Linux-Advocacy Digest #849, Volume #34 Tue, 29 May 01 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: ease and convenience (Terry Porter)
Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Makfu")
Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers?
("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: The nature of competition ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why should an OS cost money? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Chad Myers")
Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Terry
Porter)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Anonymous)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Anonymous)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!!
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:11:06 +1200
What about Workbench and the Amiga 500 ;)
oh, happy days :)
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death
Nobody can hear your screams
----
I am the resident BOFH if you don't like it
go rm -rf /home/luser yourself
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 May 2001 02:10:36 GMT
On Mon, 28 May 2001 13:47:05 +0800,
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:40:29 +0800,
>> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:yAHP6.22323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Not sure why you chose to do it the hard way...
>>
>> Because he wants to have a *choice* as to what newsreader to use.
>
> So *choose* the one with IE :)
Thats an oxymoron.
>
> Seriously, my *dad* downloads stuff from the net all the time with no
> problem.
So did I when I was using Win95, back in 1996-1997, but with some
provisos.
1/ I dared not ever d/l 2 files or more at once, for fear of corruption,
yet this is something I do all the time now with Linux, and corruptions
are rare.
>
> I see messages from *technical* people that can't figure out how to do
> something in Linux -- not because it is difficult, but because it is so
> damned unintuitive
Explain to me the function of the 'magnetron' in your microwave oven. Please
do not look it up, just use the intuitiveness of its name?
> and hard to find related documentation.
Not once you know where to look. For some reason you have missed
http://www.linuxdoc.org/ which contains docs for every thing you
could ever want to know about Linux.
>
> With Windows, there is a *central* help system for all OS related things
> that is *fully* text indexed for easy retrieval.
The Windows helpsystem is a simple thing, that fails to help anyone
above the level of clueless user.
Paste the Windows help for 'ping' here Todd ?
Remember it has to come from your system help.
<snip>
> HOWEVER -> I have had problems simply getting my ethernet card to WORK under
> Linux using DHCP.
So what, I have problems getting my ethernet card to work under Win95 and Win98.
Every OS has some hardware hassles, get over it.
>
> Sounds easy? Under W2k, simply PUT IN the network card and TURN ON the
> system. It AUTOMATICALLY installs drivers, configures DHCP and gets you on
> the net.
Oh really .... puhleese!
>
> Under Red Hat Linux 7.0 ? My computer is still without a connection after
> numerous attempts just to find simple documention on what will probably be a
> bunch of editing files and other stuff.
Perhaps not, it may be a case of you using an unsupported NIC.
>
> Windows is *FAR* easier and more intuitive than Linux.
Bullshit, total and utter bullshit.
>
>> Few could use Windows at all without the help of 1) OEM
>> preinstalls and 2) technical people to ask for help with problems.
>
> I am technical and am still trying to figure out how to get BASIC stuff to
> work in Linux.
Its a big world, and being 'technical' doesn't always mean you're proficient
in all areas. Your Windows experience does not help you much with Linux.
Linux IS a whole new ball game.
>
> Ridicule me if you like, but the fact is, Linux is just too hard to make it
> worth the trouble for people that *value* their time.
Thats an old Wintroll statement Todd, don't be expected to be taken seriously,
or even ridiculed. Most will just skim over it.
All learning is worth the time it takes.
My son Sam has installed Debian, Redhat, and Mandrake Linux on his own, without
my help, and hes just turned 18, and hes not 'technical'.
He just follows installer directions. This across 2 pcs, all networked.
>
> -Todd
>
--
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: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!!
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:15:24 +1200
No, actually, its not ready, and it is also unproven technology. Solaris,
HP-UX and AIX-5L have been around for donkey's years, and have proven
themselves time and time again. Windows XP, unproven, history of poor
realiability, and you think people will take it seriously! I don't think
so. Maybe you should check what is running Datacentres, banks, mainframes,
the New Zealand financial system, and wake up and smell the code, because
it isn't smelling of WinXP, thats for sure.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death
Nobody can hear your screams
----
I am the resident BOFH if you don't like it
go rm -rf /home/luser yourself
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b12c884$0$79493$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9etb51$vua$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Then there are no killer OSs at all.
> > >
> > > Robert G Smith
> >
> > Yes there are, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux 2.4 and AIX-5L, all of them are
> > Itanium ready, and ready to roll. Windows isn't even ready yet!
