Linux-Advocacy Digest #413, Volume #25 Sun, 27 Feb 00 11:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: IE on UNIX (Hobbyist)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Hobbyist)
Re: A Trip to the Store (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Giving up on NT ("Lance Togar")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hobbyist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 10:13:45 -0500
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> > Now people are starting to *CHOSE* linux over windows!!! And you're all
> > huffy about it!
>
> Not at all. If Linux works for you, great. Just don't tell me it should
> work for me and everyone else too.
... and that we are idiotic to think otherwise.
> I have never faulted anyone for choosing Linux, Be, Unix, OS/2, or whatever
> OS. My primary beef is when people start telling ME that i've made the
> wrong choice.
.... or there was no choice made by you at all and that MS
is manipulating you. :)
> If it does everything you need, then it's the right decision
> for you.
I agree completely. :)
--
-=Ali M.=-
------------------------------
From: Hobbyist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 10:13:48 -0500
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> :No, but like with every previous major release from microsoft, you'll have
> :to replace all your apps to get decent performance.
>
>
> Huh? What do old applications have to do about OS performance?
Except for the point being that it's a very good idea and in
the customers interest to make the upgrade to a particular OS
compatible with at least most of the apps for the previous version, it
beats me.
> I sometimes wonder if Linux zealots use some sort of bizarre GNU FUD
> generator. This stuff gets stranger and less coherent everyday.
>
> I mean come on, "no apps run on Win2k" Wow, that's odd. Every piece of
> software I use works fine. (currently about 30 apps, including 4 or 5
> of the best selling games of the last few years)
Well, except for two applications, everything else works for
me as well. I dumped PC Anywhere and my packaged CD-RW software will
not install. CDRWin and Gear Audio work fine however. Lotus Smartsuite
and MS Office Pro 97 all work fine among MANY others that I have.
> This particular claim is downright stupid. I've tested Office 97 on
> Win2k and it runs great. Exactly what are you talking about? I mean
> EVEN IF the OS got slower why would a new version help? What you said
> makes absolutely no sense but I am read this at COLA after all. I
> should expect these things.
He may be indirectly getting at the point that these older
apps don't take advantage of some of Win2K's more major enhancements.
But that's expected.
--
-=Ali M.=-
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: A Trip to the Store
Date: 27 Feb 2000 15:48:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 22 Feb 2000 10:58:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>:That's in contrast to the anti-Linux propaganda spammers
>:like you, Jeff, who are proven liars -- for example, you
>:with your Phat Linux installation that you purposely rigged
>:to fail and then claimed that it proved that Linux was
>:totally useless for anyone.
>
>Yea... I guess I did. Damn me for buying semi-modern hardware and
>expecting Linux to support it. You got me Mark... I purposely used
>semi-modern devices like a USB mouse and a netcam. I purposely used a
>3 generation old video card (TNT1) which is "supported" by Linux and I
>purposely used the most popular sound card on the market (SB Live)
>
>Yes, I certainly am clever. I rigged an install of Linux by simply
>using modern/popular hardware. Exactly what does this prove? Yep,
>that's it. Linux is totally incapable of handling semi-modern, popular
>hardware.
>
>What was your point again? Oh yes, I remember now. That Linux has
>horrible hardware support and you can rig an install by simply using
>modern hardware. Yes, I agree Mark. I'm glad you see things my way.
>
>**Note, the above was sarcasm. The hardware in my system was chosen
>mainly on price/performence and compatibility with NT/Win2k. Mark's
>claims however that I did rig it does show clearly that Linux can't
>even support some basic, semi-modern. Hardware. He doesn't dispute the
>fact it doesn't work, he only questions the circumstances on which I
>use this hardware.
>
>I mean really, how can we consider the SB Live/TNT/USB/ISA modem the
>type of hardware you'd rig an install with?
>
>:Truth vs. lies, sharing vs. gouging, helping vs. harming,
>:honor vs. shame, good vs. evil.
>:
>:It's pretty simple, Jeff, and it's pretty clear which path
>:you have chosen.
About six months ago, when Szarka rigged a Linux installation
to fail, and then used that failure as a basis for a fraudulent
anti-Linux propaganda operation, I wrote three articles about
it (based in part on the work of a number of other people who
also analyzed his little project). These are reproduced below:
****************************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Szarka Lies In The Path Of Progress -was- A Tale of Two Installs (Part 1)
Date: 13 Aug 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7p13us$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Cosmic Church of the Orgone Goddess
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Below is Jeff Szarka's long complaint about how he had
problems installing "Phat Linux" (whatever that is), using
a video card that he knew wasn't supported by it.
comp.os.linux.advocacy is infested with about eight indiv-
iduals who post large numbers of anti-Linux and/or pro-
Microsoft articles. For months, Szarka has been among the
top 2 or 3 of them; in July he posted 486 such articles to
the newsgroup.
