Linux-Advocacy Digest #285
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285, Volume #35 Fri, 15 Jun 01 22:13:02 EDT Contents: Re: The Win/userbase! (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Paolo Ciambotti) Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Aaron R. Kulkis) Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Aaron R. Kulkis) Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Aaron R. Kulkis) Re: What does XP stands for ??? (Matthew Gardiner) Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux startsgetting good, Microsoft buries it inthe dust!) (Matthew Gardiner) From: Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Win/userbase! Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:33:16 -0500 Your arrogance gives you away Charlie. Stop lying. Charlie Ebert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In article 2eyW6.15545$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Funkenbusch wrote: Charlie, it's really easy to tell when you're lying. You always give these long drawn out stories in which you insult everyone you talk to, yet they never seem to understand that you are insulting them. Really, If you talked the way you claim you talked to this person in this message, nearly anyone would have either left, or punched you in the face. Nope. And he'll be back again. Just as your back, time and time again. Like a fly, appearently on shit? Charlie Ebert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On a sunny afternoon, I was called upon by a Windows user to explain exactly how a virus scanner works and why his virus scanner didn't detect a virus and kill it. I explained that a virus scanner for Windows works by scanning your memory and hard drive for known patterns of existing viruses and if it finds software which matches a known pattern it will either eliminate the virus or alert the operator or both depending on how you have it set up. He then went on to ask the question again, YES BUT WHY DIDN'T IT STOP MY COMPUTER FROM BEING INFECTED! And I re-explained that a virus scanner for Windows works by scanning your memory and hard drive for KNOWN PATTERNS of EXISTING VIRUSES and if it finds software which matches a KNOWN PATTERN it will either eliminate the virus or alert the operator or both depending on how you have it set up. After hearing this again the man just shook his head and said I heard what you said so I'll ask the question again, WHY DIDN'T MY VIRUS SCANNER KEEP MY MACHINE FROM BEING INFECTED! I responded by saying, The virus which infected your machine was obviously not one with a known pattern. It must have been a NEW VIRUS and not a pre-existing one which the company who wrote your virus scanning program knew about. So the virus just slipped thru the system undetected and damanged your setup. I proceeded to say You know a virus scanner will only work in Windows if the scanner knows what to look for. If you have a NEW virus then it will not work at all. More importantly, even if you have a detected virus on your system, the virus has already infected you and it's too late to do anything about it. The Virus scanner CAN NOT REPAIR DAMAGE to DAMAGED SOFTWARE. It can only alert you it happened! That's all it can do! He then backed up a foot and said, Who makes the BEST VIRUS SCANNER then? I told him you can't buy a good Virus scanner as there is NO GOOD virus scanner as most all viruses are NEW! That under Windows relying on a Virus scanner for your security is not going to work. That as I already explained, even if it detected a virus it would be too late, the damage is done. That it's absurd to even run a virus scanner. He then told me that this was the second time he reloaded his machine from the emergency disk and he wanted me to know he was tired of reloading it and just wanted me to tell him who made the best Virus scanner. Since I was good with computers and ran Linux that he was sure I could help him solve this problem. I told him that with Linux or any Unix, executables have to be declared by the user. That people can't just click on files and expect them to execute from E-mails. And that if a user declared a script attachment an executable and ran that script the most damage he would do to his machine would be to his local home directory and nothing more. I added that with Windows, scripts can be executed by simply double clicking on them. That there was no safety net to stop people from executing scripts. And that these scripts would or could destroy everything on his hard drive as there is no concept of a home/user area in Windows. So virus scanners will NOT work and Windows is NOT designed to stop any sort of damage. I concluded that no matter how hard he tried, he would never
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285, Volume #34Mon, 7 May 01 07:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Edward Rosten) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: where's the linux performance? (robert bronsing) Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (David Brown) Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened? (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened? (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Tom Wilson) Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows (Mikkel Elmholdt) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Matthew Gardiner) 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: Mon, 07 May 2001 12:14:49 +0100 Yes, I know this. It is not as convenient as just dragging the window to a new size and it doesn't really do the same thing either. Making it smaller just adds scroll bars, IIRC, but doesn't change the actual size that apps think they are working with. An xterm notifies the app running in it of the new size. Hmm, I just took my mouse dragged my cmd window to be the size of my screen and ran edit.com in