Linux-Advocacy Digest #814, Volume #34 Sun, 27 May 01 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!! ("2 + 2")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Nigel
Feltham)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("David
Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:30:34 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> >> You are incorrect, Daniel. The desktop being described was capable of
> >> much more than simple file management.
> >
> >What else could it be? What else could
> >it do?
>
> Think harder.
C'mon, you know I'm no good at that!
Gimme a hint! :D
[snip]
> >Modern file managers do not include
> >GUI toolkits, actually. They use them,
> >but the toolkit is external.
>
> The toolkit is non-existent.
Certainly not. You know better
than this.
> It is a fanciful term you use for something else.
Well, you seem to react so badly to
"API"...
> You have apps, and you have OSes; toolkits are neither,
> and are thus meaningless in discussions of the relationship between apps
> and OSes.
What at interesting perspective. What *are*
toolkits in your view? I suspect I've gone
an used a term with some special meaning
for you once again, and muddied the
issue thereby.
> Unless you want to swap 'OS' for "toolkit", which seems to be close to
> whatever dishonest metaphor you're trying to build here, claiming
> desktops are file managers.
Hmmm? The product called "Apple II Desktop" was a file
manager; the term "desktop" can refer to other thigns too,
like user interface elements.
[snip]
> >but I think Rick *believed* he was being
> >relevant in some way; he does not seem
> >to know the difference.
>
> He knows it differently than you do. But, in the end, it isn't
> knowledge, but intellectual ability, which provides understanding.
Oh, I dunno. You should try knowledge
sometime; it may work better than you think. :D
> You
> don't seem to know why there is a difference, how to use the difference,
> or what to make of the difference. But you're willing to waste our time
> quibbling about the difference. Why is that?
I'm trying to figure out what the heck Rick
is on about.
I'm hoping he'll drop me a hint...
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:31:20 -0400
Snauk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Kenny Chaffin wrote:
>>
>> > Not gonna happen. People trust sun servers. What operating system are
>> > they gonna use on the chip? Solaris is proven on sun hardware,
certainly
>> > not on Itanium or even much used on pentiums....
>>
>> But what about Linux,
>> and IBM's commitment to Linux?
Linux is one of Intel's biggest customers on the server. Also, the Linux
camp has the talent to develop the compilers that this chip requires.
Of course, Itanium, if successful, is the VLIW successor for both Windows
and Unix.
However, both Sun and IBM have competing VLIW chips.
2 + 2
>>
>> --------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
>> Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
>> -----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
>
>When you see IBM using Linux as opposed to their Unix variant then maybe.
>Also IBM makes their own chips for a lot of the high end servers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:30:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:33 GMT
<5IgO6.34589$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I had been arguing that Windows is the best development
>> >platform for making desktop applications of the
>> >conventional sort, not that it was ever the best
>> >platform for everything.
>>
>> As have we.
>
>I'm quite astonished to hear that you think
>Windows is the best platform for developing
>desktop applications.
For sufficiently peculiar definitions of "best", it just might
be that. For example, Windows would arguably be the best
platform for developing platforms compatible with its Excel
spreadsheet. :-)
(This is assuming one wants to develop platforms compatible with
Excel, of course...personally, I find Gnumeric adequate for all but
graphing chores -- which presumably could be exported to Gnuplot,
with a little work. I don't use spreadsheets that often, though.)
[snip]
>> You just pretend you don't know what "monopoly" means, rather
>> like JS PL and Erik and the other sock puppets who have so much wrapped
>> up in defending illegal behavior.
>
>The trouble I have with "monopoly" is that it
>means so many things, depending on who is
>saying it. I never know what a particular speaker
>means; he's not wrong to use this or that sense
>of the word, but it's hard to understand him
>without knowing which sense he has in mind.
It also depends on the market. Microsoft is a monopoly
in the desktop PC market, but is not a monopoly in the
total computer market, for example. (They are trying to
get into the server market and dominate that -- hopefully
by legitimate means.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 27d:17h:48m actually running Linux.