In other words, he has been doing his best for a long time
-- by exaggerating, omitting facts, and sometimes outright
lying -- to convince people that Linux is difficult to in-
stall and use (it isn't), that it isn't free (it is), that
cheapbytes disks don't come with documentation (they do, on
the disks), that Linux users and advocates are "fanatics",
"zealots", and "cult followers of Torvalds" (clearly they
aren't), etc.
Given this history, it's reasonable to suspect that he's
attempting to do the same thing in this instance. Is this
hypothesis borne out?
Remember the technique used by Microsoft with the Mindcraft
test? They found one unlikely hardware configuration that
Linux didn't handle well and NT had a specific built-in hack
for, and proclaimed that a benchmark on that machine defin-
itively measured the relative performance of the two oper-
ating systems.
In the present case, Szarka chose a virtually unknown Linux
distribution which is so rarely used that I've never seen it
mentioned in the thousands of Usenet posts and web pages
about Linux that I've read. Then, he attempted to install
it using a video card that he knew it didn't support.
He has previously stated that he administers several dozen
NT machines for some corporation. Everyone in this position
has a file drawer full of old PC cards, including various
vanilla VGAs that are supported by every type of Linux.
Any rational sysadmin would install "Phat Linux" using a
regular VGA card, get it running and configured the way he
wanted, familiarize himself with it, and *then* modify it
to work with the unsupported "Banshee Raven3D" VGA.
Did Jeff Szarka do this?
No.
Instead, he tried to set up this unknown version of Linux
with an unsupported video system, and use it to download
additional files to make the video system work.
He devoted some four hours to this exercise in futility,
and then wrote the following evaluation:
>I'll let you draw your own conclusions about all this... All I can say
>is I went into this wanting to give Linux a fair go at it. I still am
>going to try it out when/if it ever happens to work. I just can't
>believe anyone would consider this "ready for the desktop"
Does Szarka specify in this that "Phat Linux" doesn't work?
No.
Does he specify that Linux with an unsupported video card
doesn't work?
No.
Instead, what he says is that *Linux in general* doesn't
work, and that it isn't ready for people to use.
A few days ago he challenged people to point to any lies
that he had told. Well, this one wins the prize. And he
used the same fraudulent technique to make Linux look bad
that Microsoft did with their benchmark on a server with
four network cards -- beat the bushes until you find a
weird configuration that Linux fails on but NT handles, and
claim on that basis that Linux is crap and we should all
stay with Microsoft. Of course, all the other setups where
the situation is reversed aren't mentioned.
Jeff Szarka has truly surpassed himself in lying propaganda
with this little exercise.
I just got back from the Linuxworld Convention in San Jose.
For three days, tens of thousands of people attended. There
were hundreds of exhibits, and, needless to say, Linux was
running just fine in all of them.
*This* is the reality of GNU/Linux: a universal, inexpensive,
multiplatform operating system with many thousands of appli-
cation programs, a rich selection of office suites, desktops,
databases, toolkits, etc., which works *beautifully*.
It's only our little set of anti-Linux spammers -- Jeff
Szarka, "Chad Mulligan", Steve/keys88, "Cuor di Mela",
[EMAIL PROTECTED], etc., who persist in
posting their hundreds of lies and insults every month,
that disparage and attempt to destroy the wonderful reality
that we all know.
It's not "just an operating system"; it's an economic
philosophy, embodied in the General Public License, that's
encouraging people to create and share excellent software.
Along with the Internet and ever more powerful and afford-
able computers, this is giving people abilities to learn,
create, and communicate that they've never had before.
Ted Nelson wrote about this in _Computer Lib/Dream Machines_
in 1975 (when microprocessors had 8K of memory and ran at
about 0.1 MHz); parts of the hypertext system he invented
have now been actualized as the World Wide Web. Alan Kay
talked about a "dynabook" in 1971 -- today we call it a
laptop.
Something really good is happening in the world, but for
some reason -- Microsoft, or some kind of bitterness and
hate deep inside them -- Szarka and his cohorts are trying
to destroy it.
