Linux-Advocacy Digest #597, Volume #32 Fri, 2 Mar 01 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (Brent R)
Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For You" (John
Travis)
Re: why open source software is better (Roger Anderson)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Craig Kelley)
Re: [OT] .sig (Ian Woods)
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] .sig (Joona I Palaste)
Re: Hijacking the IP stack (Peter da Silva)
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (Charles Lyttle)
How would you do this with Linux ? (peter)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Charles Lyttle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 15:10:27 GMT
Joel Barnett wrote:
>
> Ray Chason wrote:
>
> > "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> > >alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
> > >something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
> > >sucks", I guess you came to the right place.
> >
> > But isn't Windoze supposed to be the OS that doesn't require you to RTFM?
>
> No matter what OS you use, you should read the manual.
But, with Windows, TINFM. There Is No Fscking Manual. When you buy a MS
product (which I don't know anyone who has), all you get is a giant box
with one CD and a tiny little pamphlet telling you how to cut and paste.
It hardly let's someone go to the depth that they may desire.
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For You"
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 15:02:50 GMT
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:24:24 +0000, gryb <gryb@> wrote:
>Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For You"
>________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>A new virus has just been discovered that has been classified
>by Microsoft and by McAfee as the most destructive ever !
<SNIP>
That's funny, I haven't heard anything yet. I hope a real virus infected
your computer that forces it to spam usenet with bullshit *hoax* warnings...
jt
________________________________________
Alternative Computing Solutions...
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org
FreeBSD http://www.freebsd.org
------------------------------
From: Roger Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 07:30:51 -0800
Craven Moorehead wrote:
> People should be rewarded for their work and intellectual property
> should be protected. Why should I give people my fancy highy optimised
> code ? What's in it for me, a warm feeling in my loins ? You can get
> the same effect by pissing in your pants.
Chances are you wrote that highly optimized code for an employer or
client, and its not yours.
If you compare the treatment of 'intellectual property' in law versus
computing, there are interesting differences. Compare the IP agreements
an engineer must sign to gain employment, to the hiring processes for
doctors and architects (professions with highly specialized skills and
training). Compare to standard photography and graphic design contracts,
where the consultant retains ownership of their work.
Consider further that source code is often simply an expression of more
fundamental laws of mathematics and information theory.
You haven't thought this issue through completely. While 'IP' is a valid
legal concept in context, nowadays, it is generally used as a means of
gaining competitive advantage in the marketplace. Abused, I should say.
This is a fair statement and is becoming well understood by knowledgable
people in law and technology.
- Roger
Roger Anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:28:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <97n5s9$4ns$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Dan Pop" writes:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
> writes:
>
>>In article <97k6f1$jsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Dan Pop" writes:
>>
>>>Not so. The type compatibility in this context ignores any qualifiers.
>>>N869 (6.7.5.3 #11):
>>>
>>> (In the determination of
>>> type compatibility and of a composite type, each parameter
>>> declared with function or array type is taken as having the
>>> adjusted type and each parameter declared with qualified
>>> type is taken as having the unqualified version of its
>>> declared type.)
>>
>>const char * is not a const qualified type, it is a pointer to a const
>>qualified type.
>
>Right. I see how having foo defined as taking a char * as argument, but
>declared as taking a const char * as argument can lead to compiler
>confusion, but not the other way round: the compiler is forced to be
>more conservative if the function is declared as having a char * argument,
>so having the function defined with a const char * cannot hurt.
Well, you would be placing unnecessary restrictions on the caller for
no benefit and I would prefer the compiler to view this as suspicious
even though it shouldn't cause any correctness issues or type holes.
However the bottom line is that C doesn't support what you are
suggesting.
>Having the "wrong" printf declaration in scope would generate diagnostics
>for printf calls supplying a const char * as format argument, but should
>be OK if the format argument is char *. I.e.
>
> printf((const char *)"hello, world\n");
>
>would require a diagnostic, although it's compatible with the
>definition of printf, but
>
> printf("hello, world\n");
>
>is still OK.
What would be the purpose of such a limitation?
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 2 Mar 2001 15:14:27 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mathew Hendry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop) wrote:
>
>: In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mathew Hendry
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>:
>: >On 27 Feb 2001 17:35:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop) wrote:
>: >
>: >>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mathew Hendry
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: >>
>: >>>On 27 Feb 2001 14:11:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop) wrote:
>: >>>
>: >>>>However, none of your quotes proves that <math.h> cannot define PI.
>: >>>
>: >>>Nor did yours, but I don't think a rigorous proof was requested. :)
>: >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: >>Please elaborate.
>: >
>: >They would also rule out _PI, so they are incomplete.
