Linux-Advocacy Digest #650, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission (JS\PL)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Clustering OS of choice.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 20 May 2001 13:30:24 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t0FN6.1203$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dkulo$11g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:KLmL6.12534$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Cutting to the chase:
> > > > IIS5: 8001
> > > > Tux2: 7500
> > >
> > > Hehehe,
> > >
> > > 2000 Server: 500$
> > > Linux: 2$ (for the CD you copy it on)
> >
> > Hehehe, you can't count.
> > 2000 Server: 3,999$
>
> That's for Advanced Server, and the only advantage over
> the normal (err.., what's the opposite of advanced?) version
> for a web server is the ability to use WLBS load balancing
> for a set, but that really doesn't work very well because
> WLBS works at the IP level, not the port/service level. If
> IIS is down but the IP stack still works, WLBS will accept
> web requests even though they are bound to fail.
>
Why try to put down something you've never even used?
Les - you claim to have a problem on IIS5 and yet you don't even know the
names of the W2K server line and the differences between them? I'm having a
hard time beliving your stories anymore. There is much more to Adv server
than just WLBS (you were redundant and didn't even konw it)
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:31:11 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > The TRS 80s didnt need an upgrade. They ran CP/M out of the box.
> >
> > Hmmm? No, I don't think CP/M was included. Perhaps
> > you mean it was cheaper on the TRS-80 than,
> > the Apple II?
>
> I dont care what you -think-. Try doing some research. TRS 80's didnt
> need an upgrade. They could run CP/M out of the box. Apple IIs couldnt.
> And dont tell me what I mean.
Apple IIs could get CP/M as an expensive add on. You
had to put a Z80 in though.
TRS-80s came with TRS-DOS, not CP/M.
Not that it matters; a TRS-80 with CP/M is
still junk. :D
[snip]
> > I guess that means you don't have a clue
> > where to find this review of yours. Or
> > you just made it all up.
>
> You guess wrong. You go do some research, unless you are afraid to
> uncover facts that challenge your notions.
I must say, you views on the superiority
of the Apple II are quite, um, unusual.
I thought you were a Mac advocate,
actually.
[snip]
> > How did Seatle Computer allegedly
> > get source code for Digitial Research's
> > CP/M?
>
> I dont know. Ask IBM. They are the ones that made the payment.
Sounds like they were worried about
a nuisance suit, then.
[snip]
> > Oh, I rather think it was a minority. Remember, back
> > then Macintosh apps did not require so much
> > memory. Just 1 meg was a lot.
>
> Oh, you rather think? Not good enough. Did you own one? Did you hanag
> with people that did? No? I thinught not.
I hardly consider you an authority, either.
[snip]
> > You seem determined to reduce the scope of
> > the discussion, but I don't see how excluding
> > better computers than PCs helps you.
>
> We are discussing microcomputers. Minis and mainframes are another
> thing. You cant compare the 3, especially in the timeframes under
> discussion. You merely use them to move goalposts or to try to confuse
> the conversation.
Sure, I can compare them. Sometimes it's
even instructive. In this case all I meant
to show you was that programmers in 1980
did know that there was something better
possible.
They didn't have it on their PCs yet, but
they knew it was possible.
[snip]
> > I guess you don't know much about
> > it either, then.
>
> You guess wrong. AGAIN. I have the app. I have the manual. I have data
> files. You dont have jack. Including any knowledge whatsoever about
> Appleworks.
You aren't able to support your own claims terribly
well, I notice.
[snip]
> > > No. Not the best selling for Apple IIs. The best selling software.
> >
> > This I do not believe for a second.
>
> Too bad. Its true.
Got a cite for it?
[snip]
> > "The most advanced piece of software of its time"?
> >
> > I'm trying to show you how the computer industry
> > advanced, and how the PC was part of it.
>
> It seems to me you are comparing todays micros withtt he micros of the
> time and calling the old machines shit becasue of what we can do today.
No, I'm really comparing the PC of 1981 with the
Apple II of 1981.
> I have worked with each generation of micro. I can see how they have
> progressed.
But you don't see how the PC was better
than the then-current Apple II+?
> > The Apple IIs time was the late 70's. It
> > was in many ways eclipsed before the PC
> > even came out by other 8 bit machines.
