Linux-Advocacy Digest #635, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Astroturfing (.)
Re: Linux Sucks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing (.)
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Double standards around here :( ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Astroturfing (David M. Butler)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Astroturfing (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Piercarlo Grandi)
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 13 Oct 2000 18:20:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Conversely, I've never met a 3rd year computer engineering student who had
a hope in the world of making more money than a 17 year old sysadmin in boston.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:22:30 GMT
I agree with that, but the same could be said of a Commodore-64, or an
Atari.
When setup properly Linux is no more difficult to use than any other
system assuming that the application base contains everything the
person needs.
The problem arises when changes need or want to be made. A newer
scanner or printer, or software that exists only in the Windows world.
Maybe the person want's to try AOL (God help them) or one of the free
isp's.
This is where the static Linux system that worked for the user will
become a hinderance.
Of course if that person has no need to upgrade, and how many people
really do need to?, that's a different story.
claire
On 13 Oct 2000 15:08:20 -0400, Roberto Teixeira
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Terry" == Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Terry> Linux took my Windows95 market share off my pc in 1997.
>
>:)
>
> Terry> Bull, Ive had a lady friend using Linux the last 3 weeks,
> Terry> before that she had *never* seen Linux. She loves it, uses
> Terry> Xchat to IRC and is amazed how much easier it is than mIRC
> Terry> under Windows98. In fact she rues the day that she upgraded
> Terry> from Win95 to Win98.
>
>True. My parents use Linux at their home. I installed KDE for them and
>they are using without a problem. They have never seen Linux before
>and barely knew a software called Windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 13 Oct 2000 18:22:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You were the one who said "people" are paid by MS to post here.
> Now prove your statement.
You are an idiot. Its actually been confirmed over the years that
one or two people have indeed reaped financial benefit from microsoft
by posting FUD here. This doesnt mean that everyone who does it
is making money. You need courses in semantics and logic, respectively.
> If you can prove it, please tell me how to collect my money.
You should probably stop posting for a while until your brain starts
working.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:23:39 GMT
You still haven't proven your statement.
claire
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:48:41 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:25:19 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In Java primitive types are objects, but instances of those types are
> not objects. Lose one point for lack of reading comprehension.
This, of course, is total bullshit.
1) primitive types are not objects. What the class are they
supposed to be of anyways?
2) instances of those types are not objects either.
> I'm not sure of the rationale behind making primitive type instances
> into non-objects, but I sort-of suspect it comes from implementation
> efficiency and bootstrapping concerns. If anyone's got a URL to a
> paper online that describes the rationale behind this part of the JLS
> I would be very interested in reading it.
Compatibility with C++ losers. That's the rationale behind every
fuckup in Java.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:27:45 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In Java primitive types are objects, but instances of those types are
> not objects. Lose one point for lack of reading comprehension.
This, of course, is total bullshit.
1) primitive types are not objects. What the class are they
supposed to be of anyways?
2) instances of those types are not objects either.
> I'm not sure of the rationale behind making primitive type instances
> into non-objects, but I sort-of suspect it comes from implementation
> efficiency and bootstrapping concerns. If anyone's got a URL to a
> paper online that describes the rationale behind this part of the JLS
> I would be very interested in reading it.
Compatibility with C++ losers. That's the rationale behind every
fuckup in Java.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:28:53 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. I like to be able to be able to do things the easy way. If I
> > see classes then I expect them to be objects because I expect the
> > easy way to create classes be the RIGHT way.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what do you believe the easy/right way to
> create classes to be?
I don't believe classes should exist in the system at all. New objects
should be created by copying prototypes. But *if* classes have to exist
(and they don't) then classes have to be objects and you create classes
by sending messages to other class objects.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:31:32 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In Java primitive types are objects, but instances of those types are
> not objects. Lose one point for lack of reading comprehension.
This, of course, is total bullshit.
1) primitive types are not objects. What the class are they
supposed to be of anyways?
2) instances of those types are not objects either.
