they did try.
>
GEOS was very nice, the only program the 'required' an REU (atleast in my
opinion) was GeoPublish, unless you wanted to wait 5 minutes between doing
thing. Burkley Softworks (I don't remember their current name) did a great
job making GUI for the C64/128 and Apple II, also PC Geos petty good also.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 May 2001 19:50:39 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 06:27:51 GMT,
Techno Barbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
>>How did they know you had installed Word on more than one computer ?<
>
> When I bought the program (WORD 2000) about a month ago, I installed it on
> my Compaq Presario. The program ask/forces you to register the program,
> when you start WORD. It was at this time that I registered via e-mail with
> MS.
>
> I recently purchase a new Gateway computer, and I was trying to install
> WORD on it. So I installed the program, and registered again with MS like I
> did before. They sent me an e-mail about illegal copying. I then called
> them and gave them the registeration code. They told me that was not the
> same computer they had on file, and installing it on a different
> computer was illegal. Needless to say, I was somewhat offended and upset
> because I had to "prove" myself. The support person was going to give me a
> new code to activate the program, after I gave her information about my
> system, but I was upset how I was treated, so I told her to forget it.
> Besides Word 2000 was not much different than Word 97 anyway.
I see, you had installed Word on your old Presario, then installed it on
your new Gateway. Did that make two versions of Word installed, or had you
removed it from the Presario ?
I think I see where you're upset now.
In the old days, some commercial software vendors allowed you to install
their software on as many machines as you owned, but you couldn't give
anyone else a copy, which I always thought was fair enugh.
Microsoft doesn't allow this unfortunately, as they license you to
run only one instance of their software. If you want to run two copies
, then you need 2 licences. This makes it immensly expensive for companies
to 'upgrade' their Ms software.
I had forgotten about all this, having used Linux exclusively for the past
4 years :)
>
>>Microsoft have already said that "the small business and home sectors are
> where the majority of piracy occurs" so I suppose these areas wont be too
> happy.<
>
> I respect the time and effort that goes into creating programs, and
> understand the concern over illegal copying. But I have a problem with
> someone accusing me of wrong doing, and treating me like a criminal.
I understand how you feel.
> Perhaps the industry is going through a change with protecting software,
I don't think they are, as MS is "the software industry" these days, and
they're growing more desperate for your buck, as ex customers seek other
solutions, due to the growing cost of MS products.
> but MS could improve greatly when it comes to customer "soft" skills. For
> me the whole issue, was them developing a wrong assumption before knowning
> the situation.
MS have always been a bit ritcheous, starting with Bill Gates comments
re 'piracy' with his first product, many years ago.
>They sort of jump the gun.
When your as big as MS, practice the preditory trade practices that the
Justice Department has found them guilty of (Sherman Antitrade), they
think they are above anyone and anything.
The solution is to go Free Software, and be free of this Microsoftean
attitude.
www.linux.org
www.fsf.org
>
> Techno Barbie
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:59:19 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <9ee7sc$f9s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/ I can't say I
> don't agree.
> Some points:
> A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake. B>
> He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
> the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
> C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or
> equal product in order to convice people to switch, you need something
> vastly sueprior.
> Comments, anyone?
> OK, well, let us be realistic?
> Flames, anyone?
I've been arguing for a while that Linux advocates should not promote
Linux for the desktop for the near future. The reason is simple, but for
Linux advocates a bitter pill to swallow: Linux technology is simply
too primitive and inferior, and the Linux programmers writing desktop
apps don't have high enough caliber to compete against Windows
programmers.
My attitude makes me rare among Linux advocates, but I simply can't
see any alternative. As far as the desktop goes, Linux is still years
behind Windows 95. How could any reasonable person expect Linux
to take over the desktop with technology that is 5 or 10 years behind
Microsoft?
Look at OS/2 Warp. Warp appeared in 1994, a year ahead
of Win95, with some internet tools, reasonable stability, a very nice
user interface, etc. Lotus Smartsuite for OS/2 was a shipping,
supported product. Besides, OS/2 could run most existing Win 3.x
and DOS software, including MS Office. OS/2 was much superior to
Win 3.1 and in many ways better than Win 95. Yet OS/2 failed on
the desktop. What sane person would expect Linux to come along
7 years later than OS/2 Warp, with inferior technology, and make
a dent against current Microsoft technology?