>
> Wrong again.
> Windows 2000 and XP both run on the Itanium already.
> The DAY the Itanium is officially released you will be able to get a copy
of
> W2K or XP that will run on it.
>
> Watch... see... witness the truth of my words.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Makfu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:18:38 -0400
Don't kid yourself, Windows XP blows OS X out of the water. Period. Don't
even bother arguing.
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > Don't forget security, of which the MacOS has none.
> >>
> >> Mac OS-X is based on BSD-unix (Darwin)...
> >
> > [snip irrelevant]
> >
> > we're talking about currently shipping MacOSes, not lala-ware.
> >
> Just in case you haven´t noticed, Mac-OS-X *is* shipping.
> And it certainly looks a lot better than this pathetic WinXP
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
> dumb to handle the real thing.
>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers?
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 05:06:20 +0200
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9f0vu1$d9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > "wade blazingame" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:vGHQ6.17265$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Threading is almost never
> >> supported as well in mail clients as it is in news readers.
> >
> > That shouldn't be a problem to implement via the message-id, References
&
> > In-Replay-To fields.
> > I know that OE support it.
> >
> >
> > From RFC 2822
> >
> > 3.6.4. Identification fields
> >
> > Though optional, every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field.
> > Furthermore, reply messages SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and
> > "References:" fields as appropriate, as described below.
>
> Obviously youve never used a localised version of OE. Or does OE only mess
> up european languages?
I've most certainly used a localised version.
What are you talking about?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 05:15:49 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aTTQ6.52915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Dan Pidcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > I'm not sure about little disruption too. Have you looked at all the
> > layers of the API? They tell a little of the kludging story.
>
> Yes, I have. You'd be surprised how much of what
> was present in Windows 1 hasn't changed.
>
> What 'layers' do you have in mind?
>
Only thing I can think of is on NT, where the Win32 API sits on top of the
NT native API.
I doubt that this is what he talks about, though.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!!
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:17:28 +1200
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b12ed03$0$42014$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9etb51$vua$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Then there are no killer OSs at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert G Smith
> > > >
> > > > Yes there are, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux 2.4 and AIX-5L, all of them
are
> > > > Itanium ready, and ready to roll. Windows isn't even ready yet!
> > >
> > > Wrong again.
> > > Windows 2000 and XP both run on the Itanium already.
> > > The DAY the Itanium is officially released you will be able to get a
> copy of
> > > W2K or XP that will run on it.
> > >
> > > Watch... see... witness the truth of my words.
> >
> > Why would we even /care/ !??
>
> Because if you want to run on Itanium quickly you'll be running the OS
that
> runs all of your current apps without recompile.
>
Same situation with HP-UX and HP-UX based apps natively compiled for
PA-RISC.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death
Nobody can hear your screams
----
I am the resident BOFH if you don't like it
go rm -rf /home/luser yourself
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 02:21:41 GMT
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> p.s., there are several free SSH servers available for Windows NT and W2K/XP
> by the way. In case you just can't live without the CLI.
Here's a nice review for a commercial offering:
http://www.networkcomputing.com/1206/1206sp3.html
Here's another commercial offering:
http://packetstorm.securify.com/advisories/ussr/labs2001-01.txt
Here's some doofus asking if there is a Windows ssh daemon:
http://lists.tartarus.org/pipermail/putty-bugs/2001-January/002363.html
Here's a package for Windows which might contain an ssh server.
It doesn't support ssh1, but that's not really a bad thing:
http://www.ma.ic.ac.uk/~adthomas/sysnews/ssh/recommended.html
Here's another Windows secure shell server, but it costs about $1000:
http://www.pragmasys.com/PressReleases/SecureShell2000.htm
I'm having great difficulty locating free SSH servers for Windows.
Clients, sure, a whole shitload. Servers, well, maybe one so far.
Ah, here's one, at last!
http://www.lexa.ru:8100/sos/
Good luck! I think the main difficulty is having to also port over
the Linux implementation of TCP/IP to make up for the deficiencies
of the Winsock API, which don't allow access to the internal
fields used by TCP.
Chris
--
Please enter you Microsoft Client Access Code now,
or tattle on your system administrator
at http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/report.phtml
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:32:16 -0700
In article <9f0v79$1rap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stuart Fox"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong question, the real question is why shouldn't an OS cost money?
