Linux-Advocacy Digest #734, Volume #26 Sun, 28 May 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451694 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: The Linux Fortress (sandrews)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451694
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 01:13:39 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Note how he claims that I lied when
I noted that he didn't reciprocate when I ignored him for over a
year. He then goes on to claim that I ran from those threads, which
obviously means that postings of his *did* exist, thus he did not
ignore me, he did not reciprocate, and I did not lie.
61> Tholen tries a digest of me,
I succeeded, Malloy, thus your use of "tries" is inappropriate. How
ironic, coming from the person who was commenting on the rules of
word formation in English.
61> but we all know what that's worth!
A lot more than yours, Malloy.
61> Let it "slip"?
Indeed. You've been so reluctant to say anything about your motives
for participating in a newsgroup about a product that you don't use,
that interesting hints like the one you recently provided are
presumably inadvertent, hence the use of "slip" is appropriate.
51> Ha! More like *you* slipped.
Illogical, given that I haven't been so reluctant to say anything
about my motives for being here, Malloy.
61> How recent is recent, Tholen?
Having memory problems, Malloy?
] Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 12:09:44 -0400
] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
61> Well of course a thread in which you're the only opponent will cease
61> to exist if you stop responding, Tholen.
It takes two to have a discussion, Malloy. Apparently you want the
thread to end, but have failed to consider an alternative method for
making it end.
61> Why is that a surprise?
It's not a surprise that you would fail to consider an alternative
method for making it end, Malloy.
61> What's not surprising is that you never take the opportunity.
I'm not the one who said anything about making the thread end, Malloy.
You're the one who brought it up. You're the one with that interest.
You're the one who didn't take the opportunity.
61> Liar.
Balderdash, Malloy. See below for why.
61> He does so reciprocate
Oh really? When did you ignore me for over a year?
61> - none of those threads from which you ran
I didn't run from any of them, Malloy. But that's rather ironic,
coming from the person who deleted over 90 percent of my latest
digest. Looks like you're the one running, Malloy.
61> are still running with him as a participant.
Irrelevant, given that I was not talking about whether those threads
were running anymore, but rather the fact that you failed to
reciprocate. That is, you did not ignore me, despite the fact that
I ignored you for over a year. As I said, it demonstrates that you
want to respond with impunity.
61> Not with impunity, Tholen, but with my computer.
Having more reading comprehension problems, Malloy? Acquaint yourself
with the definition of the word "impunity".
61> Irrelevant.
On the contrary, your hypocrisy is quite relevant, Malloy.
61> Where's the contradiction in that?
Isn't it obvious, Malloy? You obviously find some use in participating
in this newsgroup, yet you call it "uselessnet".
61> Can one not post regardless of what he considers uselessnet to be?
Irrelevant, given that I never said that someone can't be a hypocrite,
Malloy.
61> Don't be a doofus, Tholen!
How ironic.
61> How ironic! If we were to keep a running tally on the number of
61> instances of your hypocrisy,
You'd have to recognize them first, Malloy, but your reading comprehension
problem keeps getting in the way, just like it does for Glatt. For example,
he can't recognize the difference between an instance for which facts are
available, thus what someone thinks is irrelevant, and an instance for which
facts are not available, thus what someone thinks is relevant. He thinks
there's hypocrisy involved, when in fact no hypocrisy is involved.
61> as evidenced solely by you uselessnet postings
I don't post to "uselessnet", Malloy. By the way, what are
"you uselessnet postings"? Still having trouble with those rules of
word formation in English?
61> to this group, cooa, the figure would be be astrological
What is an "astrological" figure, Malloy?
61> (as befits the you, Tholen!).
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Malloy (not to
mention writing problems)? Look up the definition of "astrological"
while you're doing so for "impunity".
61> Balderdash, Tholen.
Illogical, Malloy, given that it was a digest of your postings from the
last several weeks.
61> You've been waiting for a chance to respond
Illogical, given that I've been responding to you rather consistently
lately, thus I've had plenty of so-called "chances".
61> and now you see an apparition,
An apparition of what, Malloy?
61> by which you invent you chance, Tholen.
I didn't invent any chance, Malloy. By the way, what is a "you chance"?
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 01:18:03 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 10:16:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sun, 28 May 2000 11:19:58 GMT
>>On 27 May 2000 15:35:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 May 2000 14:07:17 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>>>budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>(snip)
>>>| Time to reinstall the whole shebang. Gets rid of a closet full of
>>>| ghosts.
>>>
>>>Do you consider that an acceptable solution?
>>
>>I haven't needed to do that (except one occasion when Netscape
>>Communicator turned feral) but it ensures that you have things in
>>order.
