Linux-Advocacy Digest #334, Volume #27 Sun, 25 Jun 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (Tim
Palmer)
Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management (Tim Palmer)
Re: Wintrolls in panic! (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: 25 Jun 2000 15:41:23 -0500
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:56:42 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So exactly how is Linux going to unseat
>> the already 90 or more percent
>> of home/SOHO/desktop users from Windows
>
>By getting the OEMs to install BOTH Linux AND Windows on
>the machines they manufacture, before they are shipped.
>Hard drives have to be replicated anyway, a few extra seconds
>for 10% more value is worth it. Linux machines typically cost
>10-20% more than Windows-only machines, with much lower royalties.
>
>> and entice them into running Linux?
>
>When the machine boots, the user will have the option of booting
>Windows or Linux. When they boot Windows, they will have the option of
>starting Windows applications from within Linux.
If they're allreddy in Windows, why would they want the option to boot Linux to run
there Windows app?
>Sure, not every single
>application will work exactly the way it does on native Windows (the
>system won't crash, burn, hang, and die if the application goes nuts),
...but rather a few sharware versions of crap from TUCOWS will run, whial WINE would
choke on any large, full-feetured program and take X Windows and the consoal down with
it.
>but most of the software (including most of the software no longer
>supported by Microsoft) should run reasonably well.
>
>> How about Office suites?
>>
>> Sure StarOffice is free, it is free
>> for Windows users also but
>> virtually nobody uses it. Why is that?
>
>StarOffice is one of several office suites available for
>Linux, and one of several Office suites available for both
>Linux and Windows.
Then why doessn't anyboddy use it?
>
>StarOffice is written in Java, eats a great deal of memory, and
>runs all applications under a single MDI. Some people like that,
>I don't.
>
>WordPerfect for Office is also available for Linux and Windows. The
>import/export features leave a bit to be desired, but you can publish
>pretty sharp documents that can be read by Microsft Office.
Can you immbed VB scripts? Didn't think so.
>Furthermore, you can export documents from Office into standard
>formats that work pretty well for other suites.
>
>Most of the native Microsoft Office formats shouldn't be used for
>interorganizational circulation anyway. The risks of Microviruses,
>Stealth viruses, and Trojan Horses is far higher with Microsoft Office
>formats than with more conventional formats.
>
>There is also Applix, which has very nice import/export
>capability, can be customized to suit user's tastes, and
>has been configured to look and feel so much like Microsoft
>Office that it's hard to remember which you are using.
>
>> MSOffice carries a hefty price
>> tag but is still the standard by
>> which all office suites are gauged.
>> Why is that?
>
>Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that despite
>the best efforts of the DOJ, Microsoft has managed to put
>either Microsoft Works or Microsoft Office on nearly every
>PC manufactured before it is shipped by the OEM. Furthermore,
>Microsoft only charges a modest $300 (MSRP) for the upgrade
>from Works to Office, which makes it a Bargain compared to
>the $600 MSRP that only fools and Consultants on the road
>who have forgotten their Office CD-ROMS and have just had
>Windows blow away their disk drive - - would pay for.
>
>> Figure it out for yourself.
>
>What's to figure. The user has the choice of using the "complimentary"
>copy of Works/Office and using the proprietary Office-only libraries
>embedded in the Windows Operating system (reducing the Office footprint
>to less than 60 meg) or paying $100 for Lotus SmartSuite
>or $200 for WordPerfect Office, having to install it by hand,
>and having to make room for the libraries used by these applications
>(because the ISVs can't trust Micrsoft not to hack it's own libraries
>without giving proper notice.
So what's rong with that?
>
>This is one of the reasons that Microsoft is convicted of criminal
>charges, it's executives have already committed criminal contempt of
>court, and it's executives are now at risk of facing further sanctions.
>
>Microsoft offers notepad - which drove brief, emacs, and vi off the
>Windows platforms as text editors. Do you actually want to maintain
>that Notepad is better than Brief? You've probably never used it,
>you've never had the chance, and you don't even care. Linux has 30
>outstanding text editors, including commercial versions.
>
>> How about hardware support.
>
>Let's talk about that.
>
>> Still using that Daisywheel printer?
>> Dot-Matrix job you bought at an IBM fleamarket?
>I do still have a dot matrix in storage, but I don't use it.
>I used to use it with Ghostscript to print postscript files
>that I wanted to proof before printing it on the laser printer
>at work.
>
>> I doubt it. Today's PC's come with state of the art
>> hardware built in to the system.
