Linux-Advocacy Digest #648, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Dave Martel)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Weevil")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:12:01 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e7ugn$35s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > > You don't have to upgrade. And under windows upgrading is a waste
of
> > > > money. Very little improvements in upgrading windows compared to
> > > > upgrading under RedHat or Others. Win2K would be a different
> matter...
> > > > XP I don't know about because I can't install it on my current
> hardware
> > > > anyway.. with Linux I can. Most of the improvements under linux is
> the
> > > > move to 2.4.x. Others are related to a faster X-server. And the rest
> is
> > > > whatever someone has contributed. The contribs are interesting to
> > > > explore... But the real big thing is that the cost is lower for the
> > > > average user than windows. Last time I was at Staples I saw Win2K
> going
> > > > for around $287 without upgrade. And for OEM install of WinME it was
> > > > around $150. Then you have to add more money for the windows
> compilers
> > > > if you want one.
> > >
> > > lcc is a free windows compiler.
> > > There are a couple of others.
> > >
> > > I don't think that there is much free Unix/Linux software that doesn't
> > have
> > > a free equilent on Windows.
> >
> > Yes, but with Windows you have to make the choice between running
> > threaded programs for usable speed or separate processes with
> > memory protection for stability.
>
> Considering that Apache 2 has been re-wrote to use threads...
Yes, and the long development of that branch has always carried a warning
about stability compared to the 1.x versions. It may be possible to
write threaded-model programs that are as stable as separate processes
but history shows that it takes about 15 years longer. Your threaded
program has to understand and serialize every possible conflict, where
in the process model the OS does it automatically.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 18:17:39 +0200
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <tnCN6.44054$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chronos Tachyon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat 19 May 2001 05:03, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>>
>> You could look at it this way of course: if radio waves(==light) travel
>> at .88c in an atmosphere, then they will travel at .88c in space as
>> well, as there is no acceleration (of course assuming the radio waves
>> originate from a planetary surface). I am applying simple Newtonian
>> physics here, and I have a feeling that this would not be exactly
>> right, but it sounds deceptively logical to me.
>>
>> Mart
>>
>>
> Individual photons always travel exactly at c, no matter what medium
> they are traversing. However, in a non-vacuum medium, the photons will
> be constantly absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons of atoms that lie
> in their path. This process slows the collective wave of light down.
> Of course, this is just the common sense explanation and doesn't really
> touch on quantum physics.
>
Ok, that makes sense. I dropped physics in my 4th year of pre-university
education (which is 6 years here in .nl), so I had a feeling it was a bit
more complex than I thought.
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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:21:18 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e7ugq$35s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > > There is that MS commercial on TV about servers that haven't been
> > > > touched in 'days' as though that should be a surprisingly long time.
> > > > Real OS's run for years without any attention. And they don't
> > > > pop up dialog boxes and stop and wait like IIS 5.0 does when
> > > > an error occurs.
> > >
> > > What is this pop-up dialog? What does it says? Who originate it?
> >
> > It is usually one of those 'Cannot read memory at 0x....' with a
> meaningless
> > address that are typical of dll errors or thread conflicts. I think
> > the usual window title is 'inetinfo.exe' but sometimes it has been
> > something else. In all cases, IIS is not answering even though the
> > service is set to restart on errors, 'iisreset /restart'
> > will claim to work but actually fail whether done remotely or
> > locally. You have to actually mouse-click the 'OK' button (and
> > it generally reappears 6 or 7 times) or IIS just won't talk
> > again. Fortunately, you can use VNC to mouse-click remotely
> > (the servers are at a colo site). Unfortunately, if you try to reboot
> > with the process hung like that, the shutdown process will disconnect
> > VNC before it pops up the dialog about 'program is not responding'
> > and waiting for another mouse-click. Great design there...
> >
> > Trying to run the msxml3.dll in a separate process makes things
> > even worse. The xml process hangs more or less the same way
> > but then IIS keeps accepting requests so the load balancer doesn't
> > notice it is broken, but any pages that need xml are never delivered.