If I go hunting for two weeks, and finally drop an elk, then pack it out
on my back five miles through the wilderness, should I then go to the
local butcher and pay him for two weeks of beef that he didn't sell me?
I don't mind paying for an OS. I've paid for every boxed Linux
distribution I've ever installed. Trouble is, I've paid for a quite a few
MSFT products that never saw the light of day in my shop.
Intellectual property is inherently worthless. It's the demand for it
that makes it valuable.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 02:30:45 GMT
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> Terminal Services can be run with 128 bit encryption, higher if you use
> Citrix metaframe. Terminal Services can also run with/over IPSec provided by
> Windows 2000. SSH differs from IPSec in that it operates at the application
> layer, rather than the network layer. Thus, it will only secure those
> specific applications that are sent over an SSH tunnel, whereas all
> applications sent via IPSec are tunneled transparently.
This is nice, because IPSec can make many different protocols more
secure.
> So, with IPSec/Terminal services I get a fully encrypted, transparent
> complete windows desktop session/login over low bandwidth without giving up
> anything. TS doesn't deal with routing ports, that's handled by a different
> part of W2K so I won't address that as you shouldn't have. I typically
> access TS over an IPSec tunnel.
It's nice to get some solid info from you, Jon! Thanks!
> Again, why SSH on Windows when TS is available. Let me answer for you:
You don't have the wherewithal to answer for many of us.
> so that unix guys can play at the command line on a windows box (and then
> complain when a GUI OS doesn't have as good a CLI as a CLI OS does.. hmm...)
No, it's so I can access my home machine from work without getting
my ass kicked. I'll let your stupid little dig pass, since you
did say something eminently sensible in this post.
Also, TS costs. For personal use, why pay for Windows 2K? Unfortunately,
I already got suckered into buying it.
Chris
--
Please enter you Microsoft Client Access Code now,
or tattle on your system administrator
at http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/report.phtml
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:37:55 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Terry Porter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paolo, with your permission, I'd like to keep this one in my News
> collectables as your words echo my sentiments exactly!
Soitenly.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 02:20:55 GMT
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 May 2001 15:28:25 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"wrinkled shirt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:<3b13b4c3$0$94307$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> >> > Don't forget security, of which the MacOS has none.
> >>
> >> I don't know about that. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but last
> >> time I checked they didn't support VBScript files. That's better
> >> security than some right there.
>
> >VBScripts end up being executables which only run with as much
> >or less privilege than the user.
> >
> >How is this different from perl scripts on Unix?
>
> I doubt someone running as root is going to run a perl script someone
> has just e-mailed them. On the other hand, on Windows, even the
> thickest, least knowledgeable user has complete priveliges over the
> system, and Outlook makes it piss easy for an unknowing user to run an
> attachment.
So you've made my point for me, it's the intelligence of the user.
Why don't you run perl scripts from root? Because you know better.
Why do people run VBScripts as Administrator in Windows? Because
they don't know better.
(except in Win9x which has no security and sucks, but we all know that)
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 02:21:30 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > VBScripts end up being executables which only run with as much
> > or less privilege than the user.
> >
> > How is this different from perl scripts on Unix?
>
> Because Perl scripts can't touch "normal" users' files. It's obvious:
> Windows 98 is a wide-open system, and most unices are not. The only way
> to delete users' files on a unix system is if someone compromised the
> system, and put a rogue Perl script where it shouldn't be.
We, well I wasn't at least, talking about Win9x. Win9x is a toy OS and
sucks. NT/2K are different.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:34:25 +1200
Nope, ring up old Microsoft and ask for tech support, "and how are you
going to pay for this?" you will get asked by the telephone operator.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death
Nobody can hear your screams
----
I am the resident BOFH if you don't like it
go rm -rf /home/luser yourself
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > If one thinks about the history of man, and the nature of invention,
one must
> > ask themselves why an OS costs any money.
>
> Tech support and media costs.
>
>
> -----= 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: "Chad Myers" <[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: Wed, 30 May 2001 02:22:58 GMT
"Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > I just installed it 2 weeks ago or so! Give me a break! =)
>
> And it's over 2 years old now.. 8 is the standard and has been out for over a
> year. If I installed NT4 today I'd have to install SPs on it wouldn't I?
