Linux-Advocacy Digest #651, Volume #25 Thu, 16 Mar 00 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Terry Porter)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? (Terry Porter)
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown (Terry Porter)
Re: Criticism (Terry Porter)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Geoff Lane)
Propaganda Technique: Snob Appeal (was: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the
next desktop OS!! (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Gary Hallock)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Gary Hallock)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Nik Simpson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Mar 2000 12:55:41 +0800
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:06:24 GMT, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8a9mb8$hra$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <7oXx4.7656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > If someone tells a business owner that he has to learn a lot
>> > in order to use Linux, the business owner will lose interest
>> > on Linux right away. Business owners are only interested
>> > in getting their daily jobs done taking computers as tools.
>>
>> Nonsense. Technical expertise is required to use any server operating
>> system effectively, be it W2K, NT, or Linux. A business owner could
>> care less whether you're an MCSE or an RHCE. They are, by your own
>> argument, only interested in getting the job done.
>
>Believe it or not, owners of non-computer businesses
>really don't want to spend time learning an OS except
>a few simple software applications for accounting, planning
>and word processing. If they cannot get Linux installed
>with a few attempts, they will give up.
Yes I have to agree with ax in some ways here.
I would agree a certain number of business owners are like this.
However these people will not last the distance, their reluctance to change
and lack of ability to learn, means that other compeditors who are not,
will put them out of business.
>
>> > If someone tells a business owner that he has to buy
>> > new computers in order to get Linux up and running,
>> > the business owner will give up on Linux since preserving
>> > current technology investment is business owners' high priority.
>>
>> Tripe. Business owners are accustomed to the upgrade treadmill. They
>> do it every couple of years to support the next behemoth from Redmond.
>> It's already in the budget. It is more likely that you will be able to
>> tell a business owner that he does NOT have to throw his current
>> investment down the drain in order to run Linux. He can take his
>> upgrade money and give his employees bonuses.
>
>Small business owners are very sensitive about the cost
>since every dollar wasted is one dollar lost from his own
>pocket.
True, but this is a reason *to* embrace Free Software.
> One small business owner I met lately told me
>that he had invested heavily on the latest Microsoft platforms
>for his entire offices and he wanted to preserve his latest
>technology investment for at least a few years ahead.
Fair enough, I hope his investment stays current that long ?
>He said it's always a painful feeling to upgrade his computer
>systems.
He uses windows, so I'd understand why it would be painful to upgrade.
> He implied that his situation is non uncommon.
Not with Windows, no.
>
>I guess it will take a couple of years for small business owners
>like him to even think about Linux.
Yes, especially if theyre put out of business by a compeditor who has saved
10's of thousands of dollars by switching to Linux.
>
>> If you're a consultant, you're not qualified. If you're only a troll,
>> you're pathetic.
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 days 21 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Mar 2000 13:00:08 +0800
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:49:39 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What will be the new kid on the block challenger to MS Windows?
>
Gee Steve, I'm impressed at what you'll do to get out of my killfile.
However this still doesn't mean we can be pals :(
<plonk>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 days 22 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 9 Mar 2000 15:26:23 +0800
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:13:29 +0200, James McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
>the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse if
>they requested help.
Expectations again! Where did you get them ?
Perhaps read it in a newspaper, on a pretty *commercial* Linuc disto ?
> Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
There is many possible reasons, and Linux users have a life too, do you think
they hang around waiting for someone to ask for help ???
>calling it a day.
Have you ever purchased a Linux book James, did you READ it ?
>
>How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I just
>don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed sure :)
Total crap James, I was a firstime user of linux in Aug97, I had no problems.
The growth of Linux shows your claim to be absurd, first time users of anything
have problems, some try to overcome them, some give up at once.
You're in the latter group. Bye James.
>
>James <- Asbestos jox in situ
So you should, you're just full of it mate!
>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 days 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Mar 2000 13:36:40 +0800
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 21:21:18 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 9 Mar 2000 09:12:35 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>As your a previously unseen, anonymous poster, I urge any readers to consider
>>>>the fact that you have no established credibility at all, "Gooba".
