Linux-Advocacy Digest #291, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Processing data is bad! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Connors)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Terry Porter)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? ("KLH")
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Joachim Feise)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Terry Porter)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:15:59 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MSOffice doesn't take over your desktop, all it does it put a toolbar
> up which you can choose to eliminate.
>
StarOffice doesn't take over your desktop either. What drugs on you on?
Gary
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:06:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:53:20 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote on Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:53:04 GMT
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:32:20 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>wrote on Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:46:11 -0400
> >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>>>As for sophisticated mailers, Mutt is capable of doing more than
Outlook
> >>>>in terms of mail.
> >>>
> >>>Indeed. I just opened my Mail/received. 5,436 messages in 6
seconds
> >>>using elm. While not quite as fast as Outlook, apparently, it's
also
> >>>much more reliable as there's no index to get corrupted. :-)
> >>
> >> ...there's also no need to worry about trojans.
> >>
> >> This alone is reason enough to put up with elm.
> >
> >That, too. Although pine and mutt are similarly immune, AFAIK.
> >Even Netscape's mail window isn't horribly vulnerable.
>
> Quite true. On Unix it doesn't seem to have access to an
execution
> shell that will just blindly execute any scripts that you give
it.
> <snicker>
Yep, we removed all that capability back in 1987 when the Morris Worm
went bizerk. Ironically, this wasn't even a deliberate hack, but
rather an attempt to create a "robot" to get a map of the internet.
Unfortunately, instead of waiting 5 minutes between each replication,
it only waited 5 seconds and almost immediately, the exponential growth
of the search tree swamped the network.
Since then, UNIX administrators have been very reluctant to execute
any script from the outside world without at least desk-checking it
for runaway loops.
Ironically, Microsoft did attempt to release a service pack that
plugged the holes, but did not include explanations of why you
shouldn't accept the blocked attachments. Of course, since Microsoft
offered the "Bullet Proof" version, and the ignorant (inadaquately
informed) users rejected it this gets Microsoft of the liability hook.
...for now.
Appearantly, Microsoft was facing $10 billion in liability because
the code for the "Love Bug" was almost a direct clone of Melissa and
ExploreZip, and could have been prevented with proper barriers.
Microsoft lulled users into a false sense of security by claiming to
have fixed the problem when all they had done is a trivial, ineffective
block that was trivial to defeat (change the name of the attachment).
> [deletia]
> --
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:14:03 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> >> >> > Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools
> >> >> > its absolutely useless.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow. Youd better run off and tell the good folks at Google this important
> >> >> news. They run a 4000 node linux cluster RIGHT NOW, which theyre expanding
> >> >> to 6000 nodes to handle their search engine.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > AMAZING!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!...So they have taken the Linux Kernel and added
> >> > Database ability to it, an HTTP server, and other stuff need to run a
> >> > search engine. OR, did they create "TOOLS" (see above) that run on top of
> >> > the kernel that does that. If they did, my point still stands.
> >> >
> >
> > I assume your silence is from the foot in your mouth.
> >
>
> Actually, I couldnt find anything coherent enough to which to respond.
>
Respond to the above text.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> It doesnt have a GUI! UH OH! HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY WORK?????
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Never said that. Watch the stawman die.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually you did:
> >>
> >
> > Give the dejanews reference.
> > I did not
> >
>
> You did---I quoted you, you snipped it. Clearly another sophomoric attempt to
> obscure your own idiocy.
>
Well, problem is that 1) I know for a fact I didn't 2) I know for a face
you didnt quote it
So. Problem with parading like you are is that 1) everyone can see you
are an idiot and 2) its embarrasing
you in a public forum.
So how about this. Give the deja reference that I said it and give the
deja reference where I snipped it.
> You really need to take a class on logic and critical thinking.
>
What you need is a brain to start off with.
> >
> >>
> >> So now youre twisting your own words around in the face of argument, and
> >> breaking rules of linear aristolian logic right and left.
> >>
> >> What was your point again?
> >>
> >
> >
> > That you don't you obviously 1) dont know what you are talking about.
>
> You havent supported this conjecture at all.
>
Okay how about this: Lets quote someone else that you ignored cause
your had your foot in your mouth.
You said:
>
>KDE isnt much different from gnome for the end user, but it is ENTIRELY
>different 'under the hood'. COMPLETELY different.
Donovan responded:
This is a load of nonsense. The GTK and QT APIs are so simmilar that you
could just about convert from one to thhe other with a perl script.