> I'm not sure of the rationale behind making primitive type instances
> into non-objects, but I sort-of suspect it comes from implementation
> efficiency and bootstrapping concerns. If anyone's got a URL to a
> paper online that describes the rationale behind this part of the JLS
> I would be very interested in reading it.
Compatibility with C++ losers. That's the rationale behind every
fuckup in Java.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:31:36 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. I like to be able to be able to do things the easy way. If I
> > see classes then I expect them to be objects because I expect the
> > easy way to create classes be the RIGHT way.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what do you believe the easy/right way to
> create classes to be?
I don't believe classes should exist in the system at all. New objects
should be created by copying prototypes. But *if* classes have to exist
(and they don't) then classes have to be objects and you create classes
by sending messages to other class objects.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:31:44 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In Java primitive types are objects, but instances of those types are
> not objects. Lose one point for lack of reading comprehension.
This, of course, is total bullshit.
1) primitive types are not objects. What the class are they
supposed to be of anyways?
2) instances of those types are not objects either.
> I'm not sure of the rationale behind making primitive type instances
> into non-objects, but I sort-of suspect it comes from implementation
> efficiency and bootstrapping concerns. If anyone's got a URL to a
> paper online that describes the rationale behind this part of the JLS
> I would be very interested in reading it.
Compatibility with C++ losers. That's the rationale behind every
fuckup in Java.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:33:45 GMT
Prove it..
claire
On 13 Oct 2000 18:22:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> You were the one who said "people" are paid by MS to post here.
>
>> Now prove your statement.
>
>You are an idiot. Its actually been confirmed over the years that
>one or two people have indeed reaped financial benefit from microsoft
>by posting FUD here. This doesnt mean that everyone who does it
>is making money. You need courses in semantics and logic, respectively.
>
>> If you can prove it, please tell me how to collect my money.
>
>You should probably stop posting for a while until your brain starts
>working.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:33:55 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In Java primitive types are objects, but instances of those types are
> not objects. Lose one point for lack of reading comprehension.
This, of course, is total bullshit.
1) primitive types are not objects. What the class are they
supposed to be of anyways?
2) instances of those types are not objects either.
> I'm not sure of the rationale behind making primitive type instances
> into non-objects, but I sort-of suspect it comes from implementation
> efficiency and bootstrapping concerns. If anyone's got a URL to a
> paper online that describes the rationale behind this part of the JLS
> I would be very interested in reading it.
Compatibility with C++ losers. That's the rationale behind every
fuckup in Java.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:35:10 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. I like to be able to be able to do things the easy way. If I
> > see classes then I expect them to be objects because I expect the
> > easy way to create classes be the RIGHT way.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what do you believe the easy/right way to
> create classes to be?
I don't believe classes should exist in the system at all. New objects
should be created by copying prototypes. But *if* classes have to exist
(and they don't) then classes have to be objects and you create classes
by sending messages to other class objects.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Double standards around here :(
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:42:24 GMT
It seems we have different standards around here.
Someone doubts my post about Hotmail being down and the message I
received.
I post proof of it.
Somebody else posts a message about Winvocates being paid by MS to
troll this group.
I ask for proof and get called an idiot.
If you can't at least make even a lame attempt at backing up your
statements, it is you who are the Astroturfer.
For all I know Kulkis is getting paid by RedHat to troll around. You
certainly post quite a few messages.
So where is your specific proof that winvocates in this group are
getting paid by MS?
Show me somebody posting from a microsoft.com address, or listed
somewhere on the net as a Microsoft employee etc.
These are specific comments that need specific facts and proof to back
them up.
So where are they?
Claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:43:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nigel Feltham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:16:17 +0100
<8s5a1s$jctt3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
>>Really? That's the best test?
>>
>>How about instead, I give you a budget of $10,000,000.00, including your
>>time and the time of any other people involved in the project. Now, build
>a
>>web site that will generate $1 billion dollars in revenue.
>>
>>How much are you saving with Linux?
