Linux-Advocacy Digest #264, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Feb 01 09:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft (Glitch)
Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else) (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Linux and QA (pip)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Pete Goodwin)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: It's just too easy (Pete Goodwin)
Re: It's just too easy (Pete Goodwin)
Re: It's just too easy (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Peformance Test ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:13:00 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
>> Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
>>
>>>> ``Free software is evil'' sez Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=mn_hd
>>>
>>> Excuse me, is there anyone out there who thinks this is *funny*?
>>>
>>> Microsoft trying to get the government to view open source software as a
>>> threat the the American way?
>>>
>>> Gee, I just can't stop laughing.
>>
>> If I thought for a moment that our elected officials would let something as
>> important as common sense keep them from accepting "educational"
>> contributions from Microsoft, I would allow myself to laugh.
>>
>> Unfortunately, GW (idiot son of a bad president) proves that our entire
>> system is for sale. Fix a few elections, buy a few people, appoint
>> Ashcroft, it is a sad period in my counties history. I think we have
>> hit rock bottom, unfortunately, they are looking for shovels.
>
At least now we have a President worthy of that title. We also have one
who actually has morals and is a devout Christian(which never hurt
anyone in and of itself).
I think we already hit rock bottom with Clinton being in the Oral
office. Bush will turn the status of the Presidency around as being one
of respect and morality.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else)
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:10:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did eloquently scribble:
> >> I am a Democrat. Please take your politics to a political forum.
> >>
>
> > Fuck off, Socialist.
>
> LOL! That's a good one... Calling an american "Democrat" a socialist...
> ROTFL! There's no such thing as a socialist in america. (Not in any serious
> political position anyway). They're both as bad as each other.
>
> Oh, and fuck off arsehole... Lose that fucking sig!!!!
> (how many times have you been told about that now?)
let him keep his sig. in it, he is just bragging about how big an
asshole he is. that's a good warning to someone who has not seen him
before.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and QA
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:19:20 +0000
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> What kind of testing is done on Linux distributions?
>
> Is it a manual test?
>
> A patently bad test as is obvious in Linux Mandrake 7.2?
>
> Is it automated?
>
> Are the scripts out there that can be run to verify a system?
>
> What "Quality Assurance" is done on Linux systems?
Gnome is being regression tested by Sun.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:41:49 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>What group? There's just you, Pete.
QED
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:44:44 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >
> >
> > Don't mention Knuth when Chad is listening. It's 70's technology!
>
>
>
> --
Usually your comments are quite concise (as opposed to your
signature) but this one is top concise!
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:44:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>In this article I admitted I made a mistake and apologised.
>I did see that, the mistake related to your header title, which was
>not only inacurate, it was inflammatory.
So my apology was inflammatory or the title? Which one?
>> I was accused of being a liar, and then I posted the URL's, which
>>the accuser failed to acknowledge. Flatfish is referring to this, I
>>believe, when he calls it the "Twist and Shout" method.
>While you pay any credance to "Heather/Clare/Flatfish" you will always be
>disbelieved on COLA. He/her/it is a known Wintroll.
Maybe so, but when others start playing the same tune?
>>There's no wintroll duet going on. You want there to be one, don't you,
>Honestly Pete, I couldnt care less, I call em as I see em:)
OK, then neither do I.
>>because you desperately want to believe what you say.
>I *do* believe what I say, otherwise I wouldnt say it.
Like I said, you desperately want to believe what you said.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:47:02 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Augh...AUGGHGHGH!
>
>Haven't we been through this enough?
>
>His computer fucked up, OK? His *LINUX* computer FUCKED UP. "The Gimp"
>uses some bizarre "printer string", and he didn't get what he expected,
>simply because he presumed that the print job would get kicked out, same
>as the others did. And it didn't because he didn't know what he was
>doing, and Linux isn't as "everything works the same" as brain-dead
>Windows, OK?!?
This is completely incorrect.
