Linux-Advocacy Digest #572, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (.)
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K (Cliff Wagner)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE Hell (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Donn Miller)
Re: KDE Hell ("Tom Wilson")
Re: KDE Hell (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE Hell (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE Hell (Donn Miller)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Cliff Wagner)
Re: The real truth about NT (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 19 Jan 2001 13:27:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9wQ96.3022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:03:32 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:zX896.2827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >>
>> > >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >> news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> >
>> > >> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >> > news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > [deletia]
>> > >> To put it in a more rational light, there are many compelling reasons
>> for
>> > >> chosing OSS over CSS. And those have been discussed, shouted,
>> filibustered,
>> > >> grunted, flamed, and what-not ad-infinitum. IMO, CSS's only advantage
>> is
>> > >> stricter control and less deviation from a set standard. The fewer
>> cooks at
>> > >> the pot thing. Again, IMO, that alone isn't enough to justify it.
>> > >> Particularly when it comes to the CSS OS we oft discuss around here.
>> > >
>> > >OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages are
>> oft
>> > >never realized (peer review, greater security, better design, etc).
>> > >Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around here.
>> >
>> > ...except when it comes to commodity supercomputing in
>> > academia and the oil industry... <snicker>
>>
>> I'll not even mention the Web server thing....<chortle>
> Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly unscientific
> misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is counted
> as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
Yes chad, that would be the webserver thing where IIS isnt capable of handling
much over a couple of hundred virtual hosts no matter how fast the machine
is.
Oh, but thats not important in the REAL world, is it. No one would ever want
to host thousands or tens of thousands of sites on one machine.
No, really.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: 19 Jan 2001 13:36:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:29:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed something like:
>On 19 Jan 2001 03:15:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
>wrote:
>
>You are eliminating the "sucker effect" from your theory.
>
>Why are Chrysler PT-Crusiers advertised in the Newspaper for more than
>list price?
>Because Chrysler didn't make enough of them?
>Hardly....
>Because Yuppies are willing to spend big bucks for them.
>
>Why is Evian Water $1.50 a bottle?
>
>Because of supply?
>
>Water is everywhere.
>
>Nope...
>Because people are stupid enough to spend for it.
>
>Same thing applies to Dell..
Both your examples are due to high demand.
Thank you for further illustrating the economic
principle. All that the "sucker effect" illustrates
is stupidity/ignorance leading to high demand.
Your example had high supply and low demand,
so your "sucker effect" theory on Dell wouldn't
apply.
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:30:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:23:20 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:54:09 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:30:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:04:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:33:43 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You are generalizing for a random large collection of
> >> >> >> >> individuals.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >No I am saying ANYONE who hunts around a typical Linux system and
> >> >> >> >clicks on help will be more than likely be greeted with a message
> >> >> >> >along the lines of "Help not Written Yet".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> This is assinine and trivially absurd.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It sure is considering how long kde and Gnome have been in
> >> >> >> >development.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ...compared to what? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Compared to what Windows was like 2 years after it's
> >> >> >> inception, GNOME is a bloody masterpiece.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That comparison makes no sense.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >GNOME uses Linux or some other Unix, that have been around for years.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, the various GUI's haven't.
> >> >
> >> >Well, windows is its own OS, so this is a muddy area. If you just
> >> >intend to compare GUIs, then you must compare to only the GUI.
> >> >
> >> >Then you could say that Windows (the GUI) in its current incarnation
> >> >exists since about 1995. Windows 3.x was too different to consider it
> >> >the same thing. Or you'd have to say that the linux GUIs date back to
> >> >twm.
> >>
> >> The 'versions' may have changed, however the company
> >> remained the same. To be comparable, Miguel would have
> >> had to have been the driving force behind twm or CDE.
> >>
> >> Infact, someone else was.
> >
> >Then you might consider thinking GNOME started in the early 80s. At that
> >time, some of the guys currently doing some important chunks of GNOME worked
> >at Apple on MacOS.
>
> That's not GNOME, that's a higher level application.
Then we need to define what we are comparing.
To be exact: What's windows? What's Gnome?
Because we obviously are using different definitions.
If you want windows to be "what comes in the box that
says windows" and GNOME to be "gnome-libs/gtk", then all
I have to say is that they are just not comparable.
If you want to compare a bigger GNOME, you have to take
the consequences, though.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:33:33 GMT
In article <6ML96.58896$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:11:00 GMT, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Pretty much. It has its quirks (like using indentation to control
> > >flow) that drive some people nuts (hey, we are supposed to indent anyway!
> ;-)
> >
> > I don't think that's a bad thing, in fact for beginners, it's probably a
> > good thing if the interpreter slaps them when they don't indent properly.
> > (I have students turning in code that just looks like cr*p because they
> > have no idea how to indent)
>
> The perl philosophy is that if a language prevents you from doing
> bad things it will likewise prevent you from doing good things. I
> agree, at least to the point that I would not expect any programmer
> who counts on the compiler to keep him from making mistakes to
> ever do anything great.
Well, I do count on the compilers helping me find my mistakes.