>
>A PC with a built in printer - what, the Coleco Adam? :-)
A laptop.
>
>Today's PC's come with hardware built to Microsoft's specifications.
>Microsoft pushes IDE over SCSI, so you settle for a slower buggier
>hard drive.
>
>Microsoft pushes USB over Fire-Wire so you get a slower peripheral bus.
>
>Microsoft pushes Pentium/PCI so you get slower more expensive chips.
>
>Microsoft pushes Winmodems, so you dedicate 30% of your processor to
>feeding a dac and sucking an adc.
>
I seariously dout its' 30%, you LIE-NUX LIAR! It probly more like 4%, whitch is
NOTHING unless your on a 386 and
only Lie-nux losers still have 386s.
>Microsoft pushes SVGA so you don't get an HDTV display.
Lie-nux cant even handle 90% of SVGA cards.
>
>Microsoft pushes proprietary file formats so you can't read
>Postscript, LaTeX, SGML or DVI documents.
>
>Microsoft pushes DirectX, so you don't get real-time VRML.
>
>Microsoft pushes Powerpoint, so you don't get CGM.
>
>It's not even that you don't have access to these formats, it's
>only that Microsoft wants you to use formats, protocols, hardware,
>and peripherals that only Microsoft could love.
>
>Microsoft doesn't care about security, in fact they want to be able
>to meter your PC usage so they can target which competitors to kill-off
>next.
>
>As a result:
>
>You get DHCP, which makes it much harder to trace a malevolent hack
>to the source.
>
>You get Office Attachments - which make it easier to send viruses,
>bugs, and trojan horses.
>
>You get VBScript attachments - which makes it easer to do anything
>to the hard drive and the registry.
>
>Windows is hacker heaven,
All the stuff in Phrack is about UNIX.
>because Microsoft tells the OEMs to disable
>all of the most secure settings, in the end user's best interest.
>Many large Fortune 500 customers don't even trust OEMs to configure
>the machines any more - they'd rather have it done by after-market
>vendors who can "Lock Down" the configurations.
>
>> Sure some of it (modem?) might be Win
>> hardware, but who really cares? It works...
>
>On a windows 98 machine, designed to do nothing but serve the
>interactive needs of a single user, the winmodem works moderately
>well with a 200 Mhz Pentium or better. You forfeit DMA channels
>(that you could be using for your SCSI or Fire-Wire drive), Interrupts,
>and IO ports.
>
>On Windows NT, the winmodem becomes a pain in the neck.
>
>> Try that same combination under Linux and see what happens.
>
>What you are actually challenging us to compare is a Windows machine
>designed for Windows against a Linux machine designed for Linux.
>
>The Linux optimized machine would have:
>
> SCSI or Fire-wire drives, so that additional drives could be added
> (we love to store everything and search it dynamically).
>
> USB for low-speed devices - what's the point of 100/T USB
> ethernet adapter? The USB speed is slower.
>
> Linux brought you the Full Duplex 100 mbit ethernet, and the FD 1 gig
> ethernet card. Linux was using FD 100/T when Microsoft was still
> trying to switch from 10base5 (coax) to 10baseT.
>
> HDTV displays - big and wide. Linux uses X11 to set resolutions, and
> the Xserver can be configured for pretty much any format display.
You don't half to look for HDTV to find vidio cards that X11 doesn't support. If HDTV
displays came to PCs, Windos would support them furst.
>
> Stackable PCs - about the size of Zip drives. Linux users don't
> replace systems, they attache the keyboard and screen to the fastest
> machine and the remainder become virtual machines under X11,
> application servers, and file-and-print servers.
>
> Closet cases - stick the box somewhere convenient and
> forget about it. The primary box just needs to be reachable by
> the keyboard and display, the remaining boxes could be hidden
> in a closet or a nice cool basement somewhere.
>
>> How about all that fine software that was included with the price of
>> your Walmart special PC. Guess what!! It won't work with Linux!!!!
>
>What did you get. Works? A third-rate crippled spread-sheet, a
>marginally functional word processor, a stripped down presentation
>tool, and a few other crippled interfaces to the OLE/COM libararies
>that were bundled with Windows. Too bad Microsoft keeps breaking those
>libraries (making changes to the libraries that require at least a
>recompile of the application).
>
>Notepad? A fine example of a text editor - barely equivalent to xedit,
>no macros, no configurability, no mass processing capabilities, and no
And you think VI has macros and mass proscessing calpabillity's? Didn't think so.
