Linux-Advocacy Digest #714, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("David L. Moffitt")
Re: Hypothetical ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
("Interconnect")
Re: Win2000 SP2 breaks Samba 2.2 PDC? ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Win2000 Annoyances ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed ("Flacco")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Flacco")
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Using Army and Marines to enforce gun-confiscation... ("N9NWO")
Warning to new users of Windows XP ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Matthew
Gardiner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David L. Moffitt" <[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: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:08:26 -0500
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:34:49 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 15:15:03 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Aw, suck my dick, you little right wing turd. I'll insult little
> >> >> phoney fuckheads like you all I want. I've earned my rights to
> >> >> criticize little bastards like you.
> >> >
> >> >I hope you get your wish for nationwide gun ban. Then me and all my
> >> >rightwing gunnut friends can legally invade your home and totally
> >> >trash it out looking for yours.
> >>
> >> Apparently you are unaware that doing such a thing is illegal,
> >> and a ban on guns would not change that situation. In fact, even without
> >> a gun, according to what I have read lately, he would be legally
> >> entitled to anally electrocute you.
> >
> >Evidently, you haven't noticed that the POLICE and the (all volounteer) ARMY
> >and MARINES are all, according to the anti-gun people, "right wing gun nuts"
>
> You are not a policeman, and you are not a soldier. You are a reservist.
> You are, though, a right wing nut, and if you did the above, it would be
> illegal.
>
> >Who the fuck is going to enforce this gun ban, other than the POLICE,
> >the ARMY and the MARINES?
>
> The police, yes. The army and the marines, no, because they are not
> law enforcement agencies. It is illegal for a soldier to enter
> your house without permission, is it not?
%%%% They did at Waco.
> And even a policeman will need a search warrant.
%%%% They didn't at Waco.
> >> >> Oh, you're a SOLDIER! So fucking what? Plenty of us have been soldiers,
> >> >> and I doubt that many have been as much of a sad sack as you. Soldiers
> >> >> are like any other population - there are some great ones, and there are
> >> >> some losers - like YOU.
> >> >
> >> >I was decorated 9 times in my first 3 years of service.
> >> >what does that tell you
> >>
> >> You own some little ribbons you like to flaunt when you're among
> >> other slaves of the system? I find that ritualistic behaviour
> >> akin to baboon's exposure of erect penises as sign of authority.
> >
> >Commendation for work well done.
>
> No, the baboons don't work.
>
> >Work which I *CHOSE* to get into.
>
> Well, I am sure you are even happy about it. And that you even think
> that says something good about you.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
>
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hypothetical
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:26:38 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charles Lyttle"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I used one or two copies of Coherent. It was pretty good. Lots better
> than DOS. The big difference between then and now is the maturity of the
> GNU library and tools. Also without the source, writing
> applications/drivers was difficult.
There were actually two AT&T desktop UNIXen, one was the PC6300/6386WGS
Intel series, and the other was the 3B1/PC7300 M68K architecture for which
Convergent Technologies did the OS. Anyway, I did write a couple of
drivers for the Intel boxes; had to - peripheral support was nonexistant.
The driver writing guide was actually pretty decent, and if you had the
bucks to get the entire series of red binders and took a few AT&T classes
it wasn't all that bad. And there were a few commercial UNIX apps that
did get ported over, like Informix and Uniplex.
One other thing about the 6300 series was an optional package where you
could run a virtual DOS machine under UNIX, much like today's VMware. You
could stick a DOS app in the crontab, feed it with a script, and pipe the
output to a UNIX program. Pretty cool for as long ago as that was.
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:42:15 +1000
Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b0b007f$0$56137$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Fred K Ollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9eejc5$ctu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Where do I download a copy of win xp?
> >
>
> Same place you download an easy to install, easy to learn, easy to use
copy
> of Linux.
>
> nowhere...
>
What exactly do you mean by easy to learn? Easy to use?
To use Linux Red Had7.1 or Mandrake 8.0 straight out of the box is not so
difficult. For the Average user who wants to surf the web, write documents,
and use spreadsheets Linux is MORE THAN CAPABLE of performing these
functions with limited fuss.
I have written applications for both Windows and Linux, I don't think that
C/C++ is any easier or difficult on either platform. I must admit that the
MS Visual IDE is *nice* especially the debugger, but NOTHING that can't be
overcome with judicious use of logging.