This is a voluntary signature virus. Send this to somebody.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:33:31 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
[snip]
> >Calling *that* gouging is a strech; Microsoft's
> >stuff is frequently cheaper than its competition; compare
> >SQL Server to Oracle for instance.
>
> Gouging has nothing to do with price versus the competition, Dan.
> Something is called gouging because it is a higher price than the
> commodity is "worth"; comparison to putative competition is beside the
> point.
It just means "overpriced" to you?
I don't think MS's stuff *is* overpriced.
> You just compare the quality and quantity of the item against
> the price, and if it is gouging it is gouging. Whether it is a
> "stretch" or a "metaphor" or a "contract in restraint of trade" is
> pointless to discuss unless you learn the meaning of the term.
Sorry. It seems I mistakenly assumed you meant
"gouging" to have something to do with, you know,
monopolization and all that.
[snip]
> >Not very surprising; any Office product worth
> >its salt gives you a *lot* of functionality.
>
> Kind of like there's *lots* of empty chambers when you're playing
> russian roulette.
:D
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 23:49:47 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> > > 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.
>>
>> What software would that be?
>
> Take you pick.
> You've C,C++, Java, vbs, javascript, html, perl, python, etc.
>
And what directory on the XP install CD would I install these from - he
said 'Using the software it comes with' so needing to download additional
applications (even if free) doesn't count as using the software it comes
with.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:41:22 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
> >> I think they call those "changes to the licensing terms".
> >>
> >> MS have been making changes to licensing so as to require some users to
> >> buy more licenses than they had to previously. For instance, there
> >> used to be "concurrent licensing" where you had to have licenses for
> >> each concurrent user. That's been largely eliminated.
> >
> >Understandable; Microsoft never had the tools to make
> >such a scheme work.
>
> You don't seem to understand at all; the changes are the scheme
> *working*, not some evidence that MS couldn't "pull it off". They call
> them CALs or something, don't they?
Sure, but the licensing software in NT is primitive.
I think you'd interpret any licensing change MS
made as an example of MS exploiting their
monopoly; but honestly, if they had
the kind of power you think they have, they
could raise prices on some of their products by
a great deal.
[snip]
> >Are you sure they ever allowed this? I find it
> >completely astonishing that MS would offer
> >two-for-the-price-of-one like that.
>
> It's two-for-the-price-of-N, where N is the number of packages of
> monopoly crapware it would take to be worth one competitive product.
> Probably at least 10, but it could be 400 or more.
:D
> What you've described is called "regrating", I believe; changing the
> product or price (in this case, a bit of both; the licensing) to make it
> more expensive to buy efficient quantities. As soon as a consumer
> figures out how to not buy as much, the monopolist changes the rules to
> eliminate it.
I don't quite see how this works out; they need
the same number of Word installs as before, don't
they?
> The "take the product home" thing which Bob describes as a "perk" is the
> standard understanding of copyright law.
That's a pretty odd understanding.
> MS, through the SPA, tried to
> overturn the precedent when they realized that copyright does not
> prevent this "copying" at all, but failed. So they wrote it into their
> EULA, thereby regrating their market.
Oh, is *that* all. I can't blame MS for that; users
pinching copies of MS Word from the office is not
something MS is obliged to appreciate!
[snip]
> >I do not think MS site licenses were ever licenses for
> >unlimited numbers of machines; MS's recent behavior
> >suggests that they don't think so, either.
>
> That's a dishonest thing to say, Dan. The number of machines is
> entirely outside the issue. The scope is having to pay twice for the
> same machine, not any "unlimited number" bullshit.
No, I don't think that's so.
> MS's recent behavior
> is one of a monopolist, as their past behavior as been. Quite
> pretending to be such a putz that you welcome being ripped off; admit
> you are a sock puppet, and perhaps there is hope that someday you won't
> be as dishonest as you are being now. No consumer of MS products would
> welcome having the price of Windows double, as MS has managed to pull
> off with these kinds of licensing shenanigans no less than SIX times in
> the past three years.
