Linux-Advocacy Digest #190, Volume #26 Thu, 20 Apr 00 06:14:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (abraxas)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (abraxas)
Re: Standard desktop... ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: BSD & Linux (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU! (Ulisses Montenegro)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (No Name)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: BSD & Linux (Igor Kovalenko)
Re: Please Help Newbie (The Cat)
Re: Please Help Newbie ("Rich C")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Karel Jansens)
Re: Standard desktop... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (George Graves)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (George Graves)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: 19 Apr 2000 14:10:15 GMT
Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M. Kuchling) writes:
> [... why Solaris ships with crappy tools ...]
>> The fix was to install and use GNU sed, which worked correctly. Now,
>> what does Solaris gain from having a buggy version of sed, and having
>> to repair this bug themselves, when simply including GNU sed would
>> solve the problem for them?
> But any admin worth is salt will install the GNU tools on his machine,
> be it Linux (ok, not necesarry), Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, OS/390 USS.
Oh really now? And why is that?
For examply, why would the admin of an NMC backplane soaked to the
bone in trusted solaris install GNU tools?
Again, this is a matter of knowing what is enough, and when its
enough. GNU tools are very handy if you have alot of users who arent
used to the way solaris looks at things, but they certianly arent
always nessesary, and no GNU developer worth THEIR salt will tell
you that they are.
> Most
> of the time they are simply better than the default
> implementations.
Id say that this is true alot of the time. But not all of the time.
> They are compatible on all machines they run
> on. Think make for example. Think about the hell a Makefile writer has
> to go through because every vendor has incompatible extensions over
> the (admittedly crappy) POSIX standard here.
You know I havent met a makefile writer in about 5 years? Ive met
makefile EDITORS...:)
> You install GNU make on
> all machines, ranging from DOS over WinXX or OS/2 over Solaris, AIX up
> to the Mainframe running OS/390. Instant portability of Makefiles and
> a happy build manager :-)
Why would I need to build anything on a cheeta node?
Thats the point. Alot of the time that solaris is utilized, its
utilized because thats what a certian vendor's software runs on. Once
that software is installed and works for its purpose, theres zero
reason to go fooling aroud with installing GNU (or any other)
packages.
> The point is I don't care about bad tools in standard unix
> implementations. I just install GNU tools when they start bugging
> me. I have the choice because I have the source.
Yep.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 19 Apr 2000 14:12:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would I do that? I didn't claim that it's impossible for NT to have any
> backdoors. You, however, did claim that all linux distributions are
> guaranteed to not have any.
I dont remember him saying that. Can you quote?
> In fact, such a backdoor did exist in red hat not too long ago (within the
> last 18 months). A binary distribution of Red Hat on a mirror site had been
> compromised and had a back doored file installed into it.
Hmmm...I dont remember this either; URL?
> You cannot choose any specific version of Linux. Your statements claimed
> that it was impossible for a back door to exist in any linux distribution.
SuSe is quite nice, but then again you wouldnt know that, having exactly
ZERO real world experience.
It comes with reiserfs and everything.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Standard desktop...
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:29:09 +0200
how does this show something about open-source, since it is possible
with close soure solutions, too. i don't follow your logic...
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the first time since I started using Linux, I getting to use a Sun
> workstation in addition to my Linux workstation. I don't mind Solaris
> but, I hate CDE. Well, I installed KDE on the Sun and (Drum roll,
> please) ta'da, I have MY standard desktop across the two different
> platforms. The home directories are the same (mounted NFS) so all the
> desktop configurations follow me. I know many people do not like KDE
or
> GUI's but, I think this shows how the Open-Source model can be a
> powerful, unifying force in the computer industry.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:41:22 +0200
> >> Tanenbaum already had a far more interesting system: Amoeba. Unfortunately
> >> with many new performance problems.
> >
> >Well to me Amoeba is nothing (realy) different from a clustered unix ...
> And MS-DOS is just a small version of Unix.
aehem, not
> Seriously, Amoeba does not have
> much in common with Unix. It is a completely different operating system.
I know, but the features it gives are not much more than a good
clustered unix
> The Amoeba sources are available from
no thanks, I like systems that work :)
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:39:55 +0200
> >> Cool. What are you researching?