>
> Okay, did you try asking what is wrong in non-advocacy group?
Usually the advocacy groups are the best place to find out if something
*can* be fixed, even if you don't get all the details. I can't reproduce
this thing - it just happens a couple of times a day on machines that
are serving somewhere less than a million hits each a day and about
10% of those involve a transformNode operation. It may involve
an error in the http GET of the xml data, or an error in the data
format returned from the backend xml data servers, but I don't
think that excuses any service popping a dialog box and waiting.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:16:14 -0600
On Sun, 20 May 2001 09:40:55 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Sounds to me like Pete went down a list of linux flaws and decided to
>> suffer every last one of them himself just so he'd have an excuse to
>> bitch about linux.
>
>Who needs a list? Just install Linux and see what happens.
Done that on four systems around the house plus my laptop, and I'd
guess around 20 systems for friends, neighbors, and co-workers. It's
strange how linux doesn't give me all the problems you suffer, and I'm
not a guru by any means.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:31:39 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
>
> [snip- silliness that is getting boring]
OK.. I can do that too...
<snip>
--
Rick
------------------------------
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: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:39:11 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip- core business silliness. This one is not fun anymore.]
> > > > Dont tell me what I think.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't even tell you that you think. :D
> >
> > You try to, regularly.
>
> I apologise. I didn't mean to.
>
> [snip]
> > > > They arent "little" (did that scare you?) ant-trust actions. They just
> > > > may result in the breakup of micro$oft. Doubtful, but possible.
> > >
> > > Quite doubtful.
> >
> > But possible.
>
> Yes, remotely possible.
>
You always have to get your little bit in, dont you? You cant be the
slightest bit wrong in your mind, can you?
> [snip]
> > > > Any/All of it.
> > >
> > > I suppose that means you know of no
> > > such FUD, and just assume that MS would
> > > only ever use FUD. Right?
> >
> > You suppose wrong.
>
> Yet you can't point out any particular
> FUD?
>
I can. I have. You have refused to listen.
> [snip]
> > > > Then why should m$ be scared of them? You used them as an example ofm$
> > > > leaving "compeitors alone".
> > >
> > > No, I didn't.
> >
> > Yes, you did. Your context removing snips removes the evidence.
>
> Interested parties can consult www.google.com to
> discover if I did.
>
The context should be within the conversation. besides, you cnat seem to
work google.
> > > I am pointing out that cloning Win32 is not a threat
> > > to MS and isn't viewed as such by MS- they aren't
> > > scared of them.
> > >
> > > They are scared of their competitors, as opposed
> > > to Open32 and WINE.
> >
> > They are scared of WINE, becasue WINE doesnt work.
>
> They aren't scared of Open32 either, and it does
> work.
>
> [snip]
> > > That said, you are clearly mistaken. Many things
> > > that work do not scare MS.
> >
> > The only things that work, that dont scare m$, are things m$ isnt
> > interested in anyway.
>
> Things that don't impact MS's core business,
> naturally.
>
> [snip]
> > > > You refuse to listen.
> > >
> > > Nobody has offered it to me until now;
> > > you might consideder telling me about
> > > this.
> >
> > This particular thread of converstaion is without context, becaues you
> > have removed the context with your snips.
>
> I think that's a lot better than your
> approach of quoting *everything*, including
> the extensive parts that you do not respond
> to in any way. Saves bandwidth.
>
I repeat -This particular thread of converstaion is without context,
becaues you have removed the context with your snips.
> > However, you regularly
> > disregard facts and quotions provided to you when they harm your
> > precious m$.
>
> I disregard *interpretations* that would do that,
> yes.
>
No. You disregard direct quotes from m$ execs. You do it repeatedly. I
gave you a direct quote form an m$ VP saying when error messages form
the AARD code came up, they were suppose dto plant doubt in the user's
minds about DR-DOS. You decided the exec couldnt have possibly meant wht
he said.