>
>So I imagine that's a "yes", eh? It doesn't look like Damien finds that
>an acceptable solution, nor do I. Why are your standards lower than
>ours?
Possibly because you expect perfection? I'm a realist. I accept that
MicroShit produce products which are far from perfect, but I get on
with life and use their O/S and Office. In four years on this p133
platform, I have reinstalled ONCE (due to a non-MS product going
feral). I accept that as a not-unreasonable situation. Why are your
standards that much higher than mine or zillions of others?
>>The ONLY way that a 1994 product could handle the format of a 1997
>>product is if there were no advancement.
>
>This is blatantly and obviously incorrect. So I guess the answer to my
>question seems to be "the reason your standards are lower is because you
>don't understand how software and file formats work".
Why is it incorrect? If new formatting features are introduced,
requiring new tokenising sequences, how the heck can the earlier
version anticipate them? I think you should stay on your medication.
>But I don't think Damien's or my standards are quite so high that we
>would use 1994 to 1997 as the time span under discussion. I would be
>satisfied with 1997 products being able to read 1999 formats.
Two years or three years? The point originally raised related to
Word6 capability to read 97 format IIRC.
>>While I like B/C I also recognise it is like running
>>the marathon towing a caravan. If new features are going to be
>>introduced then there will inevitably be a need to modify or extend
>>the file format. That's the price of progress. That's reality.
>
>No, that's limited imagination. There is no reason why any specific
>advancement would have to modify the file structure. Given a modular
>file structure, you can account for changes in file format. Given
>modular file formats, you can extend the application capabilities. The
>only reason that a file structure change is necessary to change
>application capabilities is the extend of the lack of thinking in the
>design of the file structure.
Which is endemic in the MS-level of software house.
>Now, we know programmers can't be perfect, so they are going to design
>flawed file structures, and may eventually have to modify them in order
>to correct whatever flaw is preventing a change in application
>capabilities.
You call it a flaw, I prefer to call it a lack of foresight or a foggy
crystal ball. I dispute that you can tell what file format changes
Word 2002 will introduce to accommodate whatever enhancements it
introduces. Want to go on record now with your predictions?
> But backwards compatibility of file formats isn't
>anywhere near the extreme functionality you put it out to be. It hasn't
>necessarily been the rule in the PCs short history, but there have been
>enough exceptions to recognize the flaw in the argument that
>incompatibility equals "the price of progress".
I never claimed B/C to be extreme functionality. But without it a
product's market acceptance will suffer and software houses know that.
Change is the result of progress (or we'd all have 1000MHz 8086/8088
machines now). Change will inevitably result in incompatibility. How
much depends only on how far the creators are prepeared to go to
accommodate B/C. This accommodation impedes progress, as did the 640K
"barrier". Real strides in progress require the recognition and
eventual abandonment of those practices and "standards" which are
substantial impediments to progress.
>The hassle of changing the software is the price of progress. Anything
>which makes this more difficult, notably gratuitous changes in file
>format to prevent competition from establishing a persistent market
>share, is a crime against the consumer as well as against the potential
>competitors.
I share part of your cynicism. That's part of why I hang out with
WFWG and Office Pro 4.3>
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 01:21:33 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 10:18:27 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sun, 28 May 2000 11:23:06 GMT
>>On Sun, 28 May 2000 02:03:03 +0200, Giuliano Colla
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>>Don't make me laugh lad! Do you think that Epson Computers delivers
>>>faulty pre-installed systems? And so does Fujitsu-Siemens?
>>
>>Yes, fujitsu have and so have Compaq. But what does that prove?
>
>It proves its bugs in the software, not "a bad installation". Even if
>you suggest that it is "poor quality control, and hence the installer's
>responsibility, and hence a 'bad installation'", its merely
>misdirection. Mere quibbling about the definition of "bug" in order to
>insist that the statement "Microsoft software has severe bugs" has not
>been supported by the example given.
The point made related to faulty pre-installed systems old man, so
don't try and stretch it into anything else.
These systems, once reinstalled as per instructions, ran the way they
should have. What does that prove? Only that people at Fujitsu and
Compaq make mistakes. How does that "prove it's bugs in software"?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:46:18 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (sandrews) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >So the point is?
> >
> >Let me guess, you hav`nt passed remedial reading????
> >Or are you one that can`t follow directions??
> >Or your just too damn lazy?
>
> No actually I haven't passed my psi exams for guessing what the designers
> were talking about. "Remedial PSI" I suppose you'd call it.
>
> As for following directions, I followed the Diagnosis text file and came
> unstuck. It made no mention of the encrypted nature of passwords.