> > create systems to detect (indicate) breast-cancer, we are working on
> > lever etc. too
> So you need image processing (duh! Of course you do - you said that!)
yes, we use and we do create image-processing programms.
> and a basic idea of algorithmic efficiency?
of course
> Maybe some neural net and fuzzy logic stuff too, but that's only if you're trying to
>take the
> in the code, and not just provide decision support for clinicians...
huh?
------------------------------
From: Ulisses Montenegro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:31:28 -0300
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Charlie Ebert wrote:
:Dear Chad.
:
:Microsoft is asking everybody to delete that .dll.
:They wouldn't ask us to delete the .dll if it weren't a threat.
Not true. Someone shouts 'fire!' while a party is going on at your house.
Everybody panics. You look around and see no fire. You tell that to
everyone in your house. Yet, people are already so freaked out that the
whole stuff goes out of control. Would you rather try to calm down people
and tell them not to leave your house, or let them leave and take the time
to *really* look for that fire? Maybe you would take the first option if,
in case someone got hurt, you weren't sued for millions. That is not the
case with Microsoft. So, being not sure that the vulnerability exists
(even though they stated it doesn't), they take the safe route. Simple as
that. Erase the DLL. If later it is proven that there actually was some
vulnerability, they're covered.
:You can't call a guy a moron and an idiot if there's been a story publishe=
d
:about a security threat from a Microsoft product, THEN have Microsoft tell
:you to delete the .dll because it IS a security threat.
IF you're so sure it is a security threat, then try it on a server of
yours. And see for yourself. Now if you manage to make it work, kudos for
you. Post your results, and you shall be praised for that. If not, shut
up.
:That just makes you look stupid.
Him..? Look in a mirror, buddy.
:You CAN'T KEEP turning the WORLD into FUDSTERS every time a new BAD THING =
is
:EXPOSED about Microsoft products...
Ok, Agent Mulder. We'll have the X-Files re-opened.
:And this guy has the Gaul to holler 'FUDSTER' 'Idiot' 'Moron' TO ME!
:GOD, I can't believe it.
Have you a problem with your caps-lock..? Or are you just trying to make
yourself look stupid?
:Chad, ... No... No Chad...
:
:Charlie
[]'s
Ulisses
---
RADIX:
Mais de 4 milh=F5es de p=E1ginas est=E3o dispon=EDveis em http://www.radix.=
com.br/!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 19 Apr 2000 15:17:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Apr 2000 08:05:46 +0200, Adams Klaus-Georg said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
>> personally know looded at the Linux Source?
>
>I do so nearly daily. I looked at the implementation of device drivers
>for Linux on Mainframe, because I'm interested in the technology. I
>fixed an SMP race for the tokenring card I'm using in one of our
>servers (the same day incidently the author release a patch for this
>:-(
>
>What was your point?
>
>--
>MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
His point was that people like you don't exist. You must be
a bad dream in his feverish nightmares.
Shoo! Shoo! Go back to your source code, evil spirit!
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:50:57 +1000
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Common sense says that each and every individual does not have to
> >> verify every line of code.
> >
> >Common sense also questions why everyone should trust this tiny minority
of
> >people that are actually "reviewing" the source code.
>
> I beg to disagree. The people reviewing the source code make up quite a
> few and are not bound by any company policy. There's nobody holding you
> back to take part in it.
My lack of time and expertise in the relevant area, however, does. I
sincerely doubt I am alone in that.
> The association I would like to introduce here is that if the number of
> *independent* people who say that your wife sleeps around increases,
> your willingness to believe it will increase, however much you trust
> her. That's common sense.
> My common sense tells me it is impossible for all the thousands of
> independent reviewers worldwide to conspire together just to slip a
> backdoor in.
Thousands ? I'd be surprised if the number of competent and knowledgable
people "reviewing" the major open source applications numbered very far into
the hundreds.
------------------------------
From: Igor Kovalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.os.qnx
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:23:52 -0500
Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote:
>
> > In that flamewar Linus asserted that microkernels are just a fad,
> > and they're going to be slower than monolithic kernels.