I made a reasonable assumption that does not hold with The Gimp on Linux.
That's has nothing to do with "brain dead" Windows.
>Perhaps MacOS X, or whatever its called now, will bring the Macintosh
>look and feel, ripped so long ago by Microsoft, to the Linux world.
>Then we'll be in heaven, eh? But to be honest, I'm sick of hearing
>about Pete's problem printing.
I'm sick of your misrepresentations.
Twisting it all to fit the facts you want again, eh?
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:52:21 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>You're mistaken; I have proof you are lying. It convinced me, and
>therefore its proof.
Where is this proof then? Merely saying you have proof doesn't mean it
exists.
>>OK, so you would rate "usability" as a tired pile of bullshit, right?
>>Let me see you sell that to the public.
>
>No, its just that printing isn't really a problem.
Twisty.
I was talking about a reasonable assumption, how far off topic would you
like to stray.
>>>No, that is not what a reasonable person would assume, though it may
>>>well be what an *ignorant* person might assume.
>>
>>You call an apple a pear and that's it is it?
>
>No; it resolves to understanding the meaning of the concept
>"reasonable". What do you suppose that means, to be "reasonable", Pete?
It means when I see the installation ask me for what kind of printer I
have, and I answer Epson, I expect the rest of the system to follow that
setting. Seems reasonable enough to me. You, on the other hand, want
"reasonable" to include the incorrect default of The Gimp.
>>Ah, you're dogma is creeping in. Take a step back, and ask yourself a
>>simple question. If a reasonable person is told at installation time
>>that he is configuring a printer, would this reasonably person not be
>>right in then assuming that anything else from then on would use this
>>printer in the way it was configured?
>
>No.
Then what a daft system!
>>It has nothing to do with Windows. It has to do with usability. And
>>right now, Windows is winning on the usability front, and Linux is
>>coming a poor second.
>
>Yes, it is. We've been over this before; perhaps you weren't paying
>attention. If your contention is that Linux is not as easy for an
>arbitrary user to master, then you are correct. That isn't the issue,
>though. The issue is which is a better system, and Linux is a much
>better system. Now all we need is for Microsoft to stop stifling
>development and innovation by monopolizing, and there'll be plenty of
>such "polish", due to the cut-throat nature of a competitive market.
The issue is about what is reasonable. As usual, you're trying to twist it
away from that onto your favourite topic, your "dogma".
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:56:07 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>More of your dogma.
>
>"Beliefs". Its only "dogma" if its someone else's beliefs.
>From "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English", dated 1974:
dogma: belief, system of beliefs, put forward by some authority to be
accepted as true without question.
I think I was right.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:58:36 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Go back and read the ones I posted earlier. Or are we going to go
>>through that again?
>
>I think you missed the point, Pete. Your urls are now useless for
>reading the articles you were supposedly citing, since Deja got taken
>over by Google.* Could you repeat your reference for whatever messages
>they were, so we can see if they were honest posts or just trolls
>concerning Mandrake?
We are going to go over that again. I went through it once, and got
nowhere. Why should I bother again - just to satisfy you I'm not lying? In
any case, I can now point to a new topic (with additional people
complaining about Linux Mandrake 7.2) - see below.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:59:44 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Except, old bean, there are new posts about the unreliability of Linux
>>Mandrake.
>
>Well, if there are, they're full of shit. Perhaps they're just posts
>about problems with Linux Mandrake, and you have no clue what
>constituted "unreliability"? Unreliability is using a Windows system;
>you can never ever be sure how its going to fail next.
Fine, you join the post and tell them that. I'll sit back and watch.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:04:56 GMT
Peter K�hlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>What D-Link card?
>I have a D-Link in one of my linux-machines, and it was detected
>automatically and runs without any problems.
D-Link DFE-530TX PCI Fast Ethernet Adapter (Rev B).
Linux didn't even notice it was there until I manually added it. Then it
failed to configure it, until I chose the VIA-Rhine driver.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:07:02 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <96lj5f$p34$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> You think your own experience is the norm?
