Linux-Advocacy Digest #623, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Michael Vester)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why use Linux? (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:04:58 -0700
So, what is Tim Palmer's excuse. He is the champion of the
Microsoft cause but writes very poorly. I thought Outlook had
a built in spell checker. Perhaps that is beyond Tim's
technical abilities.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
>
> From http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-5.html
>
> "The bilt in Linux firewall..."
>
> "...new firewall utility with more feachers"
>
> How is this for an incomplete sentence including typos!
>
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-6.html
>
> "Because most distributions don't dome with a kernel usefull to your
> perpose."
>
> Or this;
>
> "You need to turning off any unneeded services."
>
> "This script will count ever packet"
>
> And the printed book "Running Linux" (3rd Edition mind you) has typos..
>
> Check page 47, "If this is the cas, it should be explicity stated on
> the package"
>
> --- I mean really,, what a bunch of retards! You all spent so much time
> geeking that you never acquired spelling and grammar skills? Well..
> rest my case, the real world will ever take Linux seriously.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:10:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Spider) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Then there is me who is looking at changing from Windows to Linux.
Why are you thinking of changing? I know why I might (Delphi on Linux!).
>With Windows you never know what it's going to do next. There is far
>too much opportunity for spyware merchants to take advantage of the OS
>in Windows and the user may be unable to find it.
You might as well say that of every commercial OS out there. How do you
know its not already been done?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:13:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Sanders) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Wow! Pot, kettle, black.
I think not.
> Aaron was responding to a point of _yours_. That's something I only
>see you do very rarely. Don't 'cha think "Linux lags behind Windows" is
>a one-liner of yours?
He rarely responds, and usually with off the topic short replies.
> Here's is a quote from one of your recent posts:
> "This from the guy who believes an application programmer needs to
>understand how the OS scheduler works in order to write an application?"
> Why don't you explain what _that_ has to do with "Linux lags behind
>Windows"?
> Try not to dodge this time, and see if you can give an intellignet
>response to Aaron.
I'm waiting for his response. I'm still waiting. I'm still waiting for his
response to the question "Why do I, an application developer, need to
understand how the scheduler works?". He never did respond.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:14:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Which one is that? The "file server" or the "web server" one? Please be
>consistent with what you say, if you want somebody to believe you.
It's running a web server, the file server.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:17:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Well Pete has said in several posts he pays per minute charges to
>access the net. So it's clear his web server is sitting there doing
>nothing.
At work. In any case it was an experimental web server, and it's not being
used. But, it's still running after over a month.
>Pete say here he has a file server running 98 SE
>http://x73.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=644936174
At work, yep.
>But he says here he has a Samba server running Linux
>http://x63.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=643200940
At home, yep.
>And yet, all of his emphasis has been on home use, i.e. voodoo 5 card
>for games, HP scanner, etc. etc. So who are all these servers
>serving?? His children?? Poor kids.
At home, the server is just keeping files for me. At work for the rest of
the group.
You can be as sarcastic as you like - it don't make any difference. I have
a file server/web server at work and it's been running since the 17th May.
That's over a month now.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:21:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in <396C7830.5582111
@willinet.net>:
>Pete, I think you've missed this point. I will answer here rather than
>watch this turn into the typical shouting match (which will probably
>happen anyway). He isn't talking about different desktop environments,
>he is talking about different desktops within the same environment. In
>KDE or GNOME or Enlightenment or most other desktop environments, there
>is a way to set up multiple "virtual" desktops. This is what he is
>talking about. You can switch between your 4 or 6 or 8 or *however many
>you've picked* desktops in real time. You have one desktop filled up
>and want a clean one to start something else, click on desktop two and
>start whatever you want there. It is something that is indespensible
>once you get used to it. I typically have netscape up on desktop one,
>GIMP up on desktop two, XEmacs on desktop 3, and desktop four circulates
>between an office suite (StarOffice or Corel) and whatever other thing I
>may need. It's an extremely useful feature.
Oh I thought we were talking about Gnome, KDE, FVWM, TWM etc.
I didn't think we were talking about virtual desktops. I think there is one
(or there was one) for Windows. I've tried them, but don't really find much
use.