>
> NO. It wasnt.
Sure it was. The C64 had much better
sound and graphics, for instance.
[snip]
> > You really believe that?
> >
> > What's the Apple II equivalent of dBase?
> >
> When did dBase for the PC come out and did it run on a stock 5150
> (hopefully Ive got the model number right)?
It came out in 1981, and it had better have run on a
stick 5150, 'cuz that was all you had back then.
It was very fast turnaround, that. dBase II was
an extension of an earlier 8-bit product
(not "dBase I", but "the Vulcan Database").
This earlier product wasn't real successful,
but dBase II was. Things like databases
really need some space to get to the point
of being useful, you see.
[snip]
> > The PDP-11 and System/360 were both old hat
> > by 1980. If you insist I can go find out what
> > models DEC and IBM were selling then.
>
> Stop comparing minis and mainframes with micros. They are in no way
> comparable.
I'm telling you that programmers at that
time could see for themselves the inadequacies
of the 8-bit machines.
[snip]
> > > What was that?
> >
> > The collapse of the Apple II line. By the
> > time the IIgs came out, Apple had already
> > committed to the Macintosh, and
> > wasn't about to let the Apple II steal the
> > limelight back.
>
> Well, at least you get something half-way right.
Which half? :D
[snip- why the IIgs failed]
> > But to really succeed it would have had to be
> > avaiable earlier, I think.
> >
>
> You... think?
Hey.. it's been known to happen! :D
[snip]
> > There were quite a few things in between. :D
> >
> > But you are quite right. People bouth Apple IIs to run
> > particular apps, VisiCalc perhaps the most famous
> > amoung them.
> >
> > Developers, however, didn't write to Apple IIs
> > because VisiCalc had been written there; they
> > switched to the PC pretty quickly really.
>
> The entrance of IBM ptpretty much legitimized the personal computer in
> business.
To some extent. IBM is like that. But PCs had been
used in businesses before IBM came along.
Most of the software available for the early
PCs was very like the stuff on Apple IIs, but
big, faster, and better in sundry ways.
[snip]
> > > If only an 8 bit computer would benefit from an inegrated program, why
> > > did micro$oft develop and -continue- to market micro$oft work$?
> >
> > They wanted an entry in the integrated desktop software
> > market. Works frankly was always a lousy one though.
>
> In your very biased opinion. It worked very well for me.
Er.. let me get this straight.
You are accusing me of an *anti-Microsoft* bias.
Is that right?
[snip]
> > Yes; that was a the next step. That was what products
> > like ClarisWorks did; they provided integration, not just
> > easy switching between different types of documents.
>
> Clarisworks didnt do much Appleworks didnt do, except Clarisworks worked
> in a GUI.
You really should try ClarisWorks sometime; it did
a lot of stuff AppleWords didn't do. It did graphics moderately
well and had really groundbreaking intermodule integration.
It was doing OLE 2.0-type stuff years before OLE
existed.
It was hot stuff.
[snip]
> > Oh? I have used Works but a little, so I'm not too
> > confident in my knowledge of it, but my impression
> > was that Works had very little integration actually. One
> > of the reasons it was such a dog.
>
> Your impression, as usual, is wrong. It had a great deal of integration.
> Thats why it was caleed an "integrated" app.
I suspect that your idea of "a great deal of integration" is
essentially "what AppleWorks did"; that's setting the bar
pretty low.
[snip]
> > You could do it on IBM PCs.
>
> This part cant really continue to be discusse, becasue you continue to
> remove the preceding conversation.
That's okay, it's been content-free
for some time anyway. :D
[snip]
> > > Prove it. Prove to me it was integrated... as I sit here with my
> > > Appleworks manual, and the disks, and an Apple IIgs in the living
room.
> > > prove to me you one bit of correct information on Apple IIs in general
> > > and Appleworks specifically.
> >
> > Ah. An Apple IIgs. No wonder you have an exagerated
> > idea of what the Apple IIs that the IBM PC was up
> > against could do.
>
> I had an Apple IIe BEFORE the GS. I did MORE on the IIe with Appleworks
> than I did with the GS. In fact, for along while, I just used the GS as
> a souped up IIe. wait.. let me guess, you are now going to make some
> disparaging remarks having no basis in reality...