I mean, for each GTK call, you could pretty much match it to a QT
call. QT has signals and slots, and GTK has signals and callbacks
which work in much the same way ( though the implementations are
somewhat different ).
Several of the GNOME and KDE APIs are more or less equivalent. I don't
see why you think they're vastly different.
You said:
>Wrong, most of the difference is between QT and GTK, and one only allowing
>C++ development and the other letting you do whatever the hell you want.
Donovan responded:
(1) This statement is outright false. QT does not only have C++ bindings.
(2) The language that something is implemented in is not a "huge difference"
if the two things are almost exactly the same in terms of design.
(3) How many of the GTK bindings outside C are actually usable ?
You said:
>These are *amazingly* large differences. If you cannot understand this,
>you have no point to make at all.
Donovan responded:
I've been programming for some time, and I don't understand this. Perhaps
you could explain with a coherent argument rather than resorting to
"argument by intimidation".
> >> The part where you replaced your 'or' with an 'and', doubtlessly to obscure
> >> your own error. Your point is invalidated by virtue [sic] of error of
> >> argument.
> >>
> >
> > The point stands. Respond to it after you take the foot from your mouth.
> >
>
> More obscurity through downright lying. The point doesnt stand, as I
> demonstrated its enormous, gaping logical flaw.
>
Where is the lie? What are you trying to prove with such force? Why
are you such a fucking
idiot? How many times were you dropped on your head?
> >> You're not doing a very good job of diverting the crux of my focus away
> >> from your horrific argument building skills and complete lack of logical
> >> ability. But you can go ahead and keep trying if you like.
> >>
> >> You'll get better with practice.
> >>
> >
> > Rather than using the "arguement by insult and agression" you should try the
> > "arguement of logical response".
>
> I did, but amazingly you missed it.
>
Deja reference and quotes please.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 23:28:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 22 Jun 2000 20:51:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>>>Equality requires slavery.
>>
>>Right-wing Libertarian bullshit. It's slavery to rob
>>employees of a large portion of the value they produce, and
>>thus pay them low salaries, while the wealthy owners and
>>executives are paid 1,000 or 500,000 times as much, for
>>the same number of hours work per day. Yet the alleged
>>"right" of business owners to do this is the central policy
>>of Libertarianism.
Also the policy of opposing public education, housing, and
healthcare; people are just supposed to do without these
things, and if they die, the Libertarians don't care. They
also oppose laws regulating business to provide environmental,
worker, and consumer protection. The only remedy they permit
is lawsuits after the fact, which are expensive, slow, and
permit lots of people to be injured and killed.
>>That's why Libertarianism is anti-human.
>>
>>Belief in Libertarianism requires turning a blind eye to
>>the factual evidence of harm caused by grossly unequal
>>distribution of wealth among people who all work hard.
>>
>>The *actual result* of this maldistribution of wealth is
>>starvation, sickness, and death for many poor people under
>>Capitalism.
>>
>>unregulated Capitalism is worse for people economically
>>than Communism. Both of these systems are coercive and
>>cruel. Social Democracy is much better.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=618537352
>The trouble with Social Democracy is that it doesn't put enough value on
>individual freedom. No matter what social and/or political system we adopt,
>individual freedom should be its highest priority.
No, the highest priority should be for everyone to live
well and successfully, *and* to have the maximum amount of
individual freedom consistent with that. This is a very
complex goal, which turns out to require a complex, well
thought-out set of laws, many of which have to be created
on an ad hoc basis.
Actual reality is too complex for people to be well served
by giving one principle absolute priority over all others.
Libertarians, especially the Ayn Rand sect, the so-called
"Objectivists" (who are anything but), attack Liberal poli-
cies on the grounds that they can't be derived by logical
reasoning from such axioms as "Existence exists". (They
derive their own policies this way by very selective
"reasoning".)
In reality, many policies simply have to be instituted on
the basis of the current situation. For example, regula-
tions requiring smog suppressors on automobiles, and anti-
smog additives in gasoline, are required to keep air
pollution down to non-lethal levels. There's just no
other way to do it that doesn't restrict freedom at least
as much.
If individual freedom were given priority over every other
principle, such regulations would be impossible to have,
and we'd be dying like flies. The same applies to public
health, and food safety regulations, along with the taxation
that supports them.