It's sad, but only for them -- they haven't got a chance.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Windows 2000 RC1:
>Detects my video card, (Banshee based Raven3d) even sets it at 16bit
>color instead of 256. My printer (HP6l) is also detected along with my
>SCSI card (Adaptec AIC-7850), Modem (ISA non-software) and sound card
>(SB Live) These devices are all on the HCL but if they were not
>downloading and installing a driver would be quite simple.
>
>Total time: ~30 Min.
>
>PhatLinux (based on Redhat 6)
>
>The install is very simple. The whole package comes in one zip file
>that you install to a FAT drive. I would have downloaded Redhat or
>SuSe but I was pretty sure I would end up needing to remove it soon so
>avoiding partitioning made things easier. Plus the 4 or 5 installs I
>needed to do afterwards went much faster this way.
>
>First problem. There was no X server for my card (Banshee based) but X
>did start. Unfortunately it started at an extremely low resolution. It
>was a small box that did not show all of the screen. The X server may
>have been running at 640x480 but all I could see was a very small
>area. The KDE menu took up the entire screen it was so small.
>
>So at this point I need to return to NT in order to download a X
>server that will work. The site to download drivers is quite
>confusing. You must download 3 files and before doing so you must
>check if you are using libc5 or glibc2 or glibc2.1. In defense the
>author(s) say the drivers will be included with X in the future, which
>will make things a **lot** easier.
>
>When trying to install them I get a message informing me I need VGA16.
>Back to NT to find out what's going on. I spent some time reading the
>3dfx news group. I found out the fix is to use --nodeps. So, I boot
>back into Linux THEN.
>
>Next problem. For some reason when as soon as I type "root" when
>logging in X wants to start. (It doesn't even ask for a password) and
>since the display is setup wrong X gives an error, the weird part is
>it keeps flashing this over and over again. At this point I gave up
>and reinstalled.
>
>I reinstalled the RPM's again, this time using -nodeps. I ran setup
>and selected the X configuration tool and suddenly
>
>Segmentation fault: Core dumped
>
>All I can do is laugh Anyway I try XF86Setup, which informs me I
>need VGA16. I guess --nodeps didn't work.
>
>Back to NT to fix things, I downloaded the file from ftp.xfree.org so
>back to Linux I go. Linux seems to think the tar file is invalid. I
>figure this is possible so I go back to NT to check. The file extracts
>fine under NT but is 1.86MB. I can't mount my NTFS5 drive and I doubt
>I can remount the drive Linux is running from but ah ha! I have a zip
>drive just for these occasions but of course Linux is unaware it
>exists, even though my SCSI card is on the HCL.
>
>I decide to look for an RPM instead. I find out from linux.com that
>XFree86-VGA16.rpm is part of the base X system. Back to Linux but I
>can't find it. Back to NT again. After some searching I found it on
>the Redhat FTP site. We're now more than 2 hours into setting up a
>video card.
>
>Finally there seems to be some progress. I can now select Banshee in
>XF86Setup. Now I get "errno = 111" when XF86Setup tries to start X. I
>thought I would try "startx" just to see what would happen. Well I
>found out. It killed the system. Completely locked up. I couldn't try
>telnet since at this point I can't even get my video card working
>correctly much less anything else. My only choice is to power down.
>
>3 hours into just getting the video to work and I decided to give up
>for the night.
>
>Next day:
>I find out that Redhat's X setup program does not work with this X
>server. At this point I figure a reinstall might help so I can get a
>clean start to make sure nothing I did before was causing the X server
>to fail. After all this, probably close to 4 hours of work, the same
>thing happens. I posted a message to the 3dfx Linux group about my
>problems.
>
>I knew that creative labs had some banshee drivers but everyone seems
>to avoid them. At this point I didn't have much to loose. I downloaded
>them and they installed fine. I started X and I was shocked to see
>they worked.... well..... they worked only in 1280x1024 even though I
>edited the XF86Setup file so it would run at 800x600. I figured
>1280x1024 was better than 320x480 (or whatever it was) so I found Kppp
>and started to setup an account. I soon found out that my modem was
>not detected. The same modem that had been detected first try in:
>
>
>Windows 95
>Windows98
>OS/2
>DOS 6.x
>Windows NT 3.51 All SP's
>Windows NT 4 All SP's
>SuSe 5.3
>Windows NT5 Beta 1 - RC1
>
>I'll let you draw your own conclusions about all this... All I can say
>is I went into this wanting to give Linux a fair go at it. I still am
>going to try it out when/if it ever happens to work. I just can't
>believe anyone would consider this "ready for the desktop"
****************************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Szarka Lies In The Path Of Progress -was- A Tale of Two Installs (Part 1)
Date: 14 Aug 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7p2qno$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Cosmic Church of the Orgone Goddess
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Szarka
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Fri, 13 Aug 99 19:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas S. Urban) wrote:
>:On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:09:05 GMT, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>On 13 Aug 1999 12:44:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>:>
>:>:Below is Jeff Szarka's long complaint about how he had
>:>:problems installing "Phat Linux" (whatever that is), using
>:>:a video card that he knew wasn't supported by it.