No. I'm just trying to fine some explaination for
your idolization of the Apple II series other
than "Rick is insane".
"Rick is thinking of the IIgs" would seem
to work.
> > The IIgs was a rather later development; it was
> > a much better computer that the other IIs, and
> > comparable to the IBM PC. Better in some
> > ways, even- it could access more memory
> > directly.
>
> I knew it. You are a dolt.
It could. It used segments too, but it's segments
were laid out end-to-end, not overlapping;
the same numbre of segments covered more
address space.
Its clock speed was its real achilles heel.
> > So, perhaps you are refering to AppleWorks GS?
>
> No. I was referring to Appleworks. Maybe you didnt get the reference to
> the author, Rupert Lissner? He wrote Appleworks, not Appleworks GS.
Just checking... to be on the safe side.
[snip]
> > C64's were the best game machines (the 1981 vintage
> > PCs had terrible graphics).
> >
> > But other than that the PCs were unbeatable;
> > they were the next generation.
>
> The PC was unbeatable because it came from IBM
That was good and bad; it meant some of the
stupider suits would trust them more than a
computer from a bunch of hippies, but it also
meant it was rather expensive compared to its
competitors.
[snip]
> > You put RAM chips in. That's very nice. But *using*
> > that RAM was a big problem. AppleWorks did, but
> > most programs didn't.
>
> Well, well. First you say Appleworks DIDNT use the RAM, now you say it
> does. Well, which do you "believe"?
I did not at any time say that AppleWords did not use
your RAM, Rick. You know that as well as I do.
I'm telling you what a pain it was to use
bank-switched RAM. This kind of thing
means developers go find a better computer
to write software for.. and the computer
with the bank-switching dies for lack
of apps, in due course.
[snip]
> > > Again with the LATER products. What is it with you? So, the Wright
> > > brothers' plane was shit becasue a 747 is better?
> >
> > Yes, the Wright brothers plane *was* shit,
> > thank you very much. :D
>
> You are an idiot.
Well then *you* fly to Toledo in the thing. :D
[snip]
> > > it was the best rocket -at the time-.
> >
> > And it was shit. Really, being the best rocket
> > of its time doesn't make it any more effective.
> >
> > Same with the Apple II. Saying that in 1978
> > it was the best thing going is true but doesn't
> > make the product any better.
>
> Well, then, by your definition, your precious PC's are shit. They cant
> do what mainframes can do.
Think so? I rather think they can.
What do you think mainframes can do that
PCs cannot?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 20 May 2001 13:33:01 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZfnN6.680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e2ni2$137$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9e1mjh$lor$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Windows comes with WSH, which come with VBS & JS support. You can
add
> > > > Perl & Python from activestate.com (free). C#, VB.NET comes with
.NET
> > > > beta, and there are also other languages that you can hook there, I
> > > > believe.
> > >
> > > Sounds better than it was, though with UNIX, you can use an arbitrary
> > > executable as the interpreter.
> >
> > You can do the same in Windows, what is your point?
>
> How do you make a .bat file interpret itself with perl and pass some
> arguments as it starts? Under unix, making the first line:
> #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> would make perl execute it and turn on warnings.
Can you change languages midstream?
Can you jump back and forth between, say, javascript, perl and vbscript as
you go?
wsh can
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 20 May 2001 13:35:11 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e67e7$8cm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
> > than the speed of light.
>
> Radio waves travel *exactly* at the speed of light, since they're the
> same stuff.
>
I thought you were educated? Time to go back to class...
radio waves travel slower than light...
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:39:47 GMT
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7pSN6.47822$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:DchN6.6193$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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."
Actally, I was slamming the Apple II. The C64 had its good points,
even compared to the early PCs.
> 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.
Yes. You show unusually good reading comprehension
skills, for this newsgroup. :D
> 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.
Yes.
> 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.
No. But it did have most of the games, because it was good at
those.
> 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 did have cool things like hardware sprites. It had things to
offer the developer.
It also had some bad points; the disks were terribly slow
compared to what you had on the Apple II, for instance.
> 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.
I think the Apple II had it outnumbered, actually, but it
was reasonably close.