>
> So, what was your point? Just to demonstrate how much superior you are by
> using insults? Is that the best you Linux guys can do!
I just get tired of all the holyier than thou Win Lusers comming in the
linux news group spouting their bullshit as if ms is the only thing that
exists. I detect it in you as well as my bullshit meter is off the
scale as I have read most of your posts here.
Linux is easy, you just need to follow the HOWTO`s man pages and do a
little work.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:54:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, Roger's back, I'm all caught up, and its a long weekend, so its
time for another Roger roast-o-rama courtesy of T. Max Devlin. All in
good fun, guys, all in good fun. <G>
(Sorry for butting in, Mr. Colla, but this is a traditional thing.)
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 00:07:03 GMT
>On Thu, 25 May 2000 03:32:21 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
>Colla wrote:
>>Roger wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 May 2000 13:22:50 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
>>> Colla wrote:
>>> >Roger wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 03:30:45 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
>>> >> Colla wrote:
>
>>> >> >There is just one difficulty: we happen to have uninstalled Office 97 because
>it was
>>> >> >too buggy to be used (our secretary had become almost hysteric).
>
>>> >> Bugs such as ... ?
>
>>> >Crashing daily.
>
>>> Not a bug, since it does not generically do so. Must have been
>>> something in the environment.
See there, you should have given up post haste, Giuliano. There's no
way you're going to win if you let Roger get away with such blatant
troll fallacies. The diagnosis of a bug is not whether it "generically
does so", but whether the replacement does so. Otherwise, you're
attributing bugs to specific flaws in programmatic behavior. That would
be a "feature", in many cases.
Consider this; you have two pieces of software, which have to "talk" to
each other using a code. One is expecting a "7", the other is
presenting an "8". Which is a "bug"? Trying to troubleshoot a computer
that way is a losing proposition. Trying to do it with software is
insanity. Trying to do it on a network is a never-ending nightmare.
When something technological doesn't work with something else
technological, you can either understand the true algorithmic issues, or
you can make a simple choice. Which component is more easily
replaceable? You replace that one, and if the problem doesn't go away,
then it's the other programs "bug". You replace that one. If the
problem persists, you don't know what you're doing. Get a decent
conceptual, connectivity, and correlation model framework, and try
again.
In Giuliano's case, the bugs were in Office because the bugs weren't in
WordPerfect [or whatever he transitioned to], not because they weren't
in Windows. You certainly can't use that kind of troubleshooting in
*Windows*, with *Office*. Honestly, Roger's already vapid technical
ability is even more vaporous than I thought, if he thinks this is how
to find out why a system is failing. I expect that it was merely a
trolling device, however, and even he realizes it. Alas, it seems to
have been successful, as Giuliano continues.
>>Yes, it was the Windows environment, set up by OEM (Epson Computers in
>>the specific case), with Office 97 pre-installed as a bonus even if not
>>requested because we already had open site license for Office 4.3.
>>Please remember that OEM setup is actually MS setup, because OEM is only
>>minimally free to change something.
>>However I agree with you. It was not a bug. It was tons of bugs.
But recovers nicely. Well said.
>>The assertion "does not generically do so" strongly conflicts with my
>>inquiries with other users.
That's true as well.
>>The posting of Bob May just after mine, reminding me a problem I forgot
>>to mention (also because our printer was not 600 feet away from PC)
>>would support better my limited statistics, than your unsupported
>>assertion.
>
>And you have supported yours? Please post the message ID on the
>response where you have -- all I've seen is bald assertion on your
>part.
Sorry, Roger. The question is on you to support your ascertations.
Accusing Giuliano of intellectual dishonesty does not deflect that
burden. You've heard considered opinion from our side, why do we only
hear vapid trolling from yours?
>And yet while I do not deny that you experienced such problems (only
>that they were generically Office bugs,) you completely discount my
>experience to the contrary.
His is positive correlation with a theory, yours is negative correlation
without a supporting theory. We can account for your trouble-free
experience; many people are "satisfied" in their ignorance with
Microsoft's PC software, particularly if they are in the habit of buying
a new PC every year and a half or so.
You, not having any positive arguments to begin with, other than an
unsupported claim of some emotional motivations and paranoid delusion on
our part, can only account for your own experience, and seem willing to
insist that our experience is valueless. This is pathetic, really, when
you come to consider the actual levels of our technical expertise. That
you can type with the same keyboard as such men as Rex Ballard, let
alone sniff some of his intellect, is a testament to everything that
Windows isn't. Your conclusion concerning "generic Office bugs" is
meaningless, Roger. You don't show the first level of expertise
required to have any conclusions worth mentioning, to be honest.