>compatibility with other formats. Try editing that word .doc file under
>notepad and see what word gives you when you're finished.
Try edditing a .DOC fial under VI and see what Word gives you.
>
>We have Paint. A fine example of a brain-dead tutorial program
>that can't even deal with GIF files.
>
>And Imaging, another brain-dead classic that has a hard time creating
>useful JPEG files.
>
>Doom, there's a career builder.
GIMP also.
>Mom sure can't wait to get you
>that computer so that you can get an A+ in Doom, Quake, and Solitaire.
>In which grade are these subjects taught?
>
>> So you have to try and acquire equivalent versions of everything near
>> and dear to you.
>
>There are about 1500 packages in the Mandrake 7.1 release, including
>a number of "try before you buy" commercial applications. Granted,
>it would take a store the size of CompUSA to put each one in a pretty
>little VHS sized box, but then again, CompUSA charges about $200/cubic
>foot per month for floor space.
...and nobody would actually pay for LYNX.
>A few dozen "Linux Distributions"
>and some really good compression and installation software requires
>much less floor space. Of course, if YOU want to pay gigabucks to
>sell a single-function application (because you've sold a few million
>copies via the distribution CD-ROM and on-line registration/upgrade),
>there might be a big market.
>
>To get your product onto the floor of CompUSA costs about $1 million
>per month in advertizing, co-op, floor space rental, and customer
>support. Most Linux CEOs seem more interested in mergers and
>aquisitions than paying rent to Microsoft-Centric retailers.
just an excues for "We cant' aford it!"
>
>Last month, I actually went to a CompUSA and spent 3 minutes talking
>with a CompUSA staffer who actually knew about Linux. But he had
>to cut the conversation short because there was a guy looking at
>the laptops. The floor people get commissions on the big-ticket
>items, but they don't get anything for the shrink-wrapped boxes.
>
>When we start to see Linux sitting on Laptops and Desktop machines
>displayed in CompUSA and offering double the commissions, you'll see
>CompUSA salesmen turning into rabid Linux pushers.
>
>> Let's talk ISP's.
>>
>> Talk to Earthlink, Worldnet, FreeWeb, AOL, Compuserv and see what they
>> think of Linux.
>
>No problem with Earthlink, Worldnet, and MCI (though you do have to
>set the MSChap option). Many ISPs don't like dealing with Linux
>users because we stay on much longer.
Too bizzy downlodeing kernal patches, eh?
>In some cases, our laptops
>double as servers, our scripts can suck down data fast enough to keep
>the bandwidth 100% occupied (because the desired pages can be sucked
>down, cached, and read off-line). We also have squid which can do
>read-ahead and write-behind.
>
>They don't think much of Lynx either because it doesn't download the
>banner pages (what's a text-only browser going to do with a 100kbyte
>GIF file? Of course, we will follow the link the gif pointed to.
>
>And robots. Some Linux robots are so fast and multithreaded that NT
>servers think they're under a denial of service attack. It isn't to
>hard to cause a DOS when the NT server is set to 10 concurrent
>connections and Linux can fork 2000 concurrent queries (which it will
>index later if the content appears meaningful).
>
>> Try it yourself and see. Hint,,,,they are not happy......
>
>Actually, they are often very happy. Linux automated preloaders
>tend to make it look like there are millions of users hammering the
>best parts of every advertizers pages. Sure, we don't look at the
>Jpeg, but if the href points to relevant content, it bubbles up to the
>front of the to-view list.
>
>> How about Napster,
>
>Sorry, Napster has a problem. They need to cut a deal with BMI, ASCAP,
>and RIAA and provide playlists and about $10/user/month. Let them
>charge the users, collect from advertisers, or sell soap during the
>commercials, but they need work it out.
>
>We went through the same problem in the early days of the Web. There
>were web sites bulk loading news feeds from Dow Jones and Reuters and
>offering searchable access. Once they realized that these services,
>with appropriate restrictions, were available it reasonable rates,
>they didn't have a problem paying for the content. And Dow Jones
>still has WSJIE.
>
>> Digital Audio,
>
>Ever heard of IRC-II? Linux/Unix was doing streaming audio back when
How does ircII mannadge to do streeming audio when it cant' even do graffix?
>Windows 3.1 was still trying to figure out how to run a TCP/IP
>stack without blowing up on a 19.2k modem.
>
>> Digital Video
>
>Ever heard of MPEG? Guess who first started delivering
>that format via IRC-II. Granted, it was mostly porno, and
>most of the viewers were slow and quiet (sound on Sun SparcStations
>left a lot to be desired). But later we delivered QuickTime to Macs.
