Linux-Advocacy Digest #575, Volume #34 Thu, 17 May 01 17:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Larry Rosen)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Donn Miller)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:44:02 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Matthew Gardiner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>> > I'm running SuSE Linux 7.1 and I have anti alias fonts. All my
>> > netscape fonts are displayed correctly, so whats your point? btw,
>> > what sort of video card do you have?
>>
>> I'm running SuSE 7.1 - it doesn't do anti aliased fonts by default. I
>> seem to remember there were several steps involved. My video card is a
>> Voodoo 5500 which runs pretty slowly on Linux.
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> Pete Goodwin
>> All your no fly zone are belong to us My opinions are my own
>
> What version of xfree are you running? I didn't have to set up
> anything. I installed SuSE Linux 7.1 Pro, reboot, and voila, instant
> anti-aliasing.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
I think the hint is in Pete's video card. It's possible (I'm too lazy too
look up the compatibility list on http://www.xfee86.org) that the Xrender
extensions are not supported on his card. Since Xrender is what gives you
AA, that would explain a lot.
I still maintain that Type 1 fonts, a high resolution and a decent
monitor obviate the need for antialiasing. Sure it is nice, but it gives
*me* a headache.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 17 May 2001 20:47:10 GMT
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I killfiled yttrx, and I suggest everyone else do the same. He
>> obviously has some serious anger-management issues. My hide is pretty
>> flameproof, but I have better things to do than listen to some
>> mental-defective idjit rant and rave.
> it's odd. He never ysed to be like this. never mind, he'll be in my
> killfile if he comes out with another post like that.
You might as well just get it over with.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:48:23 +0100
Almost forgot:
Chad, Jan, Ubertroll, Todd, etc, what do you have to say to this:
In the real world (ie not benchmarks) Linux is near the top in terms of
price/performance and scalibility. Win2K doesn't put in a single showing.
> I'm bored of all these benchmarks, since benchmarks are just marks and
> meaningless out of context. So Win2K served up an extra transcation per
> second or Linux manages an extra web page per second? So what?
>
> To get a better idea, you need to look at the real world.
>
> If you look in the real world, you see Linux having several spots in the
> top 100 fastest supercomputers. If Win2K/NT is so great and so scalable
> and gives such a great price/performance ratio, then why is there not a
> *single* Windows cluster in the top 100 supercomputers list?
>
>
> The reason is simple: Linux scales better, is more efficient and gives a
> much better price/performance *in the real world*.
>
>
> Linux wins, again.
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
My opinions are my own. I represent no one but myself.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:48:33 -0500
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 03:26:26 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <...>
>
> > > Now we are getting somewhere. The main beef c't has with the
activation
> > > process, is that Microsoft does not tell what it does exactly. The
amount
> > > of traffic is big enough to hide additional data in the activation
> > > request, and unless the exact method is known, we only have Microsofts
> > > word that that doesn't happen. You may trust them, c't apparently
doesn't
> > > and they seem to be justified based on past experiences.
> >
> > If you don't trust them, you shouldn't be using the OS at all, since if
they
> > wanted to send data, they could do it in any of a million ways without
you
> > ever being able to detect it. Why would they put such data in a high
> > visibility scheme like activation?
> >
> > The fact of the matter is, if you trust them enough to use the OS at
all,
> > you trust them enough to activate. There is no more or less danger or
risk.
> >
> > > Clearly the certificates aren't all that necessary if you can just
pass
> > > along your hardware key over the phone if you choose that method of
> > > activation
> >
> > The phone is much more trustworthy than the Internet, with less of a
chance
> > for interception of the data. Otherwise, why aren't we using encrypted
> > telephone communications?
>
> I think the point here is that it appears that far more bytes are being
> transmitted than are justified by the activation process alone.
>
> Clearly, any user employing the telephone activation service will be
> instantly aware of any additional information Microsoft may attempt to
> extract from them and this will ring alarm bells with the brighter ones.
> It's much easier for Microsoft to spy on their users via data transmitted
> in encrypted form over the Internet . Most users will be blissfully
unaware
> even if 40-50k, perhaps even 100k of data - a full inventory of their hard
> disks, for example - were to be sent to Microsoft.
