Linux-Advocacy Digest #634, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Astroturfing (Pan)
Re: Astroturfing (Michael Vester)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Astroturfing ("JS/PL")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Astroturfing ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:19:20 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > 1. Proof, in writing (I'm not disagreeing, I would just like to see
> > some proof).
> >
> > 2. If #1 is true, how do I collect my money?
>
> A. By check, duh.
> B. We never claimed that EVERY shit-headed MS-cheerleader is on the MS payroll.
true. Some of them just own stock in the company or have "engineering"
certification from the company. Without that certification, they'd have
to go by their other ( more accurate ) title, pc technician.
--
Pan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:22:03 -0700
There is quite a crew on this linux "advocacy" group that
match that description. Another characteristic is that they
all use pseudonyms. If they believed that Windows is the
greatest OS ever, why hide behind a phony name? Shame?
Embarrassment? Don't want to associate their real name with an
obvious lie? Also, using a pseudonym, one poster can appear to
be many.
Most Linux advocates use our real names. Most experienced IT
professionals I know, are fully aware of the short comings of
W2K/NT. To deny that would be showing your peer group that you
are an idiot. The real pro Windows IT professionals are either
very new to the field or are fresh graduates of the Microsoft
certified whatever program. They have the excuse of being
naive and inexperienced.
I speculate that many pro Windows advocates on this group are
employed by Microsoft. Microsoft has been doing this ever
since OS/2 went back to IBM. The other software companies have
probably used similar tactics. I don't think Microsoft
"innovated" this.
Michael Vester
Linux Advocate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick Condon wrote:
>
> What are the chances that a company as PR aware as Microsoft would allow
> these advocacy forums to exist with astroturfing them? Pretty close to
> zero I would say.
>
> So given that there must be astroturfers here how would we spot them?
> - Not having a real job to go to they make lots of posts.
> - They are technically competent on MS stuff (not wizards, but
> competent).
> - They use the standard bullet-points and marketing buzzwords that look
> a bit out of place in an informal Usenet post, so that they read like
> advertising copy. (like "Advantages to the business", and "Fortune
> 500")
> - Talks up Windows 2000 a lot (because it's the latest upgrade and MS
> lives on upgrades)
> - Defends MS when anyone says "anti-trust".
> - Has a slightly salesman feel about them.
> - Doesn't directly attack Linux, but makes sly comments like ("great for
> mom-and-pop operations cutting costs")
>
> Any others?
>
> So who are the astroturfers? Obviously Mike Byrns, but who else?
> ---
> Nick
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:21:02 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...trolling in denial of DR-DOS FUD...]
> >There was, it must be admitted, a suspicion among some people (myself
> >included) that Microsoft had done something to deliberately make Windows
> >incompatible with DR DOS.
>
> I recall having gone through this personally. Our four man office was
> using about eight PCs and two Macs (we were a PC training company, and
> that doesn't include the lab systems). Having followed the thing in the
> PC rags and watched DR-DOS drive innovation and development in DOS, I
> tried Windows (both 3.0 and 3.1, IIRC, and I'm not sure if the 3.1 was a
> beta, nor if I got the message; after reading so much about it I don't
> trust the recollection I have that I saw the FUD message in question, at
> that time). It seemed to run perfectly fine, but I knew damn well that
> Microsoft *would* do something to deliberately make Windows incompatible
> eventually, if people didn't buckle under and follow The Microsoft Way.
> If not for this move, DR-DOS would have been widely used, to be sure; it
> was indeed a superior product. Microsoft's only [anti-]"competitive"
> advantage, seriously, was the pre-load monopoly; they hadn't yet built
> the Windows Application Barrier.
>
> Even I was skeptical, at the time, of course, and considered it possible
> that Microsoft was just 'playing hardball' (the 'we don't *have* to
> support someone else's product' posturing), but in retrospect (and
> certainly given the internal communications which supports the facts,
> which were not entirely known at the time) to defend this behavior, or
> mitigate the gravity of it, let alone through empty pretenses of base
> ignorance and obfuscation is to demonstrate a complete lack of ability
> to think objectively about the matter, quite honestly. Simon
> demonstrates what I've suspected all along in his exchange with you,
> Weevil. He is either dishonest, or just not very bright.
>
Simon is Dishonest.
> --
> 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! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:27:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :
>> : POSIX is too basic.