>
>RealAudio makes a better player, it caches for enough ahead to
>deal with most of the bumps and grinds of Windows.
>
>Linux plays MPEG video very smoothly, because the Linux scheduler
>is much more sophisticated and doesn't leave the video player starved
>while it tries to garbage collect for an interrupt handler.
>
>> and so forth.
>
>> Think the best programs and hardware are supported under Linux?
>
>Actually, they are supported under UNIX! And from UNIX to Linux
>is a very short hop.
Yeah rite. All the good apps I ever see are for Windows, and all you Lie-nux liars
ever show me are half-assed substitutes.
None of the good PC hardware is suppoarted by Lie-nux.
>
>UNIX workstations like the Indy dispay 4096x4096 (or thereabouts)
>CAD and 3-d rendering are done in near-real-time at about 3
>frames/minute (faster if you have a beowulf cluster in the back room).
>UNIX is used in many video recording studios for digital editing and
>visual effects (at one time it was the only system capable of real-time
>capture | compress).
>
>Some of the UNIX workstations used in Military installations, network
>management centers, and critical control systems manage near-real-time
>input signals at nearly 200 megabytes/second mean data rates on a 24/7
>basis. They're providing real-time sampling, analysis, feedback, and
>reporting that can be used to identify a link failure half a continent
>away, out of 2 million links.
>
>> Think again....
>
>Think again.
>
>You think because Microsoft spends $4 billion a year on advertising,
>much of it focused on supressing the publication of UNIX related
>research and innovation, that Microsoft is the only company who
>produces any innovations?
>
>Here's the bad news. Microsoft got most of it's "Innovations" from
>the UNIX community.
>
>Microsoft was still pushing MS-DOS 3.3 when UNIX was delivering
>multi-window multitasking.
>
>Microsoft was still trying to steal Mac technology when UNIX was
>delivering multi-user-multi-window multitasking.
>
>Microsoft was still using Busy-wait in Windows 3.1 when Linux was
>delivering full-function fast switching preemptive multitasking at
>100,000 context switches per second.
>
>Microsoft was still trying to effectively function as a file and print
>server (2 trivial applications) to 20 users when Linux was supporting
>200 application-server users who routinely used as many as 20
>applications concurrently.
So you had 200 coppy's of BASH and 3800 coppy's of VI running (3600 of
them sleeping). Big fucking
deel. Windos NT beats Lie-nux in this case even if it could only run 2 Office processes
concurrently.
>
>Microsoft was still trying to get Windows 2000 to run reliably using
>clever tricks, apartment threading, and object poors when Linux was
>running 99.995% uptimes on nearly 10 million servers.
...and NT 4.0 was registering 99.999% uptimes on at least twice that manny.
>
>Linux was providing muli-user remote access to users who remotely
>accessed multiple systems and providing managible desktops back
>when Microsoft was still trying to support remote access by a single
>user using PCanywhere, Citrix, and SMS. Early versions wouldn't even
>let you access multiple servers.
>
>> Windows has all the major players
>
>Right now, Microsoft has Microsoft! Who else?
>
>Some game manufacturers who offer free virtual machines for Linux
>over the internet but can't put them in the shrink wrapped boxes
>because Microsoft will pull the plug on support if they include
>both in the same CD-ROM?
>
>Symantic - but they are now making more money providing
>covert Linux support than they make selling bandaids for Windows.
>
>How about vendors?
>
>Borland/Inprise - better off with Linux.
>
>Sun/JavaSoft - better off with Linux.
>
>IBM - better off with Linux.
>
>Corel - better off with Linux
>
>WordPerfect - see Corel.
>
>> and Linux has nothing but a pile of
>> promises.
>
>And Microsoft ISN'T?
Tell me when Linnux can actually drive moar then 4 processers like Linux 2.2 was
suppost to.
>
>When was Windows NT 5.0 supposed to Come out? 1998?
>
>When NT was first announced, it was? 1992?
>
>It was supposed to be a "Better UNIX than UNIX"!
It wasn't a UNIX but it was better than UNIX.
>
> Cheaper - Linux killed that!
>
> More reliable - Win2K is more reliable than Slackware 2.1
Win3.1 is more relliabal than Slackware 2.1.
>
> Faster - only if you tune the NT system to the bencharks and
> tune the benchmarks against Linux's "default configuration".
