Linux-Advocacy Digest #367, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chad Everett)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux and the War against M$ (Chad Everett)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Chad Everett)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Chad Everett)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Chad Everett)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Chad Everett)
Re: where's the linux performance? (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux" (Nigel Feltham)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 09:41:07 -0500
On Wed, 9 May 2001 10:37:33 -0400, JS PL <hieverybody!> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 01:54:12
>> [...]
>> >Yes, Win9x suck for everything. I couldn't imagine trying to do
>> >anything like CD burning in Win9x, let alone try to get any decent
>> >amount of work done.
>> >
>> >Win9x just suck.
>
>I run Windows 98 on one machine (rarely) and the apps crash less than the
>apps on my Linux box. I can't remember the last time the Win98 OS crashed,
Hey...JS PL is a linux user...what linux distro and version are you running?
>then a gain, I touch the machine about once a month. Maybe some of that
>Win2k reliability on the same network is rubbing off on it.
My Windows 2K box never crashes anymore because I never turn it on anymore.
I see the same applies for your Windows 98 box. This is hilarious. Do
you want to improve the reliability of your Windows box?: Don't use it.
Perfect!
But you expect us to believe that ethernet magically allows Windows boxes
to change each other's operation through some sort of Windows telepathy?
Windows advocacy at its finest.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 09:48:45 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 13:55:42 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Let's assume that you are correct..that most men are bisexual.
>>
>>Please explain then, why all of these supposedly bi-sexual men at the
>>typical bar or night club aren't hitting on each other after striking
>>out with the women?
>
>There's any number of reasons, OBVIOUSLY, ranging from the social
>stigma of revealing these desires, to fear of disease, to just not
>wanting it too much at all. Any NUMBER of reasons that are more
>plausible than your assertion that most people have 0 (zero) capacity
>for bisexual feelings.
>
>>You are making an assertion. Natural consequences of that assumption
>>contradict reality. Thererefore, your assertion is wrong.
>
>Your logic is false.
>
>>Get a grip, and stop being a moron.
>
>Use your head. Read John W. Steven's posts. They are much more
>logical than your hand waving, empty, and clearly false, theories.
>Why do you think homosexuality hasn't died out? How do those
>"homosexuals" keep breeding? This is not difficult to figure out!
>
For exactly the same reason we still keep getting people with
bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, depression, etc. , etc.
One fine day we might actually have a humane cure for homosexuality.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux and the War against M$
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 09:31:32 -0500
On Thu, 10 May 2001 01:40:10 +1200, Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mad.Scientist" wrote:
>>
>> http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/9509.html
>Just read a couple of posts. In regards to china, grab a piece of
>software from Microsoft, say, Office 2000, which costs around $US500,
>which is around 10,000 Yuan. Jane or John Tao being paid at $4 an hour,
>it will take them years to save up for it, compare that to Linux which
>they can pick up for around $2 (the cost of the CD). Mind you, the
>chinese have always been very wise people, such as sticking with UNIX,
>not giving into all this pro-democracy crap and flower-power groups.
>China, give ya self a pat on the back.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
How are Jane or John Tao going to pay for the computer itself..and the
electricity to run it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 09:55:53 -0500
On Wed, 9 May 2001 12:38:05 +0100, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <9dauui$qd2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> No, I didn't, because you spouted pretty much nothing but gibberish until
>> the end where you gained a little more of a clue.
>
>Show me where I spouted gibberish. I didn't.
>
With Word you have to boot your computer, click on the start button, select Word,
start typing, finish typing, pull down the file menu, select print, click OK
on the print dialog, and wait for your printouts to complete.
With StarOffice I just type and print....only two steps. See how much easier
it is?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 10:01:28 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 06:27:30 GMT, Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <9d84g7$r4u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> 3
>> "Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Mon, 7 May 2001 18:29:54 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> > >"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >>Sure I've seen the occasional box running DOS in a closet with a unix
>> > >>print
>> > >>server client running on it here and there but... that hardly means
>> MS-DOS
>> > >>is alive and well.
>> > >Windows has the killer applications that DOS didn't, what killer
>> > >applications does XP have that you can't run on 9x?
>> > >Since it's going to be a long time before stuff that is written to XP
>> will
>> > >not be able to run on 9x, I would say you are in for a long wait.
>> > >
>> > How about Windows Media Player 8?
>>
>> Don't make me laugh. Unless it went through a *thourough* overhaul, there
>> isn't a *chance* of WMP8 being worth a dime.
>> WMP7 is a bloody resource hog, slow, unresponsive, slow, and did I mention
>> slow?