>In KDE and GNOME this feature is accessible from the "Control Center"
>application (much like Windows control panel) that allows you to change
>options. You can set up as many or as few desktops as you want. Most
>Windows users never even realize what those extra desktops are, if they
>ever even realize they are there at all. They are quite useful. If you
>want a blank desktop at any moment you don't have to minimize everything
>to get there, just move to another unused desktop and there you go.
>Some people never get the hange of it, others never want to, but if you
>do get used to it you really miss it when you have to use an OS that
>doesn't have it.
Interesting that Windows has the concept of desktop and screen, and they're
not always the same. Does Linux support multi-head? Having two screens
seems a lot more useful than using virtual ones.
>If I'm mistaken on your interpretation of what he was talking about,
>forgive me. Just trying to enlighten what could have turned into a big
>useless fight.
If I have misunderstood, then I humbly apologise.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:24:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>He's talking about having multiple workpaces, i.e. virtual
>desktops. The default for KDE is 4. You access them with the buttons
>"One", "Two", "Three", and "Four" on your Kpanel. Try it
>sometime....duh...
I'm sorry I thought we were talking about Gnome, KDE, TVWM whatever.
I have seen a virtual desktop feature for Windows, but never really much
use for it.
>The fact the all Linux desktops have multiple workpaces and Windows
>doesn't proves that Windows lags behind Linux on the desktop. The fact
>that you have been using (and whining) about KDE all this time and
>never figured that you have multiple workpaces proves people are 100%
>correct when they call you a moron.
Oh please! Like I didn't notice the 1, 2, 3, 4 on KDE! You must be a
complete idiot if you think that!
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:25:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ki14t$jlr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Gary's right. You can't grasp the concept.
Yeah right.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:28:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>so..what you're saying is... minor aesthetic details FAR outweight
>the superior functionality of unix.
I never said that.
I said "Linux lags behind Windows":
In terms of hardware support on the PC platform,
In terms of the desktop
Not in terms of the fact that Netscape looks better on Windows. Try
_reading_ my posts that using your usual style of peppergun posting.
>And you wonder why people think that you're not all there...
I wonder why you never both to respond to my questions? Your style is to
make one post and vanish.
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:31:32 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Quoting Yannick from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:35:26
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> >> ...sucked. Go ahead, you can say it. "Windows sucks".
> >
> >1. This was a regular ellipsis for the [...]
>
> You're quibbling, dude. Bad form.
>
> >> >In other words, some people in the linux community used Fear, Uncertainty
> >> >and Doubt, so the guy considered switching (FUD ... ??? I must have made a
> >> >mistake. This is the capital sin MS is accused of... surely no linux user would
> >> >use such techniques ?)...
> >>
> >> You did make a mistake.
> >
> >No. I did not make a mistake. I made a small shift of the concept. ...not even of
> >the concept, in fact, only of its context. You said yourself that :
> >
> >> FUD is a dishonest activity, it uses *lies and
> >> half-truths* to foment Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt,
> >
> >... and this is exactly what I meant.
>
> I am not arguing if that is what you meant. I was arguing if you were
> being factually correct when you called it FUD, and you weren't. You
> made a mistake.
>
I meant that some people in the linux community "use lies and half-truths to
foment Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt". Which according to you is the
usual definition for the acronym "FUD". So I did not make a mistake.
I was teasing, in saying my ideas that way, but, teasing or not, I still say
that some people in the linux community use FUD, as explained by the few
sentences before that affirmation in my original post.
> [...]
> >> But that MS is a horrible company,
> >As of today, this has become an _opinion_.
>
> It's been an opinion all along. If you think I've made a mistake, feel
> free to attempt to explain to me how.
In fact, I was a bit confused myself because your original sentence had
no central verb in it... anyway I had made the false assumption that when
you said "... are not untrue...", you meant "...are true...". Sorry, I should have
know not to make such assumptions about your posts... It's difficult
not to get trapped ( I do not mean the "traps" are intentional ) by your way
of saying things since English is not my native language...
> >> that their products work only to suck money
> >It's an american company...
> It a company. Yes, most businesses today are horribly unethical.