> Sheesh.
>
> > Spare me, asshole.
>
> Boo hoo... so it's ok to complain about patches on unix boxes but not SPs on
> windows eh? At least patches on Solaris work every time!
That remains to be seen.
> And rarely require
> a reboot (though they always "recommend" one as a CYA manouver).
Nearly every patch that NS 6 required required a reboot.
Most were core OS.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Wed, 30 May 2001 02:23:21 GMT
"Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> > Don't forget; you're thinking about Linux, but Chad's talking about
> > Solaris. He's got a commercial company to complain to if anything isn't
>
> Actually no.. I'm talking about Solaris too. I admin Solaris machines at
> work, and have two at home.
I'm sorry.
-c
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!!
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 02:39:37 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "J Perrimato Fectuzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > windows xp runs on itanium but it does not run in 64-bit mode. at least
> not
> > a production version!
>
> Why am I not surprised?
> Maybe because there *isn't* a production version of XP, to *any* bit set?
Here's a link describing some of the status of Windows on Itanium, and
Windows applications on Itanium.
http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=481498
Microsoft will start porting some of its applications to the 64-bit
system, too.
Chris
--
Please enter you Microsoft Client Access Code now,
or tattle on your system administrator
at http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/report.phtml
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 05:20:46 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> (I've been there. Apparently my version of Quake overwrote
> a DLL with an older version, causing problems -- according to the
> tech type who had to reimage [*] the system. A little bizarre.)
Why not just replace the DLL?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 May 2001 02:44:17 GMT
On Tue, 29 May 2001 11:36:56 -0500,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >It's Myers, jerk, get it right.
>> >
>>
>> Not a title I'd choose, but if you say so:
>>
>> Chad Myers, jerk tried to tell us that ICS in Win2K Pro could do this. Check
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bwahahahahahah!
>> out this from my Win2K Pro Resource Kit....
>
> Then I shall call you Chad Everett, illiterate, since you have a basic
> problem parsing English sentence structure.
No prize for second Myers, take it like a man!
--
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 **
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:45:12 -0400
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The effect of share dilution through
the effect of exercisable stock options
is well documented in the SEC filings.
There's really nothing really "fraudulent"
about it. It's pretty much standard practice
with all companies.
Companies usually do stock buybacks to offset
the dilutive effect of incentive stock options.
Most financial statements include diluted earnings
per share which takes into account things like stock
options.
Financial accounting can be a pretty complex subject.
That is why accounting textbooks are so thick.
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2001 18:24:47 -0400, Anonymous
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Microsoft is far from being dead
> >because of its huge portfolio of
> >cash and investments. Even if they
> >made no revenue, they could survive
> >on cash and investments for a while.
>
> Maybe not:
>
> <http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html>
>
> >Their biggest liability is their size.
> >It makes them a lot less agile and less
> >responsive to customers.
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:46:03 -0400
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David Fox wrote:
>
> Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Microsoft is far from being dead because of its huge portfolio of
> > cash and investments. Even if they made no revenue, they could
> > survive on cash and investments for a while.
>
> I would enjoy seeing them try this.
Well they could fire all their employees
and hire a handful of engineers to support
Linux.
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:49:32 +1200
An OS w/ 2% of the market place, that has only been concerntrating on the
end luser desktop market for 1 1/2 to 2 years, the stats are pretty good.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death
Nobody can hear your screams
----
I am the resident BOFH if you don't like it
go rm -rf /home/luser yourself
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9eu95o$d81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9etape$vih$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers Balanced Reporting: Windows Rulez, Linux Sux <---- example
of
> > Chads so-called balanced reporting.
> >
> > Matthew Gardiners balanced reporting: Although Linux had made big
inroads
> > into the desktop market, hardware comptibility is one of the number one
> > issues on the development radar <------ TRUE balanced reporting.
> >
> Big inroads into the desktop market? Where's the stats on that? If you
> said server market, you might have a case.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 May 2001 02:54:13 GMT
On Tue, 29 May 2001 08:20:18 +0100,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> This is the same kind of post swapping I have done with Pete myself.
>> Pete asked for examples, when I gave him one, he just shrugged it off,
>> and I feel that his request for examples, are just a stall tactic.
>
> Which example was that?
Forgotten so soon ?
--
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 **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
