Linux-Advocacy Digest #280, Volume #29 Sat, 23 Sep 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: GPL & freedom (Tim Tyler)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: GPL & freedom (Tim Tyler)
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: hypocritical Unix apologists (Donovan Rebbechi)
Does Linux have snazzy FrontPage equivalent for web page authoring and 'publishing'?
("Dan Jacobson")
Re: Does Linux have snazzy FrontPage equivalent for web page authoring (Gary
Hallock)
Re: Does Linux have snazzy FrontPage equivalent for web page authoring and
'publishing'? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Joe R.")
Re: Does Linux have snazzy FrontPage equivalent for web page authoring and
'publishing'? ("Jan Ruitenbeek")
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (dc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:04:06 GMT
In comp.lang.java.advocacy D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Freedom to always have access to the source of any work based
: on original GPL code. Where is the hypocricy? It only becomes
: hypocricy if you attribute a different meaning to the word "free"...
: a menaing other than what the GPL specifies.
It's the GPL that's misusing the word "free".
They should probably have used the word "restricted" instead.
In fact they /do/ use this word: "we need to make restrictions [...]
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it." - in other words
they can sue your ass, if you don't behave the way they want.
They use the terms "freedom" and "free". ``When we speak of free
software, we are referring to freedom, not price.'' This seems to be
misleading of them. Freedom is not what the GPL provides to someone with
software under the license.
--
__________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:25:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ingemar Lundin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:51:46 GMT
<SXRw5.1657$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> However you want to interpret the Mindcraft tests, it is old news. Linux
>beats
>> W2K hands down now.
>
>simply put?...NO IT DOESNT!
Actually, W2k will beat Linux hands down.
Why?
Because it will most likely be installed on more (new) machines. It depends
on the definition of "better", perhaps -- but the one that appears to count
most in the marketplace is "mo' money", or perhaps "mo' units installed".
That's a bit of a shame (I prefer technical superiority because I believe
it to be cheaper in the long run), but hopefully we can get Linux
to be more stable *and* make "mo' money" *and* have "mo' units installed".
Perhaps we need to enhance the visibility of turnkey web servers?
There are a few out there, and of course the Linux distros already
have web servers as part of their installation, which is about as
turnkey as one can get, at least for the simple stuff.
Another possibility is to get an Office-like solution out there
(StarOffice already exists, admittedly, but according to messages
on this newsgroup, it's a bit of a pig, memorywise -- well, so is
Office2000 :-) ). I don't know, really; how does one win the
masses over to Linux without an application that's obviously so
much better that people notice it?
After all, 'elm' is better than Office2000 with respect to virus
safety, but far worse in GUI (it's text-only). 'vi' is more
powerful than Notepad, but more difficult to use for novices ('d5d' as
opposed to highlighting 5 lines with the mouse and hitting the DEL key;
':w<RET>:e otherfile.txt<RET>1G"ayG:e#<RET>/somewhere<RET>"ap' [*] as
opposed to control A in one window, Edit>Copy, click on the
other window to where you want to paste, Edit>Paste; '!10!command<RET>'
as opposed to New>Text Document, doubleclick, click on original,
highlight 10 lines and Edit>Cut, click on empty page, Edit>Paste,
Save, bring up DOS box (or doubleclick on program icon), read temp
file, write result file, doubleclick on result file, ControlA,
Edit>Copy, move back to original, Edit>Paste). However, for a touch
typist, 'vi' (and 'emacs', as well, which has its own ideas regarding
command sequence and can be more powerful yet -- one can even debug
a program within emacs!) can be far more effective.
'make' is about the same as 'Visual C++' for experienced developers, and
a little easier to work with (IMO), although one has to use 'vi' to create
the makefiles. However, documentation for makefiles and examples
abound on the 'Net (if nothing else, download a similar software
package and poke through its Makefile(s) for ideas), although I'm
not too thrilled with the GNU configuration tools, not having mastered
all of their intricacies yet. Still, properly done, using autoconf
etc. makes programs extremely portable to a large number of Unices.