> >
> > Personally, I am not sure about this. Have any of you guys tried QNX demo
> > disk at http://qnx.com/iat/index.html ?
>
> Well QNX is realy nice ... but is not the same as an Unix.
> I am thinking of virtual-memory etc. As Linux said Micro-kernels are
> 'fad' he has a 'complete' (unix)system in mind.
Huh. He sure meant Mach ;)
It is "microkernel" conceptually, but since it is trying to preserve
binary compatibility with Unix, it is so heavy that is sunk under its
own weight. A "megakernel" as some people say. Its IPC mechanism is too
complicated compared to QNX.
OTOH, there is nothing in microkernel concept that prevents you from
doing virtual memory. Neutrino has it, but current one was designed with
heavy skew to memory usage optimisation and simplicity (embedded
market). It is going to be replaced by modern BSD-inspired design.
In some sense, yes, microkernels will always be slower because function
call is inherently faster than a message pass. But at the end, users
don't care how many microseconds a system call takes. They care if their
system is unresponsive, they care if audio/video is distorted, how many
frames per second they can _reliably_ have, etc. And not surprizingly,
those things are inherently better with realtime systems. One would say
hey, realtime does not mean microkernel. Well, may be it does not, but
realtime system sure benefits from shorter non-preemptable code paths in
kernel, which are inherently better with microkernel. It also makes SMP
work better.
Now, with faster and faster CPUs the speed issue of message passing will
fade out inevitably. Neutrino for example can pass *short* messages at
sustained rate of 2Gb/sec on PPC 7400 (using its AltiVec engine to pass
16 bytes per clock cycle), all overhead included. At some point one will
have hard time measuring speed difference. But determinism is not speed.
And then it is determinism what will make a difference.
- igor
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Please Help Newbie
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:53:06 GMT
If you are using kppp try changing the interface to /dev/ttys0 or
/dev/cua0 instead of /dev/modem.
Experiment with the various choices and see if one of the other ones
works.
Also open a konsole (terminal window) and type su then enter your root
password.
Type "dmesg | more" without the quotes and look for a line like
ttyS00 at 0x03f8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A
or something similar as the ttyS00 will let you know where your modem
is getting recognized by Linux.
TheCat
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:55:24 -0000, "Beverly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Thanks for answering my plea for help even tho posted to wrong group. there
>is nothing in the log sence the modem never dials, it only says that its
>initalising. Yes useing the versame linux mandrake 6.0 and same computer, so
>its really weird.
>"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:38fd3431@news...
>> "Beverly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:Gc9L4.284$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I just installed linux and have tried to set my kppp to dial my ISP. I
>> can't
>> > get the modem to dial, It finds the modem, I get moden initalising, and
>> > thats as far as I go. I am not useing a win modem. as a matter of fact
>> have
>> > tried two modems both V34 type. I had linux installed once before and
>was
>> > able to connect. don't know what I could have done wrong this time. Any
>> help
>> > appreciated.
>> > Bev.
>> >
>> >
>> This is not really the place for this kind of question; you should really
>> post your problem in alt.os.linux.dial-up, comp.os.linux.setup,
>> comp.os.linux.answers, and comp.os.linux.hardware.
>>
>> But first, look at your message log and see if you can see exactly what is
>> happening. In a terminal window, su to root and do a
>>
>> tail /var/log/messages
>>
>> command after you connect. If you aren't root, you may not be able to read
>> this file. Also, if you have a distribution other than Red Hat, this file
>> may be under another name or in a different directory.
>>
>> If you are using KPPP, click the log button on the dialog when you
>connect.
>> It will show the modem communications, and will tell you at the very least
>> if you're connecting. Just hearing the modem's chirping isn't always
>enough.
>>
>> Did you use the same distribution before and it worked? Or is this a
>> different one?
>>
>> Ask your ISP if they are using PAP or CHAP. Chances are they are using one
>> of the two, and it may be that you are executing some kind of logon
>script,
>> which may not be compatible with the PAP or CHAP authorization scheme. Try
>> disabling any logon script (I forget exactly how to do this in KPPP, IIRC,
>> there is a scripting tab in the setup dialog.
