Linux-Advocacy Digest #446, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 07:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Greg Cox)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Cold feet or Reality Check? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux in college & high school ("Robert Morelli")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 08:10:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 09:08:22
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 21:50:31
> ><snip>
> >> >Max, you really have to stretch to maintain your "Microsoft and all of
> >> >its works are evil and the worst products anyone has ever produced"
> >> >attitude.
> >>
> >> I have no such attitude, despite my rhetoric. If I did, would I be
> >> using Microsoft products? ;-D
> >
> >Um, you've stated many times that you're forced to use Microsoft
> >products and that's why you haven't switched to the OS that you spend so
> >much of your life promoting.
>
> Not precisely, but close enough.
>
> >The only conclusion I can draw is that you
> >don't really believe your own rhetoric that you post here. If that's
> >the case then I've completely misjudged you. You're just here for the
> >entertainment. My apologies...
>
> I honestly haven't the foggiest idea where you would draw that
> conclusion from. Perhaps you're confabulating this ridiculously
> metaphysical "evil and all their works" horse-shit with the actual
> unlawful activities MS has performed, or discombobulated the idea of
> 'consumers being forced' with 'me being forced'.
No, your statement "I have no such attitude, despite my rhetoric. If I
did, would I be using Microsoft products?" indicates to me that your
real thoughts and feelings don't necessarily coincide with what you have
written in these newsgroups. The only purpose I can see for doing this
is to entertain yourself (probably by seeing what kind of reaction you
can get from your postings).
>
> Try this one on for size, if you're in the mood for entertainment:
>
> Consumers are forced by circumstances, not by Microsoft, to use Windows.
> Yet Microsoft is legally responsible for those circumstances, and thus
> is guilty of monopolizing even though they never forced anyone to buy
> their product, ever. Substitute "even if" for "even though", and you
> don't change the truth or the meaning of the statement. Nor the legal
> ramifications; it isn't a question of evil, it is a question of criminal
> conduct.
>
I would agree with you if Microsoft deliberately created "those
circumstances" and did it with the intent to monopolize. I find the
whole Sherman Act bothersome because it's vague to the point where a
company can't point to a specific time where its product became a
monopoly. Without that, it doesn't know positively that the rules of
behaviour it has to follow have changed because it now holds a monopoly
until it is actually hauled into court and convicted of monopolizing.
Even then, it may disagree with the conviction simply because it
disagrees with the court on the definition of the relevent market. In
Microsoft's case the market Windows participates in could have been
defined to be all OSs that run on microcomputers, or all OSs designed to
interact with only one user at a time on a single screen/keyboard, or
all OSs reguardless of the hardware involved or the normal function of
the OS (workstation/server/etc.). Depending on the "relevent market"
either a specific version or line (such as the 9x/ME) of Windows holds a
monopoly or it doesn't. Personally, I think Judge Jackson made a
mistake by linking the relevent market to hardware (80x86) rather than
to the intended use of the OS (interact with only one user at a time on
a single screen/keyboard).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 08:38:19 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
> [...]
>
>>DOS was a (very primitive) OS. And the *only* way to get access to
>>its services was by way of those INT21h routines.
>
> Thus the point; this was not commonly done, since DOS didn't really HAVE
> any services to speak of, at least not ones that weren't already
> available directly from the BIOS. I'll go along with "BIS", BIOS
> Instruction Set, but calling it an API is definitely a revision of
> history.
You clearly know nothing at all about this subject.
Nearly none of the DOS calls were available also from the BIOS.
The BIOS has no facilities for opening / closing files,
It can not write to files etc etc. BIOS has no concept of memory blocks.
BIOS does not know how to exec a program other than bootstrapping the
machine. BIOS knows nothing at all about directories, as well as networks.
Only the keyboard input, character output to the screen and printer and a
little bit dealing with time and date could be done (and then not
complete) by the BIOS.
The BIOS knows about hardware and how to access it, INT21h uses the BIOS
to do exactly that. So DOS has very little hardware dependencies build in.
Max, you may be good as a word twister.
As a programmer you are a complete loss.
So please just stop making a fool of yourself.