>
> More useful - most people spend most of their time today on UNIX
> and Linux systems - via the web browser than they do on
> Windows. And that's just the tip of the iceburg of what's
> possible with Linux to UNIX.
They woudlnt' put up with UNIX and nasty old Netscape on their own systems.
>
> More secure - even with B2 security settings, the entire security
> system can be undermined with a trivial mail attachment,
> a seemingly innocent web-site, or a "push" message
> containing ActiveX or COM objects.
>
> An Open System - posix compliant. Not even close an they don't
> care!
And neither does anybodee ealse accept Linonuts.
> If you purchase the NT resource kit, you can
> get Posix level one compatibility with a number of
> qualifiers (no fork, no IPC, no functional shell...).
>
>But then again, Microsoft has always been the master of vaporware.
>
>Remember when MS-DOS 4.0 was going to have true multi-tasking?
> It was finally delivered in NT 4.0 10 years later!
>
>
>> Come to think about it Linux is all about promises and no
>> deliveries....
>
>That's unusually funny since Linux is notorious for it's
>"release early and often" strategy. 80% of the time, it's
>the user community that say's "It's done, call it release 1.0
>so I can get it funded already".
>
>GNOME and KDE were released less than 3 months after Linus requested
>that the developer community take on going after the desktop!
GNOME and KDE are pour exscuses for "Lie-nux on the desktop."
>
>Most of the time, the vendors don't even announce the new features
>until AFTER it has been made generally available.
>
>There have even been cases where features are "Discovered" because
>they weren't considered important, but people ask a question and the
>answer "It's already in there" makes headline news.
Usually "its allreddy in there" means "write a fuckign shell script and then itll be
thear."
>
>Actually, we should be grateful to Microsoft for circulating it's
>"Linux is a brain-dead text-only buggy system written by college
> drop-outs".
>
>Because then it's HEADLINE NEWS when people discover that Linux has
>a much more powerful graphical user interface than windows (more
>features, better performance, remote access, custom look and feel,
>tunable performance, and all available at the push of a drop-down
>menu button - when you start XDM for the graphical log-in).
It only seams moar powerfull on the surface because UNIX nuts have everyone
convinced that UNIX is all
"pwoerful" and shit. The user sune discovers that you half to use the commandline
half the time.
>
>It's headline news when somebody successfully hacks into a UNIX
>system!
But that's only becaze there down most of the time for kernal recompiles.
>People hack DOS attacks against NT servers by accident.
>In fact, when almost ANY significant UNIX server system fails,
>it's headline news. It just doesn't happen that often.
>
>When an NT server fails, it's not even a big event to the support
>team - it's "After you reboot #47, could you reboot #32. The numbers
>make the servers easier to find.
>
>> Point is there is absolutely no reason to run Linux on your desktop
>> unless you are too cheap to buy a real operating system.
>
>He's right about that!
>
>Nobody has to run Linux on their desktop.
And noboddy want's to either.
>But the people who are
>interested in having the benifits of a privately managed ISP application
>server that isn't likely to be viewed by any tom dick and mary who is a
>member of the "Administrators" group at the ISP. It's
>not going to be read while it's drives become a public share to the
>backup system.
>
>If you don't care about privacy, security, reliability, performance,
>flexibility, compliance with standards including state, federal, and
>international laws and communications standards - and you don't need
>any of those features, you shouldn't bother with UNIX.
>
>One can only asume
>You are like the following Microsoft Lover:
Hear comes more Lie-nux lies...
>
>I like having my competitors read my e-mail, share my hard drives,
>and my boss loves the x-rated GIFs I've stored on my personal laptop.
>
>I don't mind if the guy who's competing with me for a promotion,
>or a critical business deal gets into my computer with a spy-virus
>that lets him see things that might knock me out of the running or
>give him critical leverage.
>
>I count on Windows crashing at LEAST once a day. After all,
>he can't tell whether I'm goofing off, or whether my machine
>really is just as buggy as his.
>
>I don't mind spending $5000 every two years to get the same level
>of basic effective performance that I got last year. It took
>10 minutes to display the web page on Win3.1 with Mosaic on a 9600
>feed in 1994, why shouldn't it take 10 minutes to display the same
>basic information on Windows 2000 over a DSL line on a system which
>has a 1000 times faster processor, a 2000 times faster video chip,
>a 200 times faster hard drive, and 500 times more RAM. After all,
>Memory and MIPS are cheap - right?
>
>I love the Windows 9x interface. Hey, I used the Windows 3.1
>interface for 6 years and never complained. Maybe I'll like the
>one they come up with in 2002.
