Linux-Advocacy Digest #345, Volume #35 Sun, 17 Jun 01 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Craig Kelley)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Tuomo Takkula)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Craig Kelley)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Is Linux for me? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Is Linux for me? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Craig Kelley)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Craig Kelley)
Re: The Win/userbase! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Craig Kelley)
Re: Is Linux for me? (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 23:11:08 GMT
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:56:55 GMT, "Daniel Johnson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > IMHO, what people really object to here is not *that*- lots
> > of other products do much *more* to the content of
> > web pages, and nobody cares.
>
> No other product *adds* content to a web page, content that the original
> page creator may never realise is being added, or would sanction if they
> knew.
I suppose it depends what you call content. Those who
have been bashing this feature here have used very
strange definitions of this. Links are content, but
images are not. I hesitate to ask whether prose
is content!
It doesn't seem terribly important, though. As I said,
it's not the wavey underlines that you should
worry about. That's a minor user interface issue. If
SmartTags worked entirely in a separate window, which
display tags according to what you had selected, or
what you were pointing at, then all this nonsense
about 'changing web pages' would never have been
conceived- but the real issues would still be there.
[snip]
> > It's my view that if you are scared of MS's influence,
> > there are *other* things about SmartTags that should
> > disturb you far more than this whole "it put a wiggley
> > underline on my page!" sillyness.
> >
> > Imagine if you will a web where a significant part
> > of the functionality available to you is made available
> > through smart tags- tags provided by many different
> > vendors, and not Microsoft.
>
> Under circumstances such as you describe, I doubt anyone will bother to
make
> any web pages since they'll realise that the viewer's browser will distort
> their work, supplementing their message, personal, political or economic,
> with someone else's message.
Surely not. SmartTags won't *remove* your message- they'll
add other peoples' tags to it.
IMHO what it will mean is that some content will
become SmartTags, rather than pages!
It is *this* possibility that I see as significant.
> It will not be worth any company's time and money to publish a web page
> promoting their product if their message is going to be corrupted by third
> party SmartTags.
Why not? Sure, some weirdos will have the SmartTags
that make nasty comments about (say) Microsoft- but
www.microsoft.com will still be there, for the vast
majority who do not.
> > In that web, you'd need Internet Explorer to function.
>
> No. Internet Explorer will have become Internet Destroyer.
That you do not like the prospect does not make
what I say untrue- if this happens, IE will be what
Netscape used to be- the only browser that counts.
> > *That* is the threat an MS-hater should fear, and not wiggley
underlines.
>
> No, it's a threat to the very purpose of the WWW.
What, it inhibits publishing CERN data? :D
Seriously, though, if very successful this could
change the *nature* of the web. Maybe.
I do not say it would be a change for the worse,
but it would certainly be to Microsoft's advantage,
and if you fear Microsoft and see malice in
everything they do, that's got to be a scary thing.
Of course, everything depends on how SmartTags
develop in future. They could be an insignificance.
Time will tell.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 17 Jun 2001 17:13:01 -0600
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:36:02 +0900, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "drsquare"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Where does it get the packages from? And what if the package manager
> >> doesn't know where to get them from?
> >
> >You are either a horrible troll or a total, wet-behind-the-ears newbie.
> >Or both. You obviously know nothing about debian.
> >
> >If it recognizes the software then it can install it and all the extra
> >packages that might be needed. That is one of the great things about .deb
> >packages.
> >
> >Hell man, i don't even use debian and i know that.
> >
> >In fairness, i guess that if you try to install something extremely new
> >that no one has made a package for, the install would fail. Probably just
> >give you some error like "gnucash version ### is already installed" where
> >version ### would be the old version because it didn't know about the new
> >version yet. If it knows about it, it will know about all dependencies
> >and get them ok.
>
> Which is all well and good if there is a package for it. But for the
> large majority of software, there isn't.
Name one.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Tuomo Takkula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: 18 Jun 2001 01:15:11 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > But you see... Heuristic methods ARE NOT ALGORITHMS.
> >
> > Suggest you look up the meaning of the word. Then get a text book AI.
> >
>
> I did. Back in the 1980's. It was immediately obvious that ALL
> AI at that time, was a load of crap.
>
>
> > I have.
>
>
> The ONLY AI method that has a reasonably good chance of performing
> well, and ONLY on specific tasks...is, Neural Networking...which is
> NOT a heuristic method.
??? what ???
You let a NN learn for a while and obtain a system that can say YES or
NO on given input. The reaons why the system chooses to say YES or NO
are hidden in a usually large number of weights, which are the result
of the learning process. There is no way whatsoever to find out
afterwards what kind of decision 'algorithm' was learned, and no
guarantee can be given that the system will not decide wrong on given
input. The resulting system is _completely_ heuristical.
The only thing you obtained by NN is a guessing method that has the
property that under favourable circumstances the probabilities of
correct guesses are a bit higher than average. If this is not a
heuristic, then I don't know what is.
>
> However, virus identification does not lend itself to an NN solution,
> so...