>:
>: Read the post again. The question was *explicitly* about PI.
>
>Yes, but your quotes from the standard didn't explicitly rule PI out.
>Your quote
>
>| Each header declares and defines only those identifiers listed in its
>| associated section
>
>is misleading, because it seems to rule out all identifiers, when in
>fact it only rules out identifiers that are not reserved elsewhere.
It doesn't matter, in the context of PI. I've provided the minimal
quotes that rule out PI. The fact that they also rule out other
names is irrelevant, because the question referred to PI.
In a more general context, the additional information about the
implementation namespace would be needed, but not in this specific case.
So, if the question was: "is there no way for a conforming
implementation to provide a macro for the pi constant in <math.h>?" my
answer would have been not only incomplete, but also wrong. The
namespace rules do allow _PI or __pi to be used for this purpose.
And since we brought that into the discussion, here is the relevant text
from C89:
4.1.2 Standard headers
Each library function is declared in a header, whose contents
are made available by the #include preprocessing directive. The
header declares a set of related functions, plus any necessary types
and additional macros needed to facilitate their use. Each header
declares and defines only those identifiers listed in its associated
section. All external identifiers declared in any of the headers are
reserved, whether or not the associated header is included. All
external identifiers that begin with an underscore are reserved. All
other identifiers that begin with an underscore and either an
upper-case letter or another underscore are reserved. If the program
defines an external identifier with the same name as a reserved
external identifier, even in a semantically equivalent form, the
behavior is undefined.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 02 Mar 2001 08:47:16 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In 1992 MS-DOS plus Win3.0 costs �135. Allowing for inflation, WinME costs
> > about the same as Dos+Win3.0, and adds some additional functuality.
>
> "some" additional functionality? Windows 3.0 came on less than 6 floppies
> (compressed). WIndows ME is about 150MB's (also compressed).
>
> > Hardware costs are half, add considerable additional components, and are
> > several orders of magnitude more powerful.
> >
> > There is no doubt that Microsoft software prices have not tracked reduced
> > hardware costs.
>
> Nor should they? What is the price of Adobe Photoshop in 1992 versus today?
> What is the price of PageMaker? Illustrator? Quark Express? FreeHand?
> Novell Netware? OS/2?
>
> I think you'll find all these are roughly the same prices they were in 1992,
> if not more expensive today.
Actually, Photoshop is substantially cheaper now than back then. In
the past you needed very expensive computers to run it, but now the
bargain machines from the department store can easily do it. It
followed the classic market of scale model: more people buy it, the
price goes down.
Windows does not follow that same rule, for whatever reason. More
people buy it and the prices go *up* (ie, Windows 2000 is more
expensive than Windows for Workgroups was -- regardless the price scale
you use).
PageMaker, Illustrator and Quark Express are all niche applications
that will probably never have a growing market; the same people use it
today as used it in the past.
For a better comparison, look at WordPerfect's price over time.
> > The reason should be self-evident. The PC hardware market is extremely
> > competitive, but there is no competition in the PC OS market, due in the
> > main to Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive and monopolistic practices.
>
> Then how does that explain OS/2 hasn't dropped in price? How does it
> explain that Netware hasn't dropped in price?
They are both niche markets.
Windows is not.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Woods)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:52:56 +0000 (UTC)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I am using my right to free speech for my purpose.
>
>If that annoys you, so be it.
And your hugely impressive Usenet-convention-overriding and worthwhile
purpose is what?
Ian Woods
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: 02 Mar 2001 09:02:43 -0700
"Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, under Windows 2000 Pro, i was merrily surfing along with 256M RAM, and
> ICQ, AIM and Outlook Expres, and Livejournal's client running in the
> background..
>
> Went to start Musicmatch Jukebox, and things started to act odd..so, i
> closed MM. Things were still acting odd. CTRL-ALT-DELETE, brought up the
> "taskmanager" and found t he PID for Windows Explorer was using 95-100% CPU
> time.
>
> Time to kill it.
>
> Clicked "Kill Process."
>
> "Action denied."
NT has the (imho, mistaken) VMS-like notion that the human using the
computer it too stupid to be allowed to do certain things. There is a
user known as SYSTEM that owns many processes and files. The
Administrator user is in a rung *below* the SYSTEM user, and cannot do
anything that the SYSTEM user does not explicitly allow them to do.
It's *really* fun when you're playing with beta database systems and
their services frequently go bonkers, because the SYSTEM user (in it's
infinite wisdom) won't allow you to stop the service because you're
too stupid to use a computer (obviously, at least to Dave Cutler
anyway). Many such services allow you to start the service as a
different user, but many don't allow the same thing.