Peter
--
There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 10:14:11 +0100
>You are trying to
> propogate the FUD/lie that W2K is not capable of steller uptimes.
120 Days, according to Microsoft. Yeah, really stellar.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 10:22:00 +0100
In article <3afca21f$0$41634$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dhevp$lps$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > And you actually defend your devotion to the command line ?? in
>> >> > public?
>> >>
>> >> I hereby declare, that I, Edward Rosten, like the command line and
>> >> think that in many ways it is superior to the GUI.
>> >
>> > I guess that just about says it for Edward...
>>
>> Says what? I have my head screwed on the right way round?
>>
>> Oh, I have a challenge for you:
>>
>> Using only the GUI, find all the plain text files on your computer.
>> (HINT: plain text files don't all end in .txt, they have arbitrary
>> names).
>
> Gee - you're going to try to trick us with the fact that you'll be
> running a command that does this.
No: a collection of standard UNIX command line commands.
find / -print0 | xargs -0 -l1 file | grep text
> But did you think for a second - there are programs that can do this in
> Windows too? Hmmm... isn't running a program from the GUI the same as
> running something from the CLI - sure, it is. It's a process off doing
> something for us and getting a result.
Like I said, there is no program I know of that does it. Take a
collection of command line commands (esentially a binch of avancd
primitives for command line scripts) and arrange them in the right way,
and Presto! you have what you want.
Coupling primitives together like that is not something you can asily do
from the GUI. This is one reason why the command line is so good.
Another reason, is that it is a lot quicker to type
pan &
or xterm &
in an xterm than it is to plough through a bunch of menus to find the
relavent entry.
> besides, what a LAME thing to want to do...
You're only saying that because you can't easily do it from the GUI.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 10:26:14 +0100
>
> And WINE sucks. Badly. Run some windows apps with it.
That's because the Windows API is buggy and poorly documented. IIRC
Linux/PPC can run MacOS programs rather beter than Wine can run Windows
programs.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 10:27:33 +0100
> Bragging? HARDLY! Stating that, yes, indeed, there is a lame ass telnet
> server in W2K - sure. But who in their right mind would still use telnet
> when so much better is available?
Like SSH on Linux...
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:46:34 +1200
> Well I would think the one big complaint would be that it is a
> half-ass wine port of the windows version. When Corel embrassed
> GNU/Linux (to try and save the company) they initally went to native
> linux ports of WP etc. Now everything is a wine port (office2k,
> photopaint etc.). This usually brings in issues of it's own like
> font server problems etc. I wonder how long it will be before
> CWPO2002 is available for GNU/Linux.
>
> jt
I am currently running it now without any problems, however, I
understand what you mean. They worked on the wine project, which
includes a utility that allows people to instantly redirect all API
calls from Windows to Linux. Instead of Corel infighting, maybe they
should have backed that initiative so that there is a native
WOrdperfect.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:49:43 +1200
> I think that it is perhaps a little too easy to "daemonize" companies like
> Microsoft regarding why it takes so long to get bugfixes. One very likely
> explanation is simply inefficieness (not that this will make it better
> :-) ). When you mail the Linux kernel list, you will undoubtably hit some of
> the developers directly. Large commercial SW shops like MS tends to "shield"
> the developers behind a layer of "customer service" people. This is in a way
> a good idea, but introduces the risk that a bug report will not "hit" the
> right developer right away. I have seen this occur in a couple of companies
> I've worked with.
>
> Mikkel
Sun has weekly bug fixes, big fixes, small fixes, they are all released,
regardless of whether these bug fixes are important, what is even
better, everyone can access these fixes at no extra cost. Maybe instead
of Microsoft releasing a service pack, they should release weekly bug
fixes for issues customers have addressed to Microsoft.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:56:03 +1200
> Given that Unisys builds the biggest W2K/NT servers around that question
> sounds hollow.
>
> Gee, lets think for a minute shall we?
>
> Can you say: application compatibility?
>
> They WERE running Unix and when they upgraded they stayed with... wait for
> it... Unix - suprise? I'm not. Those who fail to learn from the past
> mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Here is proof of such ...