>>>
>>>Noone on cola does, bar those in the credits files of major OS components.
>>Nonsense George.
>
>So who is credible on COLA, Terry? Linux Torvalds vs Terry, now who's more
>credible, especially in regard to Linux?
Strawman George, save your breath.
>
>It takes time to build a rep in cola - those who have done so (positively) tend
>to have written code / docs etc and hence appear in the credits files, aka the
>great and the good.
Perhaps to you, but to me a rep is obtained by truthfull presentation, logic
and facts.
Dr Smith, a Windows advocate has a good rep here, as do certain others.
>
>>>
>>>>> That's all. Linux is
>>>>>notoriously choosy about what stuff is supported.
>>>>Bullshit.
>>>
>>>Replace Linux with Xfree86, and its true. Its also true for certain things
>>>like printers using ghostscript, parallel port devices, anything not likely
>>>to be found on server class hardware.
>>No its not true, this is just a gross generalisation.
>
>Hmm, where is linux most used, and doesn't Linuxes support concentrate on areas
>where it is extensively supported? Your going to find Ethernet drivers easier
>than USB ones. Thats a nice server / desktop split right there.
Hard to answer, the worlds changing rapidly. I use it as a server/desktop.
Why is it a split ? I dont have a single piece of usb hardware, its not a
problem for me.
>
>>George your a troll mate.
>
>Gosh.
>
>I just thought I was me.
Yes you are, George the wintroll.
>
>>>
>>>>> Linux is competing with Windows.
>>>>No its not.
>>>
>>>In certain areas, any OS on compatible hardware are competing. You can only run
>>>one at a time, bar VMware or IBM's virtualisation on mainframes.
>>Therefore ...
>
>You run the one you like most / or which does the needed task / and the other
>is neglected, and eventually discarded. I have Win 95A, and Linux 2.2.x, and
>I know which I upgrade most often.
Sounds perf fair to me.
>
>>>
>>>>> It may not
>>>>>be agressively competing with Windows, but it is competing. A giraffe and an
>>>>>elephant compete for the same waterhole, how often do you see them fight?
>>>>Linux and Windows aren't competing for anything.
>>>
>>>Mindshare, developer time, end users attention, third party vendor support,
>>>driver support, etc....
>>Green eggs and spam ....
>
>Calling Dr Seuss...
hahahaha.
>
>>>
>>>>> Having to code new drivers for yourself?
>>>>Sure
>>>>> Reverse engineer or
>>>>If needed, np.
>>>
>>>Want to write one for either my printer or scanner? Its only been several years
>>>and its not be written yet.
>>No George I do not, *your* printer is your problem.
>
>And a few other thousand users, yep, who have to reboot to use all their
>hardware.
Gee George you get around, thousands huh ?
Havent I told you a million times already ..... *don't exaggurate*
Don't forget the thousands of users who dont need to
reboot to windows, like me.
Don't forget the thousands of users who DONT have windows, like me.
>
>>Besides you Wintrolls only use the *latest* hardware, where Linux may
>>not have one available (yet). Get a new printer.
>
>Disagree with Terry's opinion, become a wintroll. How droll.
Do you deny you are a troll George ?
You don't know much about Linux and you're expousing the same old wintroll
arguments.
If you're really NOT a troll, I do sincerely apologise.
>
>This post brought to you courtesy of Linux 2.2.12, slrn, and vim.
So what ?
All this proves is that Wintrolls can install Linux.
>
>HAND.
>
>>>>>apply for licenses for every new piece of hardware?
>>>>No Free Software does NOT do deals with proprietary information owners.
>>>>If you had more than a passing introduction with it, you'd know that.
>>>
>>>Xfree86, obfuscated video driver code. Go look for it.
>>You look for it.
>
>Matrox driver, caused controversy, featured in an old Linux weekly news. Look
>it up.
I don't use Matrox, really I dont care.
>
>>>>> I think not, this is why
>>>>>Linux needs to compete, it needs a certain base number of users/developers
>>>>>to remain a viable, modern OS.
>>>>Your totally, completely 100% *incorrect*.