One thing I do like about Visual C++, which has been emulated in tools
such as Borland's JBuilder, is its automatic parse/method-member
popup display. Simply put, one types in a variable and a dot or the
'->' construct (the normal C++ stuff), and up pops a list of available
methods and data members. It doesn't always work, but it's convenient,
and highly addictive. :-) (However, I've also had Visual C++ crash on
me, leaving a silly little unframed window that can only be removed by
logging out and logging back in, effectively restarting the "GUI server" or
whatever NT uses to handle Win32 requests. To be fair, I've seen similar
problems with X and WinE, mostly because WinE creates windows with
some special characteristics; I'd have to look at the source code
for the details. And yes, I lose all my edits since the last save;
fortunately, VC++ saves every time I build, and I build frequently.)
'grep' is a powerful little utility; NT's text "find" (not to be confused
with Unix's "find") is a poor substitute, as IIRC it doesn't do
pattern matching. (NT's and Win95's "find" applet, part of the
Start menu, is more convenient, and appears to be a combination
of parts of "grep" and "find", but it's a poor substitute for Unix's
"find" utility, especially when one can do things like
"find . -type f -mtime -7 | xargs grep 'Danger'" so easily in Unix,
once one learns find, xargs, and piping.)
CMD.EXE can do quite a bit, but 'sh' is probably
more intuitive (and more portable). Older versions of DOS couldn't
do piping properly (they did the equivalent of prog1 > tempfile.$$$;
prog2 < tempfile.$$$; del tempfile.$$$); of course, DOS couldn't multitask
too well so that's probably why. I don't know if COMMAND.COM in
Win98 or WinMe still does this or not; presumably CMD.EXE does it
properly (it has no such excuse), but I haven't played with
it lately.
To be fair, Cygwin ports almost all of the common Unix utilities to
NT, and even works around the infamous 'C:' problem (by the
rather straightforward hack '//c/...' instead of 'C:\...').
Of course, not all programs understand '//c/...', so problems will
probably ensue on occasion. (Cygwin does understand 'C:\', but
the shell needs to escape backslashes, so the user would have
to type in 'C:\\', which may look a bit weird.)
And of course NT has all of those nifty neato gadgets. But
I think Unix, which has been around for 30 years now, is
a tried and tested model. It's a shame that the surface glitz
of Windows (and its attempts, and some successes, of overcoming
its DOS roots and reliability problems) obscures this.
So which is better? I submit that, with all of its warts, Unix is.
Maybe not for the rank neophyte, but then, what is a neophyte than
a tabula rasa to instruct properly? :-) :-)
[.sigsnip]
[*] It's more intuitive than it looks to newbies.
The ':' puts one at the bottom command line (which is itself a holdover
from the vi/ex dichotomy), 'w' writes the buffer to the file,
'e otherfile.txt' edits another file, '"a' marks a buffer name
(there are at least 26 of them, possibly 52; I don't remember now),
y = yank, 'e #' edits your original file (multiple ':e#' sequences
flip between the two files), /somewhere<RET> searches, or you can use
the hjkl or with newer VIs the arrow keys, and then 'p'
for pasting the appropriate buffer (if no buffer is specified,
it pastes what I will call the "delete buffer", an otherwise unnamed
buffer that is filled with whatever one deleted last).
On RedHat Linux, and probably on other distributions as well, the "a is
optional, since the unnamed buffer carries over on file loads; on older
Unices, the "a is mandatory as loading another file appears to clear
the delete buffer. All of this with immediate feedback (VI is
character-oriented, rather than line-oriented) so the user gets
some feedback as he types each keystroke -- if he's paying attention,
of course. (Some VI's even know when they're running in an xterm
and play with the title -- there's an escape sequence that changes
it, it's "\033]2;text_to_put_in_title_bar\007".)
Vi's commands have quite a bit of common behavior; commands such
as 'd/search', 'd?search', 'd10d', or 'd10G' (meaning delete lines
forward until one is found with "search", delete lines backward
until one is found with "search", delete the next 10 lines, or delete
between here and line 10) are rather obvious when explained, and, when
one learns 'yank' and 'change', they map right over: 'y/search',
'y?search', 'y10y', 'y10G', 'c/search', 'c?search', 'c10c', and
'c10G' work as one would expect!
Other commands can take repeat counts. '10x' deletes 10 characters.