> Microsoft is the point of discussion at the moment.
I was only meaning that you can hardly expected less from any other company.
Which is precisely the point. It's not "MS is a company that wants to
suck you money" that must be said to convince people to use linux,
because it's a form of FUD. Saying "We are not sucking money from you
because most of our offer is free of charge" to convince people to use linux
is OK... Understand what I mean ?
>
> >> and control the customer
> >"Control the customer" remains to be seen...
>
> Only if you're blind.
Not a question of being blind. Depends about what you mean
saying 'control the customer'. Please be more precise and I'll explain
my point of view on this particular subject...
>>Securing their market share is another matter...
>
> They don't *GET* a "market share". NOBODY does. The market is not a
> pie chart.
As for every use of mathematics in reality, the concept of "market size" and
"market share" are concepts used to represent a reality, but have to be used
carefully. So yes, there is such a thing as a market share. On a particular
time interval you can be said to "have" a market share, meaning that some of the
people buying an Thing on the Thing market have bought your Think, and
the number of those people, compared to the total number of Things sold
during that same interval, gives the market share.
So you *have* a market share.
But you don't know its value... you don't necessarily know how much you sold
(because of volume licenses), nor the size of the market (for similar reasons,
GPL being a kind of unlimited volume license).
So you *have* a market share, but don't *know* it. Nevertheless you can
make it increase or decrease...
It's not reality, it's a way of understanding it, with its limitations.
> And, in fact, securing market share *is* the matter, and the
> crime they've been convicted of.
Securing your market share is not illegal in itself. One way of securing
a market share is making a product so wonderful you customers will never
want to change for another. Using illegal practices to secure your market
share is illegal, and is what people are accusing MS of.
(...)
> as opposed to a blind insistence of ignorance
> which insists that there were no pre-processor agreements (and the
> hundreds of followup monopoly strategies), and if they were they weren't
> illegal, and if they were they shouldn't be.
I never said that. I know you know I didn't say it, but I will repeat I didn't say it,
for people who haven't read my previous posts.
>
> >> and that Microsoft and the industry in general will soon undergo
> >> major changes. None of those things are untrue, and so teaching people
> >> that they should try alternatives and not be afraid to learn how
> >> computers really work isn't FUD.
> >
> >Never denied the fact that he should try an alternative... only disapproved
> >of how he was convinced to do so...
>
> Well, you're mistaken in your disapproval. Or you're lying in your
> disapproval. Since you defend Microsoft, I honestly have to admit that
> there's a pretty even chance of either being the case.
I said that, in my opinion, he was convinced to try alternatives by people using
FUD. I did not deny that he should try alternatives. I myself try all alternatives I
can, which always is a good behaviour.
On the other hand, I also tried to explain in my post some reasons why he
and/or I did not prefer the alternative...
> I don't mean to sound prejudicial,
Yet you do. Never mind.
> and if, again, you can give me any reason at all to
> think otherwise, I will take the bait. I'd really like you to trust me
> on that, and give it a shot.
(...)
> >Which we've been discussing for weeks on this newsgroup, so I won't start all
> >over again.
>
> COLA is too busy for even me to keep up with, but I recall someone else
> on ADM also questioning your comment in this regard. Could you do us
> the favor of summarizing the argument as a new thread, with followups
> directed to my 'home' group?
>
"bait" "home group".... you will want to know that I was the one to start cross-posting
this thread to alt.destroy.microsoft, because I expected that that
first post, intentionally provocative (but nevertheless sincere)
would get some reaction from you.
As for summarizing, I fear I don't have the time right now. I wish we had
Giuliano Colla here. He is very good at making unbiased summaries...
> >>or what a "feature for the end user" is,
> >
> >Even I do not know what features are available for the end user on Windows...
> >until I try linux and find some of them missing.
>
> So if it differs from what you are familiar with, that counts as a
> missing feature? How are you to know if the feature is not available,
> but in an unfamiliar (but possibly even more efficient) way? Unless you
> know both about equally well (but not too much; engineers tend to be
> more religious than end users), I don't think you can honestly say that
> Linux is harder than Windows or missing any features.