>>>
>>>What, If everyone walks away, Linux will remain perpetually up to date and
> ^^^^
>>>viable? Nup. Other people could make it so, but people still need to do so.
>>This statement shows scant knowledge of Linux George.
>
>How so, Terry?
Because developers won't walk away, they do this because they have embraced
Free Software they have a passion for it. Thats why.
But what kind of developers George ?
You're thinking commercial, I'm thinking Free Software.
>
>>Linux developers are NOT walking away, we flocked to Linux in droves, as it
>>GAVE us the tools we always wanted. Look at the new apps that appear on places
>>like Freshmeat every day!
>
>See the IF terry?
Yes I did George, the existance of the "if" makes no difference. If is a great
word and commonly used to good effect by FUD merchants.
>
>>>
>>>Without developers. adaptation ceases. Without users, who will become
>>Linux is not short of developers, I assure you Geoege.
>
>Well, I know that, yet somehow every major project asks for more volounteers to
>code, test, document, create artwork, package and so one, and progress is not
>made equally well in all areas.
Of course not progress is not equally made in all areas. Depends on the people,
available time available expertise etc.
> How late is Xfree 4 ? / Kernel 2.4.x ?
Its not late to me. When it comes out, it comes out, and with my thanks to the
developers.
I'm still running Xfree 3.3.3 and have no problems. My video card is a Diamond
Stealth64dram running 1024*768 at 256 colors and 81 hz vert
refresh, driving a 17" Apple Mac Trinitron monitor.
>
>>>disatisfied enough to change something?
>>Linux exists, its NOT Windows, your model does not fit.
>
>Yet, after it left the disc of Linus for the ftp site, there were users, who
>were dissatisfied (IDE only? No net drivers?) and wrote them. No users, no
>developers. Simply really.
This is ancient history, the fact Linux is where it is now, shows there is no
lack of developers, or users.
>
>>>Things get done for different reasons, still they get done.
>>And the sun still shines George,... your point ?
>
>Linux is not inherently better than any other software because of its license
>or development model,
Thanks for elaborating, I'd have to disagree tho. The reasons why I believe it
is better would take a whole new thread.
> not is any other inherently worse than Linux becuase of
>their model of development.
Same as above.
>
>George Russell
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 days 22 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Criticism
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 9 Mar 2000 14:36:50 +0800
On 7 Mar 2000 14:48:31 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 21:13:20 -0600, Robert Canup wrote:
>
>I believe everyone has the right to free speech, and that includes the
>right to criticise Linux. I believe free speech takes precedence over the
>less noble task of coddling someone's ego.
>
>The flipside is that we have the right to ignore criticisms as we see fit.
We also have the right to refute them as we se fit.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 23 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:56:38 +0000
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) wrote:
>
>> recent report that said something like 25% of potential e-commerce
>> transactions due to server problems - this is Unix unreliability
>> costing companies billions of dollars. All to blame on Unix.
No. This is idiots writing web apps without a clue. No OS in the world can
help if the people who are using it have a less than room temperature IQ.
--
Geoff. Lane. | Linux has shown the world that Microsoft is only a local
Manchester | maximum; there are many, much higher mountains to be
Computing | climbed in this particular space.
Today's Excuse:
LBNC (luser brain not connected)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Propaganda Technique: Snob Appeal (was: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel,
Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: 16 Mar 2000 13:10:40 GMT
In article <8ap7s1$t5q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> OTOH, I saw RedHat 6.1 at Walmart yesterday.
>>
>> $29.95
>>
>> I *never* thought I'd see it in a department store. It's come along
>> way since Slackware 1.0.
>
>Yeah, I saw it too... right next to all the rest of the bargin-bin
><$30.00 software and old, washed up games.
The propaganda/PR technique that Chad Myers is using here is
"snob appeal" -- manipulating the victim (prospective customer)
by means of a powerful social prejudice: that expensive things
are always better than cheap ones, and that people who buy and
flaunt lots of expensive things are better than those who don't.
Ads on TV and in magazines do this quite frequently.
