Linux-Advocacy Digest #790, Volume #34 Sat, 26 May 01 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Time to bitc__ again (flatfish+++)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (flatfish+++)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Zsolt)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: A new concept for our friends in misc.fitness.weights: SexualMarketValue
(SMV) (flatfish+++)
Re: Opera (flatfish+++)
Re: A new concept for our friends in misc.fitness.weights: (BrendaLee)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Chad
Everett)
Re: A new concept for our friends in misc.fitness.weights: SexualMarketValue
(SMV) ("Public " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Chad
Everett)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:28:32 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 01:58:06 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 25 May 2001 03:58:56 +0100, Steve Campbell
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I dont normally use this kind of tone but
>> >>would you PLEASE fuck off back to windows and give our heads peace. (
>> >>flatfish mrore than daniel)
>> >
>> >
>> >Huhh?
>> >
>> >What a convoluted mess of a reply....
>> >
>> >Have you been drinking?
>>
>> You would to, if you had to fight with Linux every day.
>
>Linux is the epitomy of grace compared the the fucked-up shit
>produced by Mafia$oft
Linux is a convoluted mess of half done programs most trying in vain
to be Windows equivalents and in general, failing miserably at it.
I agree with the drinking comment. Every time I try out a new Linux
version I head for the local alcohol dispensary and load up on a case
of Becks. It helps keep my nerves in check as I navigate through the
minefield we all know and love as Linux.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:34:22 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 11:10:09 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would submit that my understanding, in general, of every experiment
>> ever performed is superior to yours. How would you refute this point?
>>
>
>Your joking, right? How would you prove this point?
>
>Gary
I think he's got you there Gary because it is quite apparent by his
ramblings that his glue sniffing and LSD experiments circa 1967 are
coming back to haunt him now.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:37:56 GMT
Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 23 May 2001 04:45:30 +0200 presented us with the
wisdom:
>
> Can you show me a refernce of something that would make me want to move to
> Linux as my desktop?
> What is the killer app/feathure?
Let me turn that around!
Can you show me a reference of something that would make me want to move to Windows as
my desktop ?
Just to clue you in about my needs:
I'm developing molecular modelling software on Linux & IRIX using
C++/Java/CORBA/OpenGL,
my customers need software, that performs those modelling calculation _fast_ and
display the
results with interactive 3D graphics. For the calculation part, they used to use SGI
servers with
128-256 CPU and for the visualization they used SGI workstations (like Onyx2 with
InfiniteReality
graphcis). Recently, they are shifting from the rather expensive SGI Origins to Linux
clusters.
Last month I demonstrated on an International conference (in the UK), that they can
also move
their desktops to Linux, using some good 3D graphics card, e.g. NVidia Quadro2. They
were
amazed to see the rendering speed and quality on a $3K box - compared to their $250K
hw.
Zsolt
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:45:10 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Supplant"? "Even... not as good"?
> >>
> >> You seem to be speaking gibberish. Yes, if MS raises their prices,
> >> competition could form. How could a product which people by be "not as
> >> good"? Are you trying to pretend that how expensive or cheap something
> >> is has nothing to do with this quality of 'good'?
> >
> >I'm suggesting that it's possible to have a market for
> >low-end operating systems, if the good stuff is
> >expensive.
>
> Why would an operating system be expensive, ever?
They are hard to make and hard to support.
As a matter of historical fact plenty of OSes
have been expensive. Monopolists all?
> >If Windows were expensive enough, it would not
> >be necessary to match its quality to beat it in
> >the market.
>
> Indeed; there is an alternative that is free, yet MS still commands 95%+
> of the PC OEM market. Why is that?
MS's alternative is significantly better;
enough so that it is obviously worthwhile
to write apps for it, in spite of the small
increase in the cost of the computers that
include it.
And because the apps are there, the users
demand the OS that will run them.
Very simple.
[snip]
> >The *usual* way things work in software is for
> >some product to dominate its field until something
> >better comes along and then to be supplanted;
> >a "serial monopoly" if you like.
>
> No, I do not like, and Judge Edwards (IIRC) was completely mistaken in
> claiming that a 'serial monopoly' makes any sense in a competitive
> technical market. It was an aberration born of his familiarity with
> monopolization, and no other PC market.
It's commonplace. Not just in PCs, either;
the thing about software is that the marginal
costs are so low; if you can indeed make a
better mousetrap then you can service the
entire market; just diplicate more disks, or
add more FTP servers, or whatever.
It is relatively cheap and easy.
If you succeed, you can recoup very
large investments in development, and
then make a forture.