Each platform had some advantages over the other. The C64
tended to win out for games because of its graphics support,
and the Apple II for business stuff because it had better
disks.
> 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.
I think you underestimate the C64. It was arguably the
best platform around for games, or at least for some games.
> 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.
Developers *did* develop for the Macintosh or the Amiga
when it actually did make a difference.
This is why you saw Photoshop and Pagemaker turn up
on Macs first, when PCs could not handle them nearly
as well. Likewise stuff like Video Toaster on the Amiga.
If you were writing some lousy spreadsheet,
the Macintosh and Amiga didn't offer you
all that much to compensate for the high
costs of the platform itself.
> 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.
I am sorry to hear that you are not open to debate on this
point; I have responded anyway, in case someone else
is reading this.
------------------------------
From: JS\PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:44:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 04:49:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
> Ebert) wrote:
> Win2k is a bore as far as advocacy goes.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Because you slap a CD and it works. Plain and simple.
That it does. And you don't need a degree in Computer Science to install a
program. You click "setup.exe" how much easier can it get.
> 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.
Is that a new Wrestling federation? (WW2)
>>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.
That's not a very effective way to sway public opinion.
>>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.
These assinine predictions are part of what makes coming here fun!
>>For 4 years now, the #1 growth slot has been earned by
>>Linux.
Four years to get on 3/1000 of the desktops isn't "The fastest growing"
anything. Especially in an overal computer market that until just recently
grew some ungodly amount like 400% annually.
Maybe now that more people are broke, the (Linux)growth might start to make
at least blip of a showing when compared to overall industry growth.
I like it though. (Linux that is) if that counts for anything.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:46:18 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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?
I don't think I'm the only one doing
that here. :D
[snip]
> > Yet you can't point out any particular
> > FUD?
>
> I can. I have. You have refused to listen.
I mean, any particular FUD against OS/2.
[snip]
> > 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'm sure others here are smarter than me. :D
[snip]
> > 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.
I have removed part of the context. That's
only garden variety netiquette.
[snip]
> > 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.
He didn't *say* that. You *said* he said that, but he didn't,
not in the quotes your proffered.
It's like you think that if they *considered* doing
it, then they must have done it, even though you
know perfectly well that in fact they didn't.
It's just really creepy.
[snip]
> > 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.
You prefer invective like that to understanding how
MS did it.
[snip]
> > 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.
You just won't consider even looking at any
idea that might not support your point of
view, will you?
[snip]
> > > > 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 ?
1981.
> > 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.
Not nearly as effective. 640k really sucks.
> And besides, the II family was aimed at the home and
> education market. The Mac was supposedly the business
> machine.
Sure, that is a reasonable marketing strategy, given
the weaknesses of the Apple II versus either the
PC or the Mac.
[snip]
> YOU are getting boring. You are nothing but twists and turns trying to
> put micro$ in a good light.
>
> Aint happenin.
In all fairness, you should recognize that I also
do twists and turns to put Apple IIs in a bad
light, sometimes. :D
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Clustering OS of choice....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 18:53:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Linux Admin wrote:
>Cool info on size and speed of clusters.
>
>http://clusters.top500.org/db/Query.php3
>
>If you do a search showing OS, you'll find lots of examples of Linux!!!
There is a specific reason you never see any large
Microsoft based super computer clusters.
If you did, cluster would have a whole different meaning.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 18:58:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS\PL wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>These assinine predictions are part of what makes coming here fun!
>
>>>For 4 years now, the #1 growth slot has been earned by
>>>Linux.
>
>Four years to get on 3/1000 of the desktops isn't "The fastest growing"
>anything. Especially in an overal computer market that until just recently
>grew some ungodly amount like 400% annually.
>Maybe now that more people are broke, the (Linux)growth might start to make
>at least blip of a showing when compared to overall industry growth.
>
>I like it though. (Linux that is) if that counts for anything.
People spend much time picking thru things.
This is an ass. This is a hole.
But if they just backed up and saw the big picture,
they'd understand what they were reading and see
thru the whole equation.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:01:33 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <3b080db8$0$37257$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought you were educated? Time to go back to class...
>
> radio waves travel slower than light...
>
Oh no! We have another one! Time for you to take some basic physics
classes.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
