Linux-Advocacy Digest #178, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south) (Marty)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Windoze user wants to get real OS! - send faq (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Windoze user wants to get real OS! - send faq (Aaron Kulkis)
Sendmail/VPOP3 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: M$ is evil - WAS: Re: So where ARE all of these Linux users? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (mmnnoo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:37:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:04:45 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> >> As long as Rex Ballard spreads lies about the number of Linux users,
> >
> >prove it.
>
> Typically the burden of proof lies on the person making the outrageous
> claim. Rex Ballard can concoct some evidence proving that the Easter Bunny
> exists, but I don't have to disprove him. Saying that there are 90 million
> Linux users is an outrageous claim, in line with the existence of the
> Easter Bunny. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>
> Rex Ballard's "evidence" consists of a several year old user base estimate
> grown exponentitally with the rate of growth at the time. The room for
> propagation of error is just tremendous; if either number were off by a
> hair, the entire number could be off by an order of magnitude. Evidence is
> not formulated by taking off hand comments made by non-experts, and then
> propagating them to your ideals.
>
> Of course, since IDC said 0.3% of desktops run Linux, that means with Rex
And IDC is omniscient?
You see, your numbers are no more relable than Rex's, YOU MORON!
> Ballard's estimate of 90,000,000 Linux users that there are 30 billion
> computer users in the world. Interesting, considering there are only 6
> billion humans. This is evidence that Rex Ballard is wrong in counting the
> number of Linux users. In fact, it puts an absolute limit of 15 million
> Linux users, and that's only if EVERY human had a computer. China and
> India alone account for over 1/3 of the world's population, but PC's there
> are limited to the elite. There probably aren't more than 600,000,000
> computers in use worldwide, which puts the actual Linux user base at 1.8
> million, almost two order of magnitude less than Rex Ballard's figure.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:36:58 GMT
tinman wrote:
>
> In article <8ii15j$kb6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johnathan D. Hogue
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >
> > What is all this crap?
> >
>
> Don't you know? ('
See what he means?
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:40:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:53:25 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You're one of them.
> >
> >Ever use a web-browser?
> >
> >These days, over 90% of web servers are either Linux (30%) or Unix
> >(60+%).
>
> By the same logic, anybody who conducts an electronic fund transfer is a
> VMS user since all such transactions are done on VMS. Anybody who reads a
yep!
> newspaper is a Mac user since all the layout is done with Mac's.
Bzzt! Nope. Try again.
> Anybody
> who watches movies is a Windows user because all the editing is done on
> Windows.
Now you're really losing it.
Starship Troopers was done on SGIs (IRIX)
Titanic was done on Linux
> Anybody who use microprocessors is a VMS user because all
> microprocessors are manufactured with VMS.
Are you really an idiot, or do you just play one on USENET?
>
> Why don't you stop being silly and realize that the discussion is what
> people have on their desk, and not what they are using incidentally?
Pull your head out of your ass.
>
> >You know what's really funny? In Russia, there are no copyright laws,
> >so people burn both Linux AND LoseDows CD-Roms and sell them in kiosks,
> >etc. Linux actually commands a HIGHER price than does LoseDows.
>
> Proof please?
Personal experience.
St. Petersburg is my favorite vacation spot.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:42:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > : The Linvocates have been spouting for sometime the "huge" number of
> > : people leaving Windows and downloading/buying (shudder!) Linux
> > : instead.
> >
> > : So where are all of these folks?
> >
> > In every important business in the world, for starters. Including
> > Microsoft.
>
> Is Microsoft an important business?
Not any more!
Ask Judge Jackson!
Heeeeeeeeeeeeee!
>
> Colin Day
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:45:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : So where are all of these folks?
> :>
> :> In every important business in the world, for starters. Including
> :> Microsoft.
>
> : Is Microsoft an important business?
>
> I guess it depends how you define "business," but assuming Microsoft
> can be considered at least in part a business, not merely a criminal
> organization, its market capitalization and the prominence of several
> of its products do qualified it as being quite important.
I expect that after their appeal, Microsoft's NEXT court case
will involve RICO, and precisely how many years Gates, Ballmer,
and Allen will be spending at club fed.
And the ditzy whores who hang with them will suddenly "discover" that
they aren't honest men.
>
> Joe
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 18 Jun 2000 23:43:13 -0500
In article <U1S25.10263$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would think that MS is very converned with your *their*
>server was viewed by the ISPs. Is it so hard to make
>FrontPage work on IIS?
>
>If it is, then MS just screwed up. But I suspect
>otherwise.