>>
>> If you can't solve it on your own, post the contents of your messages file
>> for the pppd connect portion ONLY (we don't need to see huge files of the
>> last six times you booted up! :o)
>>
>> Good Luck!
>>
>> -- Rich C.
>> "Great minds discuss ideas.
>> Average minds discuss events.
>> Small minds discuss people."
>>
>>
>>
>
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Please Help Newbie
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:00:32 -0400
"Beverly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9%aL4.320$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thanks for answering my plea for help even tho posted to wrong group.
there
> is nothing in the log sence the modem never dials, it only says that its
> initalising. Yes useing the versame linux mandrake 6.0 and same computer,
so
> its really weird.
Ok, then, I misunderstood you. From an root terminal window (see my previous
post) type:
setserial /dev/ttySx
where ttySx is the port your modem is on. If you don't know this, type:
ls -al /dev/modem
and that should tell you which serial port the modem is linked to.
/dev/modem is a link to the "real" device. Note that this may NOT actually
be the port your modem is on. If you can't ascertain this, and you can go
back to windows, you can find out by going to the control panel, double
clicking the Modems icon, selecting your modem, and clicking properties. On
the general tab you will see the port number.
COM1==ttyS0
COM2==ttyS1....and so forth
If the result of setserial includes the phrase "UART: unknown" or something
similar, then you probably don't have the modem set up properly in your
ISAPnP script.
If this is the case, this is a whole other ball of wax to set up, so let us
know.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: 19 Apr 2000 17:01:58 GMT
Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Marion wrote:
> >
> > Mayor wrote:
> >
> > > You are not seriously arguing that marketshare determines
> > > usefulness are you?
> >
> > No kidding. We probably get more productive output from our Suns then the PCs
> > (which number about 10x the Suns). 'course I'm a Unix admin/weenie.. so I'm
> > biased. :)
>
> What do you run on your PC's?
If they're Windows-based, mostly BIOS, I'd wager.
<G>
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
CIA-bait:
Saddam Hussein Iraq Iran hijack assasinate CIA plutonium
President of the United States thermonuclear device
Windows weapons FBI biohazard Microsoft uranium
submarine kill timer explosives
Have a nice day, guys!
========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Standard desktop...
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:22:07 GMT
Try to run the MS desktop on anything else but MS product.
In article <8dkfrr$4ja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> how does this show something about open-source, since it is possible
> with close soure solutions, too. i don't follow your logic...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For the first time since I started using Linux, I getting to use a
Sun
> > workstation in addition to my Linux workstation. I don't mind
Solaris
> > but, I hate CDE. Well, I installed KDE on the Sun and (Drum roll,
> > please) ta'da, I have MY standard desktop across the two different
> > platforms. The home directories are the same (mounted NFS) so all
the
> > desktop configurations follow me. I know many people do not like KDE
> or
> > GUI's but, I think this shows how the Open-Source model can be a
> > powerful, unifying force in the computer industry.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:43:04 +0200
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Paul 'Z' Ewande� wrote:
I'll try to make it as brief as as possible, this thread has outlived my
stamina. :)
> > Most ? It's a strong word. How do you know that 50+ % of Windows users
> > suffer weird lock-ups.
>
> From help desk logs.
>.
> Taken across a random sampling of help desks, the rates hit nearly 100%.
Unless you know for a fact that any and each Windows' users have called a
helpdesk, wether they needed help or not, you helpdesks logs won't convince
me that "50%+ of Windows users suffer weird lock-ups".
During the time I was working as a helpdesk technician for an ISP, the bulk
of the calls were a misconfiguration of the computer or a dead DUN. Your
experiences against mine
> > Continuously ? Windows9x [and MacOS IMO] is a light duty OS, as you
probably
> > know, not intended to be win uptime contests. Rather, boot-up, do your
> > stuff, shut down.
>
> "Light Duty" . . . an interesting statement. What is "light duty"?
Power up, do your daily stuff, power down.
<SNIP> A whole lot of stuff </SNIP>
> "You're one of those smug Unix users, aren't you!?"
>
> "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a real computer."
>
> The author of "Snow Crash" used to be in your boat, not understanding
> why Unix users were smug . . . then he figured it out, and wrote an
> essay to explain it to the rest of the world. It's an essay well worth
> reading.