>>
>> Which is why we have UNIX98 as well. It also helps to define
>> *which* POSIX spec you are talking about (NT doesn't even try
>> to comply with a large amount of POSIX).
>>
>> : The point he's trying to make is, even though people say Unix is Unix is
>> : Unix, there are still apps that only work on HP-UX, or Solaris, or Linux.
>> : If they have a common API, why is this the case?
>>
>> 95%[1] of the API is the same. The other 5%[1] is different, mostly
>> drawn along SysV vs BSD lines (except for Linux, which is its own
>> special version of hell...).
>>
>> The incompatibilities aren't bad and are even scriptable without
>> much problem (GNU autoconfig, etc).
>>
>> : What's to prevent Linux from one day having incompatible distributions?
>>
>> One day? When was the last time Linux *didn't* have highly
>> incompatible distributions? A.out/ELF? libc vs glibc vs misc
>> versions thereof? Kernel revs? The brain damage that is Linux
>> /proc?
>>
>> The hundreds (yes, hundreds...) of different Linux distributions are
>> at the same time both one of Linux's greatest strengths and greatest
>> weaknesses.
>>
>> Only the ignorant would try and define Unix by Linux's history.
>
>You're right, I was falling into the Linux is Unix trap again, my
>apologies.
>
>Does not Unix also have a checkered past in these regards? Wasn't
>one of Unix's biggest downfalls (e.g. it's only on servers for the
>most part, not 9x% of the desktops) it's fragmentation and
>incompatibilities?
>
>Yes, I read what you posted above (95% of the API is same, etc) but
>why do I here supposed Unix experts lamenting the fragmentation
>that prevented their rising to majority?
>
>(sincere question, really, I'm not purposely trying to build a
>strawman or anything. I'm genuinely interested, if, for nothing
>else, computer history)
I think the reasoning you're extending is a bit shakey, at best, though.
Sincere answer, really.
The way I see it, this 'its biggest strength and greatest weakness'
stuff is for the birds. It is only a strength, both in cause and
effect. Unix is a very powerful OS, so it spawns many derivatives, for
a variety of purposes (some technical, some market related, some
hardware, some software, some customer-driven, most vendor-driven). But
this is still only a strength of "Unix" as a whole; it provides
survivability in an evolutionary sense. Diversity is a strength, not a
weakness. And when you consider that, although it doesn't work to
restrict application availability, it also by the same token mandates
interoperability, if not compatibility. The number one question in
modern computer history, as it were, is whether it is interoperable
through internetworking; whether a particular application product or
code-base runs or runs well or runs easily on it is certainly secondary.
That is what keeps Unix as the dominant non-MS OS, and why even if you
consider each non-binary compatible Unix as an entirely distinct OS the
most widely implemented top 10 are going to be predominantly Unix, and
they might well have the top 3 solid, depending on how you count.
Having multiple OSes with some but not complete compatibility is a
benefit, clearly and entirely, to the consumer! It mandates that
developers consider (or have, even if they don't consider it) some level
of portability, simply by building their product on any 'fragment' of
the Unix market. And the 'success' of a product can easily be inferred
by the customer as a metric of how good the product is, at least in
avoiding lock-in, if not wresting every erg of performance from whatever
hardware/OS system it happens to be running on.
The issue of POSIX I see similarly. This isn't an 'industry spec', per
se. It is a government spec. The _government_ does not have the luxury
of being able to make unwise decisions in locking themselves into a
single vendor of any product or commodity or service. They must provide
some public specifications to ensure minimum survivability of the
technology. Developers consider POSIX as an empty charade, a joke,
because this simple procurement requirement does not provide easy,
convenient, or efficient inter-compatibility. But it does ensure that
data cannot be held hostage by a vendor, it provides for a possible or
potential mechanism of inter-compatibility, and thus while it might be
difficult, intricate, and decisively sub-optimal, and certainly does not
provide a feasible method for commercial portability, it guarantees, in
some small part, at least, that the government itself cannot be placed
at the mercy of a single vendor. POSIX on NT might certainly be the
worst and most pretextual of such implementations, but its not like
anyone ever thought that NT could be taken seriously in any other way,
other than through monopoly leverage, in the end. The whole industry
has been waiting for MS development to approach the capabilities of
almost any bog-standard Unix for a decade now, and the current 'high
hopes' are attributed to W2K. But the game is still the same.