Only six times? I'm quite surprised.
> Oh, but that's okay, because not every one affected every license, so it
> isn't a price increase, right?
Well, it's certainly not what the usual theories
suggest MS would be doing about now.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:43:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >C++ (when used correctly) will produce code that is
> >more advanced than C, since it uses objects etc. Not that you can't do
> >objects in C, it's just harder.
>
> This, however, is vapid speculation. The most advanced software ever
> written can be written in the least advanced language. Have you never
> heard of Turing?
Have you ever tried to use a Turing machine to create a useful
application?
> >That's what I meant - what the hell are you talking about?
>
> The actual application of new engineering concepts applied to consumer
> requirements. Linux has it; Windows is just monopoly crapware. They
> have a lot of features they bolted in, APIs they've piled on, and
> 'innovations' they've force on the consumer to increase their monopoly
> stranglehold. No actual technology advancement is in evidence, though.
> XP and .NET are just implementing the market strategies outlined in the
> Halloween Document, while providing a level of technology similar to
> Microsoft Bob.
Yet Linux supports less hardware than Windows does. Linux only recently
supported USB devices and struggles with other devices. How is Linux more
technologically advanced when Windows does more and has more hardware
support?
You, no doubt, will say it is because of monopolistic activity that is
forcing hardware manufactures to do Microsoft bidding. I won't dispute
that, but would you agree that hardware manufactures do Windows first
simply because it is perceived (rightly or wrong) as more popular?
> >Have you ever done a "peer review". Do you know what it involves? It is
> >more than just "taking a look see". It has a chairman, a person taking
> >notes, and people making the comments. One person reads through the code,
> >whilst the others ask questions and query etc. That's what I would
> >consider peer review. I can't see that kind of structured approach
> >occuring outside of a company.
>
> You misunderstand the term "peer review", I see. Yes, that thing you
> described might be what you have been taught a "peer review" is. But
> the term is much broader than that; it includes precisely and only what
> the terms indicate: review by peers. Now, this formal software review
> that you are talking about certainly qualifies, and it is good to here
> that such rigorous methods are being used somewhere.
When you're reviewing software that can only be disclosed to employees
it's the only kind of peer review you can possibly have.
> The way it works outside this 'internal review' is a scientist/engineer
> writes up his experimental results and speculative findings, and submits
> them to a journal for publication. The journal handles the structured
> peer review; many peers (others within that field, and outside that
> field as well) read the paper and provide a scored review. If the
> article passes 'peer review', then it gets published, and magically
> becomes science.
The snag of course in the case of software is that it has to be published
outside of a company.
> This thing you've described might be all well and good, but it is NOT
> peer review. It lacks the most important ingredient; peers. People
> working inside the same company don't qualify for this usage of that
> term. It isn't "co-worker" review. That which is peer reviewed can no
> longer be proprietary; that which is proprietary has not been peer
> reviewed.
I understand what you're saying, and I can see the advantage of such a
peer review. However, I disagree that "co-worker" review is any less
valid than your peer review.
>> Please make you statement comprehensible, and I will be glad to
>> discuss it. The statement "a Linux upgrade rarely works and is not
>> recommended" makes no sense, as it is false.
>
> >I read that statement here on COLA. I tried it myself. I upgraded
> >Mandrake 7.1 to 7.2. My desktop suffered as a result.
>
> None of that has any bearing on my statement. I'm sure you think it
> does, but you're going to have to think harder.
So my own experience which is in direct contradiction to your statement
has no bearing - so other's who have said the same, here on COLA, has no
bearing either!
> >There's nothing to get. The outcome of the court case is still yet to be
> >determined. Microsoft continue on as if nothing has changed.
>
> The outcome of the appeal has yet to be determined; the court case ended
> with three convictions. Microsoft continues on as if nothing has
> changed; not evidence all by itself of the correctness of the
> convictions, but certainly a damning indication.
But when do the remedies take effect? When are going to see some result
to this rather that it dragging on interminably in the courts?
