Linux-Advocacy Digest #614, Volume #26 Sat, 20 May 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Roger)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Your office and Linux. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Your office and Linux. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Your office and Linux. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ("Richard Crossley")
Re: Is Linus a terminator ? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Off-topic ? Microsoft (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The future... (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: 20 May 2000 13:06:44 -0500
In article <a4yV4.698$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> To put it bluntly, Linux Looks like shit. The fonts are jagged and
>>> boxy. Staroffice is a complete bloated mess of a joke compared to
>>> Office.
>> XFree86 V.4 supports TrueType fonts - give it another few months for the
>>distributors to start to include it in their distributions.
>
>Translation : Wait for it to stabilise and regain its hardware support after
>its incomplete and much delayed release.
>
>Its not ready yet, tm.
And meanwhile the 6.x distributions of RedHat and all the Mandrake
versions have included a truetype capable font server. RH 6.2
automated the font directory setup as well. Drop some new fonts
in, restart xfs and you have them. And xfstt has been around for
a couple of years at least for people who want to use it instead.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:18:03 GMT
whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> And who in their right mind needs such stuff?
> >>
> >> Geek crap.
> >
> > Anyone who intends on doing some serious stuff with their computer.
>
> The problem is with the word "serious". It is redefined for each and every
> user of a PC.
Exactly.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
See my work at http://www.geocities.com/sierra_tigris
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:02:43 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 11:30:00 GMT, someone claiming to be Charlie Ebert
wrote:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>> Roger <roger@.> writes:
>> : On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:35:03 GMT, someone claiming to be Charlie Ebert
>> : wrote:
>> : >It seems Microsoft has thrown in their hat with HOTMAIL, once again
>> : >attempting
>> : >to replace FreeBSD servers with W2K.
>> : Proof?
>You mean you can't fucking read either!
>
>Go up to the Hot Mail site moron and read it!
Where * specifically * on the hotmail site does it say that MS has
abandoned an attempt to port (or even begun such an attempt.)
And where * specifically * on the FreeBSD is it documented that they
tried to port to NT?
Because if you go to the library, there's a book that says you are
wrong <g>
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:19:39 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 20 May 2000 02:54:01 +1000,
> > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >I've been back up the thread. The context was, IIRC, "problems", and the
> > >specific sentence about BSODs.
> >
> > You really are getting desparate...here it is going back seven posts
> > and their is no use of the word "problems" untill Stephen's use of it,
> > just an ongoing talk about BSOD's and lockups under X:
> >
> > http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623126285 - reference to "Blue screen"
> >
> > http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623143491 - reference to Linux crashes.
> >
> > http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623268665 - reference to "blue screen"
> >
> > http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623294410 - reference by Stephen to
> > X locking up.
> >
> > http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623126285 - reference to X locking up.
>
> The above are totally irrelevant. Especially as setting the context since
> it changes from apps crashign to apps bringing down the system to BSODs.
>
> > http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623637730 - Stephen's original claim
> > "I have seen a lot of BSODs in my time, and in every single
> > instance..."
>
> Thus specifically indicating the BSODs he had experienced.
>
> > http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623697578 - someone wrote "MS doesn't
> > aggree with you stephen. In a survey _they published_, 40 percent of
> > BSODs were attributed to 'internal NT components'. Hardware, apps,
> > etc. got the rest."
>
> Once again, irrelevant to the point at hand.
>
> > http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623940112 - Stephen's story changed
> > to "most of the problems I've encountered, and witnessed..."
>
> Thus changing the context.
>
> > Now that's five looks you've had "Christopher" and you're still
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'm wondering why that's in ""s.
>
> > playing your little game of evasion. I've provided the evidence, it's
> > up to you to have some reading comprehension.
>
> I have read, comprehended, and your claim of Stephen's lying is, at best,
> tenuous.
OH please! Stephen want's proof that NT or W2K blue screen.
The problem with Stephen is this is an Advocacy group and he's
advocating nothing.
He's just bitching.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:31:59 GMT
Sam wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2000 03:08:54 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I got your picture but your picture is miles from the truth.