Back on topic, when a free market tolerates fragmentation, it means its
efficient to do so, if for no other reason (and perhaps this is why it
seems like such a bad thing to developers, who FUD end users into
thinking they should care) than it limits the market for an application
package industry-wide unless the developers have proven themselves
efficient and competent enough to serve the larger part of the market
(or provide open code which isn't hostile to porting). In providing
this 'metric' to the factually-disadvantaged consumer in the software
market (they're the ones who need someone else to write the software,
supposedly, so one can't expect them to have a competent technical
judgement on the quality of software they haven't yet implemented), it
is a win-win situation as far as the market is concerned, and a "compete
or die" imperative which prevents anti-competitive development in the
developer's world.
--
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: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:22:29 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > What's wrong with Windows 2000?
>
> Stabilty.
>
> Still not ready for prime time.
My Linux apps crash nearly every time, shit, half of them won't even start.
My Win2K apps never crash. Who's not ready for prime time?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
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: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:39:53 +0200
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is an article in the current "Reader's Digest" in which a mother
> describes her dislexic son as a "Mac in a PC world". What an apt
> description of Mac users, dislexic PC users. <G>
Isn't "dislexic PC users" an oximoron? Isn't Bob an ox and moron?
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:48:41 -0400
Pan wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. Proof, in writing (I'm not disagreeing, I would just like to see
> > > some proof).
> > >
> > > 2. If #1 is true, how do I collect my money?
> >
> > A. By check, duh.
> > B. We never claimed that EVERY shit-headed MS-cheerleader is on the MS payroll.
>
> true. Some of them just own stock in the company or have "engineering"
> certification from the company. Without that certification, they'd have
> to go by their other ( more accurate ) title, pc technician.
Ain't that the truth. I've never met an MCSE who could survive for a
single day in a 3rd-year computer engineering course at Purdue.
>
> --
> Pan
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.la-online.com
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:58:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Darin Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Does not Unix also have a checkered past in these regards? Wasn't
>> one of Unix's biggest downfalls (e.g. it's only on servers for the
>> most part, not 9x% of the desktops) it's fragmentation and
>> incompatibilities?
>
>The biggest advantage too - because that competition caused cross
>fertilization, and thus there's a better product.
>
>And the "downfalls" were really minor, played up at the executive
>level but only a minor annoyance at the customer level. The app
>vendors would often support both camps.
>
>> Yes, I read what you posted above (95% of the API is same, etc) but
>> why do I here supposed Unix experts lamenting the fragmentation
>> that prevented their rising to majority?
>
>I hear that lamentation from the "we can defeat Windows" faction. You
>don't hear it from the "let's get a better UNIX because I like it"
>faction.
The 'seeking better Unix' faction have enough support simply from the
very variety of Unixen. You can shop around if you like Unix to find
the Unix you like best, and if that doesn't satisfy, you can write your
own. It is the de facto standard OS, certainly.
The monopoly 'standard' is not defeatable by competitive development, at
the present time. A few months, and we'll see. The appeal is going to
be argued at the end of February, I think.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:05:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nicholas Knight
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:57:06 GMT
<SwEF5.2944$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
><snip>
>>Not quite. DOS has never been an operating system; it is just a program
>loader
>>and file system.
>>Calling DOS an OS because it loads first is like calling lilo an operating
>>system.
>
>DOS does the same damn thing linux does to boot..
>the BIOS loads whatever is in the MBR, and in turn the boot record on the
>DOS partition is loaded, which loads the DOS kernel, which loads command.com
>the DOS kernel includes support for things like hard drives and
>serial/LPT/keyboard ports
>the linux kernel boots the same way except it generaly consults a
>configuration file to know what to do after the kernel itself has booted
>
>if you don't want to call DOS an operating system, you can't call linux an
>operating system, because they're more similar than you seem to be able to
>accept
It may behoove us to hash out the term "operating system", admittedly.
>From one rather naive point of view, an operating system has
two characters.
(1) It operates.
(2) It is a system -- a series of parts which work together.
:-)
Both Linux and DOS satisfy these requirements. To be sure, so does
an old manual typewriter -- which is basically a system of multijointed
levers attached to a series of keys on one side, and strike-heads on
the other, which hit a cylinder (platen?) through a ribbon. (Usually
a piece of paper is between the ribbon and the cylinder.)