At the time, it was hard to make IIS keep working at all.
>I do not believe your blithe assurances that there were *no*
>advantages to implementing FrontPage as they did.
It gave them the opportunity to provide modules for apache
that made the competing unix servers insecure. Is that
an advantage?
>> Frontpage is not sold as a feature of IIS. There is no need for it to
>> be such and no other client uses those special features of IIS.
>
>FrontPage is not sold *at all*, is it?
>
>Or do they still have a fancy-pants version of it?
Yes, it is a fairly expensive package, and also the difference between
office professional and premium.
>> >This is no better in princinple than committing to OS/2 LAN Manager
>> >would have been.
>>
>> Er, NT networking uses the same protocols as LAN Manager with lots of
>> enhancements.
>
>Not anymore. MS switched to Kerberos (with enhancements, again).
Which versions will interoperate with that?
>But think of this: They've done more for interoperability
>than Linux has. They've done it for the 'wrong' reasons-
>a desire to convert people and thereby take their money.
What are you talking about?
>> >Using Unix wire protocols will not buy you compatibility
>> >with MacOS or NetWare or any other OS but Unix.
>>
>> The fact that other companies use proprietary protocols is not the
>> issue.
>
>Oh, but it is. Interoperability canot be acheived by ignoring the
>'facts on the ground'. You *have* to support those other proprietary
>protocols.
No, you have to support standard protocols. Linux does in fact
support appletalk and IPX, but they are rarely necessary because
pretty much everything can do tcp these days.
>*That* is why the Unix 'standard protocols' approach is not
>an effective solution to interoperability. Trying to dictate
>protocols to the whole world just *does not work*.
I guess the internet doesn't work and we should have waited
for that proprietary, closed MSN that Microsoft really wanted
instead.
>You provide compatibility so you can get a foot in the door; let them
>use your products with their 'legacy' systems. But then they'll see
>all the Cool New Features (tm) that Windows provides, and they'll
>want to switch.
But that wasn't enough. They had make it difficult to continue to
interoperate with anything else.
>If you can't get in the door, you can't even start. That's why MS is
>so into interoperability.
In a wierd one-way fashion.
>> What you know about Exchange doesn't matter, nor does the
>> fact that you can get at many (but not all) of the functions of
>> Exchange through standard protocols.
>
>Well, It seems to matter to you- you keep harping on Exchange,
>probably hoping I won't get off my duff and look up the
>actual facts.
Yes, it wouldn't do to supply any actual facts. You might
realize you were wrong.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 00:32:10 -0500
In article <k6L25.6585$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You mean before Netscape became popular? Back when you had to
>> add in third party TCP dialers to Windows to use it?
>
>Well, yes, before Microsoft mopolistically *crushed* the thriving,
>competitive, TCP/IP stack market, by leveraging their evil, EEEVIL,
>monopoly power. With a side of monopoly. :D
I don't have much of a problem with MS incorporating standard
features that are correct within their capability. However
delivering non-standard MSCHAP to every desktop was certainly
an attempt to force ISPs to replace their existing dial-up
equipment with NT/RAS servers and most certainly evil.
And since you mention it, the MS habit of waiting for outside
companies to develop innovative features and then using their
market force to destroy those companies has discouraged
all sorts of innovation.
>[snip]
>> >That's not so. MS goes *much* farther than any Unix does to
>> >interoperate with other vendors products.
>>
>> Yes, unix just implements the standards correctly...
>
>Right. Unix implements the Unix standards correct. MS Windows
>provides an architecture to plug in any protocol you want.
Standard protocols are not 'unix' standards. However
unix vendors generally implement them correctly.
>That's what I mean about MS going much father.
No, they supply broken implementations.
>[snip]
>> And a problem that can be avoided with a single test run. If you
>> want to avoid it.
>
>A single test run isn't anything like sufficient to test a Unix
>emulation layer. Not even a mere POSIX emulation layer could
>be testedd that way.
Beg your pardon? A single test of virtually any useful
existing program would have shown that the posix emulation
was a farce. I can't believe that they did not do
a single test. It might take many tests to show that
subsystem was actually usable, but one would show
that it wasn't.
>What you need to do is implement the *rest* of Unix's API,
>as it actually is, rather than relying on a formal standard.
They did implement the API. It just doesn't work usefully.
And they had to know it.
>> >Yup. That's their strategy for beating open source in a nutshell.
>>
>> And it is evil, if not strictly illegal when they bundle this
>> stuff with products where they already have a monoply.