There's a strong tendancy for whatever
(shrinkwrap-style) product is best to
dominate massively.
There's also a tendancy for competitors
to try to unseat the dominant player,
because the rewards of doing so are
far greater tha the rewards of finding
a niche and servicing it.
This is not just a Microsoft thing;
it's partically the ethos of the industry,
these days. Why do you think
so many companies have been so
interested in destroying Microsoft?
They hope to take MS's place; they
know they'd be drawning in cash if they
can only do that.
This isn't Coke vs Pepsi, with nearly
identical products and mostly-static
market shares. It's far more interesting
than that. :D
[snip]
> >I suspect you *meant* to say "only a fascist would
> >oppose T Max Devlin-approved competition, or
> >consider T Max Devlin-unapproved competition
> >to be acceptable."
>
> No, I don't see any contradiction, or any need to include a biased
> perspective. Allow me to consolidate the issues, so you might be able
> to determine where you got confused.
You said:
"Only a fascist would consider competition to be underhanded
(or consider underhanded competition to be acceptable)."
Your first sentance says that competition is
never underhanded, and the second says that
this nonexistant unherhanded competition is
unacceptable.
I'm sure you did not mean that.
> "You believe capitalist competition is inherently dishonest. Only a
> fascist would consider capitalism competition to be inherently
> dishonest, so you are a fascist, not a capitalist."
I don't consider competition "dishonest", not
even using your definition of the term.
I don't even consider competition-by-lawsuit
"dishonest", though I consider it distasteful.
But you should read up on 20th century
political philosophy; the Fascists loved
competition, perhaps to a fault. They
liked Capitalism too, if it served the
master race.
It was the Communists who did not like
either Capitalism or competition, and favored
co-operative, planned enterprises.
I, however, like competition. I think, for
instance, that "monopoly" or no, Microsoft
should take on the likes of Netscape and
Sun.
> Is that clear enough for you? It sounds rather concrete, if you ask me.
> Though I wouldn't expect you to do so....
I think you must have an idiosyncratic
definition of "Fascist" too.
That you are trying to Godwinize the
thread. :D
[snip]
> >That's... odd.
> >
> >You see to see monopoly as a thing that
> >keeps prices *down*. Is this, in your
> >view, bad?
>
> Monopoly is bad; any effect, impact, exhibition, or result of it is
> therefore 'bad'. This doesn apply to dumping as well as profiteering,
> yes.
What a facinating point of view. Why
is Monpoly *per se* a bad thing, irrespective
of what its effects might be?
Most people who dislike monopolies do
so because they believe that monopolies
do bad things, not because they think
that success is in itself sinful.
The anti-trust argument has always
been utilitarian; that's why anti-trust
cases talk about 'remedies' not
'punishments'.
You may have something novel
there. I'd like to hear it.
[snip]
> >Well, above T Max Devlin's opinions, anyway. :D
> >
> >I think you tend to conflate that with the law.
>
> I think you haven't a leg to stand on, personally. We'll have to leave
> it for other's to judge, though, eh?
Naturally. I just hope I don't get
Thomas Penfield Jackson! :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:49:15 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >... or competitive ones, for that matter. Yes?
> >>
> >> No, not in the slightest bit. Competitive strategies cannot "take out"
> >> any competitors; thus, the term 'competitive'. Get it?
> >
> >I don't see that that makes any sense. Why are
> >competitive strategies necessarily unsuccessful?
>
> You confuse "success" with "taking out competitors", that's why!
Well, okay, why do competitive strategies never
lead to an outcome where the 'opposive' competitors
leaves the market, or is destroyed?
Same question, but with phrasing I hope you
will find more palatable.
> Competitors are a valuable advantage to a competitor in the market; they
> provide guidance concerning what is popular (valuable to a large number
> of consumers). Nothing better than competition to ensure you can remain
> profitable, effectively forever!
Maybe so, but I see no evidence that propping
up your competitors is considered an act of
"competition".
> >It seems to me that if, oh, say, Microsoft actually
> >did produce an OS that was consistantly better
> >than its competitors, [...]
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
You know, just hypothetically. :D
> >nd kept improving it so
> >that it *stayed* that way, [...]
>
> Doh! What does "stay that way" mean? It is already 'better'. So how
> can you tell when it gets 'better than better', if there are no
> competitors around to compare it to?
I mean, improving it so any
competitors who enter the market
get left behind, and can't overtake
MS.
> >and also kept prices
> >low, they could very well squeeze out all their
> >competitors.