> >Why is it you are unable to use moderation in your posts?
>
> When have I failed to be moderate, within the context of my posts?
When you make such statements like "Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha" or "guffaw".
> >The monopoly bit is not in question. I question your use of "crapware".
>
> How can a monopolist know when it has made a stupid engineering choice.
> Do their sales go down? If you think this is the case, then you are
> bringing the monopoly big back into question. Get it?
I still question your use of "crapware" - yet you answered me about
monopoly?
> >> >I don't rate gcc are a leading edge development tool unless it has an IDE
> >> >and the whole kit and kaboodle.
> >>
> >> I don't care.
> >
> >I see. So, wearing skins and using clubs, you'd say "I don't care" to
> >civilisation.
>
> I have cotton and polyester, and a shotgun. What the hell are you
> talking about?
8)
I was using an analogy.
Think of the IDE as civilisation.
> >I've used C compilers on the command line, and I've used them with
> >various IDE's etc. You become more productive with the latter tools.
> >Still, there are always those who swear by the old way of doing things...
>
> Because they are more productive, having learned how to be efficient to
> a degree that you are unable to match, even after mastering your IDE.
> Get it?
I disagree. A good example is programming a GUI using just the plain API.
It's much harder that way. Using a class library makes it a lot easier,
even more so if there's an IDE and object browser tied into it.
> >Modern kernels do not require a rebuild.
>
> I don't think the term 'modern kernels' makes any sense, honestly.
> Kernel rebuilds are a unixism, yes. The OS that supports flexibility
> more than anything else.
Try OpenVMS. It came after UNIX.
> >OpenVMS went for dynamically loadable modules,
> >just like Windows does.
>
> OpenVMS doesn't seem to be around much anymore.
Sadly true.
> >Linux has this feature - but it still has the
> >good old kernel rebuild. That's progress for you.
>
> Indeed. That is progress.
Progress is moving onto better things. Hanging onto the past is not
progress.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:44:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> You should ask yourself if you are familiar with any IDEs that can run
> any one of a number of compilers.
LSE, or Language Sensitive Editor. It was on OpenVMS and supported C,
Pascal, Fortran, SDML, Document.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:49:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >It wasn't that long ago. You have a pretty vague memory - as you
> >demonstrated in another post. You forgotten that one too?
>
> No, I remember discussing the issue of dogma. I don't recall ever
> learning of any flaw in my definition.
I certainly do. You got your definition of dogma wrong, as I pointed out
to you.
> >What spanking was that? The only one I remember was the one I gave you
> >quite recently. Remember "DirectX sucks"?
>
> With a huge grin on my face. Go back and read it again, Pete. ;-D
8)
> >I repeat the term dogma, but you bring your favourite topic of discussion
> >(which I call dogma) in every conversation. You bring this up as
> >repetition, thinking to confuse the issue of dogma.
>
> It is the topic of discussion; why would it be dogmatic of me to discuss
> it? Guffaw, guffaw.
I said you twist the conversation to fit your favourite topic. Are you
deliberately trying to misunderstand me or just dense?
> Why are you posting to COLA, Pete, but constantly defending Windows? Is
> it some matter of... DOGMA, perhaps? Doh!
Perhaps. But then I defend Linux sometimes. I won't use terms like "Linux
sucks" or "Linux is crap".
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:49:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Funny I thought "wrong" == "mistaken".
>
> Think harder.
OK. "wrong" == "mistaken".
> >Maybe I was wrong. Or mistaken. Or both.
>
> You were mistaken.
I was wrong?
Nahhh!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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!
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:46:28 +0200
Philip Nicholls wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 27 May 2001 21:37:22 +0200, "David Brown"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>This has not been my experience.
>
>Just so we are clear hear, I have a duel but Linux/win98 system. Let
>me give you one example -- installing video drivers.
>
>In windows 98, I (1) downloaded the drivers (2) double clicked on the
>drivers (3) rebooted my system.