>Of course, since you've been shown in another thread to have a
>singular disregard for the truth, an objective observer will have to
>decide which assertion is the more credible.
I think we'd all like to see that message quoted, Roger, before
anybody's going to believe that what you regard as a "singular disregard
for the truth" is anything more than some minor factual discrepancy.
You don't seem to have a lot of "objective observers" in support of any
of your disruptive rantings. Just other trolls, on occasion. Most of
them give up, and wander away. You have stuck around. Why is that?
As you're so fond of using the "aside to the reader" trick, Roger, allow
me to point out for any observers, objective or not, that the
aforementioned Rex Ballard, a distinguished proponent of Linux, suspects
that you are actually a data-gathering effort by the Department of
Justice. Having been the primary target of your attacks for at least
the last three years, I think, I can honestly say that I feel I must
have some recognition of you as a person. You've been quite persistent
in your behavior, but there's definitely a person there.
I'm just wondering if its a person that anyone, not just me, couldn't
stand to be in the same room with.
>Especially given that
>the numbers of people using Office tend to refute a generic problem of
>the magnitude you posit.
The magnitude is that his system didn't work. Yes, there are a huge
number of people who have that same general problem, and they can in
fact be attributed to Office. One might say "generic", but I don't
believe you're actually interested in classifying bugs. Merely
insisting that if every system doesn't fail, then it can't be a bug,
which is so wrong as to be more than meaningless. A sort of anti-truth,
is such is possible.
>Again, not something which generically happens. What video / print
>driver combination pertains?
Yes, printers and video drivers both fail, and cause failures, all the
time. I would call just about any video or printer driver combination
sensitive failure a generic bug. The question isn't what the
combination was, Roger, its whether any other software applications are
affected. Whether all hardware combinations are affected is, well,
stupid.
Remember back in 99, when you installed IE5 on your computer, and your
video card fucked up, Roger? You replaced the video card, and the
"problem went away". So it wasn't an IE5 problem, of course, it was a
video card problem!
You're hilarious. (Folks, this was a true exchange. Roger's
"troubleshooting skills" in action; he explained the whole thing
unapologetically. Bad hardware, he said; its just that IE4 didn't
"uncover" the problem! SO HE BOUGHT A NEW VIDEO CARD! LOL What a hoot.)
>>> Which error dialogs would likely have helped in determining * what *
>>> about the environment, since this is not the behaviour of most Office
>>> installations.
>
>>Very helpful. Sort of "the application has an error and will be closed.
>>If the error persists, contact the software supplier". The software
>>supplier keeps you half an hour waiting, and then tells you to call
>>again.
>
>"Sort of" isn't going to help.
Another troll-trap, G. An assumption that whatever application is
reported by the OS has being the cause of the problem is limited by the
reliability of the OS itself. While this might seem a complicated
relationship, its not really. Everybody knows that cascading failures
happen on Windows. When something like that happens, its easy to assume
that whatever you clicked on last was the app responsible for the
failure, particularly if it is the first one reported as failing. But
that's flawed troubleshooting. If the failure cascades from on app to
another, that by itself is a failure in the OS, since even Windows is
supposed to *try* to prevent cascading failures. But it is also
reasonable to assume that the failure was, in fact, because of a bug in
Windows, or any of the other apps involved in the crash. So your
chances are:
1. The app reported has a bug.
2. Some other app has a bug.
3. The OS has a bug.
Now, with Microsoft's penchant for integrating things into their OS,
some of which might seem appropriate, some of which might be necessary
(chiefly for performance), and some of which must be buggy, whether
they're "apps" or not, the chance that the OS is at fault, by way of
some DLL, perhaps used by the app reported and perhaps not, the chance
of number three is at least equal to the chance of number 1. Neither is
even a 50% truth value, though, since some other app could be
responsible. The only question is where you draw the line, since new
OS-level DLLs are distributed with third party applications in Windows.
And they aren't anywhere near as clearly managed as libraries on Unix,
mostly because they are unmanageable.
[...]
>Nope. I doubt very seriously that anyone used OLE to scan for
>viruses. Given this description of the issue supposed documented, I'm
>going have to say that if the document even exists, it does not say
>what you have reported.
Whatever.
>And given your errors in fact addressed in that other thread, this
>would not surprise me.
Once again, we're going to need something more than your blind
accusation, Roger. Where did you learn your technique, Rush Limbaugh?
You know, there's a reason he doesn't have guests on his show.
[...]