there. Now edit didn't like the size and decided to change it to an 80x50 window, but that's still larger than the default 80x25. DOS (ie what the whol;e text based stuff in NT is loosely based on) was able to work with 80x25, 80x43 and 80x50. Pretty much nothing was able to work with anything else. Try getting it to work with 81x26. You know Bob, have you ever stopped and considered that maybe this isn't all that important of a feature? Have you ever considered that there is more out there than your small, closed world. If you got your head out of your arse, you would realise that not everyone works in the same way as you do. For me it is a very, very useful feature and I probably use it hundreds of times every day. -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: Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 05:11:24 -0500 Charles Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Erik Funkenbusch wrote: Charles Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Erik Funkenbusch wrote: Charles Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Erik Funkenbusch wrote: Roy Culley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In article Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess it depends on what you mean by secure. If someone doesn't know the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure What crap. If you don't understand something don't make pathetic attempts to show that you do. ANY 4-bit encryption algorithm could be cracked by brute force in less time than it took you to write such rubbish. The best known encryption algorithms are known and open to peer review. If you invent a new encryption algorithm but won't make it open to peer review then it just will not be accepted. Security through obscurity just doesn't cut it at any time. What's crap is your understanding. You can only brute force it if you know the decode algorithm. You can guess, and analyze and do lots of things, but it could be things like XORing the data against a pets name, while rotating 3 bits and compressing it using 10 different compression algorithms. The number of possible combinations of decode algorithms is limitless. You aren't required to know the algorithm to crack encryption. You don't care about the algorithm, you care about recovering the message. So the attack has to create an algorithm that decodes the message. It doesn't matter if the algorithm is the correct algorithm or not. In fact, doing things such as you suggest often make a code easier to crack. When you apply multiple compression algorithms, or multiple xor, the attacker doesn't have to know how many times you compressed, he just has to find one scheme to go from encrypted message to plain text. Ahh, but that's just it. Such a scheme typically needs to have a rosetta stone or some way
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Feb 01 07:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux and QA (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: please help - modprobe cannot locate modules (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: My Win2k Network Nightmare!! (Donn Miller)
Re: M$ taking over linux? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: My Win2k Network Nightmare!! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Interesting article (The Ghost In The Machine)
From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and QA
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 06:13:44 -0500
Salvador Peralta wrote:
J Sloan quoth:
When someone tells me that a Windows text editor called PFE barfs
long before 100MBytes of text file - then I go and load a 130MByte
text file with PFE, and find I can hang Linux with said text file -
that's going out of my way to make my machine perform poorly is it?
That whole story is very suspicious - as you'll no doubt
remember, I tried the editor test on my system while I was
compiling a kernel, and while opening a 180 MB binary file
with a variety of editors, I was unable to make the system
hang or misbehave in any way.
That is a great example of what I am getting at about Pete. I couldn't
get AbiWord to crash using a large file, not that anyone in their right
mind would use a word processor to handle large files with vi or emacs,
or several other programming editors at hand.
Of course, I was reading a couple of days later in comp.programming
some people were recommending programming editors for windows:
David Powe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David I use PFE at the moment but I find there are plenty of
David times that it cannot handle large files, files with few if
David any carraige returns or anything with binary stuff in it.
So that's a guy who programs on windows who likes windows and wants to
recommend pfe as a programming tool but...
As for Pete, if his experience ran counter to my own on one issue or a
few issues, I'd be inclined to treat him as having more credibility
than I currently do. But there are simply too many inconsistencies to
reconcile. Throw in the fact that the slightly befuddled air of
sincerity that he attempts to maintain disappears in the face of
smartass invective as soon as he is challenged on any point, and it
just makes me think that if it walks like a troll and behaves like a
troll...
...it's.A WITCH!
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 06:18:12 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
In article 96n4r6$910$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dont get me wrong, I think that communism is a silly form of
government and that it doesnt work at all.
You are FAR too charitable. Have you ever been to a communist country?
I have. Communism is not silly...it's barbaric.
Ive been to both socialist and communist countries, and I agree with
you.
BUT: The question must be asked: Is communism a symptom of barbarism
or is it a result?