Certainly developing database applications for say MS Access Vs MySQL or
Postgress all present different challenges. I wouldn't say that MS Access is
inherently *EASIER* than other database packages. They are all different and
have their own advantages and disadvantages.
In the end it all depends on what you're doing and what you're experince is.
We have network admins here that are *GURUS* when it comes to resolving
network issues, but are out of their league in MS Access, Powerpoint or
wouldn't know how to Mail Merge a word document with a dataset. This does
not prove or disprove that a certain application or OS is EASIER to use or
otherwise.
Don't pretend that you know how to use ALL of the Microsoft applications to
their full potential->* BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT EASY*. (Thats the Microsoft
Myth) In the end experience counts. If you look at job ads they generally
seek experienced users in a particular *area* of computing. The company
does not advertise for anyone with an arm and a leg, under the assumption
that "we are running MS products they are easy to use, therefore we can just
hire anyone." Do you understand the point I'm trying to convey?
Similarly Linux has many more applications some of which are NOT GUI based,
this seems to throw many Windows users who only know how to interact with a
computer using a GUI menu system. Again leading to the *MYTH* that Linux is
difficult to *use*. In reality it's different and like anything different
it takes time to build up a skill set to be come a reasonably competent
operator.
Also if you want to self educate yourself that Linux provides FAR MORE
OPPORTUNITY by way of community and documentation for an individuals ability
to *LEARN* contrast this to windows documentation and community which is
woeful, charging for MSDN is a disgrace.
Finally I would like to add that just because *YOU* as an individual find a
particular Microsoft Application(s) easy to use, ( due to your training,
experience and comfort zone ) does not translate to someone with less
knowledge having the same productivity as yourself on that same
application(s). This is a Microsoft *MYTH* users still need lots of training
to become productive, even Microsoft users.
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.smb
Subject: Re: Win2000 SP2 breaks Samba 2.2 PDC?
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:41:18 -0700
In article <9ecrpv$fv3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jeremy Allison"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The good news is that I fixed it in the 2.2.x CVS tree and it'll be in
> Samba 2.2.1 (due to be released soon).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeremy Allison,
> Samba Team.
Another thanks. We're getting ready to roll out our first Samba box (in
stealth mode, of course, just like the intranet server). The CIO's gonna
be in for a shock one of these days....
Great sig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:44:36 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 16:51:29 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Morelli wrote:
> > Trying to argue away the technological inferiority of Linux is not
> > advocacy in my book. It's just a waste of time.
> So, where exactly is the technological inferiority?
Font handling and printing, mostly. Embedding used to be in there, but
KDE2 and the latest Gnome seem to have a handle on that (now the apps
just need to start using it).
I do think it is mostly things other than technology that keep Linux off
most desktops.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:44:31 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 17:51:11 -0500, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't you classify academic dissertations of 200 pages as serious
> > word processing? C't did a test on word processors beginning this year
> > and Word 2000 (SP1) consistently barfed on that.
> >
>
> C't is a biased MS-bashing rag just like The Register. I have yet to
> see either posted a favorable article of Microsoft.
So, have you tried writing long technical documents with Word? I mean
a document with strict formatting requirements, tables and figures that
need to be cross-referenced to the text, and possibly footnotes and
equations.
The problem with Word for that kind of work is that it seems designed
around the idea that the user wants to control every single aspect of
the document individually (i.e. create "flash and pizazz"). But in
fact, for technical documents, you want to let the computer do that.
Otherwise, you end up violating the formatting rules all over the
place. Yes, Word has styles, and no they don't fully solve the problem
because the other paradigm keeps getting in the way. There's also a
number of mis-features that cause grief in this area.
For instance, why _do_ they have "float over text" on by default when
you insert a graphic? Does anybody really want that for serious work?
Howcome bookmarks break so easily when you add new material? Why
doesn't it have reasonable rules (more sophisticated than widow/orphan
control) about breaking paragraphs across pages instead of making the
user fiddle with manual pagebreaks? And the way text styles inherit
from each other is...well...baroque is a good word. There's more, but
those come immediately to mind.
I did get all the auto-shit turned off, and Clippy too. That reduced
the annoyance factor quite a bit. I also started leaving out the
graphics until the text was mostly done, to keep it from moving things
around at random. I gave up trying to use bookmarks to number my
figures, and I insert them as metafiles instead of trying to do any
fancy embedding. So it gets the job done, eventually.