>>
>
>
>Or how about building a website that generates that $1 billion dollars
>revenue per year.
>
>How much money will you waste in lost revenue whenever that MS based server
>needs it's regular reboot?
None.
If the website is designed for redundancy (it can be done), then one
can add another box per 100, assuming NT is 99% reliable.
(And that's a conservative assumption. 99% reliability = 3 1/2 days of
downtime a year, or 1 hour and 40 minutes a week. While I might not
like NT, it's not going to be *that* unreliable!)
I do wonder what the bandwidth is of a Linux box versus an NT box,
assuming identical hardware, though. If Linux has 1% less bandwidth
but is 100% reliable, then 100 Linux boxes = 100 NT boxes as far as
service is concerned. (100 boxes is a darned big webfarm anyway.)
The jury's probably going to be out a long time on this issue! :-)
(And it may depend on what the website is doing. Static service?
Audio or video streaming? Database retrievals? Database connections
to other boxes? SSL encryption/decryption? Dynamic image generation
(e.g., graphs from stock price data)?) [*]
One bigger issue is that a Linux solution can be scaled up without
too much hassle (although IIS has been more or less ported to Solaris,
as I understand it -- however, the COM/DCOM/COM+ portion may not have
been ported, and how does one run ix86-specific components on a
Sparc/Solaris platform?).
>
>Isn't it better to save the cost of the MS solution and spend it on a second
>or third machine to use in a linux cluster where even in the unlikely event
>of one of the linux machines going down the other 2 can carry on seamlessly
>serving transactions for the few minutes it takes to bring the downed
>machine back online?
Depends on the application and the migration path. A lot of NRE could
be spent converting IIS to Apache, for example -- it might be worth
it, or it might not.
[*] My understanding is that Yahoo pre-generates the graphs independent of
the user's requests; the web server then merely has to find the
right one (presumably, by name) instead of calling a CGI process.
This claim is buttressed by the URL shown when one asks for the
properties of a stock graph; it appears to be
http://chart.yahoo.com/c/1y/[letter]/[stocksymbol].gif for
the yearlies, biyearlies, and quarterlies.
Dailies and weeklies are generated on the fly, however.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:53:42 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
> 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?
Well, apparently you aren't... at least not with your experience with
Linux. I somehow doubt that Linux would have become ANYTHING if everyone
had Linux apps crashing all the time and couldn't start half of them. As
for me, I've not had a real program crash or not start (unless it was
something I specifically did to it) for the last few months at least. I
did have a couple beta-testing apps crash when I closed them, which
basically had the same effect as them closing normally.
You weren't, perhaps, kicking your computer when you ran them, were you?
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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 11:51:10 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why; that would be nothing but an inductive exercise. A deductive
> exercise, far more effective, logically, would be for you to explain why
> my apps sometimes don't work. It would be, unfortunately, just as
> fruitless, in the end, though.
>
> >Explain why apps I bought in 1996
> >still work today on a machine in 2000?
>
> They weren't contrary to Microsoft's predatory monopolization,
> apparently.
>
> >Looks like they've not "moved the target" much.
>
> Tell that to all the apps that don't still work, and have succumbed to
> churn by being marginalized in the market by Microsoft's monopoly.
Which apps are those, Max? You declined to mention any. For me to explain
why your apps sometimes don't work, I'd have to know which ones you're
talking about.
> >Also, Windows 3.1 is STILL stable, and hasn't been updated in YEARS.
>
> Software doesn't actually wear out, Simon. Windows 3.1 is still just as
> stable as it was years ago. Which is to say, not very.
Windows 3.1 hasn't been updated in years. Which means that it has
*stabilized*. It is no longer a moving target. Why isn't there good support
for Win3.1 emulation?
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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 11:53:28 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > Weevil. He is either dishonest, or just not very bright.
> >
>
> Simon is Dishonest.
And the two of you are raving homophobic criminals, with a history of
wife-beating, and a sideorder of shit for brains.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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 11:54:25 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon is Dishonest.