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285, Volume #30 Fri, 17 Nov 00 16:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Sux (Moderator)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Tom Wilson)
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Norton Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Linux is great ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: Moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:26:25 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DOESN'T SUPPORT HARWARE.
WON'T INSTALL ON MODERN SYSTIMS.
DOESN'T WORK WITH PRINTORS OR MADAMS.
SKANNERS DONT WORK.
CAMRAS DON'T WORK.
HAS NO SOUND.
DOESN'T RUN GAMES.
HAS 100 DIFFERNT EDITERS BUT NO DECENT BROWSER.
IS BUILT BY LUSERS FOR LUSERS.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
LINUKS SUKX.
If you're trying to make people who hate Linux look dumb, you're doing a
good job.
But remember, people who use Linux on the desktop are dumb anyway.
It's a double-edged sword.
--
-Moderator
"Unfairly but truthfully, our party has been tagged as
being against things. Anti-immigrant, for example."
-George W. Bush, New York Times, 7/2/2000
--
From: Russ Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:28:34 GMT
Sam Morris wrote:
Just out of curiosity - do you mean typing Help in the Run window (which
would open the Help folder if \Windows was before \Windows\System32 in your
PATH variable) or Help into the DOS box? Typing in a directory name into the
console shouldn't spawn an explorer window pointing at that directory at
all.
--
Cheers,
Sam
_o/
\
Correct. DOS help is missing from this version. Remember "Windows 95 is
not DOS"? There is no DOS window on this early (not for retail sale)
version. You have only the RUN window. That didn't last long and
probably never made it to retail. A later service pack put it back in.
Still no DOS help though. The "Help" tab you get in the corner of some
windows doesn't help much either.
Yeah, I know MS released about a thousand of custom versions for every
cheap computer mfg. willing to pay the price. This is just one of those.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec
Not Powered by ActiveX
--
From: Russ Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:35:32 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
"Russ Lyttle" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I'm not knocking VC++ here, just stating a fact. We are useing VC++ and
the *.exe run slower than similar programs written in C.
There are so many factors that can effect performance that this is a
ridiculous statement.
For instance, using the MFC CString command:
CString s("Test");
CString s2("Test2");
s = s + s2;
is about 10x slower than
CString s += s2;
Also, something as simple as using ++x versus x++ can be quite a bit faster
too on user defined types, since the latter requires an extra temporary to
be created, and depending on the cost of construction, can be quite
expensive.
C++ *CAN* be slower than C, but then C *CAN* be slower than C++. That
doesn't mean either of them are always so.
Every thing you say is true. But if I have optimized my C code and then
do a true OOP C++ program, the C++ program will run slower. Not just a
"C++ as better C" but true OOP code. Perhaps a lot slower, perhaps just
a little slower. But in writing Kernel code, a little slower is too
much. For other uses, a big gain in productivity by using C++ over C may
offset the size/time/memory problem, but not in the kernel.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec
Not Powered by ActiveX
--
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:31:08 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
"Steve Mading" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8v0a8u$isu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: "Steve Mading" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
: news:8uvvmk$pdc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bruce Schuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: : Limited function? Shortcuts a
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285, Volume #29 Sun, 24 Sep 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: TEST---DO NOT READ (Jacques Guy)
Re: hypocritical Unix apologists (Richard)
Re: Win2K ("James")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Andres Soolo)
Pan newsreader and an RIAA lawsuit--a joke? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Pan newsreader and an RIAA lawsuit--a joke! ("Adam Warner")
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (Steve Mading)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2K ("Adam Warner")
Re: Win2K ("Adam Warner")
Re: Win2K ("PistolGrip")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (lyttlec)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (lyttlec)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Jack Troughton)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("Osugi
Sakae")
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 08:18:36 +
From: Jacques Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: TEST---DO NOT READ
Juan Manuel Ramos wrote:
TEST TEST TEST TEST
TESTES -- DO NOT SQUEEZE
--
From: Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: hypocritical Unix apologists
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 08:25:52 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
Unfortunately, Richard seems to display the opposite of discipline,
and instead of bothering to do something, he's become an armchair
critic ( which is a role well suited to lazy people with big egos )
I'm very curious here; exactly what does this make you? I've made
my own design and I'm programming it. Exactly what have you done that
gives you the right to criticize my design, which you know nothing
about, as overly complicated, unimplementable, or not widely useful?