Again, MS could send 1 byte of data extra in a TCP header every time you
connect to microsoft.com and do the same thing. They do *NOT* need to do it
through activation. It simply makes no sense whey they would choose this
method, and not some other less visible method, *IF* they were going to do
this. Merely using their software is enough.
> And you can be certain that the telephone system will be via a premium
> number at $$$s/minute, on the specious grounds that operators have to be
> paid for, but in reality to encourage users to register via the Internet
so
> the spyware can report back.
No, just like the Office activation, which is already in place, it's a toll
free number.
> The simple answer is to refuse to use XP.
Why is that the simple answer? If MS wanted to collect information, they
could build a way into the next security patch for Windows 2000 or ME or 98
or whatever. The point is that if you are paranoid enough not to use WinXP
because you think MS is spying on you, you should be paranoid to not even
use their OS in the first place.
> Unfortunately, after the launch
> of XP, Microsoft will phase out 98/ME/2000, and OEMs will be forced to
> supply XP only. "No Linux, or you don't get XP licences. None of that
> anti-American crap please". Then, after a year or so and when XP is in
full
> swing, Microsoft will alter the licences to subscription based.
MS could alter their licenses right now to subscription based. WinXP
doesn't ever "call home" without you giving it permission, and once
activated, it's activated unless you change your hardware drastically
(something that 90% of computer users never do).
> Pay
> Microsoft a monthly fee to continue to use XP. With the lemmings in major
> corporations dutifully doing Microsoft's bidding, the rest of us will have
> to follow suit, especially when the de-facto office product is Office-XP
> and we all need it to read documents supplied by our major customers and
> clients.
Being a bit dramatic now, aren't you?
> The whole scenario looks to me like a combination of the drugs underworld
> and a protection racket. Get the user base hooked on a product, then mug
> them if they fail to pay up monthly. The sole difference appears that
> Microsoft's rackets are legal, else how are they getting away with it?
The part you are conveniently forgetting is that MS could do all of that
with your existing software if they wanted to, yet you still use it.
> > > Face it Erik, *nobody* trusts Microsoft on their word anymore. Well,
you
> > > do, obviously, so I'm curious if you can give a reason for that? You
seem
> > > to be too intelligent to trust anything on faith alone.
> >
> > I don't trust them in the way you mean, but I can use common sense.
Simply
> > using the OS gives them the opportunity to do whatever they like. If
i'm
> > going to do that, there is no extra risk in activation.
>
> There is certainly a logic in that, but why let them away with introducing
> a system that virtually invites them in your front door and inventory your
> property? There are umpteen reasons why millions of machines need never be
> connected to a network, let alone to the Internet and Microsoft, or may be
> connected to an internal network that has no external router. Why should
> you have to risk your company's security just to "activate" a product
> you've purchased anyway?
Corporate accounds get copies of XP without activation required. It's
generally home and small busienss users that are forced to activate, and
this is because they tend to be the worst offenders in casual piracy.
> The whole concept is aimed at the ultimate control of every computer and
> every bit of company data by Microsoft (and who knows who else...?), pure
> and simple, nothing else. A permanent revenue stream completely under
> Microsoft's control, plus unlimited power. A Gates nirvana.
Even MS knows that they don't have complete control and can never have it.
There are alternatives, and as soon as MS crosses the line of acceptability,
people WILL switch.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Rosen)
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: 17 May 2001 20:30:03 GMT
Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>~�~ wrote:
>
>>
>> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
...snip....
>> Excel Pivot tables
>
>What are Pivot tables?
PivotTables - A pivot table transforms raw data into representative
information. With the ability to pivot the dimension of your tables, it
allows you to rearrange the data or view them from different
perspectives. The drawback of the pivot table is its inability to
automatically update its data when the source data changes.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:50:34 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "somebody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> stands accused of saying:
> > > >And you only have to pay the star
> > > >programmer an amount of $100,000 per
> > > >year,
> > >
> > > lol, on what planet?
> >
> > $100k is not an outrageous salary for a programmer, especially when you
> > factor in benefits, taxes, social security, etc.. (the company is
required
> > by law to pay a portion of that).