Nope, it is a newly written piece of software written for the combined
Social Welfare and Job Search Agency. Hence, they could have gone for
any solution. Forgot to mention, they also have some HP-UX servers
carrying out low-demand tasks such as email etc.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:56:30 +1200
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > Given that Unisys builds the biggest W2K/NT servers around that question
> > sounds hollow.
> >
> > Gee, lets think for a minute shall we?
> >
> > Can you say: application compatibility?
> >
> > They WERE running Unix and when they upgraded they stayed with... wait for
> > it... Unix - suprise? I'm not. Those who fail to learn from the past
> > mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Here is proof of such ...
> Nope, it is a newly written piece of software written for the combined
> Social Welfare and Job Search Agency. Hence, they could have gone for
> any solution. Forgot to mention, they also have some HP-UX servers
> carrying out low-demand tasks such as email etc.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
And they use Linux for their website.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:59:46 +1200
> I have one lone server loaded with W2K Server that has been running non-stop
> since Feb 17th 2000. It was rebooted one single time when SP1 was released,
> intentionally obviously, and never since. It has 100% uptime during the
> first period and continues 100% at this time.
>
> Are you starting to understand? W2K is reliable.
How many users does it serve?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:05:14 +1200
> Had you ever used a computer before you'd realize how stupid that sounds.
> Cause once you get the right driver in place, guess what... it works and
> stays working. So, by installing a certified driver FIRST you never have a
> driver problem.
>
> Are you trying to suggest that other OSes are _immune_ to driver problems?
> Never seen a unix box hosed due to horrible drivers? I have ...
Happened to me too, mind you, it was Solaris 8 Beta version, I was one
of the many people who beta tested it. However, it wasn't Solaris's
fault, as my CDROm drive was faulty.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:08:51 +1200
> Interesting, I keep hearing about TCO for Unix being lower than TCO for
> Windows.
> I can't comment about downtime, I know that any Win2K box that I've seen was
> up, and *stayed* up, as long as its owner wanted it to.
> The only exceptions were driver problems.
It is. UNIX workstations cost more at the beginning, however, that is
offset by the fact that one does not need to constantly upgrade hardware
and software to fix nagging bugs. For example, the first Solaris 8 has
the same system requirements as the most recent Solaris 8 (01/01) does.
Most people I know who use UNIX workstations keep their machines for up
to 5 to 6 years with in an organisation without the need for any costly
upgrades and repairs, the only motivation latter on is when more complex
work needs to be done.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:11:47 +1200
> ahha
> ahhahhaha
>
> oh my god - that was sooo funny!!!
>
> ahhahahahahhhhahhhaaaa
So you don't mind paying thousands of dollars for electicity bills
relating to keeping a room cool (via air conditioning)? Maybe you
should start sharing that money tree with everyone.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:01:26 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> In the end, that is as far as debate can ever really get, if restricted
> to Usenet alone. It is, after all, the cut and thrust which makes it
> interesting. Its easy to let it devolve into silly flame wars. But
> allowing it to evolve into entertaining flame wars is not necessarily a
> bad thing. ;-)
But both parties must recognise and appreciate the humorous side first. It
usually works best with people you converse with regularly. I find such
humour used on first contact with a person if often taken too seriously...
> Anyway, as to being treated differently, the faceless nature of the net
> means you have more chance of that if the reader is not aware of the
> perspective you speak from. There's nothing shameful about a lack of
> experience, no matter what the trolls might say. Remember, they'll call
> anyone clueless, that's what makes 'em trolls.
I don't usually see any reason to discuss such things, but you were
beginning to question elements of them. Such as suggesting an innate
contempt for science...
> Touche. But they are not inflexible at all, they are made of sand. But
> sand in the right mixture, left undisturbed, becomes concrete. Feel
> free to bring your jack hammer and take a shot. ;-)
And one day all statues become outdated. After all, here stands Ozimandious,
all powerful ruler of all to the horizon and who's hand created the wonders
all around and it still lies in the middle of the barren desert on a plaque
with one foot. (or words to that effect. it is a long time since I read it)
Who is to say how long sand should lie before setting. Who is to say whether
your ideas have rested undisturbed for a long enough time to be said to be
firm and confirmed in the face of the insignificance of any of our lives and
the infinity of time?