--
From: "James" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2K
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 10:26:42 +0200
For me, there is one app though that manages to BLUE SCREEN even Win2k. And
that is Adaptec Easy CD Creator. I did a quick search on DejaNews and
amazingly found over 1100 posts with Adaptec spelt "aCRAPtec". Apparently a
lot of other users are also not impressed ...
James
"jbarntt" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:5Ngz5.111777$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article 8pni5u$dlb$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Adam Warner wrote:
Too many factual errors to even respond to.
Enough said (it looks like a poor troll).
Adam
PS: Aaargh. Can't stop myself:
1. Of course Win2k can multitask.
2. Many application crashes do not bring down explorer.
So many application crashes do bring down explorer - the shell.
I've been using w2k since it was commercially released and have yet to
have
a crashed app bring down the OS.
3. Even if explorer halts, it can be restarted (the computer will NOT
spontaneously reboot).
Always, or just sometimes?
4. Win2k is a stable operating system (but of course it is not "the"
most
stable OS).
Err, how do you know? The previous poster was quite convinced that it
be unstable. So much so that he'd rather use linux at home. Looks like
Win2k is unstable. In his view, at least.
W2k is stable. My experience is limited to the desktop version and the
server version running in stand alone mode purely as a terminal server.
Phew. Enough said.
Very little said, I thought, but an awful lot stated without a hint of
proof.
Likewise for your statements.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
--
From: Andres Soolo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: 24 Sep 2000 08:41:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can you possibly explain them using APPLE products in the movie
"Hackers"?! Geesh, what self-respecting technophile (let alone hacker)
would use an APPLE these days? I see paid advertisements in movies all the
time for APPLE.
Many. Especially after the wide dissemination of Linux :-)
And besides, it's really nothing wrong with the guts of an Apple system.
In most cases, the Apple machines turn out to be even better from the
technical point of view.
--
Andres Soolo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I waited and waited and when no message came I knew it must be from you.
--
From: "Adam Warner" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pan newsreader and an RIAA lawsuit--a joke?
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:34:32 +1200
Hi all,
I'm trying to establish whether
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285, Volume #28Mon, 7 Aug 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Jim)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("JS/PL")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 (Jim Richardson)
Re: Aaron-Kulkis-Style Conspiracy about Linux (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (The Ghost In The Machine)
From: Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: 07 Aug 2000 16:37:43 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "JS/PL"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Jim" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
You and Netscape, and the DOJ just can't bring yourselves to
admit that Microsoft has always gained market share by providing
a superior product.
And your blookage continues even further into absurdity.
No one WANTS an alternative to Windows therefore there is no market
for one. There are plenty of alternatives and has been for QUITE a
while. As is proven by the fact that Linux can't even be GIVEN away.
More choices are a mere 2 clicks away from the front page a very
popular outpost on the internet:
http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems
/
Unfortunately for you, almost ALL of personal computer users much
prefer Microsoft Windows. No government strong-arm forcefulness or
courtroom antics to remove that basic American freedom of choice will
change the fact the consumer has resoundingly given Microsoft "the
nod" of approval.
You see...if there WAS a better product, it would have a buyer. I'm
sorry to say - there's not a better product even on the horizon. Get
used to it.
Why would anyone but an M$ Lemming want to get used to something that is
patently untrue?
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 7 Aug 2000 16:39:06 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Aaron R. Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Loren Petrich wrote:
Let's see ... at the age of 15, with the stock that Mr. Kulkis
purchased, he was able to unseat the Board of Directors of some major
corporation.
Considering that ALL of the stockholders have the same interest
that I do...namely RETURN ON INVESTMENT...it's not so hard.
Dr. Pangloss rides again.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
From: "JS/PL" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:39:39 -0400
"ZnU" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Microsoft has no credibility at all, yet you swallow the hype hook, line
and sinker. Microsoft now admits that NT 4, the OS that it insisted was
a viable replacement for Unix, needed to be rebooted every five days on
average This is a typical Microsoft tactic. Doesn't this Orwellian
rewriting of history tip you off to the fact that maybe MS software
isn't as great as Bill claims?
