Linux-Advocacy Digest #450, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 23:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Drestin Black")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000 Server Sees Rapid Internet Adoption (Jim Richardson)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Jim Richardson)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:52:52 -0500
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > But then you need to go back and compare the "new" system running the
"old"
> > OS.
>
> And from every setup I've seen, 95 runs as fast as 98 on the same
hardware. I
> have one friend who upgraded to 98, and found it to be so much less stable
that
> he went back to 95 after a few weeks. Since he didn't need things like
USB, and
> he grabbed any 95 bugfixes he needed, it runs fine for him. He also says
its
> faster then 98 was. This is on a P2 class box with 64 Meg of RAM.
>
well, there you have it. we are an impass. Every setup I've seen has 98
running faster and DEFINATELY more stable. Every setup you've seen has
opposite results. There isn't much more that can be said.
------------------------------
From: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:08:15 -0600
SCAM is basically required for hot plug SCSI.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:05:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred) wrote:
:On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 10:53:00 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:>Really? Hmmm, maybe I should double check. I would not use SCAM support
:>for a hard disk, I mean, really something like a zip drive, maybe, but
:>absolutely not a boot disk. That would be silly.
:
: Glad you agree. Unfortunately that's basically petilon's problem in
:this thread. :(
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:43:48 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:40:09 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I'm still not clear how this is Microsoft's fault? Microsoft and
>> >3rd parties saw early on that Alpha wasn't demanded. Microsoft
>> >held in there and kept producing their latest server software
>> >for Alpha, perhaps in the hope that 3rd parties would jump in
>> >too. They never did, so Microsoft gave up too. No use dumping
>> >money when neither the consumers nor the 3rd party ISV's don't
>> >want it.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Could that be because the nature of NT-Alpha was a 32 bit OS
>> pretending to be a 64bit OS? Why would you waste a 64 bit system,
>> on what was a 32 bit OS?
>
>Exactly, that's just another reason for MS to can the Alpha dev
>in the short term. Perhaps when they have Win64, there will be
>renewed interest. I know that the Alphas were a big help in the
>development and testing of the preliminary Win64 spec before
>the Merc *cough* Itanium hit silicon.
M$ was unable/unwilling to put the effort into making NT-Alpha
64bit clean, it was after all a secondary market. Unfortunately,
they missed an opportunity to cover a lot of the issues that
they are going to have to deal with now. Doubling the bitlength
of the address/data is easy enough(sort of) doing so without
major performance hits(*) is a little tougher, I expect M$ to
make the easy choice, and do the minimum they can, a-la Win 3.1
16-32 bitisms.
* In this context, a performance hit is not getting the benefits
of the doublewide address/data space, and simple passing 32bit
data on the 64bit bus without optimization.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Server Sees Rapid Internet Adoption
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:12:47 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:53:13 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> Hmmm. That's an interesting observation, but contrary to the position
>that
>> you've taken, EVERY survey that I've seen says that corporations are
>talking
>> a very long/slow wait-n-see stance with W2K.
>
>Someone tell the 2 million new seats going in this year about that.
2 million? that's it? that's damn near negative freaking growth!
>
>> I'm glad to hear that it's
>> working well for you. Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that
>> it would be negligent and incompetent for choosing such a new and untested
>> product for a critical system.
>
>I guess you missed the 9 month 750,000 user testing period including live on
>the web and in production testing at huge corporations. New? I'd hardly call
>W2K new - new to general consumers maybe not "been around" to IT
>professionals who've been running it for months already.
Then why oh why didn't they fix the massive Active Directory
hole(s)?
"M$ has a problem, they code, _then_ test..."
>
>> I would not have any problem with someone
>> installing and using it. The distinction I make now and then was that of
>> a critical system. If you can afford down time, it is, by definition, not
>> a critical system. If the company has little to no finacial loss because
>> the system went down, it is not a critical system. Now that I've stressed
>> that, anyone that uses W2K, as is, and doing so now, on a critical
>business
>> system is incompetent or overstating the importance of the
>server/applications.
>
>That's you opinion - fortunately others are much more in synch and in tune
>with W2K's true status and are enjoying the fruits of a long and extensive
>testing period already. Honestly, I hope every *nix guy out there takes a
>VERY long wait and see approach - the further behind the curve they will
>remain.