Some IBM units used a type ball -- the Selectric system was loved by
secretaries, as I recall. Does this make them a non-typewriter?
Not at all, in most respects. In many modern typewriters (which
are actually small computers hooked up to an impact printer), the
system is mostly electronic and include such things as spelling checkers.
Consider also an old daisy-wheel printer, which differs from a typewriter
in that the striking head does not have the letter imprinted on it;
instead, a rotatable wheel of plastic is inserted between the striking
head and the ribbon; the rotatable wheel has a large number of flexible
fingers which end with the font impression. There are also old band
printers, where a large number of hammers strike at a high-speed rotating
band with the font letters on it, and dot-matrix printers, of which
there are two variants; one has a row of hammers across the entire page,
and another -- the consumer variety -- a small movable head.
All of these are systems, now more or less obsolete, for striking
a character through a ribbon onto a piece of paper.
Slightly more realistic examples of an "operating system", as we
know it today, would involve a piece of hardware -- the computer
and its peripherals -- and a promise to the user thereof that, if
one calls this routine, this happens. The most-used name for that
is "API" (application procedure interface, IIRC), but a better name
might be "CPCI" (component procedure call interface); if I'm not
mistaken, CPCI is from an old military spec detailing how software
components interrelate. This might be abbreviable to PCI, except
that someone's already taken that acronym. Feh.
One might also consider such terms as "trap service vector" or TSV
(IIRC, a trap is a method by which a program can generate a special type
of exception, which allows the microprocessor to switch to privileged
mode and the OS to take full control) and "interrupt service vector"
(although it's not clear that microprocessors other than the ix86 use
the interrupt vectors for double-duty).
Note that Windows provides a hook routine, according to Andrew Schullman
(_Unauthorized Windows 95_) that allows a program to hook into
these interrupts. I forget the name, though.
Another requirement might be that an OS inserts a barrier between the
hardware and the program attempting to get something accomplished
through the CPCI. In short, can the program do "end runs" around
the OS in order to get what it wants done, without damaging itself,
the OS, or anything else?
Clearly, in the case of DOS, the answer is yes -- and routinely, as well,
although one might ask if, say, Soundblaster's development library is
to be considered part of the CPCI. But one can wiggle the ports
directly with ease -- to everyone's embarrassment, on occasion.
Ditto for video ram -- which may be one reason why it's now locked at
A000:0000 with such peculiar paging registers. If the BIOS had had
a method by which to indicate the location of the video ram and
certain characteristics thereof, as opposed to "read a pixel, write
a pixel, clear an area", things might have been vastly different.
(But wishes are legion in this area; one never knows; might as well
wish that Motorola had gotten the 68000 out earlier with more
publicity, as well. :-) )
In the case of Unix (and Linux), the answer is no, a program cannot
get around the OS, at least not without extraordinary measures available
only to the superuser. (Linux does support I/O to ports, but only
to root-enabled programs.) While it can be done, it's much much harder.
Windows is somewhere in between, and rather complicated -- mostly because
Win95 sits on top of, straddles, or engulfs DOS (I'm not quite sure
which, but DOS knows Win95 is there, according to _Unauthorized Windows 95_)
but implements protected memory mode for its programs. My understanding
is that Win98 and WinMe are similar, although I've not used either.
Windows NT, by contrast, has a kernel of its own. While it may be
vaguely DOS-like in some respects (I don't know), it's clearly multitasking
(unknown how well, but more so than Win95, clearly), and allows for
the loading of DLLs, unlike DOS, which has all it can do to load EXEs.
Win2K is a Windows NT derivative, with many improvements -- at least,
such is my understanding -- but with essentially identical characteristics
to Windows NT.
Programs in Windows, as far as I know anyway, are far more likely to
use Windows-provided services to generate sounds (the most common
"violation" of DOS), rather than toggling the ports directly.
Ditto for video. In fact, NT has protections similar to Linux in
that regard; user-level programs cannot access ports directly, if
I'm not mistaken.
To sum up:
[1] DOS is basically a glorified interrupt servicer and
program loader. It does not do memory or port protection.
[2] DOS+Windows is a full-fledged multitasking OS of its own, albeit not a
very stable one. Protections may not always be available, either.
[3] Windows NT is a full-fledged multitasking OS. Protections
are always available.
[4] Linux is a full-fledged multitasking OS.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