> >Go spend just $45 of your hard earned cash and get a copy of Suse 6.4,
> >install it, then come back here and repeat those words you've just said!
>
> Buy ?
>
> $45 ?
>
> It's supposed to be free (worth ever cent)
>
> Sam
Freedom and price are two different things.
Linux is FREE if you download it off the internet.
If you want it on 6 CD's, in a box, with a manual,,, you'll pay a little
$$.
But that little $$ doesn't compare to the $$$$$$$$ for MicroSux.
And you get more value for your money.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:33:29 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2000 02:21:08 GMT, Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ok, I think you're not understanding the whole picture. First off, why does
> >Windows inhabit 80% of all modern computers in the world? That one is pretty
>
> Nope. It's because Windows was originally DOS, the OS of the IBM
> microcomputer. The good name of IBM ensured the success of DOS
> with which Microsoft could use to force Windows onto everyone.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Apple got that 'easy' thing right a FUCKING WHOLE DECADE before
> Microsoft did...
> ...a lot of good that did Apple.
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
I read this and thought, Star Wars I. Yip. Star Wars I, the new
series.
The Senator is actually Bill Gates. We'll see that in future episodes.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:34:08 GMT
Otto wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : On Fri, 19 May 2000 02:21:08 GMT, Matt Soltysiak
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : >Ok, I think you're not understanding the whole picture. First off, why
> does
> : >Windows inhabit 80% of all modern computers in the world? That one is
> pretty
> :
> : Nope. It's because Windows was originally DOS, the OS of the IBM
> : microcomputer. The good name of IBM ensured the success of DOS
> : with which Microsoft could use to force Windows onto everyone.
>
> The man in black theory again :)? Nobody was/is forced to use Windows.
>
> : Apple got that 'easy' thing right a FUCKING WHOLE DECADE before
> : Microsoft did...
> : ...a lot of good that did Apple.
>
> Oh yes, the arrogant Apple at that time. They didn't care about the personal
> use of the PCs since they had all of the of the fat government contracts. Do
> you see now why Windows became popular?
>
> Otto
Apples latest idea is to base the new MAC os on the FreeBSD kernel
and go from there.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:36:19 GMT
John Sanders wrote:
>
> TheKeyMan wrote:
> >
> > First off, Linux is a good system when it is used in the proper
> > setting and under the guidance of people who actually understand the
> > system. With that point considered, my company, a small real estate
> > company with 10 offices in the northeast USA began a study late last
> > year to try and consolodate our network and quite frankly save some
> > money.
>
> There is absolutely no reason to switch to Linux in an environment like
> a small real estate office which has been using the usual Windows apps.
> Moving to Linux to run the same type of app. IS pointless.
>
> Linux is not Windows. Linux is not a Windows replacement. If you
> don't understand it, don't use it.
>
> Get a man's job.
> --
> John W. Sanders
> ---------------
> "there" in or at a place.
> "their" of or relating to them.
> "they're" contraction of 'they are'.
Snort!
Until there is NO MORE WINDOWS will this man change!
And that's a commin!
HA
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:50:11 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Raul Valero wrote:
>
> : > Did you realize how much did it cost the so called 2000 effect ? Well,
> : > that was changing a little programas here and a little there. Do you know
> : > how much would it cost to switch whole programs, data, networks,
>
> : Databases get migrated all the time.
> : Front-end apps get replaced all the time.
>
> : Networks -- nobody will notice the change.
>
> : MS shit will just get gradually phased out over a period of years,
> : just like Mainframe apps were gradually replaced with PC clients
> : over a period of years.
>
> Possibly. I think Microsoft will eventually become a "still very large"
> but "back seat" company. Sort of the way IBM has become.
>
> : > employees knowledge, and the so ? I think Microsoft (or the sequels)
> : > will remain for a while. What's more, if it begins making good code, why
>
> : Dream on, Monkeyboy
>
> The only people who are "dreaming", are people who are fantasizing about
> Microsoft overnight demise.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
Microsoft will die by 2006 for the following reasons.
#1. The Court systems is going to break Microsoft into 2-3 peices
within 2 years.
#2. In the balance of the time we are waiting on the courts, most of
Microsoft's
talent will leave her due to the stock market crisis Microsoft is
in.