>
> Personally, I have only ever seen programming jobs at 65K to 85K in New
> Zealand dollars. 100k US$ is way, way over the top.
Like I said, if you factor in benefits, taxes, social security, cube space
(it costs money to house the programmer as well), etc... For a $70k
programmer, you could easily be over 100k with everything else factored in.
But, having said that, it's not uncommon to find actual programmer salaries
over 100k, especially on the coasts where cost of living is quite high.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:53:38 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The HP-9000 isn't running on a risc based processor bone head.
> >
> > I the HP-9000 is running on the 64 bit version of the Intel
> > chip. That isn't a risc based processor.
> >
> > EPIC is not RISC you fucking meathead and HP isn't using
> > any motorola chips either.
> >
> > It is the commercial version of the Itanium and it's been
> > in use for 1.5 years now.
> >
> > There is no model of HP-9000 which runs on a non-intel
> > chip.
> >
> > Thanks blockheads for playing!
> >
> > If you were real computer professionals you would know this.
> >
> > Intel won't release a chip into the market until MS says
> > it's time to go.
> >
> > http://isearch.intel.com/scripts-search/search.asp?
> > isoCode=en&q1=risc&SearchCrit=ALL
> > &category=ALL&mh=25&MimeType=ALL
> >
> > They call it the IA-64!
> >
> > And I'd like to say the both of you are something worse
> > than mis-informed. You have your fucking heads up
> > your ass.
> >
> > --
> > Charlie
> > -------
>
> CALM DOWN CHARLIE! shit, I was only guessing.
And he's still wrong. The HP-9000 is still running under PA-RISC, not IA64.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:54:46 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Sure. IIS wasn't where the bug was, though. The bug was in the Front
Page
> > extensions, which are maintained by the FrontPage team. Basically, it's
an
> > add-on.
>
> Here's something that's just as good as a back door:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-026.asp
>
> Microsoft Security Bulletin MS01-026
> Superfluous Decoding Operation Could Allow Command Execution via IIS
> Originally posted: May 14, 2001
That's as much a back door as the BIND vulnerability of Unix.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:00:38 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > It's because the software they want to run, runs on
> > > Windows. Only.
> > >
> >
> > Because m$ stole the market.
>
> That's "earned the market". please. :D
>
No, thats stole the marketplace.
> > > Except for MS Office, which runs on Macs too. But
> > > that's not enough by itself, as I'm sure you realize.
> > >
> > > MS Windows won the hearts and minds of the
> > > developers of desktop applications.
> >
> > m$ didnt win ANY developer's hearts. Developers HATE micro$oft because
> > they know if they market something that catches m$'s eye, m$ will take
> > it.
>
> Not at all. Developers just keep on flocking to
> Microsoft's banner, when MS is the best solution.
>
Do they? Or do developers "flock to m$ becasue it has a monoply?
> Sure, they know that MS might try to buy them
> out if they are successful enough. They *like*
> that, it means MS drives up with a dump truck
> full of money.
>
If m$ takes aim at a company, it will buy, lie, cheat steal, anything at
all to gain marketshare, as has been demonstrated (and ignored by you).
> They also know that if for some reason MS can't
> or won't do that, they can still compete with
> Microsoft and *win*. Others have; MS doesn't
> have black magic.
>
No, they have an illegally gained and held marketshare.
> The anti-MS zealotry you see from developers is
> pretty much the exclusive province of the he open
> source community. That is still pretty small
> potatoes, all told.
>
Tell that to Digital research, Go, Stack, Vobis, IBM, Lotus, etc, etc,
etc.
> > "A lot of peoplemake the analogy that competing with Bill Gates is like
> > playing hardball. I'd say it's more like knifefight" - Gary Clow
>
> I'll buy that. Nimbleness is very important when
> competing with Microsoft.
What does nimblensess have to do with being stabbed in the back?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:58:30 -0500
"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm kinda in the same boat. I use Win98 currently, and on my home
> > computer I do have it running pretty stable. I have actually gone
> > months without rebooting. AT work though, with software my boss makes
> > me use (like Norton crap) it crashes every other day.