>> Start playing a CD, try changing tracks... On my system, PIII-500+448MB, the
>> easiest way to do it is to teminate WMP7, and start all over again! And I
>> won't start talking about how it does MP3...
>> I got WinampLite, which does everything I want it to, does it fast,
>> efficently, and reponsively.
>> Practically *anything* is better than WMP.
>>
>
>Just for grins I fired up WMP7 running under Win2k on my PII-450 with
>256MB memory. According to the task manager it sucks up less than 5
>percent of the cpu and uses 3.5 MB of system memory when minimized.
>When not minimized it uses about 20 percent of the CPU and 5.5MB of
>memory. It changes tracks just fine for me...
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
....and what kind of stats can you give us when you downloaded and ran
WinAmp 8 ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 10:03:57 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 06:32:07 GMT, Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in a
>> >corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you don't
>> >have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters lately?
>> >
>>
>> But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse to run if
>> I make improvements to it.
>>
>No, but the manufacturer of your vehicle might cancel your warrenty if
>they don't like what you did to "improve" it.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
you're not very smart, are you?
It's no longer under warranty. You can NEVER own your Windows software or legally
disassemble any of your Windows code, or legally make modifications to your
Windows OS, and on and on.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 10:05:12 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 06:32:07 GMT, Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in a
>> >corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you don't
>> >have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters lately?
>> >
>>
>> But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse to run if
>> I make improvements to it.
>>
>No, but the manufacturer of your vehicle might cancel your warrenty if
>they don't like what you did to "improve" it.
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not longer under warranty. Your Windows software doesn't even have a
warranty.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 10:22:44 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 16:56:24 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>What can I say, except that apparently you only use the first meaning of
>>>every word? If you want to use only a specific meaning of nurse,
>>>implying lactation, please use a more specific word, because birds nurse
>>>their young.
>>
>> Idiots. Note the "s" for every one of you arguing this "nurse" point.
>> It was very f*cking OBVIOUS from the context of the post what was meant
>> by
>> "nurse" when the guy said "mammals nurse their young and birds don't."
>
>Aaron simply claimed that birds do not nurse their young. This is false.
>He probably meany to say they don't suckle their young.
>
Man! Some of you can be dense. I'll try one more time...read very carfully
and use your pea-brain to understand: Using "nurse" in the context of the
definition of "mammal", birds do not nurse their young.
Now, if you want to use all the additional definitions of "nurse", then sure,
birds nurse their young, bees nurse their young, and ants nurse their young,
and human fathers nurse their young, and nurses in the hospital nurse their
patients, and teachers nurse their students, and on and on...
BUT USING "NURSE" IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITION OF MAMMAL, BIRDS DO NOT
NURSE THEIR YOUNG....and the definition of mammal was the original discussion.
>
>> Sheesh! You idiots would argue about the color sh*t!
>
>And you would probably claim that all shit is brown, forgetting to take
>birds, for example in to account who's shit is not brown.
>
>-Ed, I'm a f*cking moron!
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 10:20:30 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:15:59 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>
>>What can I say, except that apparently you only use the first meaning
>>of every word? If you want to use only a specific meaning of nurse,
>>implying lactation, please use a more specific word, because birds nurse
>>their young.
>
>Idiots. Note the "s" for every one of you arguing this "nurse" point.
>It was very f*cking OBVIOUS from the context of the post what was
>meant by "nurse" when the guy said "mammals nurse their young and
>birds don't."
>
>Sheesh! You idiots would argue about the color sh*t!
>
Thank you chris!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 10:17:59 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 10:20:58 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Using the standard usage of "nurse" and in the context of the
>>>>definition of
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>mammals, birds do not nurse their young, they nourish their young.
>> ^^^^^^^
>
>You seem to be saying that birds don't nurse their young because they're
>not mammals. According to my dictionary, birds _do_ nurse their young,
>under several of the definitions (obviusly except giving them breast
>milk). My dictionary specifies _nothing_ about nursing that requires
>being a mammal, except the first point.
>
>In the context of mammals, birds do pretty much everything mammald do in
>terms of nursing, except lactating.
>
>Birds definitely _do_ nurse their young.
>
>-ed
>
Man! Some of you can be dense. I'll try one more time...read very carfully
and use your pea-brain to understand: Using "nurse" in the context of the
definition of "mammal", birds do not nurse their young.
Now, if you want to use all the additional definitions of "nurse", then sure,
birds nurse their young, bees nurse their young, and ants nurse their young,
and human fathers nurse their young, and nurses in the hospital nurse their
patients, and teachers nurse their students, and on and on...