We are the curve :)
(gotten W2K on the S/390 yet? too bad, how about the ARM? Nope?
surely the Dragonball then? bummer, OK, PPC? Nope? MIPS? Sparc?
damn, you guys are so far behind the curve it'd take a laser to
check the deviation... ;)
Oh Drestin? Sharp curve ahead, buckle up...
>
>> I would not use W2K for a critical production system any more than I would
>> use the latest Linux devel kernel.
>
>I wouldn't use a devel kernel either. But fortunately W2K is neither beta
>nor a devel kernel nor untested nor new.
28k real bugs and counting...
>
>Foolish is foolish. Period.
>
>Easy to agree with.
>
>>Something
>> you seem to forget is that NT 4.0 is basically NT version 1.4. With W2K,
>> that makes it 2.0. There are significant changes in W2K down to the core
>> OS services. NT 4.0 was MOSTLY named 4.0 for pure marketing reasons and
>> could have easily been NT 3.6 (versus using Microsoft's pick-a-number
>> versioning/counting scheme).
>
>That is correct. So, I give W2K it's due for being a .0 release - but that's
>all. I have no unreal plans to wait for 5-10 service packs in 20 years
>before considering to think about release it into testing.
>
Most folks are talking 6-9 months and/or 1 or 2 service packs.
I'd add waiting until W2K plays nice with others...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:59:14 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:12:53 -0600,
Rob Hughes, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Anonymous Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >I'm not the one trolling out a one-trick pony.
>>
>> What do you mean, "one-trick"? Did you not see my post about
>> pcAnywhere crashing Windows 2000? FYI, there are 62998 other
>> "tricks", although I haven't found them all yet.
>
>Again, genuis, pcAnywhere wasn't written by MS. How, on god's green earth,
>can whatever excuse you use for a mind come to the conclusion that this is a
>problem in windows? This is exacly akin to me calling a crappily written and
>crashing xserver a bug in *NIX
well *genius* if an app crashes and takes the Xserver down with
it, that is a flawed app, and a flawed Xserver, you will notice
of course, that the *NIX system under the Xserver is still there,
serving webpages, email, etc. If PCAnywhere dies and takes W2K
with it, that is a flaw in PCAnywhere, *and* in W2K, which is no
longer there serving web pages, email, etc... got it?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:11:41 -0600
Unfortunately, it wasn't the best example, but I believe that pcAnywhere
installs it's own drivers that run in ring 0, thereby sidestepping any
crash protection the OS offers. I supposed a better example might be in
citing a poorly written driver that keeps causing the kernel to panic.
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:40:29 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:Rob Hughes wrote:
:
:> Again, genuis, pcAnywhere wasn't written by MS. How, on god's green earth,
:> can whatever excuse you use for a mind come to the conclusion that this is a
:> problem in windows? This is exacly akin to me calling a crappily written and
:> crashing xserver a bug in *NIX
:
:The point is that no application should ever be able to take down the entire OS.
:
:A crashing Xserver might be an inconvenience, but it's not going to take down
:the OS, unless there's a bug in the OS itself. If my Xserver crashes, I can
:also try to figure out what caused it, or run another Xserver that I know is
:stable. On my boxes, I think I've crashed the Xserver a total of 8 or 9
:times... and that's over 6 years or so on Linux and solaris boxes. It's always
:been either a known bug that I just needed to get a patch for, or was due to my
:using an alpha or beta Xfree server.
:
:I think in that same time frame that I've had either Linux or Solaris themselves
:panic 3 times due to things other then a hardware failure (or a config goof on
:my part which made it choke on boot)... the 2 linux ones were due to a devel
:kernel and using beta RAID drivers respectively (and hammering the RAID
:partition). The solaris one was another known bug that we hadn't patched yet.
====== 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: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:16:47 -0600
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:33:30 -0800, petilon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> What makes you think that pcANYWHERE is strictly an
:> application?
:
:Because pcAnywhere installs just like any other application.
:Period.
No, it doesn't, you feckless moron. It has components that run in ring
zero. How many productivity apps can claim ring 0 code?
:What happened to the much touted "System File Protection"?
:
:Please note that I am not denying the bug is in pcAnywhere.
:Symantec has admitted to the problem and they have a fix.
:
:But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
:buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
:system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
:should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
:that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
:Protection" does for me.
See above. Also note that if pcAnywere attempts to overwrite one of 2k's
files, it will be replaced with the proper version. I've seen it several
time. Hell, delete a system file and reboot or run an app that calls it.