Oh, and Mr. Kulkis... check Deja News. You'll see my rebuttal of your SGI
server report that you claimed was up to 800Gb transfer speeds. It's
actually about 4Gb, IIRC.
You never replied to that one, did you?
Now who's dishonest, fuckwit?
Simon
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:06:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Vester) wrote in <39E752CB.321B9B94@v-
wave.com>:
>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 of the vocal and insulting Linux advocates don't use their real names
- are you saying they should be ashamed of themselves too?
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piercarlo Grandi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: 13 Oct 2000 20:07:48 +0100
>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:49:41 +0000 (UTC),
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel) said:
[ ... lots ... ]
mbkennel> IBM eventually lost much of its monopoly power because in
mbkennel> hardware manufacturing, there are significant unit costs for
mbkennel> production and even IBM couldn't sustain losses trying to push
mbkennel> its more expensive to produce line of proprietary hardware
mbkennel> over less expensive CMOS.
Uhm, as I remember it it is a bit different in mechanism, but not so
different: IBM had a powerful drive, which mostly succeeded, to become
the lowest cost manufacturer, which they could become because of
economies of scale and being able to afford many really good engineers,
etc.
As to significant units costs in production, at that time (and I think
they still are) big computers used to be priced around six times unit
cost (i.e. manufacturing cost was around 15% of price, the gross margin
of 85% goint to marketing, sales, and profit). Not too different from
software. Software like gross margins are not terribly uncommon; there
are quite a few industries where the unit cost of stuff is nearly
irrelevant compared to price (e.g. perfumes, soft drinks), and
mainframes was one of those.
I suspect that IBM have never lost their dominance of mainframes or
accounting machines (even if now accounting machines like [A]S/xxx
series are in effect nearly as sophisticated as mainframes too).
What happened by and large is that first the mainframe market sort of
shrunk, for various reasons, including a slowing in the economy and the
rise of UNIX based minis first and PCs later, because computer use and
purchasing power devolved to ever smaller organisational units.
At some high point in IBM history, 50% of yearly investments in
capital goods by US companies was in IBM mainframes, with the result
that IBM sales had become extremely sensitive to the economic cycle. A
similar or equally larger share now goes into PCs. If there is a
recession sooner or later, Microsoft/Intel sales could collapse, as it
is fairly easy for a company to just decide to postpone for some years
their regular OS/Office/processor upgrades.
mbkennel> What happens to the economics when software had near zero
mbkennel> duplication costs, and very large capital costs, and enormous
mbkennel> complex surfaces of interface? And one dominant company with
mbkennel> an order of magnitude more cash than the rest?
This has sort of happened before; experience is that they rule their bit
of the world until the technology they are based on gets outflanked,
usually as a result of short term greed by the executives; a bit like
idraulic empires...
In some more or less recent periods of history such dominant companies
became regulated utilities. This solution has fallen out of favour
because such regulated utilities typically succeed at regulatory
capture, and the only thing worse than an unregulated predatory company
is one that is a legally enforced one and is in control of its own
regulators (which is fairly inevitable).
Now, this thread appears among other in 'comp.arch', and the tie in is
that in some rather important ways modern software architectures are a
bit like the canalways and irrigation ditches that gave rise to idraulic
empires...
Open architectures are hopefully the cure. For the same reasons as
proprietary architectures they tend to be pretty static (see IPv4
vs. IPV6), but at least they allow and encourage innovation and
competition of implementation, which is better than nothing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:09:55 GMT
I like your signature :)
Only MS products I use are Windows and Flight Simulator.
I tried Office once and spent a week trying to extract it from my
system.
Never again.
claire
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:06:57 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>Most of the vocal and insulting Linux advocates don't use their real names
>- are you saying they should be ashamed of themselves too?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
![http://chart.yahoo.com/c/1y/[letter]/[stocksymbol].gif](http://chart.yahoo.com/c/1y/[letter]/[stocksymbol].gif){kind=link}