Trying to argue away the technological inferiority of Linux is not
advocacy in my book. It's just a waste of time. You can spout all
the words you want, but when an end user sits in front of a Linux
box, loaded with apps about 10 years behind comparable Microsoft
apps, the game is up.
The point I'm trying to make is not intended as a discouragement --
quite the opposite. Believing that Linux is not taking over the desktop
despite having good technology, because of something mysterious, --
that's the ultimate discouragement. If you accept the simple truth,
that Linux is limited on the desktop by technological deficits, then
you have no mystery to solve, just some work to get done.
I remain optimistic. After all, Microsoft was playing catch up to
the Mac. Microsoft was in a sense a decade behind the Mac with
Win95, but the Mac hadn't advanced much in the previous decade,
so it didn't really matter at that point. Linux will probably catch up
to Win 95 technology in about 5 years or so. So Linux gets there 20
years after the original innovators -- better late than never. Again,
it won't matter unless Microsoft is significantly beyond the Win 95 ui
by that point.
I don't see win98 or ME as a signigficant advance. I don't know about XP.
If Microsoft fritters away the next few years, and fails to develop
a more advanced generation of user interface technologies, it will
be facing a free competitor with comparable technology and will have
a serious problem on its hands.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 21:58:19 +0100
>>For instance, did you know that photons do *not* travel only in a
>>straight line? In fact, they take a path which is entirely "random,
>>without meaning", or should I say they take an infinite number of such
>>paths, between any arbitrary Point A and Point B.
>
> I do not know that, because it is wrong. What you present, is a very
> distorted and misunderstood version of the multiple history calculations
> of quantumelectrodynamics.
FWIW, I think he's referring to one of the methods used in classical
mechanics (I can't remember the name)
where you can consider an object to take any path from A to
B, no matter how wierd the path.
What he missed was that it is the lowest energy path that is taken.
I think that's what he was referring to, but it is kind of hard to tell.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: [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: 22 May 2001 19:58:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Correct, if she is willing. However homosexuals are not allowed
>> to marry the willing adult of their choice, and that makes them
>> second class citizens.
> Marriage is not defined as "the adult of your choice", marriage
> is defined as "the adult OF THE OPPOSITE SEX". Gays are just as
> free to participate as non gays.
Oh really? And whos definition of marriage is that, exactly?
You poor sweet dear, you believe in god AND guns, dontcha.
>>
>> Aaron> Any woman is allowed to marry any man whom she so chooses.
>>
>> Aaron> All gays have these rights, just like anybody else.
>>
>> Nope, the rest of us have the right to marry the willing adult
>> partner of our choice.
> See above.
Again, whos law is that, anyhow?
>>
>> Aaron> Any additional laws are Special Privileges.
>>
>> >> I have yet to see a single special right or privilege being
>> >> asked for.
>>
>> Aaron> You wish to escape the consequences of your deviancy.
>>
>> No, I want all to have equal rights.
>>
> You have them, now sit down, and shut the fuck up, LOSER.
Almost. There are a few notable exceptions though, like not being
able to adopt children in some areas, denial of military service,
denial of job, etc based solely on sexual orientation. Though I
dont think its as big a problem as alot of people would have us
believe, I do think that it is something of a burden on an already
broken and bleeding democratic system.
Also, I think that youre a redneck retard, aaron. Jesus, believing
in god is too childish to even talk about.
=====.
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 19:59:06 GMT
mlw wrote:
> Most MSCE's I have met do not understand NT/W2k let along construct
> meaningful sentences.
Agreed. From what I've seen, most MCSE's are flowchart followers: i.e. they
know very specific issues and very specific ways to fix those problems. If
any problem goes outside of their known area, they're on the phone with MS.
The few good one's (and the vast majority of Unix admins seem to fit this)
have true troubleshooting skills and know about the underlying system itself.
So when odd problems pop up, they have the ability to dig into the system to
find the cause and/or fix. Calling a vendor for support is reserved for only
the worst case issues (or hardware problems).
--
Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
If Microsoft built cars instead of software, the airbag system would say
"Are you sure?" before going off.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