2k will replace it from the cache on the fly.
:If any application requires modification of operating system
:files, device drivers etc then that should not be done in a
:clandestine manner. That's the key point. Instead, Windows 2000
:should require the end-user to explicitly launch an "OS Updater"
:utility to modify the system files.
Who says pcAnywhere is properly written? If you install something as
admin, its assumed that you have a clue. This is probably window's
biggest fault in that its unable to protect a stupid user with
sufficient rights from themselves.
:Random applications should not be allowed to trash the OS.
:I was previously under the impression that "System File
:Protection" allows me to install and try out applications of
:unknown quality, without fear of corrupting the OS. Now I
:know better.
Then you don't understand what system file protection is.
:"System File Protection" is a sham.
You're a moron.
:>
:> X servers are usually setuid-root. As such, they *CAN* take
:> down the OS, and not necessarily due to an OS bug.
:
:Setting setuid-root does not make something part of the kernel.
:
:
:
:* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
:The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
====== 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: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:20:35 -0600
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:24:48 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:news:89hkc4$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:wrote:
:>
:> > SFP has NOTHING to do with the problem . NO system files are overwritten
:or
:> > corrupted. There is no DLL hell. SFP does NOT apply. What DOES apply is
:that
:> > Symantec, in version 8 had code in their video takeover that performed
:big
:> > no-nos in the new W2K driver model (that and some more goofs in their
:> > symevnt libraries (yes, again)). Again, all Symantec's fault. AND, they
:did
:> > patch 8 and version 9 does not have these problems.
:>
:> A stable operating system does not allow a *driver* to break it utterly.
:>
:> See openbsd, openstep, VMS, MVS, and inferno/purgatory for details.
:
:With the exception of inferno (which I know very little about). Bad drivers
:can take down any of those OS's. Tell me, how exactly does the OS swap to
:disk if the disk drivers crash?
Ya know... I was just wondering that very thing. Or better, if a bad
disk driver writes garbage all over the file system, what happens then?
Does the OS then "fix" it?
====== 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: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:31:47 -0600
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:35:57 -0800, petilon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>>
:>>Because pcAnywhere installs just like any other application.
:>>
:>
:>Which is how, exactly?
:
:pcAnywhere uses InstallShield. When you install pcAnywhere
:there is no indication that you are modifying the operating
:system. pcAnywhere doesn't warn you, neither does Windows.
:
:In other words, Windows 2000 allows any random application
:off the street to trash the OS without your knowledge. So
:much for the much touted "System File Protection".
How many ways are there to say "moron"? Install ring 0 driver. Driver is
bad. Bad, bad, driver. Go sit in corner. You took down the OS.
:>>
:>>What happened to the much touted "System File Protection"?
:>>
:>
:>What system files were lost?
:
:The device drivers, apparently. Windows 2000 apparently allows
:any random application off the street to install its own
:device drivers without your knowledge or consent.
Generally, reading the fucking manual before hand will tell you what
will be installed. When in doubt, test. But then, look who I'm typing
at...
:This means Windows 2000 can only be as stable and reliable as
:the last application you installed.
Only the last driver you installed. As with any other OS. I'm still
waiting on stable LINUX drivers for my 2940U2W, and I've had that card
for a year and a half. The windows drivers work quite well, thank you
for asking.
:pcAnywhere is only one example. In fact, pcAnywhere apparently
:causes an immediate OS crash. Relatively speaking, this is good
:because the problem immediately comes to your attention, and
:you are able to take corrective action immediately. But what if
:the problem had been more subtle? What if pcAnywhere caused
:occassional data corruption?
What if a moronic luser kept trolling in a newgroup spewing nonsense
that was greatly entertaining to all?
:>
:>Are you seriously suggesting that Win2K should never allow the
:>installation of device drivers?
:
:Of course not! All I am saying is that Win2K should not allow
:applications to install device drivers in a clandestine manner.
...
:Win2K should put the end-user in control, not some random
:application installer. That's all I am saying. Installing a
:device driver can affect the integrity of the OS. Device drivers
:are critical components of the OS, and poorly written device
:drivers can bring down the OS. Win2K must therefore require
:explicit action from the end-user to modify device drivers
:and other critical OS components. This will let the end-user
:abort installation of the application if he/she is unsure of
:the quality of the application.