LyX still causes me _far_ less braindamge. It has no problem keeping
track of figures and footnotes and tables and cross references. It
(well, LaTeX actually) is also quite smart about formatting text,
placing figures, etc, to the point where I just don't have to fiddle to
make things look right. It "just works".
Word is better for putting together the church newsletter or a short
brochure (there's that "flash and pizazz" again). LyX is better for
writing long technical or adademic documents.
> Somehow, millions of people use Word very efficiently and demand
> even more features from,
Well, I question your premise. I think most Word users "get by".
Anything resembling efficiency is purely by accident.
I also think it is MS that is asking for new features so they have
something to sell to the PHB's. Word has quite enough features for
actual users. I don't know a single user who is asking for more
features (and the company I work for is standardized on Office). They
would sure like some of the existing features to be fixed though.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 Annoyances
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:45:17 +1200
"Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 22 May 2001 13:19:32 +1200
presented us with the
> wisdom:
>
> > Just to add
> >
> > 6) Windows 2000 CLI lacks basic tools that I would normally use on
Linux,
> > such as, when I am look for, say, the file foo, I go, ls /*/*/*/*foo*
>
> Well, that's a rather limited solution...
> Why don't you type: find . -name '*foo*' -print
> This would find foo _anywhere_ under the current dir nt just at given
depth like your above command.
> Alternatively you could say: ls -Ra | grep foo
>
I normally use the /*/*/*/*foo* when I know that it could be in that dir (it
just saves time). For example, I had to find the boot.local file, and I new
it was somewhere in the /etc so I
ls -la /etc/*/boot.local
and voila, two results, exactly what I wanted.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:48:13 GMT
> We need to be thinking about how to *advance* the human/machine
> interface, not just reinvent it over and over again using the same tired
> old metaphors. I'm not saying that we should just throw away all the
> good work that's been done to date, but why simply try to emulate
> something else when you can try new and different things? Sure, the
> experiments might fail, but so what? We have the flexibility in the
> Open Source world to try new things; we are not driven by shareholders
> or boards of directors.
In general, I agree with you, but in the specific case we're discussing
here - lowering resistance in businesses to switching from MS products to
open source - I still believe that the more familiar and Windows-like the
interface, the better.
Given these two arguments, which would the typical business owner choose:
1) Switch to Linux with a new, better interface - and incur the
retraining costs, which will be on-going as new employees come into the
business
2) Switch to the WinClone Linux distribution, with minimal user
resistance, minimal retraining, and minimal confusion to incoming
employees
I believe it would be the second. Even if Linux were available with a
significantly better interface, its differences would be an obstacle in
getting users to switch.
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:51:09 GMT
> Does this read like paid astroturfing or what!
Yes, but could also be merely a troll.
Whichever, you could tell his heart wasn't in it :-)
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:57:08 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I need a substitute for Outlook/Exchange. It has to have calendering
> and contacts as well as e-mail functionality, and has to have shared
> calendars. It would be okay if this were a web-based solution, a Linux
> server for this is a no brainer. Some of the forms routing an
> collaboration in Outlook/Exchange would be great, but I think we can
> work around not having those functions.
Take a look at Bynari's Insight server and Insight client. They provide
much of the functionality of Exchange including shared folders, access to
global address books, calendar and meeting management, all without the
high costs of Client Access Licenses. It also provides IMAP, POP3 and
SMTP mail protocols and allows users to access global address books built
on a standards based directory server (LDAP). For users needing calendar
and scheduling services, it provides free and busy time access, shared
folders, and meeting requests and replies. It will even support existing
Outlook and Outlook Express users, as well as Lotus Notes, Eudora,
Pegasus, Mulberry, Pine, StarMail Netscape mail, and more.
It's not free, but you didn't specify that as a requirement.
http://www.bynari.net/Products/products.html
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 04:35:44 +0200
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
> >
> > I can't say I don't agree.
> >
> > Some points:
> > A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake.
> > B> He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not
for
> > the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
> > C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or
equal
> > product in order to convice people to switch, you need something vastly
> > sueprior.
> >
> > Comments, anyone?
> > OK, well, let us be realistic?
> > Flames, anyone?
>
> Anyone who uses Linux as a replacement for Windows is asking for
> trouble. Use Linux because you like UNIX/Linux, not because you hate
> Microsoft; any other motive will result in disapointment (just like
> when I use Windows -- it never fails to disapoint me).