> I can appreciate that, and as I've mentioned, you did an outstanding job
> of presenting "their" perspective comprehensively and reasonably. But
> this 'population' is a fiction, that was Bob's point, and it still
> stands. Don't take our word for it, certainly; your skepticism is
> appropriate. But it is not cynicism which drives this understanding; it
> is simple logic. Would YOU want something that was flashy, or something
> that was convenient, given the choice of only the two? Would you EVER
> want the flash, if it comes at the cost of convenience? (Perhaps once,
> eh, just to see what the fuss is about, but every time?) If not, then
> why would you presume that there were other people who felt this way,
> just because there are some people who say there are? Examining the
> motives and reasons of these people making this claim, it appears they
> have one of two traits in common. They either stand to profit from this
> myth, or they are trying to insist that people do not act the way they
> actually do, for some idealistic reason.
And I am a confirmed cynic. There are times where convenience MUST give way.
Couch potatoes use the most convenient method of everything. Does that make
them better than the more active population? Fitter? More intelligent?
Longer lived?
Convenience must give way when sometimes it just has to be REAL. Now that
may not translate perfectly into the web or the internet, but surely a web
full of plain black text in Times New Roman would become tedious no matter
what wonders of understanding or bargains it promised.
> The 'commercial world' doesn't have to, and cannot 'see' anything;
> that's a backwards teleology. Potential customers see it, and
> everything follows from there.
But there must be something on offer for the customers to make use of.
Even if it is just an e-mail address to send orders to, it is the beginning
of
e-commerce (dirty word) and was initiated by the firm, not the customer.
After all, the firm won't invest in providing the means unless the benefits
are clear.
> People get heated about the distinction between the internet and the web
> for a reason, son. Learn this lesson well.
Sorry about that. I arrived after the definitions had been blurred in the
public eye, so I am guilty of using the terms interchangeably...
> The internet's commercial popularity, as well, predates the web.
> Without any doubt whatsoever, it made a tremendous difference. But that
> was mostly in marketing; to this day, most people learn about the web,
> then the internet, and so they continue (part of the problem that got us
> into this discussion) to think of everything on the internet as 'the
> web'. This perception is encouraged heartily by both the producers and
> the professional clueless observers, the press, and do the enormous
> detriment of both the web and any other use of the Internet.
Agreed, it is something I fell foul to. Most people don't understand that
there are any other uses for the internet besides the web and e-mail.
> But email and discussion groups (which should be Usenet, of course, but
> both of these are often handled with vastly less convenient and
> efficient 'web sites') as well as file transfers and all are NOT related
> at all to the web. And it does NOT increase convenience (except to the
> producers!) to use a web page as an 'interface' to them. It might seem
> a natural idea to use a web browser as a front end to EVERYTHING, but
> that's only because it is natural (it is possible). Not because it is
> any *more* natural than any other approach, and it is IN FACT vastly
> less efficient
Not in all ways... It is quite hard to find what you want using FTP alone
for instance. You need an index, and they are provided via the web. Yes, you
get site indexes at each FTP site, but they aren't particularly convenient
and you have to log into the correct server first...
> No, you didn't seem to understand what I said. Usenet doesn't 'rely' on
> the internet for transmission. It does generally use it, these days.
> But Usenet predates the commercial internet by quite a few years, in
> fact, and was 'fully formed' just as it is today (not quite as large, of
> course; the balance of the typical 50,000 groups are very recent
> additions, but then, they're mostly porn or empty) before it ever used
> the Internet at all.
Then, out of interest and to further my own understanding, how were usenet
messages transmitted. Was it using dial up servers to store the messages
instead of the ones ISPs supply nowadays?
> I'm not sure how I could have remembered that, having never heard it
> before. What's more, I don't believe a bit of it, and would even go so
> far as to say the opposite is precisely the case.
>
> But I must confess I'm a special case, having managed to figure out how
> to explain both science and the humanities and the brain under one roof.