>
>I never send anything to anybody electronically. It's too fast. If
>you send it electronically, they'll be able to read the product,
>review it, and ask for another revision by lunch-time. I'm smart,
>I spend the whole afternoon getting it to look perfect so that I
>can print it on my printer and mail it. If I'm really in a hurry
>I can send it Federal Express.
>
>Since I keep paper copies of everything, I never have to worry about
>trying to find it on my computer. I print it up, give it to my
>secretary, and then I can erase the electronic version. Besides,
>who wants to look at some memo I sent to a customer two years ago.
>If I can't find it tomorrow, Sue Me!
>
>Who the hell wants to be on the Internet, it's nothing but a bunch
>of college kids, dead-beats, and hackers. Ain't nobody going to
>make any money on the Internet. Everybody knows that the smart
>money is on Novell for LANS, Prodigy for dial-up, and Microsoft
>Exchange for wide area networks. I got a great idea, let's send
>the entire Wall Street Journal to every AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve
>user in Word format via Exchange - we'll make a FORTUNE!
>
>I am quoting a former supervisor who loved Microsfot so much he
>bet is job on the success of Exchange, and lost. He's now consulting
>part-time as a web developer, using Linux.
Hears' a storry from a LienoNerd:
I used to halve a fambilly. We had a PC running Windos that they used
to log onto AOL and play
games and do homework, and I used it for work. But I disided that Lie-nux
was The One True Way
to go because of a post I read on Usenet.
So I installed Lie-nux, and their went AOL and there was nothing like
Word and only a coupal of
games. I found myself spending day after day at the computer, recompiling
kernals, installing
packages, and configguring servers, and eventually had to move the computer
to the basemint
because my familly was angry and they dident want to see me. But that
dident matter because I
was starting to lern how to wright shell scripts and C programms.
After two months I was banging out sheal scripts like a pro. I had a FTP
servor, an IRC servor,
a BBS, and two Web servers (on different poarts) running on what used
to be a PC that could
connect to AOL.
Then one day I didn't go to bed with my wiaf insted I staid up all nite
with Lie-nux. I dident go
to work the next day either because I was to bizzy compialling the kernel
and configurring the Web
servors so it would scan a picture I had sitting on the scanner everry
time the mane page was loded.
Now I live alone and I lost my job, but at leest I halve Lie-nux!
So if you don't want to be like this guy, Deleet Lie-nux and Install Windos today!
>
>> And again, isn't your time worth something?
>
>Yes it is! I've spent almost 1000 hours band-aiding, recovering,
>and rebuilding Microsoft Windows systems - THIS YEAR. And my
>Billable rate is $280 an hour. Since I couldn't bill the customer,
>Microsoft owes me $280,000 for this year and $4 million for lost
>time over the last 15 years.
>
>Furthermore, I typically generate $1000 in "bottom line impact" for
>each dollar I'm paid. This means that Microsoft owes my clients
>(30 of them Fortune 50 companies) $1 billion in bottom line impact.
>
>Fortunately, I work 60 hours a week, not including time spent posting
>to newsgroups, mailing lists, discussion/feedbacks, and my web site
>so I don't think they noticed.
>
>> Run Windows and come home to the family......
>
>The Mansons?
Your fambily that you havent sean for years because you've been too buzy spending
quallity time with Lie-nux.
>
>--
>Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
>I/T Architect, MIS Director
>http://www.open4success.com
>Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
>
>--
>Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
>I/T Architect, MIS Director
>http://www.open4success.com
>Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
>and growing at over 5%/month!
>
So its sloaing down? I thought it was growing at 1%/weak.
Now its only 5%/month = .20%/weak?
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: 25 Jun 2000 15:41:13 -0500
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/bin/nts/ntsysman.exe
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wintrolls in panic!
Date: 25 Jun 2000 15:41:33 -0500
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:49:22 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>> But I really, really would like to know what makes
>> a wintroll a wintroll!
>>
>> Why do they STILL insist on touting Microsoft!
>>
>> What could possibly keep a person going on the Microsoft
>> bandwagon? What could it be?
>
>BECAUSE LINSUX SUXX AND ALL LINSUX CAN DO IS SHUFFAL TEXT FIALS ALL DAY
>AND I CANT EVEN WORK OUT HOW TO USE THE CAPSLOCK KEY NEVER MIND
>SOMETHING AS USEFUL AS A COMMANDLINE
>
>
>-ED
>
>
>--
>The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
>http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
>
>remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
>it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