>
> I've been running 100% Linux for so long that I can't even figure out
> how to do many things inside Windows 2000. It literally took me an
> hour to figure out how to change the video driver (I couldn't
> right-click on the desktop to do it anymore). I'm sure others have
> similar problems going the other way and think that UNIX is
> problematic.
Why couldn't you right click?
Even if you didn't know anything, Control Panel > Add Hardware (also lets
you replace drivers).
Or Control Panel > System > Hardware > Device Manager.
Or Start > Programs > Administrative Tools > Computer Management > Device
Manager.
Or Right click the desktop > propeties > settings.
> In short: Windows 2000 is a horrible desktop *for me* (may it RIP).
Maybe, but I doubt it should've taken you an hour.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 04:39:29 +0200
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Robert Morelli wrote:
> >
> > I've been arguing for a while that Linux advocates should not promote
> > Linux for the desktop for the near future. The reason is simple, but
for
> > Linux advocates a bitter pill to swallow: Linux technology is simply
> > too primitive and inferior, and the Linux programmers writing desktop
> > apps don't have high enough caliber to compete against Windows
> > programmers.
> >
>
> Well, some of your other claims *may* have a point here and there, but
> this is just simply BS.
> >Linux programmers writing desktop apps don't have high enough caliber
> > to compete against Windows programmers.
> Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about here?
> I know several "linux-programmers" (me included) who just simply write
> windows-programs all the time, because thats part of their job.
> So how come these guys are suddenly inferior to themselves when they
> write linux-programs?
Perhaps because good GUI is one of the most hated parts of the job?
I have a very deep dislike to doing the GUI, and I understand that the
feeling is common (and apperantly also mutual :-D ).
It's also a lot harder to test, too.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 04:45:30 +0200
"David Dorward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9eess4$pmg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It seems that on Tue, 22 May 2001 19:32:54 +0100, someone claiming to be
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed this:
>
> > Some points:
> > A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake.
>
> Nope, Eazel.
He mentioned Eazel by name, so I don't think it's going to be it.
> > B>
> > He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
> > the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it
> run.
>
> Linux on the Desktop is very new. Apps are still being developed.
Linux was developed to be a desktop, you know.
Linus' one, but still a desktop.
> > C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or
> > equal product in order to convice people to switch, you need something
> > vastly sueprior.
>
> Which is what Linux is working towards.
Against a moving target.
Can you show me a refernce of something that would make me want to move to
Linux as my desktop?
What is the killer app/feathure?
Stability doesn't count, I'm afraid, I've stopped running 9x long ago, so I
don't suffer from any crashes, BSODs, or anything like this.
------------------------------
From: "N9NWO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.law-enforcement,soc.men,soc.singles,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Using Army and Marines to enforce gun-confiscation...
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:55:48 GMT
: > >> >> Aw, suck my dick, you little right wing turd. I'll insult little
: > >> >> phoney fuckheads like you all I want. I've earned my rights to
: > >> >> criticize little bastards like you.
: > >> >
: > >> >I hope you get your wish for nationwide gun ban. Then me and all my
: > >> >rightwing gunnut friends can legally invade your home and totally
: > >> >trash it out looking for yours.
: > >>
: > >> Apparently you are unaware that doing such a thing is illegal,
: > >> and a ban on guns would not change that situation. In fact, even
without
: > >> a gun, according to what I have read lately, he would be legally
: > >> entitled to anally electrocute you.
: > >
: > >Evidently, you haven't noticed that the POLICE and the (all volounteer)
ARMY
: > >and MARINES are all, according to the anti-gun people, "right wing gun
nuts"
: >
: > You are not a policeman, and you are not a soldier. You are a reservist.
: > You are, though, a right wing nut, and if you did the above, it would be
: > illegal.
:
: Absolutely not.
:
: Read the Posse Commitatus Act. It **CLEARLY** states that the Army can be
used
: to do law enforcement with the permission of the governor of the state(s)
in
: question. Remember all the times the Army was used in the 1950's and
60's.
:
:
: The MARINES can be sent into any state WITHOUT the permission of the
Governor.
1) A reservist is as much a soldier as anyone on active
duty. With the Clinton administration's use of the reserves
in places like Bosnia, the reserves are actually pulling more
missions than the actives forces.