> [snip]
> > > How come *you* get to decide that "the conversation" is
> > > from users point of view?
> >
> > Becasue that is what the conversation started on, and you keep trying to
> > change it.
>
> You just want to exclude the real reasons for
> Microsoft's success.
>
Micro$oft stole the market. That is the real reason for micro$oft's
success.
> > > I am trying to communicate an important point to
> > > you, and restricting the discussion to "users point
> > > of view" is simply a way to avoid listening to it.
> >
> > Not when it is the user's point of view being discussed.
>
> Yes, even when you persistantly insist on only
> consider part of the story, the other bits of the
> store do remain relevant.
>
Not when it is the user's point of view being discussed.
> [snip]
> > > Sure. You don't have uses that a PC could
> > > not fill, by 1987, that's for sure.
> >
> > Hmm lets see. 1987. After I got my GS, but before I got my Plus.
>
> Ah, the IIgs. That one coulda been a contender.
>
> > > And there *are* things that PCs could do
> > > in '87 that Apple IIs couldn't.
> >
> > Like...
>
> There's no Apple II product that can match
> dBase, for one thing.
>
I repeat. When did dBase ship for the PC ?
> It had no credible desktop publishing
> software, either. Ventural Publisher
> and Pagemaker both had PC versions
> by '87, did they not?
>
Im not sure. If they did, they werent nearly effective as the Mac. And
besides, the II family was aimed at the home and education market. The
Mac was supposedly the business machine.
> Most accounts have even Lotus 1-2-3
> beat VisiCalc handily, actually. But
> that was way before '87.
>
> [snip- silliness that is getting boring]
YOU are getting boring. You are nothing but twists and turns trying to
put micro$ in a good light.
Aint happenin.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[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: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:37:23 GMT
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:DchN6.6193$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > It's the developer toolset that counts.
> >
> > That is just so much bullshit. Developers write for whatever market they
> > can make money in. On the desktop, thats pretty much m$, because m$
> > stole the market. If XYZ OS held 90-95% of the market, and m$ helpd
> > 3-5%, developers would drop m$ and flock to XYZ.
>
> Other way around. If the developers flocked to XYZ
> for whatever reason, then it would have the lions
> share of the market.
>
> Developers *do* develop for platforms that
> aren't the market leader. They do it if they
> can produce a better product thereby.
In one part of this same thread you go to great lengths to argue that the
6502-based Commodore 64 was a nightmare to develop for, that it had no
"developer toolsets" to speak of and thus everything had to be written in
assembly. You argue that Microsoft became the dominant desktop OS provider
by "winning the hearts and minds of developers."
You are clearly arguing that developers gravitate to the best platform
available to them and that it is this that determines the dominant platform.
You argue this in order to have a rational explanation for the fact that DOS
and Windows have dominated the market since they entered it.
Rick argues that it is the dominant platform (and therefore the money maker)
that attracts developers, regardless of the developer tools available on
that platform. You are forced to deny this, obviously, in order to avoid
contradicting yourself in a dozen ways.
But the real world has already contradicted you. The C64, in spite of the
fact that it truly was a nightmare to write for, had a version of almost
every piece of software in existence available for it. Virtually every
single game ever written in those days was either written for or ported to
the Commodore. And as you've pointed out, it certainly wasn't because of
those "developer toolsets" available for the Commodore, since there weren't
any. It was because, just as Rick argues, that is where the money was.
Tens of millions of C64s were around at that time, making IT the dominant
platform of the time.
So even though writing for it was like pulling teeth with rusty pliers,
virtually all developers did it anyway. That's where the money was.
Just like Rick says.