'80i-<ESC>' inserts a single dash 80 times (this one's rather
nifty for comments). '10ahello<ESC>' appends (inserts after the
cursor) 10 copies of 'hello'. '10ohello<ESC>' inserts 10 lines
containing the word 'hello'. 10p pastes something 10 times.
'3/hello<RET>' searches for the 3rd following occurrence of the
pattern 'hello'.
I'm sure there are better tutorials than the above for VI, but this
should tell you something about its flexibility. Its main difficulty
is the commands aren't obvious to the casual user -- although
gvim has a built-in menu that helps.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:16:45 GMT
In various advocacy groups Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Yes, if the real purpose of the license is to prevent
: others from using it, the GPL is fine.
The *real* purpose of the GPL is to reproduce itself - it's a virus -
and a fairly successful one, judging by it's progress to date.
It's attached to software - and any other software that comes in contact
with it is "infected" with the GPL. Suddenly you can't redistribute the
software without attaching an exact duplicate copy of the GPL to it.
Consequently, more-and-more software comes with a GPL attached. Once
attached to software, it can never be removed.
All the talk of freedom, is to make the virus /appear/ to be innocuous, so
people don't worry about attaching it to their software. Once attached,
the software will never be free of the GPL again.
Eventually half the world's bandwidth charges will be spent transporting
copies of the GPL around :-|
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Namaste.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:30:40 GMT
"Tim Tyler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.lang.java.advocacy D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Freedom to always have access to the source of any work based
> : on original GPL code. Where is the hypocricy? It only becomes
> : hypocricy if you attribute a different meaning to the word "free"...
> : a menaing other than what the GPL specifies.
> It's the GPL that's misusing the word "free".
No - it have qualified what they mean when they say "free".
When it say "free" it clearly means the ability for anyone to make
modifications to any code based on any GPL work.
It clearly does not mean "free" to make changes without giving
those changes back.
> They should probably have used the word "restricted" instead.
You are not restricted from making changes to code that
makes use of GPL code though.
As I said - if you give meanings to "free" beyond what the
GPL means when it says "free" you have the problems you are
currently experiencing. If you stop, read the GPL, see what
it means when it says "free" your head will sop hurting.
> In fact they /do/ use this word: "we need to make restrictions [...]
> These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
> distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it." - in other words
> they can sue your ass, if you don't behave the way they want.
Which is turning around what the GPL is talking about.
Sure it says the same thing - in a different way.
> They use the terms "freedom" and "free". ``When we speak of free
> software, we are referring to freedom, not price.'' This seems to be
> misleading of them. Freedom is not what the GPL provides to someone with
> software under the license.
GPL referrs to (among other things) the freedom to make changes to
code that makes use of GPL code.
There is no misleading if you read the license.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: hypocritical Unix apologists
Date: 24 Sep 2000 00:36:00 GMT
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:28:34 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donovan Rebbechi
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on 22 Sep 2000 21:15:05 GMT
>I am a mathematician, at least by degree (BS in Math from UCSB).
>Have I really had to use any of this hard-won mathematical knowledge,
>specifically Galois theory, Lebesgue measurement theory, and
>even for that matter, calculus?
>
>Not even.
I've found a basic knowledge of calculus, stats and linear algebra
has been useful. Of course, the stuff I've learned in grad school is
one hell of an overkill. It's probably true that teaching the easy
stuff for five years has helped more than learning hard stuff.
The nice thing about math though is that hopefully, one acquires some
intellectual discipline and the ability to handle abstractions without
getting intimidated. For this reason, there are computer jobs that
are willing to hire mathematicians who have next to no programming
skills.
Unfortunately, Richard seems to display the opposite of discipline,
and instead of bothering to do something, he's become an armchair
critic ( which is a role well suited to lazy people with big egos )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98,microsoft.public.frontpage.extensions.unix
Subject: Does Linux have snazzy FrontPage equivalent for web page authoring and
'publishing'?
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 05:20:28 +0800
Sorry to be a pain, but just curious, does Linux have any FrontPage
equivalent for web page authoring and 'publishing'? Now right off the
bat, I want to delimit the conversation to the idealistic FrontPage, where
no sloppy code is produced and no 'extentions' evil incompatibility plots
exist--- if it actually works isn't fair game either. I hear Nutscrape's
equivalent has met with user frustration. What is a GNU dude to do?