> One way you could look at it is rhetorically. Consider the following
> paragraph:
>
> Also, science doesn't explain anything. And it can't, no matter how
> much further we learn about everything. Therefore we have to use
> science only to create math and physics, instead. Remember, if the
> human brain weren't complex enough to be able to understand itself
> completely and scientifically, it wouldn't work.
Science in the sense we are now talking about is merely a method of
modelling real life for analysis using a logic system such as maths.
Probably it doesn't explain anything, but it does allow predictions to be
made based on the appropriate model.
Nice example might be light. It can be proved fairly conclusively that it is
both a wave and a particle. Therefore it must be neither. Science will never
explain what it is, but it can tell us what will happen under a set of
circumstances...
So maybe you are right. It explains nothing. But I disagree with the
statement about the brain (for now). Consider animals. Choose any animal
with a consciousness (bar humans for this example). Now think of the limit
of it's understanding of its world. Humans are animals. The human brain
didn't design itself, therefore why must it be able to understand itself.
Understanding is only required for creation.
Let us consider a microwave oven. Almost everyone has one in their kitchen
and there are very few who cannot get it to work. But how many really
understand, completely and without limitation. But it still works for them.
> Science doesn't explain all, because what is "science" (as opposed to
> 'humanities') but only the parts of philosophy which can be reduced to
> empirical experiment and math. The day has already arrived, I'm afraid,
> where that includes the study of human consciousness, so it appears your
> philosophy is on a collision course with the Truth about human beings.
> Don't worry, though. There's always Hope.
Personally, I think that if we do master understanding of the human brain
completely the value of human life will be completely lost. Think about the
power it would give. We wouldn't even have emotions any more because we
would know exactly what they were and how they worked and why. Such feelings
would have no hold on us.
MP
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:14:10 +1200
> *Twisting the reality stick back around to smack Matt before he knows what
> hit him*
>
> So, a 12 processor machine beat a 8 processor machine (50% more processors)
> by a whopping 4%??
>
> Guess we can see just how horribly AIX scales... UGH!
>
> Gee, it uses a little less electricty to run the CPUs... I'll remember
> that... NOT!
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? maybe you should go
back to University and continue studying System Architecture before you
make yourself look like a fool in this forum.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cold feet or Reality Check?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:17:52 +1200
> Oh, there's a BIG advantage. For *them* anyway.<g> They've failed to coerce
> users to upgrade their versions of Office in sufficient numbers. They don't
> make as much as they used to off of it. This subscription thing, they
> figure, will keep the cash cow from running dry. If consumers prove to be so
> obscenely stupid as to buy the market-speak, it will happen.
Consumers won't buy into it, most people have enough bills, and the last
thing they want is a compulsory "Build Bill Gates Ego Foundation"
donation once a month.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:30:44 +1200
Then why isn't there a mass movement from UNIX towards Win2k? and how
come SUN has been having some fab quarters? so much for a dying OS.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in college & high school
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:33:02 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Corbell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking for leads to information, statistics, or just individual
> testimonials about the use of Linux in educational settings,
> particularly in high school, community college, university, and grad
> school settings. Does anyone out there know of any general sources of
> information on the use of Linux in these settings? I would especially
> be interested in the use of Linux in math & science education. Also,
> I'd like to know about any advocacy groups, PC 'salvage' groups or
> similar organizations that are active in getting Linux used in schools.
I think that use of Linux is too widespread for individual anecdotes to
have much significance anymore. It's more or less standard now for
people in technical departments to be using Linux.
Here's my anecdote: I work at the University of Utah. I bought a PC a
few weeks ago from a company in Salt Lake City. The salesman knew I
was at the U. and when I specified that I would be using Linux on the
machine, he asked if I was with `the project' at the CS department. He
was referring to some project that had just bought 150 PC's from him
for a Linux Beowulf cluster. The fact is, I didn't even know about that
project. I will probably be working with another group there soon that
does research on OS, networking, and systems technologies. Part of
what they do is based on ripping out pieces of Linux and modifying them
in interesting ways. Can't do that without the source.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