BUT USING "NURSE" IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITION OF MAMMAL, BIRDS DO NOT
NURSE THEIR YOUNG....and the definition of mammal was the original discussion.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 10:18:49 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 10:16:00 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > Being warm blooded is not the thing that makes a mammal, having
>>> >> > mammae is what makes the mammal. Birds do not nurse their young,
>>> >> > mammals do
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes they do. Hatchlings are fed by their parent(s).
>>> >
>>> > Not with breast milk.
>>>
>>> So? the other guy said "birds do not nurse their young". This is false.
>>
>> MAMMALS NURSE THEIR YOUNG WITH BREAST MILK
>
>BIRDS NURSE THEIR YOUNG WITHOUT BREAST MILK
>
>your point?
>
>-Ed
Man! Some of you can be dense. I'll try one more time...read very carfully
and use your pea-brain to understand: Using "nurse" in the context of the
definition of "mammal", birds do not nurse their young.
Now, if you want to use all the additional definitions of "nurse", then sure,
birds nurse their young, bees nurse their young, and ants nurse their young,
and human fathers nurse their young, and nurses in the hospital nurse their
patients, and teachers nurse their students, and on and on...
BUT USING "NURSE" IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITION OF MAMMAL, BIRDS DO NOT
NURSE THEIR YOUNG....and the definition of mammal was the original discussion.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:15:57 -0700
Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> I run BSD on one of my mail servers. This same box run Linux for years without
> problem. As my mail server, again, running BSD, it seems to crash about twice
> a month. While I certainly have nothing against any of the BSD's, I for one
> think that the stability is over rated of BSD. I have no doubts that it still
> on the same page as Linux, for better or worse.
>
The only thing I know about BSD is what is provided as compatibility for
it in Solaris.
BSD code has been hand-over-hand checked for any errors.
BSD code for the mail servers may not be hardware tolerant ,.. or some
hardware related incompatibilities. Seen things like this in windows as
well... one piece of hardware works great while another gives nothing
but headaches.
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 06 May 2001 18:09:23 +1000, Ian Pulsford
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Jonathan Martindell wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm just a beginning Linux user. I've recently tried Linux-Mandrake 7.2 and
> > > >> then Linux-Mandrake 8.0 and also Caldera OpenLinux 2.4. I've been very
> > > >> disappointed in the performance of all of these. My machine, I think,
> > > >> should be more than adaquate: 708MHz celeron fcppga cpu, 256 meg rams, 10
> > > >> gig partition for linux (20 for windows 2000) on Ultra66. I've tried
> > > >> running KDE, Gnome, and Icevm. Programs like KMail take over 10 seconds to
> > > >
> > > >As you say, you are a beginner, take the time to learn the system and
> > > >tweak it for maximum performance. First remove services unnecessary for
> > > >a desktop that are often included with a new install. Then learn how to
> > > >make a custom kernel. Then switch to FreeBSD.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >IanP
> > >
> > > I have never tried FreeBSD so I haven't really commented on it, but I
> > > am beginng to think you guys have some kind of a valid point.
> > >
> > > The FreeBSD users seem to be a little more stable and less ready to
> > > snap as well.
> > >
> > > Maybe I'll give it a whirl this weekend if I get a chance.
> > >
> > > flatfish
> >
> > I prefer Solaris 8 x86. The docs are complete. The install detects even
> > the monitor and makes sure by displaying a test pattern before
> > continuing. On initial login, you are presented with a tutorial for CDE
> > (Common Desktop Environment). It still gives you an option to use CDE
> > or OpenWindows and one can even install later KDE or GNOME and
> > incorporate a choice of these at login. But the docs are great.
> >
> > --
> > V
>
> --
> Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
> Copeland Computer Consulting
> --------------------------------------------------
> PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
> DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
> --------------------------------------------------
--
V
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 18:19:09 GMT
On Wed 09 May 2001 05:54, pip wrote:
> Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>
>> Toward the end of my freshman year, I picked up a book on programming for
>> Linux, but the experience was disappointing. A badly outdated copy of
>> Slackware 2.0 came with the book, and it couldn't recognize most of my
>> hardware or my FAT32 partition. Discouraged, I put it aside since I
>> still had schoolwork to do. That summer, I mail-ordered a copy of
>> Slackware 4.0 from Walnut Creek CDROM, and never looked back except for
>> the occasional game of Duke Nukem, Populous: The Beginning, or
>> StarCraft. I spent all summer geeking out as I learned the ropes of the
>> POSIX C API, Perl, and Apache. I began to see all the little nuances of
>> incompatibility and brokenness in Windows and other Microsoft products,
>> and the gilded and sacharrin-sweet words Microsoft used to sell their
>> overpriced and overhyped products.