>
>Seeing as it keeps happening to me, and the people I know round here, yes.
How many people is that? How many different systems, configurations? Do you
see what I'm getting at here?
>I don't doubt you're telling the truth, but I've installed a fair number
>of Linux Boxen and have never had the problems you keep talking about.
>Then again, I have never used Mandrake, and after the problems you've had
>with it, I don't think I ever will. Really, you should try switching. Try
>RH. The package management is a bit sucky, but the rest is solid.
That's why I'm switching to SuSE when it gets released here in the UK. I
thought it was last Monday, but it's the 19th.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
From: imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:08:50 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <96lja7$p34$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Have you switched on hardware autodetection?
I beleive so, is that kudzu?
It seems to notice when I leave the modem switched off, and likewise the
printer.
>I haven't installed it on my RH5.2 box, but even though the setup isn't
>automagig, it is still very easy to do.
It gets installed by Mandrake.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:19:01 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:22:57 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> I think .NET is more akin to "Cairo" than to MS Bob or Money. In terms
> >> of it's intended scope and effect on the market.
> >
> > Perhaps, however pieces of .NET are appearing all the time, whereas
Cairo
> > was mostly vapor for a long time, waiting for the one big release.
>
> Which of course never came. But that didn't matter because OS/2 and
> it's OO shell was out of the picture.
About the only part of Cairo that was promised that never happened was the
OO File system.
> > OS/2 had some of the same problems that Linux has, particularly that
> > "bolted on" feel to the shell and GPI.
>
> I thought the WPS was a lot better than the original Win95. It was
> incomplete (e.g. some programs were document-centric, others weren't),
> but I don't think that makes it "bolted on". Perhaps by "bolted on" you
> mean having to do some system configuration via text files? I prefer
> that to the registry, thanks.
The WPS always had an artificial feel to it for me. It was probably the
overhead that SOM introduced, but I found it sluggish and out of synch with
the majority of apps that I used (most were written for OS/2 1.3 or VIO).
Windows 3.1 integration was anything but seamless. Windows 95 however, had
truly seamless 16 bit support.
> In any case, OS/2 was a much better OS than Win95, technically. The GUI
> is not why it failed to take over the world and it won't be the reason
> Linux doesn't (if it doesn't).
I disagree. I think the GUI is what makes or breaks a graphical OS. It's
what kept apple afloat all these years, and it's been primarily what kept MS
on top and will continue to.
> Whether you think you are a cheeleader or not, your postings here say
> that you are. As do mine, BTW, but for a different team. Maybe I
> should go easy on you though, as you seem to be having a crisis of
> confidence in your team. That seems to be going around. Did you read
> Al Stevens' column in Dr. Dobbs this month?
I am on no "team" but my own. You don't see me congratulating Chad or
whoever happens to whip out something negative about Linux (whether true or
not), unlike both Aaron and Charlie who never miss an opportunity to gloat
and pat each other on the back, let the facts be damned.
All my statements here have always been summarized by a few key points:
1) MS and/or Windows are not as bad as most of you make out. Not by a long
shot (note that this does not translate to either of them being perfect or
innocent)
2) Linux is not as perfect as most of you make out, and in fact has many
flaws that actually *DO* matter to the average user.
3) I *LIKE* Many pieces of MS technology. The work well for me. I also
use FreeBSD (currently) and it also works well for me, for what I use it
for. Linux failed for me where FreeBSD succeeded.
> >> What you just wrote is exactly why I am so skeptical of .NET.
>
> > Well, it's already out there. We're using Beta's of it. People are
> > already implementing sites in it. Companies are beginning development
> > of new projects in it. It's out there, it's just not finished yet.