> >
>
> When you write "months without rebooting", does that mean that your
Windows
> 98 pc stays powered on continuously, or do you occasionally shut it down
> voluntarily? And if so, how often do you perform these "maintainance
> reboots"?
I have a 98SE machine that runs 24/7, and I typically reboot or crash about
once every 3 months. Not a stellar performance by any measure, but
certainly better than you people seem to suggest. It's used extensively by
my girlfriend to play games and surf the net, listen to MP3's, etc..
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:03:05 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > It's because the software they want to run, runs on
> > > Windows. Only.
> > >
> > > Except for MS Office, which runs on Macs too. But
> > > that's not enough by itself, as I'm sure you realize.
> >
> > For some people this is true... for a lot of newbies, they only know
> > what is in front of them in the retail outlets. Even here there are no
> > Macs unless you go to Seattle.
>
> Well, I dunno. Macs aren't *that* invisible. More retailers
> do sell PCs, because they know that users who *do* have
> a clue will usually prefer them (or rather the applications
> that run on them);
Thats total bullshit. People buy Windows machines because..."everyone
else has them"
> those that do not won't know the
> difference.
>
Thats bullshit too.
> It's perfectly sensible.
>
No, you are not.
> > The newbies first response is "How do I use this now that I have it?"...
> > And then later its "That's neat, I didn't know spreadsheets could do
> > that",.. or "That's neat, I didn't know Word could do that." For me a
> > long while back, it was get the best I could afford and put the closest
> > VAX fortran like compiler on it along with a good C compiler.
> > Everyone has their druthers.
>
> Well, yes. Desktop users aren't the whole world.
>
> > > MS Windows won the hearts and minds of the
> > > developers of desktop applications.
> >
> > That of course is your opinion. It never won my heart over before I
> > retired.
>
> When did you retire? There was a time when Windows
> was ususable crap. Developers did not switch until it
> improved quite a lot from its beginnings.
>
> I do know there are exceptions, but nearly all desktop
> app development is done on Windows these days,
> and it isn't because developers are idiots who can't
> see what's so plainly obvious to T Max Devlin. :D
No, its because m$ stole the marketplace.
--
Rick
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:04:32 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Kindof. The problem is, what happens if one program requires glibc to built
> with a certain set of libraries, while another application requires glibc to
> be built with a different set?
The run time linker will just link against the version of glibc with the
same major but different minor number. You just install the other
version of glibc the app requires, and let ld.so figure it out. Unless,
of course, you're talking about libs that are inside of glibc.
====== 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:05:33 -0400
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> Save your breath. This guy is a firm bigot
^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled "resistant to homosexual brainwashing"
> and he will *never* conceed
> that he has made a mistake.
Why would one conceed a mistake when one has not made one?
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
>
> u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
> My opinions are my own. I represent no one but myself.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 23:04:27 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter K�hlmann"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> "Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> > Again, Netcraft only counts host names, not servers. The same
>>> >> > server
>>> > can
>>> >> > server 10's, 100's, even thousands of hosts.
>>> >>
>>> >> Each running its own software.
>>> >
>>> > No, it doesn't.
>>> > Get *some* clue before you post.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Yes, it does. If you want. And if it�s a IBM/390. Get *some* clue
>>> before you post.
>>
>> No ISP will use a s/390 for this, dimwit. *No one* will use it for
>> this, for that matter. That is beyond stupid.
>>
>>
> Tell *that* to IBM.
> And to the finnish ISP who did just that.
>
> Dimwit
>
> Peter
>
Uhh Peter,
Before pedantic trolls start picking at you, allow me a question: isn't
Telia Swedish? At least I seem to recall that it was Telia who ordered an
S/390 to be it's main server.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:06:28 -0500
"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Not to call you a liar, but I have _never_ met anyone who managed to keep
> Win 9x running for more than a working week (i.e.: five days) in a normal
> office or home environment (*). Most people call themselves lucky if they
> get through the day without a three-finger salute to their grey box.
Most people are always screwing with their systems. Once you have a
working, stable system, don't fuck with it by installing the latest driver
or whatever. it'll stay up a lot longer than you think.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