>
>
> Interesting! My first Linux experience was with Slackware. It came with
> a book which I promptly did not read as I had got used to doing things
> the "easy" way. I had a hell of a time installing the thing and
> reluctantly read the book and took my first steps. I found silly things
> confusing as I was so used to C: D: and E: that /dev/hda1 /dev/hda2
> seemed like an alien planet. Also I didn't really "get" the concept of
> open source - just that there was this Unix system that I could play on.
> I also didn't realise that there were so many wonderful programmers
> tools! Anyway, finally got Linux installed and there I was at the Bash
> prompt (or maybe it was the c-shell prompt - I forget). And, erm I
> thought - eek no graphics? No windows like things?
Here, I had the advantage that I occasionally telnetted into the
university's Solaris machines to get some basic familiarity with the
Unix-style CLI, plus I came from a C programming background. The /dev
hierarchy was quite confusing at first, but my understanding eventually
fell into place. For a while I had "alias move mv" and such in my .bashrc,
and I strongly missed the ability to do "ren *.txt *.bak" until I
discovered for and sed.
[Snip]
>>I swore off Windows for my own computer, and purged my hard
>> drive of all Microsoft products. It means I have to do without
>> StarCraft, but it's a small price to pay to be rid of their lies and FUD.
>
> I have not done this - mainly because I have not seen that much of a
> need to. I like netscape for news posting (PAN is the only real
> alterative) and IE for web-browsing and playing 'em games 'an gadgets.
>
I find that KDE 2.1 has just about everything I need for that sort of
functionality. Konqueror is actually maturing into a fine web browser and
a serious Mozilla contender, KMail is an excellent mail reader, and KNode
could still use rule-based filtering and a proper killfile but is otherwise
a very nice newsreader. Considering that my current computer (AMD K6-2 @
300MHz) doubles as the office's Samba login/file server and NAT gateway, I
don't have the option of booting into Windows anyway. I occasionally use
VMware now and then, but the performance is enough of a killer that I try
to avoid it.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:20:46 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> > It's cheap. $75. I've got the x86 version. But you have to visit Suns
> > web site first and check out the Hardware Compatibility List (HCL). It
> > installed ok for me (IBM) but I hear that it doesn't install on
> > everything. A visit to alt.solaris.x86 will give you an idea of the
> > many problems of installation can have. The docs are complete and there
> > are more tools supplied than what I've been able to find on linux. Most
> > of these tools, however, are for networking. Wait till summer if you
> > like Gnome. They're are providing Gnome 2.0 then. I have the 02/00
> > distribution (1st rollout) and there have been many changes since. The
> > fonts are a lot larger than what I've experienced in linux, but then
> > that was with Xfree 3.3.6. They provide a program called AppBuilder
> > that is a drag and drop method to designing GUI Motif programs that
> > generates Xlib code boilerplate. Then you just have to add your core
> > code to make a complete program very much similar to VC++6.0. There are
> > many other features as well.
>
> Thank you for the information, GreyCloud! It sure tastes better
> than flames and troll-shit.
>
> I'm sorry I ever cross-posted this topic into alt.linux!
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Free the Software!
No problem. Linux and Solaris are moving forward at a great pace, so
even what I have provided is more than likely out of date.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:23:28 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Steve Sheldon wrote:
> > >
> > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Steve Sheldon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? In your educated opinion what yet do they need to improve?
> > > >
> > > > Do not let an application manage its own window (except for
> > > > drawing the interior).
> > >
> > > That's pretty much already the case, and rather useful.
> > >
> > > > Implement X-Windows; get the graphics out of kernel space.
> > >
> > > Implementing X-windows would be a signifigant step backwards in
> evolution.
> > >
> >
> > HAHA! Tell that to Apple!
>
> Apple doesn't use X, they use their own display code.
Doesn't apple use X in their OS X??
--
V
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux"
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 19:41:09 +0100
Robert Kent wrote:
> -cross posted to comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine-
>
> Microsoft should consider producing "Windows for Linux". It could be their
> own version of Wine, but it would be nearly 100% compatible with the
> latest version of Windows. Microsoft could require that users have a
> retail copy of Windows to make this work.
>
> It's a win-win situation. Linux users could run nearly all of the
> available Windows applications, and Microsoft would still make money
> selling Windows licenses.
>
It would also be the start of the downfall of the company - when users
switch to Linux running a Microsoft compatibility layer they will realise
how crap MS's code really is and eventually switch all the applications to
native Linux software written by someone else ( openoffice or Koffice maybe
instead of MS office) and what would MS be able to do then.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