>:>:Instead, what he says is that *Linux in general* doesn't
>:>:work, and that it isn't ready for people to use.
>:>
>:>Any OS that takes 48 hours to get a driver installed on is not ready
>:>for desktop usage.
It could take 48 years if the person installing it is as
intentionally obtuse and obstructive as you are. It's easy
to make something fail; that's what you set out to do, and
that's what you accomplished.
I make this flat assertion because there was an obvious
work-around for your problem, which, if you are the sysadmin
that you claim to be, and if you have any competence at all,
you already knew; yet you refused to apply it. And you
*still* refuse to apply it, even after I suggested it to you
in a previous post.
>The issue isn't so much first installation as it is supporting new
>hardware later. With Windows you can pop out your old card, install a
>new one and be all set.
The difference may be that Linux always runs in protected
mode, so it can't execute the VGA card's BIOS to set up the
VGA hardware initially. (Somebody please correct me if I'm
wrong on this.) Therefore the (protected mode) driver has
to do it, and you had no driver (which fact you knew before-
hand, as you subsequently admitted). Some VGA cards may
revert to vanilla IBM 640x480 VGA upon hardware reset and
standard register setup, in which case you should be able
to use the generic VGA driver. If your card doesn't revert,
you would have to temporarily substitute a supported video
card.
You have explicitly refused to do this.
Because if you did it, you would have no further easy way to
make the installation fail, and thus continue serving your
purposes as anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft propaganda. The proof
of this statement is the fact that you post nearly 500 such
propaganda articles per month.
>So far with Linux it seems adding new hardware
>still requires a sysadmin to do it for you.
Only if you purposely force the installation to fail, as you
have done (see above).
>While doing this I had to
>learn a lot about RPM's, tar, X servers, and so on.
If you had spent one tenth the time learning about Linux as
you have spent lying and spamming to this newsgroup this year,
you would be an expert on these subjects by now.
>I just don't think it should take so much time to install a driver. I
>plan to play around with it more later but my post in the 3dfx group
>has gone unanswered.
Maybe the people there know who you are.
>:>I presented some honest facts about two installs and all you can do is
>:>claim I am a liar.
You did an installation of an obscure Linux distro, using
an unsupported video card, and refused to use an obvious
work-around to get it running. Then you claimed that this
proves that Linux in general doesn't work and isn't usable
by people.
You are a premeditated and vicious liar. As supported by
your nearly five hundred anti-Linux propaganda posts to this
newsgroup per month. And if you can't stand that heat, you
know where you can go.
>:>Mark... Can you see why people are disgusted with
>:>the Linux community?
You're lying again. Linux users, small businesses, and big
corporations are all happy with the capabilities and oppor-
tunities that Linux and its community are providing. The
only people who are disgusted are Bill Gates and his lackies,
who may well include some of those who post abusive notes
to slashdot, freshmeat, or whatever, and get written up by
reporters who don't check their identities, but just assume
they are actually members of the Linux community. They
probably post to those websites precisely *because* they
can't be traced. They are notably *absent* from Usenet,
where their headers would either identify them or prove that
they're using throw-away accounts. The only abusers we see
in here are *your* little crew, Szarka.
****************************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: A Tale of Two Installs (Part 1)
Date: 23 Aug 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7psdlk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<UeJu3.699$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Cosmic Church of the Orgone Goddess
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Szarka
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 01:39:00 GMT, Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>Chris Costello wrote:
>:>:This whole thread is a result of your trolling or your
>:>:incompetence. Choose.
>:
>:>I think it's pretty damn fair to say up front I had no intentions of
>:>keeping it around even if it did work, which of course it didn't.
>:
>:Don't post comparisons of something that, from the
>:beginning, you had no intentions on keeping.
>
>The facts of what happened are still valid.
Yes they are, and here are those facts:
o Szarka is one of the highest volume anti-Linux/pro-Micro-
soft propagandists in comp.os.linux.advocacy, spamming
out about 500 posts per month. He has been caught lying
many times.
o He chose to install a version of Linux ("Phat Linux") that
was put together by two teenagers (combined ages = 30,
according to _Linux Journal_), and used by very few people.
o Although he knew that his video card was not supported by
"Phat Linux", and he had other, supported, video cards
available, he did not substitute one. He gave as his
reason that such a remedy "did not appeal to him".