If, on the other hand, it was like YOU claim, then the Amiga and the Mac
would have destroyed the primitive Intel-based PCs in record time. Intel
machines had this horrid segmented architecture that was, compared to the
flat-memory Motorola chips, almost as nightmarish to program for as was the
Commodore. If developers had their choice, they would certainly have
ignored the Intel and developed exclusively for Motorola machines. This is
not a debatable point, by the way, unless you are one of Microsoft's whores,
in which case you are regularly forced to make ridiculous statements.
--
Weevil
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:42:54 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Karel Jansens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But electromagnetic radiation is not carried by electrons in a vacuum,
> but by photons. Photons have no mass, so they are not affected by
> relativistic increases of mass: Zero times infinite still remains zero.
To be precise, photons have zero rest mass.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:48:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's some commentary from a individual with a made up name
who has been posting to COLA for over a year now, right
at 18 hour a day, 7 days a week.
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 04:49:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>Ebert) wrote:
>
>>I read this a little while ago in another message.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>Does Pete Goodwin, really think people who do the things, that
>>he is unable to do, and on a daily basis, believe these claims?
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Some of the problems he has had in the past have been verified by
>others. Same thing with me, although I haven't had a basic Linux
>install problem since way back at RedHat 5.2 and that includes SuSE,
>Caldera and Mandrake and even Corel (shudder) which installed
>perfectly on my system BTW. I provide details of the problems and I
>feel it is quite obvious that I have at least actually gone and tried
>the programs. Pete does the same as far as I can tell.
>
>The problem is basic discussions get mired in semantics and
>technicalities (ie:Linux is the kernel, or Gimp is not Linux) and
>while these may technically be correct, it just clouds the issue.
>
You are totally full of shit.
I'll be you most 8 year olds can read this and see
that your just a paid thrasher.
>
>>It's a statement made frequently by Linux advocates.
>>
>>Of course not. The WINTROLL'S mission is to muddy
>>the water.
>
>
>We are not the ones muddying the water.
>
WE? We are not the ones muddying the water?
WE? Do you have brothers and sisters?
>My DAE discussion of a few months ago was another example. I posted a
>clear and concise description of the problem and I would get asked to
>repeat myself 50 times, each time someone interjecting some incorrect
>information and ultimately clouding the entire discussion.
>
I think what your asking us to believe is this is
something a normal human being would do 7 days a week for
free. Just of his own free will would he post every 5 minutes
for 1 years straight, 7 days a week.
>>The whole reason this person has made the statement
>>is he can't believe Pete Goodwin continually posts
>>messages about his troubles installing Linux.
>
>It's an advocacy group.
>Linux has problems.
>Get used to it.
Linux has the problem of eating away more and more
shops from Microsoft every day.
Microsoft is starting to feel the heat from
Linux on the open marketplace.
>
>>Yet Pete Goodwin has also said repeatedly that
>>Linux is a threat to his job as he writes
>>drivers for Windows. He feels threatened.
>
>
>I don't recall reading that, but I'll take you at your word.
>For me, I would love to switch to Linux as I have said before.
>
Oh really. Well that's nice.
>
>>************************************************************
>>
>>Business doesn't care about our opinions. If your
>>offended by something posted on COLA or for that matter
>>any newsgroup then you were the person to blame.
>
>True.
Thanks again!
>>
>>Business has one simple objective. To make a profit.
>>The more they can increase sales and reduce the
>>expenses the more that profit becomes.
>
>True.
>
And again!
>>A Redhat equipped Web server is less than 1/10 the
>>cost of an equivalent Microsoft server.
>
>Including admin/training cost's?
>Sources please.
>
Well let's just say this Flatfish.
You think I'm an idiot right!
{RIGHT?}
I've got my webserver running!
I'm sure the current MS guy's administering
IIS will have just about he same difficulty
I did.
So if an idiot can have his own webserver running,
they the BIG BOY'S can certainly have theirs
running in no time at all.
Probably the reason you never see anybody putting
up WEB sources about this issue, problem or otherwise,
is that it's really not a problem.
Has this every crossed your brain?