>
> MS hasn't kept, nor ever had, low prices. They don't "squeeze out"
> competitors. They either buy them out, or the force them out.
Yes, yes, but *hypothetically*, why wouldn't
the competitive strategy I outlined work?
> 'Squeezing out' and 'forcing out' may seem the same thing to you, but I
> assure you that honest business men understand the distinction.
Oh, I think "buying" out is different again, and
I do realize that MS is into that sort of thing.
But *hypothetically*, if they weren't, why
couldn't they prevail?
> >Why wouldn't that work? I mean, hypothetically,
> >of course. :D
>
> Why would "hypothetically, of course" end with a smiley?
>
> Your being a passive-agressive dipshit, again, Daniel. JSYK
But it's a good question. Why *can't* honest,
straight out, competition on quality and price
*only* lead to market dominance?
I'm nto asking to accept that this is historical
fact; I know better than *that*.
But what *if* MS had been different...
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.jackie-tokeman,soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A new concept for our friends in misc.fitness.weights:
SexualMarketValue (SMV)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:56:10 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 08:48:46 GMT, BrendaLee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Sorry for the cross posting folks..
>
>There is a woman posting here who really really really has a major
>issue with the fact that someone likes me.
Hey Brenda!
Still Rockin' Aound that Christmas Tree?
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:57:37 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 14:33:13 GMT, Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Many of you seem to be having troubles with your browsers and the
>features some of them have. If you want a really useful, Linux
>compliant browser, try Opera.
Opera?
Yuk!!!!!
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: BrendaLee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.jackie-tokeman,soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A new concept for our friends in misc.fitness.weights:
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:16:26 GMT
flatfish+++ wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2001 08:48:46 GMT, BrendaLee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Sorry for the cross posting folks..
> >
> >There is a woman posting here who really really really has a major
> >issue with the fact that someone likes me.
>
> Hey Brenda!
>
> Still Rockin' Aound that Christmas Tree?
Hee, One of her better songs, I think..
BrendaLee
BTW.. trees rock!
:)
>
> flatfish+++
> "Why do they call it a flatfish?"
--
BrendaLee
Lady DreamCatcher
====================
http://www.cocreator.com/ehmka/
=====================================
brendalee makes the world better by her presence in it.
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman~~
when you dance with an angel the angel don't change the angel
changes you
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman~~
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:02:38 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > They didn't make the claim. Please prove it. Otherwise, Shut the fuck
up.
>
> If XP is meant to be a consumer version of NT that handles all of the
> hardware and software that 98/ME handle [and let me know if I'm wrong
> on this point], then some significant changes must have been made.
> Not a wholesale rewrite, but plenty of changes nonetheless, or the
> beta period would have been pretty short.
No, most of the changes are in the upper levels, UI, mainly.
I like some, hate others.
Windows2000 can run 90% of the software for windows.
The applications it can't run are usually low level stuff.
WinXP has integrated appcomp into the shell, but that is about as drastic
the change was.
The problem with Win2K was that it didn't have many drivers, that problem is
mostly fixed now.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:09:24 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vOPP6.45765$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >And of course VB does not use MFC at
> > >all; only C++ programs can do so.
> >
> > What proof are you providing that VB is not a C++ program?
>
> Hmmm. Permit me to clarify: I meant to say
> "And of course VB programs do not use MFC
> at all; only C++ programs can do so."
>
> I do not know if Visual Basic uses MFC
> internally somehow.
It doesn't.
Architectually speaking, it's unwise to do it this way.
VB maps directly to Win32 API, mapping it to MFC which would then map to
Win32 API is an unneeded translation layer.
Especially since MFC is supposed to be an OO layer over Win32 API, which
would be *really* unreasonable to do, since VB6 is not OO.
Beside, no VB program require the MFC dlls.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 May 2001 10:46:37 -0500
On Fri, 25 May 2001 12:15:36 -0500, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:09:25 -0400, JS \\ PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >I have to say, Linux Mandrake 8 was looking real damn good. Support for all
>> >my hardware (for once) easy set-up, even seting up networking and connection
>> >sharing was painless. Good newsreader - Knode, pretty stable OS. I even
>> >liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when switching users
>> >(unlike Win2K) I was actually contemplating using it much more often and
>> >only using Windows for apps I need to use that aren't available on Linux.
>> >But....
>> >Well after half a day checking out the new XP OS, I have to say IT KICKS
>> >MANDRAKE ASS!!
>> >Internet connection stays when switching users! And get this - Applications
>> >even stay open and are there (still open) when returning to that user.