Things like this made me quit using Windows. That IE now runs with
SYSTEM privileges is just plain funny; I suppose that's the price you
pay for all that innovative *integration* that they keep yamming on
about.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 2 Mar 2001 16:02:52 GMT
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:43 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>On 1 Mar 2001 04:29:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, they aren't. But they have competition, which limits their freedom
>to set prices however they want. Microsoft has a lot more flexibility
>in that regard.
Perhaps. But then, I don't see much evidence that they're using that
freedom.
The argument does seem circular -- MS can price as they choose because
they have a monopoly and they have a monopoly because they can price
as freely as they choose.
>That wasn't my argument. My argument was that competitors oblige them
>to either reduce their prices or add more value. But there haven't been
>any competitors on the desktop.
To show that MS would reduce their prices, you would need to show that
someone else would offer much better prices. No-one's offering better
prices at this stage.
>> I think this is a very hard claim to support. It's certainly true if
>> you compare todays budget system with yesterday's top of the line, but
>> barring this sort of blatant intellectual dishonesty, it's not really
>> true. Was Windows OEM really much less than $50- five years back ?
>
>It is not a hard claim to support at all. I strongly suspect that the
>average computer sold today is priced lower than the average computer of
>five years ago. Gateway and Dell weren't selling $700 PC's five years
>ago.
That doesn't mean they didn't exist, it merely shows that they weren't
in that market. I recall PCs in that pricerang at least 3 years back.
Dell were dragged kicking and screaming into the low cost market because
of its increasing popularity. BTW, the reason that cheap computers
are more popular is largely due to the fact that Windows 9x simply
doesn't require cutting edge hardware. The ancient Pentium I motherboard
in my girlfriends computer is good for up to 512 MB RAM, and a pentium
233.
The simple fact is that most home users don't need more power than a
Pentium I, so the low-end hardware is selling well.
> If it is the case that what Erik claims is true and the price of
>OEM Windows hasn't changed, then Windows represents more of the total
>cost on average.
That's because the average user is choosing low end hardware. The
apparent inconsistency is due to the fact that they aren't moving
towards the low end on the software front.
>And for the record I don't accept Priceline as the authoritative source
>on how much OEM's pay for Windows. If we are to do that, we ought to
>accept Cheapbytes as the authoritative source for Linux pricing.
I accept it as an upper bound, in both cases. If there are known sources
from which we know copies can be obtained for $X from a reseller, then
anyone wishing to buy them should be able to purchase for no more than
that.
>> $50- is already fairly cheap.
>
>That is an arbitrary judgement.
And so is the judgement that it is "too expensive".
>> I think you'd have a hard time making a case that the sales increase
>> resulting from further reduction in price would justify the loss of
>> per-sale revenue.
>
>You certainly would, since they have 93% of the desktop market according
>to IDC. There's not a whole lot of room for growth beyond growth of the
>market itself, which is apparently slowing. But note that they could
>charge $100 and you could make the same argument.
You've already made a good argument for them not doing so, I suspect that
it's an insurance policy to some degree.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 2 Mar 2001 16:13:59 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:17:12 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>On 1 Mar 2001 04:29:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What is the Linux OEM price then? It isn't reasonable to compare the
>OEM price of one thing and the retail price of another. What's the OEM
>price of OS/2 or BeOS? To claim this you need to tell us what the
>prices are.
Several Linux HW vendors sell box sets with their products. It's not
clear that there is an "OEM price", though there may be (for example,
we don't know how much Dell are paying RH)
The other guy's already priced OS/2.
OTOH, I might also point out that the zealots haven't put forth
any accurate numbers. If they want to prove something about the
pricing, the onus is on them to make some sort of case. I suppose
the main thing I'm complaining about is this sort of knee-jerk
herd mentality I'm seeing a lot of (maybe I should stop reading
slashdot!)
I think a lot of people take the "against" position in any
discussion about MS and sort of retroactively try to
rationalise themselves.
>And what I am doing is pointing out that in a free market it is market
>conditions that determine what "fair" and "reasonable" mean. Anything
>else is really just an arbitrary judgement.
That would make it very difficult to show that pricing was unfair.
>And I am *not* saying that. I am saying that you and I have no way of
>knowing what the price "would be" in a fair and competitive market.
>Maybe they could charge *more* for all I know.
That's not really good enough -- to make a case against the pricing
you need more than pure conjecture. In particular, you need to show
that the price "would be" less in a competitive market. And I've yet
to see a decent argument for this.
>>Compare it with the price of other operating systems. It's in the same
>>ballpark.
>
>Ok, there's some logic to that. But since those other operating systems
>have such a tiny minority of the market, I can argue that Windows' price
>is pretty much independent of what the other guys charge except at the
>margins where the Windows fee becomes extortinate.