Well, in order to maintain control, the user should generally read the
supplied documentation. I think at this point, your beef is with
Symantec's installer which failed to pop up some sort of dialog
informing you that it was installing drivers.
:>>
:>>If any application requires modification of operating system
:>>files, device drivers etc then that should not be done in a
:>>clandestine manner. That's the key point. Instead, Windows 2000
:>>should require the end-user to explicitly launch an "OS
:>>Updater" utility to modify the system files.
:>>
:>
:>Again, what system files were modified?
:
:Are you saying device drivers don't qualify as "system files"?
:Aren't device drivers a critical piece of the operating system?
He's saying you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
:>
:>By the way, no version of Unix can stop a user with sufficient
:>privilege from trashing the OS completely. Does that mean Unix
:>is fundamentally flawed?
:
:Unix culture is completely different. In Windows applications
:routinely copy their files into C:\WINDOWS. Unix applications
:don't do that.
Nah... they just overwrite libs and break a shitload of apps.
:Take Oracle installation on Unix, for example. Oracle installer
:will not let you install the product if you are logged in as
:root. You have to log in as a regular user to install Oracle.
:(Windows applications do the exact opposite thing.) Of course
:Oracle installation requires some actions to be performed with
:root privileges. So what Oracle does is to create a very small
:shell script to do the minimal things that need root privileges.
:Then it asks you to run that shell script manually before
:continuing installation. If you like, you can now inspect the
:shell script and decide if you want to run it. If that script
:does stupid things like installing a device driver, you can
:abort the installation.
That's nice. On a properly locked down windows box, users can't even
launch an installer.
:Why can't Microsoft be this smart?
Why can't you be any kind of smart?
:Why can't Windows 2000 let the end-user decide if he/she wants
:to let an application installer do potentially destabilizing
:things such as installing a device driver? When will Microsoft
:ever do these things intelligently? Do we have to wait for
:Windows 3000?
You're blaming windows for developer short comings now... Do we have to
wait for your head to implode from the obvious vacuum before your drivel
ceases to flow forth?
:>>
:>>I was previously under the impression that "System File
:>>Protection" allows me to install and try out applications of
:>>unknown quality, without fear of corrupting the OS.
:>>
:>
:>How did you get this impression? A link would be nice.
:
:"System File Protection" is three English words. I took those
:words to mean that system files will be protected. To me a
:device driver is a system file.
:
:>>Now I know better.
:>>
:>>"System File Protection" is a sham.
:>>
:>
:>Again, what system files were lost?
:
:See above.
Trying seeing, period.
:
:
:* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
:The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
====== 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: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:35:46 -0600
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:47:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
:On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:21:20 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:>> Rob Hughes wrote:
:>>
:>> > Again, genuis, pcAnywhere wasn't written by MS. How, on god's green
:>earth,
:>> > can whatever excuse you use for a mind come to the conclusion that this
:>is a
:>> > problem in windows? This is exacly akin to me calling a crappily written
:>and
:>> > crashing xserver a bug in *NIX
:>>
:>> The point is that no application should ever be able to take down the
:>entire OS.
:>
:>PC Anywhere isn't just an application. It's an application and a kernel
:>mode device driver. A faulty device driver will crash any OS in existance.
:
: Just why does PC Anywhere need kernel level access? It doesn't
: really need direct access to any hardware. It's not as if it
: manages a real framebuffer. It's essentially just another
: iteration of libX11 and friends. (rather than an X server)
:
:[deletia]
It probably doesn't, but Norton and company are a bunch of morons.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 Feb 2000 20:47:44 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [SNIP Windows is not a multi-user OS]
>
> > > Which of these single-user assumptions can you list ?
> >
> > A common System and System 32 folder? So that even if the user who logged in
> > hasn't installed MS Office they still need to have the freakin DLLs.
>
> Does not Un*x have /lib?
Yes, but UNIX lets each user have a lib/ (or whatever you want to call
it) in whatever place the want to have it.
> Does not un*x have globally installed applications?
It has *root* installed applications; but that is not mutually
exclusive with someone being able to install their own applications
(if they have the quota to do so).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 07:50:13 +0400
proculous wrote:
> When there are so many great windows and mcintosh programs out their
> what is the point of wasting time
Yeah, I have already wasted so much time in Linux.What I found out is that
the more you waste, the more
you gain something -knowledge!
We may be learning the hard way in Linux but the reward is
priceless.
Ferdinand
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