#3. Linux has forced Microsoft into a ONE os or die campaign.
#4. The manpower currently going into Linux is over 100,000 programer
contributors.
Microsoft has around 850 actual coders.
#5. Linux has surpassed Microsoft on sales this year in Servers and
Desktops.
#6. Linux is not a company, it can not go bankrupt. Market forces do
not harm Linux.
#7. Linux is written open source so it will never be MIS-TRUSTED by the
people such
as Microsoft is.
#8. Linux does not BLUE screen or need re-booting like ALL Microsoft
products need.
#9. Linux is FAR cheaper to obtain than Microsoft W2k and far more
capable also!
#10. By 2006, people will realize that Microsoft is NOT the consumer
market leader
for Desktops as Linux is far superior and they will shut down thier
OS division
in favor of making Microsoft an applications vendor as Microsoft
Office for Linux
did so well.
By 2010, people who have used and exerienced the office environments
provided by KDE and
Gnome will be asking why do we need Microsoft OFFICE. Microsoft OFFICE
will be shut down.
Microsoft will disappear from the world.
Linux on the other hand will changed names about every 30 years and
continue on thru several
centuries before mankind leaves the planet for the stars never to
return.
Aliens exploring this planet will come do a DIG to find out what
happened to the doomed
Human planet. They will uncover a set of 18 DVD's somewhere and it will
begin again!
They will argue that Microsoft was their OS and not Linux and therefore
the race
which wrote Linux were superior and they destroyed the humans!
Stephen refuses to post his comments on when Linux will die for he has
no reasoning.
Stephen is NOT advocating anything, therefore he shouldn't be here. IE.
he's just bitching.
Stephen NEEDS to advocate something or put some MEAT on the table for a
prediction so
that OTHERS who are less intelligent can laugh at him.
You can't just be a fucking bitch and get away with it.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:52:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <t_2V4.97349$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Streamer"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Hey dipshit did you bother to check the headers? If you had half a
> >> brain you would have understood my post. I was implying that Charlie
> >> was a lintroll. A brain dead lab monkey would have understood that from
> >> the whole "you are emberassing the rest of US" part, but I guess it was
> >> a litlle too much for you eh?
> >
> > No, I got it. Obviously you don't understand that Charlie is not merely a
> > linux troll, he is a linux advocate -- one of the better ones too. If he
> > embarrasses you, it makes me wonder what type of a Linux advocate you must
> > be.
>
> Charlie isn't advocating anything. There is a right way and a wrong way to advocate
>something. Telling everyone they are stupid pieces of shit for using windows and
>blathering on about how the end of microsoft is at hand isn't advocating. Charlie is
>a troll, not a zealot. Trolls post in opposing newsgroups looking to start pointless
>arguments. Trolls post nothing but opinions and bullshit, and then fail to back up
>the bullshit. I am the best kind of linux advocate. I tell people the reasons why I
>use linux. I encourage anyone who is interested to try it out. I help them in any
>way I can. Do you see know? Charlie == Troll.
> >
> >> I know you get all excited when you think
> >> you can flame a windows user, but next time investigate a little bit
> >> more o.k. In case you still can't figure it out I will help you just
> >> this once.
> >
> > I have a lot of sympathy for Windows users, and I try to limit my flamings
> > to MS FUDsters. In your case, I was only making a joke....Can't you take
> > a joke?
>
> I thought you were joking until you got to the part about me making all of the
>wintrolls look bad. This is ignorant and needs no explanation.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14-15mdk i686)
> >>
> >> Netscape..................LINUX..........mandrake
> >>
> >
> > Haven't you noticed that many of the Wintrolls in c.o.l.a. post using
> > Netscape on Linux? Now, had your Newsreader been pan, trn, slrn, or
> > anything else not found in MS land, I might have figured you were a
> > serious Linux User <I'm not implying here that you are or aren't., I just
> > couldn't tell>
> >
>
> You are joking right? There are several things that are very wrong with this
>statement.
> 1: Someone's choice of newsreaders has nothing to do with how
> "serious" of a linux user they are.