>
> So what is it? Sounds like it is a big basket into which the marketing
> department places:
Well, like many Microsoft umbrella names, it is a name for multiple
technologies that are being marketed together, and being technically
designed to work with each other. Most of it is based on some form of the
Common Language Runtime, such as Managed C++, C#, VB.NET, ASP.NET, Winforms,
Webforms (the ability to publish a standalone app to the web nearly
seamlessly), etc.. It's a development and runtime framework. Yes, it
gateways to existing technologies like DCOM/COM+, etc..
The key point is that it's a platform, and MS needs it to succeed in order
to make Itanium work, and to reduce their development costs for the Mac.
> It might well be too late. Jim Allchin seems to think that what's good
> for MS is good for the country.
Jim Allchin isn't trying to outlaw Open Source, he's trying to generate
sympathy in congress and gain support for their appeal.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:24:33 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Having said that, I've found that most of the issues you mention are the
> >result of flaky networks. It has no way to roll back transactions due to
an
> >error (such as a dial-up connection dropping) because it's file based
rather
> >than client-server. Most other file based version control has the same
> >problem (PVCS, MKS SI, RCS, etc..). You should also run the analyze tool
> >regularly to fix minor problems and compress the database. I really
haven't
> >seen the problems you've mentioned in years.
>
> One must wonder, Erik, if you're knowledgeable enough to recognize it,
> why you would bother to take the time to mention you "really haven't
> seen the problems... in years". Do you honestly think the person seeing
> the problems would care, or that anyone else would, either?
My point was that I've worked with a lot of clients, some with 5-10
developers, some with as many as 100 using VSS over the years, and when good
networks and basic maintenance are done, it's quite reliable.
> So "flakey networks", which I must presume means Microsoft's painfully
> flawed networking software, is responsible; I'm sure Tom appreciates the
> help. Why do you make a cry for alternatives supported by a
> competitive market sound like an intro to a commercial for an unnamed
> monopolist?
Why don't you stop speaking for others?
I specifically offered an alternative. Hell, VSS has many competitors, most
of which have integration these days. PVCS, MKS, Perforce, Clearcase,
StarTeam, Endeavor, hell, even certain versions of CVS have integration.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:25:58 -0600
"Marada C. Shradrakaii" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Open Source does threaten commercial software
> >innovation. Why should a company (not just MS) invest millions into R&D
> >when open source peoplewill come along and offer a free version?
> >
>
> It forces a higher quality product to compete. If people can get an
"Okay"
> product free, they won't pay for an "Okay" competiting product, but I
expect
> they'll still shell out for a "Really good" one.
And what's to stop the free product from being "really good" as well?
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:38:35 GMT
Todd wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Mike Byrns in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:54:52
> > >"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Mike Byrns wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > But it has. It has grabbed a significant amount of server share
> from
> > >> > > > Unix. When NT 4.0 was released, NT made up less than 2% of the
> > >> > > > server market. It now makes up a majority, IIRC. If not, close to
> > >it.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > You're sadly mistaken - windows nt has gained market share
> > >> > > solely at the expense of other pc operating systems such as
> > >> > > netware, OS2 and windows for workgroups.
> > >> >
> > >> > I say you are wrong. Post proof to disprove me or accept my
> assertion.
> > >> >
> > >> > > > There was, is, and always will be a strong Unix contingent just
> > >> > > > because Unix admins are blockheads and refuse to use whatever's
> > >> > > > best, only Unix. However, Linux is a suitable alternative, so
> > >> > > > this is why Unix has made in-roads. It's not unix, but it's
> > >> > > > close enough and it's a lot cheaper than Solaris or HP-UX.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It's not Unix by a lawyer's definition, but it's Unix by
> > >> > > a techie definition, to be sure. and it's the fastest
> > >> > > developing Unix in existence.
> > >> >
> > >> > "Fastest developing UNIX"? That's an oxymoron. :-)
> > >>
> > >> Only to pig-headed fools such as yourself.