I might, do you have a few pointers ? However, it's that kind of attitude
that pushed me more towards FreeBSD than Linux. The guy who introduced me to
BSD didn't look down on me with regards to my OS, pointed me at some
shortcomings of his with spouting politics and religion. Some Linux dudes
OTOH... No I don't believe that all Linux advocates are arrogant
bullshiters.
> > Apps and harware support. It comes donw to to this. You may cry Monopoly
all
> > you want. What was Sun doing in the '80's and '90's while Microsoft was
> > building an empire ?
>
> Building their own empire . . .
A-Ha, interesting. See below.
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > > Something like 24% of the people who bought the first iMac's were
> > > switching from Windows to MacOS . . . what does that tell you?
Cripes, why all the moaning about Windows having a monopoly ? People go from
Windows to Mac, and Sun has an empire ? :)
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > Just out of curiosity, Does Win9x have any redeemable feature whatsoever
?
>
> Yep. It's the perfect excuse not to help somebody: "Sorry, I don't do
> Windows. There's an MSCE in the next cube over who will only charge you
> 50$ per hour to work on your machine, though . . . let me transfer you
> to him."
>
> All kidding aside: I haven't used a MS product at home since the DOS 3.x
> days. All the times I've had to use Windows 9x at work: No, I've never
> seen any redeeming qualities in it.
That perfectly sums it up. You feel that Windows9x sucks absolutely, I
disagree, let's just agree to disagree then.
> Windows NT, on the other hand, wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so
> much MS secret, proprietary junk sitting on top of it. A good paint
> scraper, and a few years in the standards committee, and NT could be an
> OK kernel.
What for ? We already have the kernel of kernels. Never mind if some people
are actually able to do things in lesser totally crappy OSes that the kernel
of kernels based OS do not do currently.
After all, everybody knows that all we want for an OS is an elegant, nice
and open kernel which spent years in a standards committee, not doing silly
running on your hardware the software which allows you to do what you want.*
* I'm not implying that the kernel of kernels based OS don't do such things,
that it doesn't do such things for everybody.
> --
>
> If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> John Stevens
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: George Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:50:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mayor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <gmgravesii-
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, George Graves
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing
>>>> that Apple could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on
>>>> CSMA is to roll over, belly-up and die. With Apple gone,
>>>> they wouldn't have that little nagging voice in their head
>>>> that keeps saying "did I choose the wrong platform?" Because
>>>> with no Apple, there would be only ONE platform and
>>>> the Wintrolls could sleep secure in their beds with no nasty
>>>> Apple confusing them with that pesky Macintosh.
>>>
>>>A common misconception. PC owners are becoming increasingly
>>>aware that there are alternatives to MS based products, thus
>>>there are far for than "one" platform available.
>>
>>With what, pray tell, to run on them?
>
>What do you run on your Mac, George? I keep hearing from certain
>quarters that there's no software for it! :)
I run PageMaker - No Linux, or Be equivalent
I run QuarkXpress - No Linux, or Be equivalent
I run FrameMaker - No Linux, or Be equivalent
I run Adobe Illustrator - No Linux, or Be equivalent
I run Photoshop - Well, there's GIMP, but that's NO photoshop.
I run ViaVoice - No Linux, or Be equivalent
I run Freehand - No Linux, or Be equivalent
You get the picture.
--
George Graves
------------------------------
From: George Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:51:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>George Graves wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >George Graves wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing that Apple
>> >> could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on CSMA is to roll over,
>> >> belly-up and die. With Apple gone, they wouldn't have that little
>> >> nagging voice in their head that keeps saying "did I choose the wrong
>> >> platform?" Because with no Apple, there would be only ONE platform
>> >> and
>> >> the Wintrolls could sleep secure in their beds with no nasty Apple
>> >> confusing them with that pesky Macintosh.
>> >
>> >A common misconception. PC owners are becoming increasingly aware that
>> >there are alternatives to MS based products, thus there are far for
>> >than
>> >"one" platform available.
>>
>> With what, pray tell, to run on them?
>
>It's called "software" I think.
There just isn't enough of it for most people to get any work done.
--
George Graves
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