>> >That's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the browser still kicks ass,
>> >and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed to the
>> >hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux. Ohh I could go on and endlessly
>> >list how much better XP is than Mandrake. Once again the Linux community is
>> >playing catch up to the industry leader. Competition at it's finest!
>> >Thank You.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Can I setup Windows XP at home so that I can log into it via ssh and have
>> a server running that acts as a proxy web browser, allowing me to
>> browse the web from my machine at work over an encrypted channel and
>> bypassing the filters on my company's firewall? And do all this with
>> out-of-the-box free software?
>
>Nope, but you can download SSH. Not many people use it for this, so
>Linux can be the king of the not-so-used features, I guess.
>
Really? What free ssh for Windows gives me a sshd that runs on Windows
that handles tunneling and port redirection? What free http server for
Windows can be configured as a web proxy server?
>> Can I use Windows XP to redirect it's output over an encrypted network
>> port so that I can run applications on my home machine from my machine
>> at work, complete with GUI features? And do all this with out-of-the-box
>> free software?
>
>Yes. Win2K had this too.
>
I don't believe you. Please tell me how to do this with Win2K Pro with
out-of-the-box free software and then I'll believe you.
>> Can I use Windows XP as a NAT server and firewall and allow the machines
>> on my LAN to all share a single internet connection? And do all this with
>> out-of-the-box free software?
>
>Of course. Win2K had this too.
>
I don't believe you. Please tell me how to do this with Win2K Pro with free
out-of-the box free software, and then I'll believe you.
>>
>> Can I use Windows XP as a software development platform with the software
>> that it comes with, without the need to purchase additional software for
>> lots of money?
>
>Of course.
>
>> I can do all this and more with linux, for free.
>
>Same with WinXP, but even more =)
>
>> With Windows XP, I'll even need to buy additional software to create
>> professional documents, presentations, spreadsheets, and databases.
>> I can do all this with Linux with out-of-the-box software.
>
>No you won't. "Professional" is a grey term. Basically, if you're
>willing to subject yourself to Linux's horrible, and horribly buggy
>and crashy GUI, you can sweat it out I guess. For people that want
>to get things done in a reasonable amount of time, easily, and
>without fighting the OS continually to do it, WinXP makes all the
>sense.
>
Funny, I do this all the time without breaking a sweat at all. I just did
an hour long presentation last week to an engineering group using KPresenter
from RedHat 7.1 running on my laptop and displaying on an overhead projector.
No Powerpoint anywhere to be seen.
>If you like fighting with your OS, if you like working with
>substandard (yet free) applications that have very little compatability
>with existing popular software not to mention have stability issues,
>then I guess Linux is for you. But hey, you're doing it all to
>spite Bill Gates, which is the only reason anyone runs Linux anyhow,
>so you've accomplished that goal.
>
I have nothing against Bill Gates and hence I am not motivated by spite
for him. I have a LOT against Microsoft licensing (and it's only getting
worse with .NET and XP). I have a LOT against my Win2K that limits what
I can do with my computer. Linux gives me unparalleled power and flexibility
to do what I wish with my computer and to be extremely productive. What's
funny is, there are literally thousands for users here where I work that
agree with me...and the numbers are growing every day.
>>
>> ....Oh...but I forgot.....now you can log in and log out of Windows XP
>> and not kill your internet connection. Wow!
>
>You could do that back in NT 3.51.
>
Oh, OK...so then XP provides no improvements at all.
>Does Linux have a half-way decent SMP implementation yet? Nope. Oh well,
>come back in 5 years when it does.
>
Sure it does. Where have you been?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 10:40:15 -0500
From: "Public <Anonymous_Account>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A new concept for our friends in misc.fitness.weights:
SexualMarketValue (SMV)
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.jackie-tokeman,soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
brenda lee amidala wrote:
>> Still Rockin' Aound that Christmas Tree?
>
>Hee, One of her better songs, I think..
>
>BrendaLee
>
>BTW.. trees rock!
how is brenda lee and a christmas ornament similar?
they're cute on the outside
and empty on the inside
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
behold.......the ideal woman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:40:32 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 12:15:36 -0500, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:09:25 -0400, JS \\ PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >I have to say, Linux Mandrake 8 was looking real damn good. Support for all
>> >my hardware (for once) easy set-up, even seting up networking and connection
>> >sharing was painless. Good newsreader - Knode, pretty stable OS. I even
>> >liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when switching users
>> >(unlike Win2K) I was actually contemplating using it much more often and
>> >only using Windows for apps I need to use that aren't available on Linux.
>> >But....