This in spite of his claim that his purpose was to install
Linux so he could try it out.
o Furthermore, although he could not get the X server work-
ing, he persisted in trying to set it up using the graph-
ic-mode setup program, which *requires* a functioning X
server, instead of using the equally good *text-mode*
setup program.
For the X server to function without yet being set up for
the specific card, the VGA16 (vanilla IBM VGA) version of
the server must be used, but this is not able to work
with some cards (presumably those that when reset do not
function like standard IBM VGAs). It did not work with
Szarka's card, which is why he should have swapped it for
a different one, or used the text-mode setup program.
The very good and easy to find FAQ page and other documents
for XFree86 talk about these matters.
o When his X server wouldn't work, and gave an "errno = 111"
message, he did not follow the instruction given in the
XFree86 FAQ, which is to redirect the server's standard
output to a file and examine it for meaningful error
messages. All he did was complain about the "111" message.
o Although Szarka was advised in Usenet to substitute the
video card, he still refused to do it.
o Although he was told about another Linux distribution
(SuSE), which does support his video card, he refused to
try it.
o Although he was given advice on how to make his SCSI card
work, he refused to follow it.
o Szarka claims to be a sysadmin in charge of several dozen
PC/NT systems, yet he was unwilling to employ the technique
of module-swapping, which is the single most basic and
powerful method used in all hardware and software trouble-
shooting.
o After all this, he wrote that his experience proved that
Linux is unusable.
Putting all these facts together, one is forced to conclude
that Chris Costello's evaluation is essentially correct:
Jeff Szarka is either *amazingly* incompetent as a system
administrator, or else he intentionally set up the Phat Linux
installation scenario as the basis for yet another of his
many hundreds of posts that spread lying propaganda against
Linux, in order to discourage people from using it. (Chris
is much too forgiving when he refers to this as mere
"trolling".)
The theoretical third case -- that Szarka innocently failed in
his attempt to install Linux, despite having made a reasonable
and honest effort (which is what he would like us to believe)
-- is utterly impossible.
The *facts* prove it.
****************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 27 Feb 2000 15:57:37 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 02:24:48 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>If sufficient sponsorships are received, the product is released, the investor
>receives a share of the sponsorships and the product is released.
>
>If sufficient sponsorships are not received (with the threshold set by the
>developer and investor), this is a market signal that the product as developed
>does not satisfy users' demands, and should be reworked, or is simply a
>failure.
I'd disagree strongly with this. It's possible that the product is capable
of selling extremely well, but not all users are going to buy it on day 1.
The problem with this is that many more products will be determined to
be "failures" and we will not see nearly the same diversity in the software
market. ( Why would anyone want to develop software using a model that labels
their product as a "failure"? )
What do you do about users that make a purchasing decision a year after
the software is released ? If these users get the software free, it's good
for the user but bad for the developer. Further, if someone can get the
software for nothing after it's released, this is an obvious econoomic
disincentive to pay for development. Once you create economic disincentives
to pay the developer, you are going to have a negative impact on their
potential earnings ( though I take it the whole point of this model is to
prevent the developers from making much money -- this would certainly
explain why we haven't seen many developers try it ).
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Lance Togar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:09:45 GMT
"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:891eus$9j5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Apple has nothing to gain by wasting time implementing anything
> > > > better than
> > > > a "good enough" version of QT on Windows. On Windows, QT is really
> > > > nothing
> > > > more than a movie player, and has never even really excelled at that
> > > > (on
> > > > Windows).
> > >
> > > Actually, as much as I hate to admit it, QuickTime 4 has one of the
> > > most advanced feature sets of all the current players.
> >
> > If only you could get rid of that damn annoying "You should upgrade to
> > the Pro Version" nagware splash.
>
> You can.
>
> Pay for it.
>
> >
> > The more I use commercial software, the more I loathe it.
>
> That's funny, the more I use free software like Linux, the more I wish
> for professional level work.
>
..
ROFLOL!!! I hope this "pearl of wisdom" makes the CSMA dunce of the month
award. I'm going to leave all the cross-posting intact. For those who don't
know, Joe's a rabid Mac user who learned about Linux via macaddict and still
hasn't gotten it running - mostly because he's confused about the lack of a
smiling penguin on the startup screen.
..
..
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