Not all of them, but some of them. I'm not that macho ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 19 Jan 2001 07:39:07 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > It's complex layer upon complex layer. It's fast becoming a house of
> cards.
>>
>> No, it's SIMPLE AND RELIABLE LAYER upon SIMPLE AND RELIABLE LAYER...
> I hate to tell you this, but X is not a "simple" layer. Looked at the X
> reference manuals lately? In fact, X's complexity is the main reason for
> toolkits like QT, gtk+, etc..
Right. In theory, unix is a great operating system because everything is
done in layers. In theory, desktop environments are about 3 or 4 layers
deep. This sounds like a good idea. In practice, and I hate to mention this
because I'm a unix guy, it kind of sucks. Why? Just take a look at the
library dependencies. There's so many dynamically linked libraries. This
hurts performance in practice, because there's a chance that those libs the
app is dynamically linked to are scattered in different memory segments. When
you have only a couple DLLs, or the app is statically linked, there is a
greater chance all your runtime libs fall within the same memory segment.
Also, note that with a proliferation of runtime library dependencies, there's
a chance some of those dynamic libs are in swap, while others aren't.
Also, with more library layers, there's a greater chance that one or more
libraries falls inside a different page of memory than the others, which
would degrade performance.
It's true. So that's why you have to look at the whole "in theory" vs. "in
practice" scenario.
====== 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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:42:10 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:17:27 GMT, Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> >If you want a vivid example of that, just take a look at the JPEG group's
> >source code. I'm still debating whether the programmer was a genius,
> >masochist, or simply insane.
>
> Probably all three. And the same is true for pretty much anyone who
> does OO in C
>
> > (Contains all of the constructs you mentioned
> >plus macros three and sometimes four levels deep) Its' a few stages above
a
> >Dobb's Journal Obsfucated Code contest entry.
>
> There's a lot of messy C code out there that does this kind of thing.
>
> IMO, once you start abusing macros, you sign away one of the
> main advantages of C -- simplicity. One of the nicer points about
> C is that it's easy to tell exactly what each line of code does
> (until the author starts abusing macros and void pointers)
Agreed.
A trend I find disturbing is the way a lot of programmers, at Microsoft in
particular, have taken Hungarian notation to extremes. Defining a loop
index with m_intIndex is just a bit much. Call me old fashioned but I think
a simple int i; would have sufficed. (Trying to remember exactly where in
the MS debugging source I saw this...)
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:36:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:11:00 GMT, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Pretty much. It has its quirks (like using indentation to control
> >flow) that drive some people nuts (hey, we are supposed to indent anyway! ;-)
>
> I don't think that's a bad thing, in fact for beginners, it's probably a
> good thing if the interpreter slaps them when they don't indent properly.
> (I have students turning in code that just looks like cr*p because they
> have no idea how to indent)
As a funny note: Python was the *second* language I used who did this. The
first one was called JORF, IIRC, and I got it on a shareware CD in the
pre-internet age.
> >I can't quite imagine how to do private methods. Then again they are
>
> You can use closures. Suffice it to say that this is enough work that
> the ease-of-use benefits go out the window and you may as well use C++.
Yikes. Indeed my imagination doesn't go there.
> >not really possible in python either.
>
> Pythons "private" methods are IMO effective enough to defend against
> all but a willful saboteur.
Yes. Of course the nicer thing would be "if it ain't documented it
ain't meant to be used", but the lack of docs on free APIs would
render 99% of them useless ;-)
> You have to go out of your way to break
> the system in python. OTOH, in perl (for example), one can accidently
> stomp on private data and/or methods (namely when they write derived
> classes).
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:42:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
> 14:11:00 GMT;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> > Indeed. That's why I usually suggest Python. It's OO, but it's not
> >> > we-will-force-OOP-on-you-until-we-can-OOP-no-more OO.
> >>
> >> How about Perl's implementation of OOP? Yipe! Perl is great for a lot
> >> of things, but IMO its idea of OO is pretty scary. I've never tried
> >> Python, but I've heard people say it can do the same stuff Perl can do.
> >
> >Pretty much. It has its quirks (like using indentation to control
> >flow) that drive some people nuts (hey, we are supposed to indent anyway! ;-)
>
> For clarity, though, not for syntax!
Do you know any situation where it is convenient not to be clear?
If you don't, why add the unneeded ugliness of block separators?
for (x=a;x<b;x++)
{
do_stuff;
}
for x in range(a,b):
do_stuff
The python versions are usually simpler, clearer, with less unneeded
punctuation.
> I was started to get a bit
> intrigued by Python until you mentioned that. Indents to control flow?
> What a nightmare. (For the novice, even more than the programmer.)
Actually, I have explained it to people who had never programmed before
and they had no problem at all. Experienced programmers, OTOH, often
have a grudge with it.
And anyway, it's not like it's hard to write a preprocessor to make
python use "#{" as block delimiters.
Heck, this is still legal python!
for x in range(a,b):
#{
do_stuff
#}
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: 19 Jan 2001 07:47:54 -0600
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Nah, you can do OO in C. You'd just have to use a lot of ugly pointers
>> to functions, typedef structs, and other such kludges.