2) The PCA does not cover the department of the Navy, to
include the Marines. And it only takes the permission of
Congress to use the Army and the Air Force as law enforcement.
: > >Who the fuck is going to enforce this gun ban, other than the POLICE,
: > >the ARMY and the MARINES?
: >
: > The police, yes. The army and the marines, no, because they are not
: > law enforcement agencies. It is illegal for a soldier to enter
: > your house without permission, is it not?
:
: See above.
:
: Also, if the gun-phobes' wet-dream of CONFISCATION is to implemented,
: how would it be done without entering citizens' homes?
It is no more illegal for a member of the military to
enter your home without your permission than it
would be for law enforcement.
: > And even a policeman will need a search warrant.
: >
:
: The gun-phobes' wet-dream is a law that requires no search warrant.
No, the anti gun forces do not even dream of the
results that would come from that. They have a
pipe dream that the world will be beautiful is the
guns disappear. Just like their grandparents thought
that making alcohol disappear would make the
world more beautiful.
: > >> >> Oh, you're a SOLDIER! So fucking what? Plenty of us have been
soldiers,
: > >> >> and I doubt that many have been as much of a sad sack as you.
Soldiers
: > >> >> are like any other population - there are some great ones, and
there are
: > >> >> some losers - like YOU.
: > >> >
: > >> >I was decorated 9 times in my first 3 years of service.
: > >> >what does that tell you
: > >>
: > >> You own some little ribbons you like to flaunt when you're among
: > >> other slaves of the system? I find that ritualistic behaviour
: > >> akin to baboon's exposure of erect penises as sign of authority.
: > >
: > >Commendation for work well done.
: >
: > No, the baboons don't work.
:
: You sound exceedingly jealous.
: Why is that, coward...
:
: >
: > >Work which I *CHOSE* to get into.
: >
: > Well, I am sure you are even happy about it.
:
: Yep
:
: > And that you even think
: > that says something good about you.
:
: Damn straight.
:
:
: >
: > --
: > Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:05:25 +1200
Ok, I am not a conspiracy theorist but here is my spin in it.
Hypothetically, when Windows XP nobody gives a shit about WPA, and the
majority of end lusers buy it. Now there are two senarios that will happen:
1. This OS will probably hang around for 18 months to two years depending on
the progress of .net. During the time they will be be giving activation
codes for those who install Windows XP v1.0, however, what is going to
happen after Windows XP v2.0 is released? will Microsoft continue to give
out activation codes for Windows XP 1.0? or will they just say to Joe Shmo
that because he upgraded a significant portition of his hardware, and that
Microsoft no longer supports, aka give out activation codes for it, he will
have to upgrade to Windows XP 2.0. I can honestly see it happening.
Microsoft is despirate to create a continuous revenue stream whilst they try
to get .net up and running, and the activation scheme will be the catalyst
to ensure that people will tied into the upgrade-a-thon.
2. I can also see Microsoft introducing two schemes, Microsoft approved
drivers and Microsoft approved software. Why? a couple of months ago the
driver approved scheme was thrown around Microsoft on whether they should
only allow "Microsoft approved drivers" to be installed on Windows ME,
however, that idea was later scraped.
When this DOJ case is closed, and Microsoft is set free (due to all the
money they used to pay off senators), they will go back to their dirty old
tricks, and introduce Microsoft approved drivers and Microsoft approved
software under the cloak that it is "good for consumers" and "ensures the
intergrity of Windows". However, this will be used as a leverging tool
against it conpetition, in that, the likes of Corel will not get acceptance
as it supports not only Windows and MacOS but Linux too. By now you will see
what I mean. Drivers will be the same situation, say Lucent releases a
software modem driver for Linux, they as a result will loose their
"Microsoft Approve Status", and as of result of Microsoft's actions, their
hardware will not be compatible to Windows XP 2.0. This ensuring that not
only the software, but hardware stay in line with the Microsoft mandate of
"screwing the customers".
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:06:48 +1200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b0aecf6$0$2605$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Internet connection stays when switching users!
> >
> > Wow. Welcome to Slackware 1.0.
>
> And NT 3.51.
>
> > > And get this - Applications even stay open and are there (still
> > > open) when returning to that user.
> >
> > And to GNOME 1.0.
>
> Really? How do you exit GNOME as one use, log on as another,
> then log back in as the first and have all apps still running?
>
Save current session.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