>
It is true that I now linux much less than Windows. It is true that it's not easy
making the difference between a missing feature and a differently implemented
feature. Nevertheless, for the end-user part, and especially the GUI it is quite
easy to find out once you've used the system for some time. Then there are
the features missing in the applications. There are the features implemented
but which are difficult to learn how to use.
> On the other hand, I don't know anyone who wouldn't agree that Linux is
> missing features, and possibly even some that Windows has, though that
> is less likely.
>The difference is, with Linux we can add them. We
> don't need permission, or secret code, from the company that is making
> money on the product.
Yes, but... (more detailed answer in my next post if you ask for it)
> >> and how it
> >> differs from a trivial single capability which is used to attempt to
> >> obscure the real issues
> >
> >....stability.... everybody around here thinking it's an end in itself....
> >understand what I mean, here ?
>
> No. Stability is an end in itself. It is also a means to a lot of
> things, as well, but all by itself it has tremendous value.
You've got it. It has "tremendous value". In other words, it is, most of
the time, by far the most valuable means to reaching ends such as
"getting the job done", "having pleased users", "reducing costs", etc...
But no, it's not quite an end in itself. Except for the fact that a cartesian
mind is much more satisfied with a stable system. Ask your users if they
prefer to have the job done or have a system acceptable by their cartesian mind...
> >> or dishonestly influence the opinions of those
> >> who will be scared off of trying alternatives by dishonest statements
> >> such as yours. Then it becomes just more FUD.
> >
> >At least it is based on arguments, not on comtempt over other people's opinions...
>
> I have no contempt for you, rest assured, and I merely disagree with
> your opinions. It is your argument I have contempt for, because your
> argument is FUD.
You disagree with my opinions, have contempt for my arguments...
... difficult to believe you have no contempt for me. Or perhaps you
had some but don't anymore ? I would be most pleased.
Yannick.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:31:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>With a track record like that, why should anybody spend the money
>for a company which is well-known for not admitting that their
>software is bug-infested crap?
That's an interesting question you raise. Can you explain the meteoric rise
of Windows, pushing everything else out and taking over 90% of the desktop
market? And this with "bug-infested crap" as you put it.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 19:33:15 GMT
In article <8kife3$1vc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
writes:
>Copyrights let you re-implement if you don't copy anything.
But be aware that copying can occur even if you aren't looking at
something at the time you are writing your work. George Harrison
was found to have infringed the copyright on "He's So Fine" with
his "My Sweet Lord", even though it was something that he had
heard years before.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 19:37:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:28:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The one's telling lies are your cabal.
Let's examine this:
> You lie when you claim that to make restrictions on freedom such
> that all entities share the same level of freedom is somehow not
> free.
Sorry, but you do not increase freedom by rstricting it. Period. Further,
not all entities share the same level of freedom under the GPV: add-on
developers are frozen out.
> You lie when you claim that Free Software is actually incompatible
> with the construction of software where the author can use any
> licence he pleases, keep the software secret and even make obscene
> profits on it.
Counterexample: BSD. The BSD license is, according to most folks, free, yet
the BSD developers (some of whom you're calling liars in this very thread)
cannot incorporate GPVed software in BSD and remain true to the goals of
their project: a truly free, reusable system with none of the GPV's
drawbacks.
Now, are you going to quit calling people liars when they're not?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 14:37:46 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The inability to combine code with any existing code not restricted
>>in exactly the same way has to be a burden on development.
>
>Were you to have said "is a burden", you would merely be contradicting
>Jedi. But in saying it "has to be", you seem to be indicated a
>statement of factual principle which I don't think you've demonstrated.
>"Could be", certainly. "Is", most of the moderates would agree with.
>But "has to be?" If you cannot exploit the work of others, then you
>cannot produce anything yourself? This doesn't hold up, even if we were
>to assume most of your previous arguments, which I personally can't do.
The sheer numbers of things that can't be combined is enough
to convince me, but if you want something concrete start with
the example of including GNU readline in a program that
processes GIF files.