>
>Certainly not. Providing better products is no doubt illegal
>if you accept the DoJ's view of antitrust law- but it is not evil,
>not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
Something that locks you into a single vendor is not better.
Somthing with non-standard code that makes the competitors
product appear broken is not better. Something that encourages
the use of non-standard changes that will not work with
the competitors standard product is not better. Something that
fools you into using these non-standard changes is evil.
>[snip]
>> >What makes you think it is likely to break with the next service pack?
>> >Most things don't.
>>
>> MS has demonstrated their readiness to break authentication to
>> a competing service in a service pack. How can you even ask
>> that question now?
>
>I'm not as paranoid as you are. I'm asking. *Why* do you think
>MS is ready to do this?
Because they have done it.
>You say they've demonstrated it. When? How?
At precisely the time when unix/samba started taking a substantial
share of file services, MS released a service pack that broke
the authentication model that made samba easy to use.
>> >With "open" standards, you are just committing to Unix. This is no
>> >better in princinple than committing to OS/2 LAN Manager would
>> >have been.
>>
>> First of all, it is better even if you were committed to unix
>> because it is available from multiple vendors, but your
>> statement is wrong by definition.
>
>So's OS/2 LAN Manager, no? I don't think that counts
>for much.
Yes it does. I used AT&T's version of Lanman-under-unix for a long
time when a friend was having a bad time with the MS version (seems
it didn't understand big scsi disks back then - not a good thing
for a file server...). And more to the point, the client side
will talk to different servers so you don't have to change both
at once.
>> If you follow protocols you are not committed to anything.
>
>Sure you are. You are compatble only with other products
>that use that protocol. In this case, that spells Unix.
Why do you keep wrongly repeating this?
>Had MS standardized on Lan Manager the same way,
>it would have spelled NT.
>
>And that would have been a serious problem, because
>real NT users needed and wanted to interoperate with
>NetWare.
Huh? How does using one standard prevent you from also
implementing others?
>> And it is the last choice you ever get to make. The incompatibilities
>> then prevent you from ever separately changing clients and servers.
>
>Well, you can change *to* Windows clients because MS makes
>their clients highly interoperable. Chaning *to* Unix clients
>is rather harder, because they aren't as interoperable.
Rather backwards... How many vendors supply interoperable
standards-conforming operating systems? And how many supply
the proprietary MS compatible version?
>> More likely because no one trusts the next version release or
>> service pack to work the same way.
>
>That isn't so. Lots of people write software for MS OSes;
>obviously they *are* willing to trust MS not to break their
>stuff on the next service pack.
Care to count the bodies among the ones that trusted MS?
>[snip]
>> No, it was a matter of having end-to-end control of computers and
>> their communications lines (both local and LD) that would give them
>> the ability to leverage things. They could have entered a business
>> field completely unrelated to communications.
>
>No leveraging is involved in this case. You (and no doubt the DoJ)
>are simpy saying that if you have a 'monopoly' you can't expand
>*at all*.
Did anyone complain about the mouse business? Or joysticks/gamepads?
>> Having given up your choices to a monpoly controlling one thing
>> should not force you to give them up in all related areas.
>
>It doesn't of course, but you've shown how this isn't limited to
>related areas or 'leveraging'.
What have I shown that isn't related?
>> >Nonsense. They keep insisting on making product design
>> >decisions for Microsoft. What is that if not directing software
>> >design?
>>
>> Preventing a single company that already has a monopoly from
>> dictating what everyone sees when they connect to the internet
>> seems like a reasonable anti-trust action to me.
>
>That would seem to argue they should be cheering MS on in their
>efforts to dethrone Netscape, surely?
What an odd comment. I don't recall Netscape ever bundling their
browser into an OS with a monopoly on the desktop and insisting that
it is an integral component that can't be removed. I'm not sure
that Netscape even did anything to attempt to force hardware vendors
to pre-install copies. Where has anyone ever used Netscape other
than by choice?
>But nevertheless, this doesn't address the question I put to you.
>The DoJ is telling MS what features they can have in Windows.
>How can that not be directing software design?
It is directing them to obey the law. That may have an effect
on software design, but an indirect one. Much like court decisions
on medical issues can establish whether something is legal
even though the court does not design medical procedures.
>> Actually it seems
>> even better to prevent the same company from controlling television
>> networks. AT&T would never have managed that in their monopoly
>> days. Don't you even question *why* MS wants absolute control in
>> these areas?
>
>I don't even know *that* MS wants it.