> 2: I do not traffic usenet heavily so I have no need for what I would
> consider a really good newsreader (like slrn etc.)
> 3: You flamed me from netscape!
>
> So now am I a "serious" linux user because I wrote this with pan? What a joke. If
>you really admire Charlie's utter lack of wit and trollish ways then I feel sorry for
>you.
>
> jt
Awe... Charlie is a bad person!
And your just a college kid who was trying to convice the world you ran
an office somethere
and knew Linux was bad DOO-DOO!
That evil Charlie.
But I'm glad to see you did no harm and are just as WHITE as an angle
here!
You fucking nitwit!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:54:20 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> : *snip a whole bunch of unwrapped lines*
>
> : We can wrap lines, winfag.
>
> Did you notice that he's posting with Pan v0.7.6? That is a newsreader
> which runs under GNOME, you twit.
>
> I think you owe this person an apology.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
You don't appologize to some kid who professed to run an office where
Linux failed
only to be caught on some college campus a short bulletin later!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Richard Crossley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 22:36:28 -0700
>
> I still laugh at some of my friends who upgraded from win95 to win98se and
> discovered that (a) they got no new features that they actually used,
> (b) they got a less stable system which rarely gets past a weeks uptime,
> and often goes comatose if left idle overnight (c) they had basically paid
> to have the splash screen number increased by 3.
>
I have Win98se and Linux on the same PC. Guess which is easier and more
automated to setup. It isn't the one with 98 percent market share :) Win 98
keeps prompting for stuff during the upgrade. Press a key here, do something
there. Linux is nice and easy. Enter all the details, press OK and have a
beer. Nice and easy.
Richard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linus a terminator ?
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:01:41 GMT
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : First, Linus drops away Microsoft and now, Transmeta is
> : going for Intel, did Linus born to kill ? :-)
>
> Ahh, but the real question is:
>
> Is Linus an active or passive terminator? :)
Passive.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Off-topic ? Microsoft
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:02:35 GMT
Tim Kelley wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > Raul Valero wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a doubt. Does anything prevent Microsoft selling all of its
> > > products to a foreign (non U.S.) company and keep on with the
> > > monopoly from let's say (as example) Spain, Japan, Korea, etc ... ?
> >
> > Yes, A federal Judge can just say the hell with you Microsoft,
> > your product will never hit US shores again.
> >
> > And a Federal Judge CAN do that.
>
> It would be a cold day in hell. The outrageous crap many US
> multinationals do (GE, Union Carbide, et. al.) and have gotten
> away with makes Microsoft's "crimes" seem puny.
>
> --
>
> Tim Kelley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes! YES YES! But if you PISS OFF A FEDERAL JUDGE!!!!
SATAN WILL RISE IF YOU PISS OFF A FEDERAL JUDGE!!!!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The future...
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:05:03 GMT
I actually like this guy.
He's approved reading.
Charlie
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > Looking over the landscape of the computer industry, here are some
> > > observations.....
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > >
> > > The Server market distinct from the Workstation is gone. Desktop PCs
> > > will either get smaller in the direction of thin-clients, or be
> > > indistinguishable from servers.
> >
> > They have enough power today to make that work in the home or small
> > business.
> > I just can't imagine how this concept would be effective in large scale
> > industry. For instance, how would you effectively administer SQL power
> > from a ORACLE engine across such a system in a large business say 350
> > employees
> > and on up.
> >
> > I guess I can't figure out that redundant cluster you've placed here.
> > But I will say the office cluster concept is extremely interesting.
> >
> > >
> > > I think the NOS market is gone. Novel and whom ever is pursuing it is
> > > wasting their time. All real OS's will just do it right.
> >
> > I must admit. I'm left scratching my butt over this comment.
> > I don't quite know what to make of it.
> >
> > To say this is exactly like saying NT server is dead, OS2 server is
> > dead, Linux server is dead, that the server lan wan thing is dead.
>
> No... he said that the concept of "NETWORK Operating System" is
> dead... (Novell, Banyan, etc.).
>
> The only reason these misfit tools came into being was because
> Microsoft took over 10 years to include proper networking in their
> kernals.