>>There has never been a sucessful company who's
>>chose the more expensive way of doing business.
>
>Mercedes is one, although as of recent times that is crumbling.
>Rolls Royce another.
>They cater to a certain market.
>
Notice how the paid Wintoll agree's with me.
No business suceeds on choosing the more
expensive alternative other than listed.
The notion of choosing the more expensive is
crazy. Crazy unless your catering to crazy
people.
>>Therefore the Wintroll's mission is a waste of
>>time for Microsoft's side. And it's damn good
>>cheap advertising for Linux. Because even
>>the stupid don't buy it.
>
>Any press is press for Linux.
>People try Linux and decide for themselves and nothing on an advocacy
>group is going to change that one bit.
>
>>Why don't they buy it?
>
>Linux?
>
>That's rather obvious.
Notice how he's muddied the water this time.
My argument was Why aren't people reading cola
or MS newsgroups buying to THEIR arguments
that Linux is a failure. Why aren't people
who read THEIR posts taking THEIR comments
to heart.
And he turns it around into "why aren't people
buying Linux" thing.
Well people ARE buying Linux.
COMP usa has more shelf space dedicated toward
Linux as it's their #1 seller. They can't seem
to keep Suse or Mandrake on the shelves for
very long due to demand.
A simple trip to your local COMP usa will
confirm this for you.
>>Well try this. A guy posts 10,000 fucking messages
>>to COLA and Microsoft Newsgroups about why he
>>has trouble installing Mandrake, why does Mandrake
>>screw up on an upgrade, and the guy does this for
>>2 straight years, most people view him as a fucking
>>idiot! They ask the question, why haven't you just
>>gone back to Windows if you feel that way? Why
>>have you been posting messages for 2 straight years
>>about your Linux troubles - AT HOME! The man
>>has a choice? What is this? Is this the twighlight
>>ZONE! Is the man locked in some kind of time tunnel!
>
>
>The Mandrake upgrade was a disaster. It was discussed elsewhere as
>well.
>He, like others is trying to make Linux work for him. He reads the
>press, buys the thing and without fail there is ALWAYS some kind of
>gotcha with the program. Doesn't matter what distribution it is the
>gotcha's may be different but they are there.
>
And there is their latest FUD bullcrap.
The ONLY people you ever hear posting about this
are the WINTROLLS. They pick on Mandrake and
Suse religiously as they are the top sellers
right now. If RedHat became the TOP seller
next month then it would be picked on.
And you can ask any non Wintroll if there's
truth to this and they will set you straight.
These guy's have made up crap about every revision
of every Linux distribution at some time or another
which was completely false and misleading to the
public.
>>And the more you think about this and the more
>>you do the GOOGLE research you see that these
>>same Linux badmouths have been posting bad things
>>about Linux for years! Why are they still experimenting?
>
>Because Linux IS and experiment that is still growing in the
>laboratory.
>
Linux isn't an experiment anymore. It's a production OS.
If Linux is still an experimental OS then Windows is also.
>If and when it works on the desktop without all of the troubles and
>compromises that must be made, it will become as boring as Win2k and
>no advocacy or discussion will be needed.
>
>I never post to MS groups unless the message I am replying to has been
>cross posted.
>
>Why?
>
>Win2k is a bore as far as advocacy goes.
>
>Why is that?
>
>Because you slap a CD and it works. Plain and simple.
Tell that to my mother-in-law.
She's reloaded windows 98 6 times since January because
crappy applications keep overriding important .dll's and
trashing out her entire setup for AOL.
The OS will get so fucked up you can't even run IE without
multiple OS errors popping up then you loose the desktop.
>
>>What human being would give up all that Sports on
>>the weekend television to post to COLA and MS newsgroups
>>almost around the clock? Why? Why? Why?
>
>Sports is the middle classes Heroin.
>Ever wonder why they have to have a pre-game show.
>Instant reply over and over again during the game.
>A post game show, discussing the game yet again.