Why do you think it is so important to continue to include
a no-extra-cost component and force everyone to keep it
by claiming it can't be removed?
Remember the plan for MSN back in the days when it wasn't
going to be the internet?
>> They could have easily backed away from bundling the
>> browser and avoided the legal issues a long time ago.
>
>I doubt it. MS tried compromising with the DoJ before, and
>the DoJ ignored their own agreement and sued anway. I think
>they would have found an excuse. If not this, something else.
I thought the agreement involved taking the browser back out of
the OS which obviously didn't happen. Was there some other
agreement?
>> This has
>> nothing to do with the look or action of the desktop which could
>> be handled without internet browser capability.
>
>That it *must* be handled without that capability is clearly
>a software design decision that the DoJ is trying to shove
>down everyone's throat.
They are just interpreting the law, not making it up as they go.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze user wants to get real OS! - send faq
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:43:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Hummer wrote:
>
> If there is a FAQ for this group, please send it. I'm really sick of
> windows, but don't know where to start with Linux.
> Thanks
> Jeff
Go to the store, and buy either Mandrake or RedHat or SUSE Linux.
All of them have very easy installs.
Also, go to the bookstore, and get one of the O'Reilly books on Linux,
or Unix Systems Administration by AEleen Frisch (also an O'Reilly book).
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze user wants to get real OS! - send faq
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:43:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Hummer wrote:
>
> If there is a FAQ for this group, please send it. I'm really sick of
> windows, but don't know where to start with Linux.
> Thanks
> Jeff
What city do you live near/in?
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sendmail/VPOP3
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:43:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i am having RedHat Linux 6.1 Server with mail server and virtual mail
server using sendmail.VPOP3 is configured for virtual mail users(pop
mail users only) to access their a/c from outlook.Now,How many ways
virtual mail users can change thier passwords
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ is evil - WAS: Re: So where ARE all of these Linux users?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:54:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billy ball wrote:
>
> On 19 Jun 2000 02:36:12 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >:> : So where are all of these folks?
> >:>
> >:> In every important business in the world, for starters. Including
> >:> Microsoft.
> >
> >: Is Microsoft an important business?
> >
> >I guess it depends how you define "business," but assuming Microsoft
> >can be considered at least in part a business, not merely a criminal
> >organization, its market capitalization and the prominence of several
> >of its products do qualified it as being quite important.
> >
>
> very good... the truth is that M$ is an evil company with evil
> leadership... why else would a billion-dollar company have to resort to
> exploiting handicapped children in its TV advertising in order to attempt
> to sway public opinion?
>
> it's also obvious that few of M$ evil barons subscribe to the gospel of
> wealth - their percentage of return to society doesn't even come close to
> 1/1000th of that donated by former evil barons, such as Vanderbilt,
> Carnegie, Rockefeller and so on...
>
> the meglomania of the M$ leadership as the company continues to downslide
> on the polls of public opinion continues to become more obvious (note the
> rantings of Gates and Ballmer following M$'s being declared a monopoly)...
> particularly disgusting was Paul Allen's plea to the federal judge
> concerning the potential value of his 'holdings' in the wake of a
> government breakup...
>
> what i find interesting is that M$ continues to sh*t on its customers and
> the consumer, while still spouting its self-induced hype that the company
> 'innovates'... M$ hasn't innovated anything, but merely buys, acquires, or
> extinguishes competing technologies...
>
> M$ is not a software company, but an evil business which will now have to
> face up to its own music... Gates painted himself into a corner, and it is
> through his foibles and disfunctional personality that his evil spawn is
> now in the situation it faces... blame no one else, not M$ competitors,
> not the federal government, not the states, not the thousands of
> pissed-off consumers, not the current president, and not Janet Reno...
>
> M$ has itself to blame... and i love watching it being gutted, then
> dancing around the fire, tied to a pole, with the wolves snapping at its
> entrails...
>
> i wish M$ a slow and lingering death in any vertical or horizontal
> industry it has chosen to foul...
I could hardly agree more.
I have been waiting for this day since 1987, when they filled all of
the PC magazines with their 'BEWARE OF UNIX' f.u.d., claiming that it's
evil and cryptic and nasty (as if DOS were coherently written!),
when in fact, a 386 and 10 dumb terminals was sufficient to run
a 10-person office in 1987, but ONLY *IF* you were running SCO Unix
or something similar.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: mmnnoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:54:53 -0600
This post reminded me of when I didn't think
multitasking was important. I really had
no clue about all the different ways computers
are used, by whom and for what. Just like Tim.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
