Yeah, maybe but I like to counter the notion that free software does not play nice with itself. Microsoft and others spend lots of money promoting an all M$ platform and "integrated". They deride the free software world for lack of dictatorial control that sets a single "standard" for data transfer. It's nonsense. It is way easier for me to share information between different programs and computers than it ever was when I was using M$ junk. It would cost you hundreds of dollars and much heartache on Windoze to get the kind of functionality you get with xfree86, openssh, modern window managers and the free software that runs on them. When you are done trying, it won't work as well and M$ or others are liable to yank key components out from under you so that you have to start all over.
There are practical uses for this. My wife and I only have one Star Office set up between us. I only need one box with sound that works. We have as many printers set up as we want. Every computer is just as good as the fastest computer we own, runs every program we set up, has every printer available and has the combined data storage of all of our computers which are not burdened with redundant binary packages. Oh yeah, with a sufficient external network like at home used to be, any computer anywhere could be part of my network. In the Microsoft world, every computer has to have a local copy of a program and networking is clumsy and dangerous. They even put stuff into their EULA about no more than one person being allowed to use a program at once because they just don't get it. These free software advantages multiply by the number of users you have but work all the way down to a single owner with more than one machines. OK, we all know that and I'll be quiet. It's raining. Me and my little girl are going to take a nap. On 2003.07.25 14:42 John Hebert wrote: > You are sick in the head. Take a nap, now. ;) > > John Hebert >