>That was the original
>goal of the Libertarian party, before they aligned themselves with big
>business. Someone should start a new Libertarian party to focus on
>individual freedom. Or infiltrate the present Libertarian party to take it
>away from the big-business faction and restore its original purpose.
I don't know if the Libertarian Party has ever been particu-
larly sane. One highly-placed member, Justin Raimondo, used
to speak in favor of pedophilia, on the grounds that if the
child really didn't want to have sex, they'd stop the adult
somehow. I witnessed this first-hand, about 20 years ago,
at a meeting. Subsequently, Raimondo went to work campaign-
ing for Pat Buchanan, of all people!
At least the LP still favors legalizing sex (between consent-
ing people), drugs, and rock'n'roll, which is very important.
Maybe they'll help to eventually stop the "war on (some) drugs",
the laws against prostitution, and similar attacks on people
for victimless "crimes".
But their economic policies are for the most part going in
the wrong direction, and, as far as I can remember, always
have been.
Links To Reality
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:29:53 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:29:52 -0600, ckeough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OH No !!!!, the kernel has alot to do with he speed, comming with dozens of
>drivers and stuff you dont need. I ve gotten alot of speed increase from
>recompiling you moron.
Even at it's most bloated, the Linux kernel is a lightweight
when compared to either X or Netscape which an application of
this kind would spend it's most time in. The few K you save
in a kernel recompile is going to be dwarfed by what X or
Netscape consumer and whatever speed increase you think you
get out of a kernel recompile is going to be moot if you start
using too much swap.
Choosing the right video hardware (to ensure an effective driver)
would be more germane than tweaking the kernel.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 24 Jun 2000 07:32:36 +0800
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:04:58 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> OH! I'm sorry Pete!
>>
>> Yes, I still recognize you as a Wintroll also!
>>
>> Sorry if I've been ignoring you lately.
>
>Yes, you love to ignore people who try to pin you down, don't you,
>Charlie boy.
Well you aint them Goodwin, you'll be sorry to hear.
> You let others post for you, with a few smatterings of
>things you're talking about. How about backing up your statements next
>time for a change.
Good advive for you to follow Goodwin.
>
>Either that, or I guess I'll have to label you a Laughing-Linux-Gnome.
>Ranting your way, hither and thither. Nobody takes you seriously, you
>know!
Label away Wintroll.
I take Charlie seriously, PROOF Goodwin is wrong again.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 3 days 11 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 23:42:31 GMT
In talk.politics.libertarian Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> They significant ( almost total ) control over a particular market
>>> sector. That makes them a monopoly.
>>
>>A poorly-defined, arbitrarily chosen sector of the market....
> I don't see why it's "poorly defined". The notion of a "desktop operating
> system" is pretty easy to define. It's an operating system that someone
> uses on their desktop computer.
It is arbitrary because it was chosen for the *sole purpose* of
harassing MS. It was chosen to exclude MS's main competitors,
competitors that nonetheless affect MS's day-to-day business. So
perhaps 'arbitrary' is the wrong word, maybe 'malicious' is the better
word in this case.
> Tell me, what is "MS's *competitive market" ?
Linux, Mac, Sun, Unix, even Java. Pertty powerful competition.
Yet basically ignored for "trial purposes".
>>It's not impossible or even close. The OEM's made a choice. If
>>customers demanded something else, the OEM's would make a different
>>choice.
> The customers have to know that they have alternatives to demand before
> they start demanding it. I disagree with your view that customers would
> start demanding something else.
The customers that lead the way -- the ones that lead people to Windows
in the first place -- is the business customers. They have evaluated
all these options, and continue to do so. If people started seeing
the alternatives at work, it would follow on their home PCs in no
time.
------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 23:44:39 GMT
In talk.politics.libertarian Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Because you still have the same choices you did as
>>if MS didn't exist: you can buy a Mac, you can search out a
>>dealer that will sell you a machine with an unformatted drive,
>>you can buy a Sun workstation, or you can go without a computer.
> Why should you have to 'search out' a low volume dealer to
> avoid paying for a software bundle?
Are you going to claim that there is no other product that has a
main product sold in the chains, and competitors sold in out of
the way places? Shall they be prosecuted, too?
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:43:48 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:36 -0700, KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Wow. Every reply to my post said about the same thing. I feel like I'm
> >talking to a cult or something :) But I hope to reply to most of the
> >comments in one post---I hope everyone reads this.
>
> People who go out of their way to use a particular alternative,
> rather than other possible alternatives, having a similar point
> of view: imagine that.