>>You have hinted that we could have failed to uninstall O97, in order to
>>tell me that not uninstalling was my mistake. But as I told you that I did,
>>then it becomes unnecessary. We were forced to uninstall O97 in order to
>>have only one registered application for Office documents.
>
>I "hinted" nothing -- I asked a question, the answer to which IWE can
>cause the kind of behaviour you seemed to be reporting. Why so
>defensive?
'Cuz you're a troll, Roger. I've been trying to tell you that for
years. Giuliano hasn't given up on you yet. I probably never will.
But most other people get sick of you. That's why you offend me, Roger.
It has nothing to do with your lack of coherent arguments and blatant
misdirection. Its because you chase people away from these discussions.
Since I'm an egotist at heart when it comes to this issue, and most of
computers and networking, I want lots of opportunities to discuss these
things. And you chase people away. Why is that? Even if you think I'm
wrong, you know damn well I'm not going anywhere; I'll always be back to
spank you. So why don't *you* wander away, hm? What *do* you get out
of posting crap like this?
>>As you well
>>know (you don't, but let's pretend)
>
>Any particular reason for this assertion?
See, Giuliano's got you pegged already, Rog. The answer to your
question was the cause: "As you well know (you don't, but let's
pretend)."
>>If you let the two co-exist, you're never
>>sure of which one will be started when you click over a document. You
>>must give a secretary a clean environment to work in.
>
>Wrong: From
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q167/9/85.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
>
>When you double-click a Microsoft Office document in Windows Explorer,
>the following rules apply:
>
>If a version of the program in which the document was created is
>running, the document is opened in that version of the program.
That's what he said, yes. If you let the two co-exist, you're never
sure which one will open the document. Granted, it might be possible to
know if there is some other version running than the one you're
expecting. But we can't know which you're expecting, and we can't even
be sure which is running, thanks to Microsoft's "front-loading" of
arbitrary parts of Office. And does this include OLE servers, or just
"full app" instances?
This leads us to the even more obvious fact that looking at a document,
you don't *know* which version created it. They're all .doc's.
Where do you come up with this stuff, Roger?
>If no version of the program in which the document was created is
>running, the document is opened in the version of the program that you
>most recently installed UNLESS you started a version of the program
>installed with Microsoft Office 4.x (Microsoft Excel 5.x, Microsoft
>Word 6.x for Windows, Microsoft PowerPoint 4.x, or Microsoft Access
>2.x) since you installed the last version of Microsoft Office.
>To reassociate documents with the programs included with a particular
>version of Microsoft Office, run the Microsoft Office Setup program
>with the /y and /r switches. Doing this registers the file
>associations for the version of Microsoft Office.
LOL! Clear as a bell. Thanks, Bill, thanks, Roger. I hope both of you
go away and are never heard from again.
[...]
>>Don't play with words.
>
>I'm not.
Of course you are. And I mean that in the most pejorative sense.
>>If you open a Word 97 document with Word 6 you
>>just get a screen full of garbage.
>
>Wrong -- you get some garbage, and the text of the doc. Unless you
>installed the import filter, in which case most of the formatting
>transfers as well.
Unless the installed import filter's aren't working, because you lost a
bit of your Registry in the last upgrade. And just how many
kilobytes/pages of garbage is it, Roger, before you get to the (heavily
coded and unusable) text of the doc? I never bothered to count.
>>If "unreadable" is wrong, please
>>suggest another adjective which describes a document you can't read.
>
>You can read, is the point.
No, you can't, is the point.
>>If
>>the output of program A results garbage for program B, and saying that A
>>and B are incompatible is wrong, please suggest another word which
>>describes this situation. I'm not in love with words. I just like words
>>which describe facts at best.
>
>And then use those words to describe situations which do not exist.
That's your gambit, Roger. More specifically, describing away
situations which do exist.
>>> And of course you knew absolutely that StarOffice would do everything
>>> that you needed with out having tried it out as well...
>
>>No, I didn't know, I tried and it did work.
>
>And yet you did not try the filters created by the manufacturer of
>your software, which were available before the solution you did try
>AFAIK. Why is this?
Microsoft software is crap. I think we've been through this. Better to
not need the "filters created by the manufacturer of your software"
regardless of when an even more convenient and permanent solution is
available, if at all possible.
>Oh, yeah: MS is evil, and all they do necessarily tainted.
No, MS is evil, and their software is crap.
>>When you're unsatisfied of a supplier you test another one, that's how
>>competition is supposed to work.
>
>Yep. Of course, most folks are going to at least look at the
>solutions that the original supplier offered...
Depends on the original supplier. Smarts ones aren't locked in to a
single drone-like mindset like you are, Roger.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