Of course to anyone with an awareness of propaganda techniques
or sociological principles (or criminology), this is a laugh-
ingly transparent con game -- the corporation saying that for
people to be admired by others, they must spend a lot of money,
which just happens to end up in the pockets of those making
the pitch.
"Chad Myers/Mulligan" and "Drestin Black" have both used this
ploy many times, bragging about their expensive computers and
cars, and saying that no real computer professional would
refuse to spend a couple thousand dollars every two years for
the new version of Microsoft's WindowsXX, development tools,
office suite, and the new hardware necessary to feed the raven-
ous and bloated requirements of this software. (Of course,
they don't put it exactly that way.)
Here's a list of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
spammers operating in comp.os.linux.advocacy, present and
past (including multiple fake names used by the same person).
Some of them post at a rate of nearly 500 articles per month,
each:
"Drestin Black", Chad Myers/"Chad Mulligan", Stephen Edwards,
Steve/"teknite"/keymaster/keys88/"Sewer Rat"/heather/mcswain/
"S"/"Sponge"/"Sarek", etc., Jeff Szarka, Erik Funkenbusch,
Steve Sheldon, "piddy", Brent Davies, Boris, "Cuor di Mela",
"ubercat"/"Odin", "Xerophyte"/Kelly_Robinson, "boobaabaa",
"[EMAIL PROTECTED](newsguy.com)", etc.
Is Microsoft behind much of this high-volume pro-Microsoft/
anti-Linux propaganda barrage? They've certainly done
similar things in the past:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-121243.html?tag=st.cn..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991018-000017.html
http://www.opensource.org/halloween
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:14:30 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Terry Murphy wrote:
> Alpha is the fastest microprocessor in the world and is designed on
> VMS. Most of the other microprocessors are designed using Unix and are
> slower. Coincidence? Since VMS is a better, more reliable system, it
> not doubt is more productive to the engineers who use Unix, which is
> constantly crashing and has case sensitivity issues.
>
> Regards,
>
> Terry Murphy
Well, all design and most simulation at IBM for S/390, RS/6000, and SP2
is done with AIX. VM/CMS is also used for simulation. There are no
problems with either OS crashing. My workstation stays up 24/7 for
months on end. The only time it goes down is for an upgrade. And I
would hardly call the machines we design slow. As for productivity, take
a look at the rate at which we have been producing new designs:
S/390 G4 - June 1997
S/390 G5 - August 1998
S/390 G6 - May 1999
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:18:45 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Terry Murphy wrote:
> Apparently you are combining mainframes and supercomputers. I do not
> know about supercomputers (and I wouldn't be too surprised to hear
> they are 100% Unix), but mainframes are 0% Unix, by definitin.
>
That's the strangest definition of a mainframe that I have ever heard.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:49:59 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8apmtu$qpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Q%Nx4.4$py.58@client>,
> "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8a6phv$dpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I helped implement some of the earliest LIFE 911 systems, for
> > > Computer Consoles - now a division of Nortel. These systems
> > > all ran on UNIX. Last I heard about 90% of the 911 market was
> > > still running on variants of UNIX. Mainframes also had a small
> > > niche. What percentage of the market does NT have?
> >
> > I don't know percentages, but I do
> > know that one of the largest implementers
> > of 911 systems is Intergraph Public Safety
> > and they only sell NT based systems.
>
> One of the largest implementors? Do you mean to tell me that
> Intergraph Public Safety sells over 50% of the LIFE 911 market
> (integration of switch, ANI information, search engine, and dispatch
> systems). How many communities does it serve? How many million
> in the catchment (service) area?
I no longer work for Intergraph, so I don't have all the figures anymore, I
do know they are major player in the 911 business and that the systems are
NT based.
> >
> > No significant website whether its running NT, UNIX
> > or flipping CP/M runs on a single machine.
>
> Probably not. Though there are many UNIX powered sites that use
> RAID arrays, and Enterprise 4000 or 6000 servers or RS/6000 servers
> that seem to be quite comfortable with a single cage. Of course,
> they are all PVM or MPI machines.
The vast majority of clustered websites are clustered at the IP connection
level either by some local changes too theIP stack (NT's WLBS being one such
example) or by locating them behind something like a CISCO local director.