Would it be the same for browsers, where for the moment one must violate
anti-M$ morals if one wants to be not losing out to the user in the next
carrel. P.S. I know the anti-M$ website[s] lists equivalents for M$
tools.
--
www.geocities.com/jidanni E-mail: restore ".com." ¿n¤¦¥§
Tel:+886-4-5854780; starting in year 2001: +886-4-25854780
The Austin Powers of computing reading this on comp.os.linux.advocacy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:10:49 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: Does Linux have snazzy FrontPage equivalent for web page authoring
Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Sorry to be a pain, but just curious, does Linux have any FrontPage
> equivalent for web page authoring and 'publishing'? Now right off the
> bat, I want to delimit the conversation to the idealistic FrontPage, where
> no sloppy code is produced and no 'extentions' evil incompatibility plots
> exist--- if it actually works isn't fair game either. I hear Nutscrape's
> equivalent has met with user frustration. What is a GNU dude to do?
> Would it be the same for browsers, where for the moment one must violate
> anti-M$ morals if one wants to be not losing out to the user in the next
> carrel. P.S. I know the anti-M$ website[s] lists equivalents for M$
> tools.
You could try WebSphere:
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/hpbuilder/linux/index.html
It's not free, but there is a 60-day free trial version.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98,microsoft.public.frontpage.extensions.unix
Subject: Re: Does Linux have snazzy FrontPage equivalent for web page authoring and
'publishing'?
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 02:06:10 GMT
In article <8qjlq0$fc1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to be a pain, but just curious, does Linux have any FrontPage
> equivalent for web page authoring and 'publishing'? Now right off the
> bat, I want to delimit the conversation to the idealistic FrontPage,
where
> no sloppy code is produced and no 'extentions' evil incompatibility
plots
> exist---
[snip]
I've been using /bin/vi and working out of Que Publishing's HTML 4.0
book. I really don't know of any other way to absolutelly guarantee
your HTML isn't b0rken. But we also have some special accessablilty
requirements we needed to meet, and none of the GUI composers we looked
at generated clean enough code that we could go back and fix, so we just
stuck with the dumb text editor. Maximum control, but maximum pain.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 02:21:42 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:26:04 +0100,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > dc wrote:
> >>On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:47:11 GMT, Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>some of these standards. And because of the Macintosh's excellent
> >>>support for networking, Apple product users are well-connected.
> >>
> >>This I don't quite understand. Not from a 1990's AppleTalk
> >>perspective, but from a September 2000 perspective, how are Apple
> >>product users "well-connected" compared to the rest of computerdom
> >>(meaning, NT and ME)?
> >
> >I'm having trouble with the phrase 'rest of computerdom' which I assumed
> >would mean what people actually use, not NT and ME.
>
> For better or worse, that is what most people actually use.
Most people use NT and ME?
You're out of your mind (what little apparently remains).
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Ruitenbeek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98,microsoft.public.frontpage.extensions.unix
Subject: Re: Does Linux have snazzy FrontPage equivalent for web page authoring and
'publishing'?
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 02:31:50 GMT
Hi,
Linux is an operating system in progress with many tastes. You have Debian,
Redhat, Suse, etc. Linux also has a wide range of windowmanagers (the
graphical interface, better known as GUI), like GNOME, KDE, FVWM2,
AFTERSTEP, etc. Each windowmanager has its own look and feel and its won
programs. There's no standard as in Windows. Maybe, at this moment, there
are no applications equal to Frontpage or Netscape Composer, but development
is on its way and , yes, there are programs to create webpages for the Linux
system.
If you are already using Linux, look out for StarOffice 5.2. It's a free
(yes I mean it !!!) office suite (compatible with MSOffice 97 and 2000)
that allows you to create webpages with frames, java, and all the nice
stuff you would like.
Conclusion: in some aspects, Linux might not be as far developped as you
would like, but new applications are are on their way. And now comes the
most important thing: most Linux appliations are free!!! You have to take a
look for yourself if you want to go on with Windows or just abandon Windows
and start with Linux.
Success with your choice!!!
Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8qjlq0$fc1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sorry to be a pain, but just curious, does Linux have any FrontPage
> equivalent for web page authoring and 'publishing'? Now right off the
> bat, I want to delimit the conversation to the idealistic FrontPage, where
> no sloppy code is produced and no 'extentions' evil incompatibility plots
> exist--- if it actually works isn't fair game either. I hear Nutscrape's
> equivalent has met with user frustration. What is a GNU dude to do?
> Would it be the same for browsers, where for the moment one must violate
> anti-M$ morals if one wants to be not losing out to the user in the next
> carrel. P.S. I know the anti-M$ website[s] lists equivalents for M$
> tools.
> --
> www.geocities.com/jidanni E-mail: restore ".com." ¿n¤¦¥§
> Tel:+886-4-5854780; starting in year 2001: +886-4-25854780
> The Austin Powers of computing reading this on comp.os.linux.advocacy
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:59:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said mark in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <8pja5p$tia$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Indeed - good software could be written for both NT and Unix. What would
>be the point of writing it for NT?
LOL
[...]
>>> Quit your trolling. Make your case or shut your trap. I'm sick of
>>> having to defend my right not to be as ignorant a moron as the stupidest
>>> person in the industry. And I HATE when fuckheads like you have nothing
>>> to say but just love to hand-wave, ankle-bite, and misrepresent what
>>> I've said. Get yourself some reading comprehension skills, sonny.
>>
>>The ignorance and misrepresentation is on your side. You demonstrate an
>>ignorance of WinNT and yet you attempt to comment upon it, grossly
>>misrepresenting things along the way. Your above troll only rises to about
>>D+. It could have been a good solid C if you had refrained from mentioning
>>trolling, raising the subject only makes your efforts more transparent,
>>and the cursing is definitely a losing gambit.
>
>No, he's made a huge number of valid points - it's a shame that the
>Microsoft folk couldn't brief you to deal with them more effectively.
>I imagine that there'll be another course up soon - get booked on it!
Thank you, Mark. I enjoyed your response.
The 'misrepresentation' at point here, btw, is the studious ignorance
Anthony exhibits of the fact that it is, indeed, a very accurate
knowledge of and wide experience with NT which backs my position. I am
not misrepresenting it in the slightest; I could stay up all night just
describing the tribulations its caused me the last three days alone, and
it wasn't even a very bad three days.
Anthony, your 'Windows software is crap because its popular and there's
a lot of crap' is just missing the point. It is *Windows*, and,
generally, Microsoft software, which is crap, not simply the hundreds of
thousands of crappy programs which run on it, nor the few that aren't
crappy. It is a competitive environment in some areas, still, and there
is good software for the Windows environment. Too bad it can never do
any better than the crappy OS on which its running.
Mark's query was both genuine and cogent; you write for a crappy OS
because it is a monopoly, not because it is a good OS. Since Microsoft
does anything they can, literally, to inhibit any benefits of their OS,
either in popularity or in technical capability, from providing
cross-platform opportunities for competition, the only result is that,
protected by a monopoly, the OS and all other Microsoft software gets
crappier and crappier and more and more problematic and more and more
expensive.
And you can't see your way out of it. And then expect us to take your
opinion of the OS seriously.
Being a cross-post between cola and com-wna, I've gotta admit that I
must be guilty of trolling myself, to some extent. But if you don't
think I've made a case, then I suggest you start thinking of a new line
of inquiry, and quite with the "SmartShips is not evidence that NT is
crap." Nobody needs the Navy to tell them that NT is crap; most of us
have figured it out on our own.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:56:27 -0500
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 02:21:42 GMT, "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:26:04 +0100,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > dc wrote:
>> >>On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:47:11 GMT, Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>some of these standards. And because of the Macintosh's excellent
>> >>>support for networking, Apple product users are well-connected.
>> >>
>> >>This I don't quite understand. Not from a 1990's AppleTalk
>> >>perspective, but from a September 2000 perspective, how are Apple
>> >>product users "well-connected" compared to the rest of computerdom
>> >>(meaning, NT and ME)?
>> >
>> >I'm having trouble with the phrase 'rest of computerdom' which I assumed
>> >would mean what people actually use, not NT and ME.
>>
>> For better or worse, that is what most people actually use.
>
>Most people use NT and ME?
>
>You're out of your mind (what little apparently remains).
Or a derivative of one of those OSs, yes, Joe, that _is_ what most
people use.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