>> >Well after half a day checking out the new XP OS, I have to say IT KICKS
>> >MANDRAKE ASS!!
>> >Internet connection stays when switching users! And get this - Applications
>> >even stay open and are there (still open) when returning to that user.
>> >That's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the browser still kicks ass,
>> >and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed to the
>> >hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux. Ohh I could go on and endlessly
>> >list how much better XP is than Mandrake. Once again the Linux community is
>> >playing catch up to the industry leader. Competition at it's finest!
>> >Thank You.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Can I setup Windows XP at home so that I can log into it via ssh and have
>> a server running that acts as a proxy web browser, allowing me to
>> browse the web from my machine at work over an encrypted channel and
>> bypassing the filters on my company's firewall? And do all this with
>> out-of-the-box free software?
>
>Nope, but you can download SSH. Not many people use it for this, so
>Linux can be the king of the not-so-used features, I guess.
>
Really? What free ssh for Windows gives me a sshd that runs on Windows
that handles tunneling and port redirection? What free http server for
Windows can be configured as a web proxy server?
>> Can I use Windows XP to redirect it's output over an encrypted network
>> port so that I can run applications on my home machine from my machine
>> at work, complete with GUI features? And do all this with out-of-the-box
>> free software?
>
>Yes. Win2K had this too.
>
I don't believe you. Please tell me how to do this with Win2K Pro with
out-of-the-box free software and then I'll believe you.
>> Can I use Windows XP as a NAT server and firewall and allow the machines
>> on my LAN to all share a single internet connection? And do all this with
>> out-of-the-box free software?
>
>Of course. Win2K had this too.
>
I don't believe you. Please tell me how to do this with Win2K Pro with free
out-of-the box free software, and then I'll believe you.
>>
>> Can I use Windows XP as a software development platform with the software
>> that it comes with, without the need to purchase additional software for
>> lots of money?
>
>Of course.
>
>> I can do all this and more with linux, for free.
>
>Same with WinXP, but even more =)
>
>> With Windows XP, I'll even need to buy additional software to create
>> professional documents, presentations, spreadsheets, and databases.
>> I can do all this with Linux with out-of-the-box software.
>
>No you won't. "Professional" is a grey term. Basically, if you're
>willing to subject yourself to Linux's horrible, and horribly buggy
>and crashy GUI, you can sweat it out I guess. For people that want
>to get things done in a reasonable amount of time, easily, and
>without fighting the OS continually to do it, WinXP makes all the
>sense.
>
Funny, I do this all the time without breaking a sweat at all. I just did
an hour long presentation last week to an engineering group using KPresenter
from RedHat 7.1 running on my laptop and displaying on an overhead projector.
No Powerpoint anywhere to be seen.
>If you like fighting with your OS, if you like working with
>substandard (yet free) applications that have very little compatability
>with existing popular software not to mention have stability issues,
>then I guess Linux is for you. But hey, you're doing it all to
>spite Bill Gates, which is the only reason anyone runs Linux anyhow,
>so you've accomplished that goal.
>
I have nothing against Bill Gates and hence I am not motivated by spite
for him. I have a LOT against Microsoft licensing (and it's only getting
worse with .NET and XP). I have a LOT against my Win2K that limits what
I can do with my computer. Linux gives me unparalleled power and flexibility
to do what I wish with my computer and to be extremely productive. What's
funny is, there are literally thousands for users here where I work that
agree with me...and the numbers are growing every day.
>>
>> ....Oh...but I forgot.....now you can log in and log out of Windows XP
>> and not kill your internet connection. Wow!
>
>You could do that back in NT 3.51.
>
Oh, OK...so then XP provides no improvements at all.
>Does Linux have a half-way decent SMP implementation yet? Nope. Oh well,
>come back in 5 years when it does.
>
Sure it does. Where have you been?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:52:11 GMT
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > It seems to me that if, oh, say, Microsoft actually
> > > did produce an OS that was consistantly better
> > > than its competitors, and kept improving it so
> > > that it *stayed* that way, and also kept prices
> > > low, they could very well squeeze out all their
> > > competitors.
> >
> > They've already done that in OS's and office
> > suites, except for the part about being consistently
> > better than the competitors.
>
> :D
>
> I suspect we may not entire agree
> about some of these things.
>
> > I adduce as proof... the Windows Key.
>
> The "Windows Key"? Whats that?
Look on your keyboard. You won't see any Microsoft
competitor's logo on your keyboard, just that
Windoze key.
Chris
--
Please enter your Message Activation
Code now to read this message
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