The sort of massively parralel approach createdc by things like PVM have
little or no relevance in websites.
>
> Which clustering standard does NT use PVM or MPI?
> How about W2K?
Please explain the relevance of the question to a discussion on large
numbers of systems powering websites. This type of load balancing is of
little use in most web applications.
>
> > Multiple machines are used for website for many reasons
> > including availablity and price,
>
> Running parallel static-page web-servers is pretty trivial,
> the transactions are stateless, the context is embedded in
> the message, and the client doesn't alter the context.
My God, Rex says something I agree with, hold the presses.
>
> When you get into complex back-end business integration,
> clustering isn't as trivial. You can do clustering with
> DCOM, CORBA, RPC, or MQ, and you can add Tuxedo, CICS, CORBA
> Transaction Services, or MQ Transaction services to integrate
> with XA compliant databases and servers to provide transactional
> integrity.
And your point is?
>
> At a lower level, you can use PVM and MPI to create distributed
> calls that can anonymously be routed to other procesessors while
> still supporting the context of the calling process/processor.
Irrelevant to websites.
>
> Beowulf supports both PVM and MPI. Solaris, AIX, and HP_UX use
> either or both in their high-end distributed systems. The big
> difference is faster message switching equipment on the commercial
> platforms.
I believe the PVM libraries have been available for NT for a long time, but
I challenge you to find one significant website that uses this type of
"clustering" for handling web requests or the backend database calls.
Websites are simply not designed that way.
>
> > it's cheaper high availability and high
> > performance in web applications from lots
> > of small machines than an
> > equivalent performance large machine.
>
> Agreed. Which pretty much leaves the question of which itty bitty
> box is cost-effective. With NT you pay for CALS.
For the 50Millionth time, you don't pay for CALs on an NT server, the IIS
licence is unlimited. When it comes to a backend DB server, you end up
paying the DB vendors licence scheme, most have a "Internet connector
licence" scheme with a fixed cost for DB engine serving as a backend
database for a website. It doesn't matter what OS you run, if you use a
database as the backend you'll end up paying some sort of licence fee to the
DB vendor, or does Oracle give that stuff away for free?
>With Oracle you
> may have to pay for cursers/users. With Linux you pay $20-$120 and
> then you pay for the support contract. You can do tier-1 internally,
> and do tier-2 and tier-3 externally, or have the entire management
> work outsourced.
>
Are you saying that an Oracle licence LINUX for use on a largescale website
is $120, I somehow doubt that figure.
> > > Many clusters also use dynamic DNS - a little feature UNIX and Linux
> > > have used for years to balance loads across multiple systems.
> > >
> > Roundrobin DNS schemes are function of the
> > DNS for the site and have nothing
> > to with the web site itself or the
> > platform used for the website.
>
> Of course, UNIX clusters usually do their own DNS. You can
> enable DNS on two or three of the gateway nodes and balance
> the load across multiple front-ends. The back-ends can balance
> queries and requests. I've seen both round-robin, and polling
> schemes.
>
NT boxes can also do their own DNS, so the same rather crude DNS load
balancing is possible. However CISCO local director and similar solutions
are much more popular at web sites because they give finer granularity. The
problem with DNS based schemes is that once a client has resolved the DNS
reference he may cache it and keep trying to hit the same physical machine,
this is bad if you've taken that amchine offline for some reason. Local
Director or a WLBS type system handles this stuff much more gracefully since
it only publishes a single IP address for the whole web cluster.
>
> Microsoft has tried to lock Linux out of USB, DVD, PCI-PnP, and
> several of it's other key technologies. Eventually, the proprietary
> content was either disclosed or hacked.
What evidence do you have the Microsoft was repsonsible for any of these, If
I recall correctly, the DVD issue was caused by the AAMP, something that MS
is not even a member of. PCI-PnP requires a licence, and that is controlled
by the PCI folks whoa re primarily run by the chipset and hardware vendors,
same goes for USB. What you mean is that the LINUX folks didn't want to pay
to join these clubs and in your deluded mind that equates to some vast
Illuminati conspiracy from the eveil Microsoft empire.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