No credibility? Say's who? You?
Best PC Operating System of 2000
http://www.pcworld.com/top400/article/0,1361,16789+1+2,00.html
Windows2000 wins over the mobile workforce
http://www.informationweek.com/790/notebook.htm
A wealth of well-integrated tools and technologies make the Microsoft
platform a compelling choice for the enterprise...
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2551183,00.html
Giga Position
The Windows 2000 platform will be two to 10 times more reliable than any
prior 1.0 release of either the Windows desktop or server operating
system...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/news/external/gigasunbelt.asp
Microsoft's Windows 2000 Professional operating system-- slated to hit
stores Feb. 17 -- is a sharp-looking upgrade boasting several
well-thought-out improvements
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/review/crg882.htm
Windows 2000 Server: Worth The Wait
By ALAN ZEICHICK
It's here, at long last--Windows 2000 Server.
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285
Linux-Advocacy Digest #285, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 16:13:11 EDT Contents: Linux Was Already On The Desktops In 10% Of Companies One Year Ago! (Mark S. Bilk) Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (abraxas) Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (abraxas) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (Oscar) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Linux Usage Surveys (was: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. (James Lee) Re: MacOS X sceptic (was Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes) (Raymond N Shwake) Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski) Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) Subject: Linux Was Already On The Desktops In 10% Of Companies One Year Ago! Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:42:36 GMT By going to this web page, and clicking on the free data link, one can access various industry surveys taken as late as one year ago -- 2Q99 (more recent ones cost a dollar a minute to access): http://www.infotechtrends.com/freedemo.htm Thanks to WhyteWolf for posting this one, which you get by checking the "web" box: 99Q2 - Percent of Web servers using each operating system. Percent of Web servers using each operating system. Windows NT 26% Linux 21% Solaris 16% BSDI11% SGI (IRIX) 9% Free BSD 8% JOURNAL/SOURCE/TITLE DATE PAGE VARBUSINESS/ 12-Apr-99 58 Netcraft/ *GENERATION LINUX - NIPPING NT's HEELS So, Linux had almost caught up to Windows NT in web server market share a year ago, and the most popular Unix systems combined exceeded NT's share by 2.5 to 1 (.65/.26). But if you instead check the boxes for "software" and "systems", you can get this report: 99Q2 - Percent of information technology managers using or planning to use Linux as a general purpose desktop or workstation operating system. Currently Use 10% Use Within 12 Months 20% No Plans 68% Don't Know 1% JOURNAL/SOURCE/TITLE DATE PAGE VARBUSINESS/ 12-Apr-99 54 InformationWeek/ *GENERATION LINUX - NEXT STOP: DESKTOP One year ago, when KDE and Gnome, along with hardware and installation support, were much less developed than they are now, Linux was already in use on the desktop/workstation computers of 10% of all businesses. The figure may now be 30%, if the managers planning to switch to Linux have followed through. GNU/Linux/OSS is not only growing in market share, it is so much fun to use and to develop software for that many thou- sands of people are working to improve the operating system and the applications, and to add new apps. There are hundreds of such projects with teams of people working on them. Almost all are independent of any corporation and are under the GPL, so as long as *anyone* is interested in them, the work will continue. For those who want to use various MS-Windows software, some of which is not yet ported or functionally duplicated for Linux, there are three systems that will allow Linux to run some of it -- Wine (free), VMware ($99 for personal use), and Trelos Win4Lin ($49, like VMware with easier file access but no sound support). These three systems are constantly being improved. The next LinuxWorld Conference and Expo is August 14-17 in San Jose, Calif. The last one was huge! Meet Linus and RMS. Pet a real penguin! Register now to get in to the exhibits (Aug. 15-17) for free ($25 at the door). http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/ Life is good! -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:46:42 GMT In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or do people like Simon777 really feel threatened by the Linux advance? What advance? It's like the Polish army riding over the hill on horses while the Germans had tanks.. I'll bet the Germans were howling with laughter, just like Winvocates do every time Linux and how it's taking over the market is discussed. Aaaahhh...Comparing winvocates to the german army during WWII. Apropos, tek. Dresden? Care to comment? =yttrx -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:25:54 GMT In