> If you want a vivid example of that, just take a look at the JPEG group's
> source code. I'm still debating whether the programmer was a genius,
> masochist, or simply insane. (Contains all of the constructs you mentioned
> plus macros three and sometimes four levels deep) Its' a few stages above a
> Dobb's Journal Obsfucated Code contest entry.
Yeah, I know. I used to use the jpeg library for a lot of simple projects I
did. Also, I thought the code used to obtain scanlines was pretty ugly as
well. The documentation mentioned that there was a lot of pre-ansi C
compilers out there, so that's the reason for the macros. They were just
trying to make the code accessible to the lowest common denominator. I guess
they took pity on those people who were stupid enough to want to work with
jpeg images on outdated compiler/linker toolchains. Unfortunately, their
code is just plain excruciating for those of us with modern ANSI compilers.
====== 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] (Cliff Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 19 Jan 2001 13:54:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Jan 2001 13:27:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed something like:
>
>> Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly unscientific
>> misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is counted
>> as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
>
>Yes chad, that would be the webserver thing where IIS isnt capable of handling
>much over a couple of hundred virtual hosts no matter how fast the machine
>is.
>
>Oh, but thats not important in the REAL world, is it. No one would ever want
>to host thousands or tens of thousands of sites on one machine.
>
>No, really.
Dude,
There you go, trying to inject reality into an argument
with a Wintroll.
I figured you'd learn after all these years.
Well, no, I guess I didn't.
Still live in the city?
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: 19 Jan 2001 14:01:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Very few people mastering CD's outside of the sort of enviroment
>> > > where there would be a special machine dedicated to the purpose
>> > > stress machines to the level where it should be an issue.
>> >
>> > Just kick of a kernel compile.
>> >
>> Well, just to try out if my SCSI-only system would stand the strain, I did
>> exactly that -- I made a CD AND did a kernel recompile while at the same
>> time browsing the net.
>
>The key word here is SCSI. Most people burn IDE CD-R's (and those are the
>ones they burn coasters on when heavy disk activity causes them to get a
>buffer underrun)
OK, this is quite a late reply, but I had to wait for the opportunity to
prove you wrong. Here goes.
I placed an extra disk on *the same* IDE bus as the writer (the
secondary bus). So I started wrting the CD at 8 speed (iso image is on
the second disk) and kicked off a kernel compile on that same disk. And
even though these things don't take that long on a PIII 650, I thought
I'll pass my time with a game of FreeCell. No, not the Gnome Freecell,
but the Native Win'98 Freecell in a VMWare session. The Win 98 disk is
a virual disk image on, again, the second disk.
A screendump (96kB) of this process can be viewed at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsw/images/vmware+cdrecord+make-kpkg.gif
(Those who understand it will see in the rightmost rxvt that the writer
and the "current" disk are both on the same IDE channel (/dev/hdc and
/dev/hdd respectively)). About 3 minutes after I made that screendump,
I had a newly compiled kernel package and a working CDR:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsw/images/vmware+cdrecord+make-kpkg2.gif
I take it that someone can do the same experiment on W2K and show us the
screendumps? (And before anyone starts shouting out loud, the answer is:
"Yes, the `cdrecord` process runs with root privileges". And for the
really Linux impaired, the SCSI messages just mean that this Linux
kernel uses SCSI emulation for IDE ATAPI devices (kernel parameter
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDESCSI). The system also has a real 2940 adapter, but
that has just a DAT-3 drive connected.)
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
145 = 1! + 4! + 5!
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:46:37 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly unscientific
> > misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is counted
> > as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
>
> Websites are websites, and should be counted as such.
Right. 500 "My Cat Fluffy" websites vs 500 e-Commerce Fortune 500
company web sites means the same thing.
Well, if you look at it, IIS has the lead (or iPlanet according
to some lists) in the business sector which gets much more traffic
than the "My Cat Fluffy" web sites which Apache seems to have the
stronghold in.
>
> The crux of your complaint is this:
>
> Many windows pc servers are combined to power a single
> website, while a single Unix server is capable of powering
> many websites
Many low-traffic low-visit web sites. IIS can do this to, but
it's typically not used for that because you're wasting a lot
of power of IIS by using it on these low-traffic web sites.
However, Apache is perfect for this.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:47:37 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VSR96.3041$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly
> unscientific
> > > misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is counted
> > > as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
> >
> > Websites are websites, and should be counted as such.
> >
> > The crux of your complaint is this:
> >
> > Many windows pc servers are combined to power a single
> > website, while a single Unix server is capable of powering
> > many websites
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, you're complaining that the Unix
> > web servers have an unfair advantage because they are more
> > robust, higher performance, thus capable of hosting many more
> > websites than windows pc servers?
> >
> > So, in your eyes it would be more fair if each unix system was
> > limited to a single website? what would be the point of that? In
> > some sense they might as well be running windows, if all they
> > could host is a single website -
> >
> > I think you are whining unnecessarily here.
>
> Its' called grasping at a very tenuous straw.
> That and beating a dead horse.
http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
Call it whatever you want.
It's obvious that the Netcraft numbers are grossly misleading.
Perfect for the sensational-minded Penguinista not interested
in facts.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