>And then the game is re-run on ESPN during the week
>
>Ever wonder?
>
>Because the IQ of the average American sports fanatic is about 75.
>He/she knows every batting average of every player in the major
>leagues but doesn't know who started WWII.
>
>
So in your opinion, people who follow sports are idiots.
>>Well some do it because they are like Pete Goodwin.
>>They are fearfull of loosing their jobs working with
>>Windows so they spend 100% of their spare time
>>trashing Linux to help sway public opinion.
>
>You're paranoid.
>
If I'm paranoid and crazy then why on earth are
you writing to me now?
Why not just let public reaction take it's natural
course. I think they can sort things out for
themselves. Without MS help!
I'll leave you the public to read the rest of this
then I have a final conclusion.
>>Others are more sinister in nature. They have such
>>a broad range of comments, ususally linked to MS
>>supported WEB SITES run by MS supported MEDIA that
>>it's very obvious MS is paying them to duce us.
>
>Any idea how I can get them to pay for my site?
>Sarcasm on********************************************************
>
>I was thinking of running a Pro-Linux web site and then purposely
>having it crash all the time and provide terrible service just to show
>Linux in action.
>
>Sarcasm Off********************************************************
>
>>And as an intelligent business person, what are
>>you to say about all this activity? Why would
>>these people spend all their time glued to
>>COLA and MS newsgroups posting every 5 minutes
>>on average to every message put there?????
>
>Multi tasking.
>
>
>>That's alot of dedicated time.
>
>Multi tasking.
>
>>And that's why I say they are the best Linux
>>advertising in the world. They draw so
>>much attention to the OS by doing so, and
>>they don't even realize this.
>
>I wonder how the Linvocates feel about your posting's Charlie?
>
>>And I've asked them to quit doing it, but
>>the more you ask them to quit, the more they
>>go on and on and on.
>
>I didn't know you owned USNET.
>
>>Linux would win without their help.
>>MS executives have resigned this year declaring
>>Linux the leader. They've started up their OWN
>>Linux based companies to compete now.
>
>Sources.
>
>>Some of these executives were noted as the ones
>>who drove MS to the top of the list in the first
>>place.
>
>Linux is a much more difficult sell.
>
>>MS is a company which simply won't have an OS
>>past 2005. They will turn into an applications
>>vendor and loose their position in the world.
>
>Care to place a wager?
>
>>And all the {WINTROLLS} as we call them, agree.
>>That's why we see them posting every 5 minutes
>>to anything posted to COLA in a positive nature.
>
>I could care less what MS does. I'll move to Apple.
>
>>I'll say it again. It won't be the last time either...
>
>That I believe.
>
>>You have to be a total jackass to put your companies
>>future in the hands of Microsoft.
>
>Maybe you should take a full page ad in the Sunday NY Times?
>
>
>flatfish
>>And I'm still 100% in favor of firing any CEO who
>>continues to invest their firms future in Microsoft.
>>
>>MS's campaign slogan is MS, where you want to be today!
>>Mine is, MS, we're not going to be here tommorrow. C YAH!
>>
>>And despite my comments and the comments of the WINTROLLS,
>>Linux is still the #1 fastest growing Market sucess in
>>the world. It's double that of Microsofts in 2000!
>>
>>For 4 years now, the #1 growth slot has been earned by
>>Linux.
>
For this guy to come up with such a fake name, Flatfish,
as he advocated the worlds most used OS, Windows is very
strange. What on earth is he hiding from?
Why doesn't he want anybody to know his identity?
Could he be stoned for being a Windows supporter?
Called into his boss's office and fired for speaking
out in favor of Windows?
Why is HE the only person on COLA to reply to this
message so far?
Could we have hit it directly on the mark about
paid MS represenatives spewing the COLA and MS
newsgroups!
The facts are overwhelming ladies and gentlemen.
MS is scared for it's life right now as Linux
is a better OS with better applications.
Thanks
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