>GPL restrictions are only a problem for software *exploiters*; they
>don't cause any severe burden on software *developers*, and they cause
>no burden whatsoever on end users. No wonder you guys are scared. You
>must be exploiters. And the GPL is actively and intentionally hostile
>to you. Unapologetically.
What are you talking about? The GPL restrictions have nothing to
do with exploiting anything. They restrict giving things away
just the same as selling.
>>This part is true enough, and there is no need for the common
>>code to assert any restrictions on derivatives to remain
>>free itself.
>
>True only from the perspective of a software exploiter. Software
>developers recognize that the concept of "derivative works" is not
>strictly set either in code or law. Another smoke-and-mirrors trick to
>dupe the masses into accepting predatory end-user licenses, in that you
>can sell them code, and then sell it to them again, or prevent someone
>else from implementing an alternative. Another scam shut down by GPL.
What does that mean?
>>> The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
>>> as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
>>> barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
>>
>>And what possible motivation can someone claiming to produce free
>>software in trying to assert control over libraries done by
>>others, or in restricting the ways that this supposedly free
>>work can be redistributed?
>
>Read the FSF web page, I'm sure it explains it. But if you go in there
>with all of your current false assumptions and inaccurate conclusions,
>without any thought of attempting to give a reasoned hearing to the
>case, it isn't going to do you any good at all.
I have no false assumptions or inaccurate conclusions about it.
>You don't have to
>assume what they're saying is true. Just don't assume its not true,
>until you've read the whole thing, and thought about it a while, and
>compared what you see around you to the representations made by both
>sides.
Been there, done that - years ago, and I still see much more
good coming from the unrestricted code base like bsd TCP.
>If you still feel that there isn't possibly a motivation for the
>library clauses, you can present arguments to refute it or just give up,
>because you can't figure it out. Its not a bad thing to be stumped by a
>concept outside your grasp. Its only a bad thing when you deny that
>you're stumped.
There obviously is a motivation. The part that I question is
who benefits from this need for control over the works of
others.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:50:19 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >My argument is that with a Linux (Unix) system, both as server and
> > workstations,
> >you can achieve very high uptimes, which means greater productivity. That is
>
> No, uptimes in and of themselves prove absolutely nothing.
>
> >what it's all about - in the end...
> >
> What is the context of the uptime?
>
> >Now, is my argument still meaningless?
> >
> No argument is meaningless!
>
> Paul
>
> --
>
> "Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
OK, I go away for holiday for a month (30 days). With Linux I can
configure fetchmail to collect mail and do some other routine work while
I'm away. Results, logs etc. can be forwarded to a Web Based e-mail
service like hotmail or mailexcite or... (take your pick).
When something happens suspect that I can see in my e-mail, I can Telnet
to my box and repair.
I can remember times when something crashed in NT4 - for some reason the
box turns into a paper weight - not even Telnet works. NT remote admin
only works if the box is stable.
At least I can always rest assure my box will be available - anytime
from anyplace (exceptions be for physical hardware failure).
Nico
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
Idiot, n.:
A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human
affairs has always been dominant and controlling.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:35:39 -0500
And yet again you chose to carefully ignore the part where I did in fact
say, "I worded the statement incorrectly and here is my correction:"
Go back and re-read my last couple of messages. If you insist in
telling me that my statement is wrong, then insist on ignoring me when I
actually make the correction it doesn't exactly look like your goal is
to teach. It would be very difficult to consistantly ignore where I am
admitting I made a mistake in wording. Yet you do.
Your goal appears to be to continue telling me my statement was wrong.
Even when I admit where it was wrong and what the proper correction was
you come back saying that my statement was wrong. Very well,
I WAS WRONG.
OK.
I honestly tried. But what's the point. I feel like I'm working for my
uncle again. I would do a job exactly the way he told me to do it, he
would come yell at me and say to do it *this* was next time. I do it
exactly *this* way next time and he yells again and says, no goddamn it,
why the hell didn't you do it (the way I did originally). Blissfully
ignorant that I actually had previously.
I may occasionally be a dumbass, but I have no problem admitting my
mistakes. Your instance that I am not admitting my mistakes (and going
up three or four levels in the thread to prove that I didn't) really
undermines your position of telling me you are out to teach. Try again.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