Did I say there was anything wrong with that? No. Was I just explaining, in
a way, why I was replying to everyone in one post? Yes. Does the smiley mean
I was kidding? Yes.
>
> You are just trolling.
No comment to avoid senseless bickering.
Best regards,
Kevin Holmes
------------------------------
From: Joachim Feise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:41:29 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Bill Unruh writes:
> > Although his contention is that all bugs are shallow in open source, this
> > is less true than it should be. See the recent bug report on the
> > PGP5.0(?) disasterous bug for automatically generated keys.
>
> PGP is not free software.
Well, there is the commercial NAI PGP, the free, non-commercial version
distributed by MIT for US and Canadian citizens, and there is PGPI, which
is available internationally, in source code.
The commercial use of PGP requires a license, but not the non-commercial
versions.
The current versions of PGP are not under GPL, though.
>From http://www.pgpi.org/doc/faq/pgpi/en/:
<<<
The source code for PGP 2.3a and earlier is distributed under GPL -
the General Public License - so it can be used freely in your own
programs.
The source code for PGP 2.6 and later may be used as a whole in
unmodified form in products you write for your own non-commercial
use under the terms of PGP's non-commercial source code license for
PGP 5.0i. Because of license restrictions, if the IDEA algorithm is
included, any modification of the code may require a further license
from Ascom Systec AG
>>>
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
===================================================================
Joachim Feise Ph.D. Student, Information & Computer Science
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jfeise/
===================================================================
PGP Fingerprint: C3C2 FC7E 8060 E07F BE37 2BA2 29CF 2867 5328 4DEA
===================================================================
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build
a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,
act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization
is for insects.
--Robert A. Heinlein as "Lazarus Long" in Time Enough For Love.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 24 Jun 2000 07:59:53 +0800
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:02:15 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> No-Spam wrote:
>> You've had ******dozens****** and ignored them Goodwin, beat it
>Wintroll.
>
>Dozens huh. I've had a look at the few that appeared; nothing special.
Me too, magazine names, url's, by the score.
>Nothing actually posted by the Laughing-Linux-Gnome Charlie boy!
So what, you've had your answers, by the bucket load, Charlie doesnt
have to personally supply them.
Excepting you and a few other trolls, we are a close knit group here. We all
help each other out, take the info others supplied in good grace, it DOESNT
have to be supplied by Charlie himself .... scheese.
> It
>would seem he needs others to post for him.
Well answering trolls like you does keep Charlie busy.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 3 days 12 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:01:35 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 23:44:39 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Because you still have the same choices you did as
>>>if MS didn't exist: you can buy a Mac, you can search out a
>>>dealer that will sell you a machine with an unformatted drive,
>>>you can buy a Sun workstation, or you can go without a computer.
>
>> Why should you have to 'search out' a low volume dealer to
>> avoid paying for a software bundle?
>
>Are you going to claim that there is no other product that has a
>main product sold in the chains, and competitors sold in out of
>the way places? Shall they be prosecuted, too?
It depends on the chain. Very few of them even carry
products for Macintosh and you can't use Linux as a
example of 'competition' because it is cooperatively
funded. Even if you stumble into a chain that does
acknowledge the Mac, it will be there also with some
Monopolyware.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:04:13 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 23:42:31 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> They significant ( almost total ) control over a particular market
>>>> sector. That makes them a monopoly.
>>>
>>>A poorly-defined, arbitrarily chosen sector of the market....
>
>> I don't see why it's "poorly defined". The notion of a "desktop operating
>> system" is pretty easy to define. It's an operating system that someone
>> uses on their desktop computer.
>
>It is arbitrary because it was chosen for the *sole purpose* of
>harassing MS. It was chosen to exclude MS's main competitors,
What main competitors? Apple is bundling Monopolyware and
no one else is even visible in retail channels save for a
cooperatively funded option.
>competitors that nonetheless affect MS's day-to-day business. So
>perhaps 'arbitrary' is the wrong word, maybe 'malicious' is the better
>word in this case.
>
>> Tell me, what is "MS's *competitive market" ?
>
>Linux, Mac, Sun, Unix, even Java. Pertty powerful competition.
>Yet basically ignored for "trial purposes".
Get off the crack.
Java has no presence in consumer software. Linux is a commune
effort and Unix is an entirely different market. You might as
well try and claim that Crays are direct competitors to M$.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