But if the other OSs had a larger segment of the market, how would things
change ? Would Windows need to be priced lower ? I'd argue that this is
not the case, because like anyone else, they only need to be in the
same price ballpark, they don't need to be substantially lower.
>>$50- is already fairly cheap. I think you'd have a hard time making a
>>case that the sales increase resulting from further reduction in price
>>would justify the loss of per-sale revenue.
>
>Perhaps. But we can't know that, can we? In fact, we don't even know
>that $50 is the average price OEM's pay since OEM agreements are
>typically under NDA.
WE could hazard a pretty good guess that it's <= $50- (otherwise, they
could justbuy from a reseller)
>All I wanted to do was point out that the "Linux zealots" aren't
>entirely mistaken. The market has been distorted and we can't know what
>the "fair" price really is. There's reason to think it could be lower.
But so far, their arguments (or lack thereof) are pure conjecture,
largely based on a frothing-at-the-mouth herd of slashdotesque
zealots who don't seem to have anything better to do than whine
about Microsoft.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Joona I Palaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 2 Mar 2001 16:09:11 GMT
Ian Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I am using my right to free speech for my purpose.
>>
>>If that annoys you, so be it.
How typical of trolls to think free speech is some godly power that
allows them to do whatever they please and and then refuse any
criticism.
--
/-- Joona Palaste ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"There's no business like slow business."
- Tailgunner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: 2 Mar 2001 16:23:13 GMT
In article <yoGn6.6271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe they used it in Win2k. I'd find it really hard to believe that they
> started with perfectly good, tested code and deliberately introduced all
> those bugs that we've all had to live through in all the earlier windows
> versions.
Most of the bugs I've run into in the NT stack have been pretty clearly
due to interface issues, like passing packets into the IP routing code
when it wasn't supposed to because the driver didn't bother to tell it it
was in promiscuous mode.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:40:40 GMT
Joel Barnett wrote:
>
> Ray Chason wrote:
>
> > "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> > >alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
> > >something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
> > >sucks", I guess you came to the right place.
> >
> > But isn't Windoze supposed to be the OS that doesn't require you to RTFM?
>
> No matter what OS you use, you should read the manual.
>
> >
> >
> jbarntt
Windows is totally intuitive. The only reason we bought all those sets
of manuals is so that when someone is so dense as to ask a question we
can say "RTFM". The 20,000+ pages of manual keep them out of the way for
a while. When they can't find it there, we just direct them to the MS
site to look for clues. If they haven't quit (good riddance to someone
who has no intuition) by then, they usually don't ask again.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How would you do this with Linux ?
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:31:05 GMT
I've talk to a few small business and some STILL use a paper inventory
system...WOW, so a smart, knowledgable person could go in and automate
many facets of their business for very little cost (by using the right
tools, etc).
If I wanted to go into a business/factory (lets say a computer maker,
furniture maker, or whatever) and automate the tracking of the work in
progress and the finished the finished goods inventory.
Of course, lets assume that they do not have a computerized inventory
system, that everything is done in paper.
So, using linux, we are going to set this up for the management and
the workers.
Let's look at this from:
Hardware Side-
So one or two servers, a few dumb telnet style machines for the
workers to enter data directly into the database server.
OR
Use a Web style interface (win98 boxes), and a linux server running
the database, etc.
OR
???
Software Side-
Linux Server, Linux dumb terminals, Oracle or some "free" database
(MySQL).
Or
Linux server and win98 for the workers (web based, to make it easy for
them to enter data, etc).
MISC-
If this is a small company, 20-40 people, how much equipment would
they need...Now, what if it's a large company, would WIN2K or Unix be
a better choice and also use some professional inventory control
software ?
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:55:38 GMT
Stephen Cornell wrote:
>
> "al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And don't forget 2000 was the worst MS's year and the best Linux's year and
> > they still didn't make
> > any inroads.
>
> Apart from increasing their share of the server market from 25% to 27%.
> An almost identical growth rate to that of NT server.
>
> What I want to know is: if Microsoft increased their share of the
> desktop market from 89% to 92%, what were those 3% using before?
>
> --
> Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
> University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
MS-DOS. Versions 3.1 and 5.0 are still running lots of systems around
the world. Many people have a system running, can't justify the cost of
changing, so still run old 286 based systems. Each year at COMDEX there
are one or two groups seeking donations of older systems to take to
developing countries. These systems are failing rapidly, so the users
end up with a new system running Windows or a non-pc system. But the 93%
counts every PC sold with Windows as running Windows. It doesn't take
into account the systems sold with Windows that had Windows completely
removed and another OS installed.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