> > >
> > >Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop". It's an
> old
> > >picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago. Now it's in
> > >maintenance mode -- striving to keep up as new hardware and technologies
> > >surface. I've seen very little development in the core BSD tools since
> > >Stallman's days. Oh, I know, it's because they are PERFECT now ;-) I
> get
> > >it -- NOT!
> >
> > No, its because, where development is done, it isn't done by modifying
> > the old tools, but by developing new tools which are less 'not perfect'.
> > Such is the way of computer software. Where the old tools still are in
> > use, it is because they serve the purpose necessary; if you wish to
> > improve them, you are free to do so. More likely, though, you would
> > come up with something new.
> >
> > *Unix* doesn't develop because it isn't a product. The technology only
> > changes when it serves a purpose; Unix hasn't gotten more
> > consumer-oriented, simply, because consumers don't have access to Unix,
>
> Consumers wouldn't *choose* UNIX... you can easily get UNIX off the net or
> in many stores (Linux) and even preloaded.
>
If you compare the timing of this availability with MS trial
timing, maybe you'll find out some interesting
correlation's.
> > due to Microsoft's illegal monopolization of the pre-load market.
>
> Nope. First of all, a monopoly isn't illegal.
A monopoly isn't per se illegal. Monopolizing is illegal.
That's what MS has been sentenced guilty of. Until an
appellate court wont rule differently, that's how matters
stand.
> Secondly, nobody is forced
> to preload Windows... if this were true, you wouldn't see Linux preloads.
>
Again, since when nobody's forced to etc.? Try to time it
with respect to MS trial.
> The bottom line is this: The guys running the shops who need to make a
> living *know* that consumers would balk at Linux... heck, Linux doesn't even
> have a decent browser!
As if MS had one!
>
> Don't blame Linux' problems on MS. Linux is an open system and its problems
> are not in anyway MS' fault.
Nobody's blaming Linux's problem. It's gaining market share
at a very high rate. Many are blaming customer problems,
which are forced by previous illegal policies of MS to use
products which are badly designed, badly implemented, badly
supported, inconsistent, unsecure and basically crappy.
That's MS's fault.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:47:34 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > In article <96l491$2td$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
> > >
> > >The bottom line is this: The guys running the shops who need to make a
> > >living *know* that consumers would balk at Linux... heck, Linux doesn't even
> > >have a decent browser!
> > >
> > >Don't blame Linux' problems on MS. Linux is an open system and its problems
> > >are not in anyway MS' fault.
> > >
> > >-Todd
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No I won't Todd. And you can tell Microsoft they can't blame their
> > fucking problems on Linux nor OPEN SOURCE as they've been mouthing
> > off in the media the last 2 weeks about.
> >
> > But I will say your totally full of shit on your OS comments about
> > CANNED DRIVES. Microsoft currently has a commission on every hard
> > drive built today such that, even if you ordered it with NO OS installed,
> > they get a percentage of the sale of that drive. THUS - their OS is FREE!
>
> So my Linux box with three IBM SCSI drives resulted in payments to M$???
>
> UGH!!!!
>
> Remind me to start purchasing my disk drives on my trips to Russia...
>
I'm not sure about your IBM drives, but I know for certain
that when I purchased a second HD for my Epson laptop (it
has removable drives), to install Linux on it, it came with
Win95 pre-loaded. I don't believe it was for free.
I wouldn't bet about Russia either. But maybe they *forget*
to pay MS. In that case you'd be just paying Russian mafia.
Same stuff, on the end.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:56:38 +0000
> > No wonder you seem to know jack shit! If all you do is unplug and plug
> > back in a mouse, it's no surprise you're a prat!
>
> Hehe... real funny.
>
> Actually, I use a switch box that let's you connect three PC's up to one
> monitor/keyboard/mouse. It is just a simple 'switch box' - and it works
> great with 2000 (or any other OS for that matter I guess).
>
> -Todd
>
Well if you had Linux on all three, you could set up
monitor/keyboard/mouse on on box and telnet into the others when needed
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