>
> >
> > Well, I CAN agree that lan wan is dead. The Thin Web client is
> ^^^^^^^
>
> Please try not to speak in oxymorons.
>
> > the wave of the future. The centralized processing model is on
> > it's way back. But this leads me blank when I see your
> > server less, non centralized, office cluster idea.
> >
> > >
> > > Windows is going to die. Not because of MS, exactly, but because the
> > > world is going towards standards. While UNIX is not a majority player,
> > > it is a standards based multi-vendor platform. MS will bluster about
> > > being the "defacto-standard" but more and more IT people are realizing
> > > that public standards are better than ubiquitous proprietary standards.
> >
> > Ummmm.
> >
> > The World Wide Web does seem to be authoring it's own standards and
> > Microsoft is trying to stay up with them as the changes happen.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You mispelled "trying and failing to dictate"
>
> >
> > So's everybody else. Microsoft isn't leading the world in this
> > arena as they thought they would be doing.
>
> Incompetance and low standards is its own reward!
>
> >
> > I think if they were to survive, and their not, but if they did,
> > they would be a team follower just like everybody else.
> >
> > But the day's of hooking people on the face to show them the
> > way are over for Microsoft.
> >
> > Now, what about Word?
> >
> > Do you really feel this way?
> >
> > Not breakup then competition then public demise.
>
> Once MS is exposed to real, unfettered competition, they will fall
> apart. Their management and culture is geared to being able to
> bully around retailers.
>
> The only way for MS to survive is a wholesale cleaning out of
> middle and upper management. They will try (by cleaning out
> middle management), but upper management will be the same old
> people...locked into the ways of latter day Al Capone's
> (Listen, bud, your customers will drink MY BEER, or they won't
> drink any beer at all, you got it?!?!?!)
>
> >
> > But rather general directional tuning followed by a bought of
> > dis-interest.
> >
> > Wouldn't that indicate intelligence on the part of the users?
> > Isn't that the real flaw in this kind of reasoning.
>
> As stores start to carry computers with pre-loaded Linux, etc,
> you will start to see MAJOR changes in the market place.
>
> Kind of like when Ford Motor Company started offering more
> cars painted in colors other than black.
>
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mohawk Software
> > > Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> > > Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> >
> > I'm not really trying to make silly of your comments mlw as I respect
> > your opinion most of the time. You've always been somewhat of a camp
> > leader around here for years.
> >
> > > Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
> > > sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
>
> Evidently, you've never been in the presence of people who are
> well trained in the handling of firearms.
>
> >
> > Ha! You know the same can be said of using Microsoft OS's for
> > your companies internet needs! Isn't that amazing..
> >
> > I'm afraid it's true that one IBM 390 might be a more efficient use of
> > corporate money than 14,000 PC's on a lan system.
>
> The move from Terminals to PC's for the average user have wasted
> more corporate resources than can ever be counted.
>
> All because the original PC's were *STATUS SYMBOLS* for managers
> back in the mid 1980's.
>
> Nobody knew what the fuck to do with them..but they HAD to have
> them on their desks.....and of course...if you managed to put one
> on the desk of all of the people in your department, then you
> REALLY looked important (despite the fact that the only people
> who really had a sincere need for them were accountants, etc.
> The rest would have been MUCH better served with dumb terminals
> hanging off of a central minicomputer.)
>
> >
> > Yet, this isn't what you were saying. I'm not sure the economics
> > are going the PC way anymore.
> >
> > I see more and more people saying the PC era is dead.
> > An IBM 390 can have 14,000 users running the OS of their choice
> > on it for about 2 million dollars.
> >
> > You can't buy the workstations, servers and such for 14,000 people
> > for 2 million dollars.
> >
> > Yet, if we look at SUPER COMPUTERS, the clustering concept has
> > made it possible for 136 IBM aptiva servers to be chained together
> > in cluster to beat the worlds biggest Cray!
> >
> > IF anything the PC's and the mainframes have actually switched placed
> > in their independent, fanatic goals of displacing one another.
> >
> > This in itself could be yet another strange way Microsoft would die.
> >
> > Charlie
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> H: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
> C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
> D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
> E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