I've had some Windows installations go nicely, others have been hell. Even
for the best of them, it involves feeding a dozen driver CDs to the machine,
and sometimes the order is very important.
>
>In Mandrake Linux 8.0
>(1) download drivers.
>(2) open a superuser terminal
>(3) rpm --rebuild NVIDIA_kernel.src.rpm
>(4) rpm --rebuild NVIDIA_GLX.scr.rpm
>(5) change to appropriate directory
>(6) rpm -ivh NVIDIA_kernel.rpm
>(7) rpm -ivh NVIDIA_GLX..rpm
>(8) edit my X86Config-4 file.
>(9) restart x
>Pray like hell that nothing goes wrong this time as it's the 4th time
>I have tried to do this.
>
This is a particularly bad example - NVIDIA drivers cannot be included in
the distribution because NVidia won't provide nicely licenced driver code or
suitable documentation to let other people write the drivers (it's their
right, I suppose, but it does make this particular setup a real mess).
>Linux is getting easier, but give microsoft it's due, installation is
>designed for the non-geek who does not WANT to fiddle.
>
Linux installation is designed to be administrator-friendly, and being
beginner-friendly is an add-on in progress. Windows installation is
variable for amateurs (sometimes it is fine, sometimes it takes forever),
but is a real time-waster for administrators.
>
>>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>Again, I don't think Windows XP is targetting people who would want to
>>>do this. Do you?
>>>
>>
>>So what exactly is MS' offering for professional users who might want such
>>features? XP professional is to be MS' top system. There can be no doubt
>>that Windows is better than Linux for some purposes and some users, but we
>>can see quite clearly that if you want advanced networking features
>>(especially if you want it free and out-of-the-box), XP cannot begin to
>>compete with Linux (or any other Unix-type OS).
>
>Agreed, although I'll be interested to see XP Professional when it
>arrives
>
Me too, although I won't be jumping on it any time soon.
>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>>I can do all this and more with linux, for free.
>>>
>>>Bully for you. And how many other people on your block have the
>>>technical expertise to do all this?
>>>
>>>I'll tell you a secret. Most of them don't, most of them don't CARE.
>>>Windows XP caters to them.
>>
>>Actually, there are quite a lot of users interested in doing development.
>>Linux lowers the entry barrier for amateurs or part-time programmers.
>
>Which you will have to admit is only a very tiny fraction of the
>people using computers today.
It's a small fraction, but not insignificant.
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Again, bully for you. How many people on your block are able to do
>>>this.
>>>
>>
>>I can accept that virually no one needs the sort of network configurations
>>suggested. I can accept that only relatively few people do software
>>development. But do really expect anyone to believe that few people want
to
>>make documents, presentations or spreadsheets??
>
>No. I'm suggesting that very few people are willing to take the time
>to set up linux just so they can run Star Office (sluggish, very ugly)
>or Wordperfect (commercial version) or KOffice ( promising, but still
>beta) and that MS Office is a superior productivity package.
>
The more MS tightens its grip about licencing, the more users and companies
will prefer to use a free solution that fullfills their needs, rather than
spending money on Windows, then even more money on MS Office, when KOffice
or Star Office does all they need. If you already have Windows+MS Office,
then there is little point in moving to Linux just for KOffice, there is no
arguement there. But the point is, with a Linux distribution, you have all
you need ready at hand at no extra cost.
>>>>....Oh...but I forgot.....now you can log in and log out of Windows XP
>>>>and not kill your internet connection. Wow!
>>>
>>>Most people who need to use computers for work or school have lives
>>>outside of computers. Windows XP caters to them.
>
>>
>>You seem to believe that XP caters for people who don't actually use
>>computers at all.
>
>No. Linux caters to people who like computers and who like knowing
>how things work. It caters to programmers, network gurus and unix
>wizards.
>
>Windows caters to the English major at Whatsamatter U. who needs to
>finish that term paper or the grandmother who wants to exchange email
>with her kids.
>
I disagree, but your statements make more sense now after clarifying your
position on office programs.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