>
... and very little does.
Cheers
Tuomo
__
Chalmers University of Technology
Computing Science
Eklandagatan 86
S-41296 G�teborg, Sweden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+46-31-772 1052 phone
+46-31-165 655 fax
___
"Microsoft OS's are good because they encourage Intel to produce
faster CPUs for the rest of us to run Unix on."
George Dau
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 17 Jun 2001 17:17:58 -0600
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Version hell (as it should be called) is nothing new to DLLs. All shared
> > > library environments encounter it at some point or another. Even Java has
> > > this problem to some extent. Of course, it's vogue to just bash MS
> > > for it, because they are the root of all evil, right?
> >
> > Well, when they keep on having the same problem over and over and over
> > and over again... This is what we like to call stupidity.
>
> No one else has seemed to solve it. Sun made Java long after Microsoft
> had DLL problems. By your logic, Sun is way more stupid than Microsoft.
> It's one thing to perpetuate a problem it's another thing entirely
> to build it into your system.
Sun's mistake is the same one Microsoft makes: their class
definitions do not have versioning built-in all the time (yes, there
are some that do, I know). Instead, Sun has mandated that all
programmers be perfect and write backwards-compatible libraries.
> The problem is a general one, it's just another example of you loonies
> blaming MS for a common problem.
But the solution has been implemented for decades; they only but need
to look... Hell, VMS, from whence NT sprang, had versioning on
*everything*. They intentionally took it out to make it more Windows-
like.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 23:18:16 GMT
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 17 Jun 2001 09:55:04 -0500, Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Nothing gets changed on *your* page.
>
> The page on the server, yes, but not the page as seen by the user. And the
> web page author is entitled, in law, to expect that the user's browser
will
> reproduce their page as accurately as possible within the constraints of
the
> technology employed.
What law says that?
> This expectation extends to the assurance that
> additional, supplementary information will not be added by any third
party.
The "expectations extends"? Does that mean that
the law does not?
> This is copyright law.
No, copyright law is not concerned with what
you do with something once you have it; it is
concerned with redistribution. If I have a legitimate
copy of a copyrighted work, I can mutilate
it to my hearts content- provided I do not distribute
the result.
> It can also be argued that adding additional
> information is unauthorised access to computer data, [1] which is a
criminal
> offence punishable by a fine or inprisonment in many countries.
That, I think, is quite a stretch.
> [1] The data is the property of the page author, nobody else.
Presuably this would apply to ordinary links that the web
page author put on his page, as much to SmartTags.
[snip]
> > *I* just get some new navigation options that *I* might find useful.
That's
> > all there is to it!
>
> Would you like it if links on your business pages were defaced by
adverising
> for competitors' products?
I wouldn't like it if the user turned off my advertisements, either,
but they do that. There' snothing that can be done about it-
copyright law allows such defacements, so long as they
are not redistributed.
> And the links that you say you might find useful are links that M$ and
> anyone who've paid M$ hope you'll find useful - which is something
> completely different.
Paying MS is not required, it appears. Certainly if
it were, SmartTags would not be successful.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:12:54 +0200
Glitch wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter K�hlmann"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> /p@- wrote:
>>>
>>> you guys keep living in a dream world.
>>>
>>> IE is the best browser. numbers talk for itself. I used all of the
>>> browser, and IE is the best of them all.
>>>
>>>
>> Eat shit. Millions of flys can�t be wrong. Numbers talk for itself, like
>> you said. So, what kind of shit would you prefer?
>>
>
> If Netscape was bundled with EVERY copy of Windows your argument would be
> reversed. As such, your argument can NOT be used b/c of the very fact the
> # of users of IE only exist BECAUSE IE is bundled with every computer.
> You can't go by numbers when this happens.
>
If /p@ argues with the numbers, he must live with the numbers.
Either IE was given to all those "numbers" against their will, but they had
no choice, then it does surely *not* mean IE is the best browser there is.
*Or* his argument is valid, that all those flies wanted their shit, so they
got it. What is it?
Peter
--
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons,
For thou art crunchy, and good with ketchup!
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:16:18 +0200
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> The MZ are the initials of the person who invented the EXE file format
> (can't remember the name) and were originally added so the part of the dos
> kernel which loads programs could identify it as an EXE instead of a COM
> file - the file extention is not used, if you rename a .COM file to .EXE
> it will still run as a COM application and if you rename .EXE to .COM it
> still
> runs as an EXE application. On some versions of DOS (maybe even all) you
> can even swap the letters so the file starts with ZM and it will still
> work.
>
The guy was Mark Zsibowsky (?? don�t know if completely accurate).
Peter
--
Microsoft is not the the answer.
Microsoft is the question.
The answer is NO
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:09:58 +0200
Tuomo Takkula wrote:
> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>
>> W2k rockz and linux suxors. Need I say more? :)
>>
>
> Sorry, but from this side of the Atlantic, the USA resemble more a
> third world country in many respects, than the 'top of the world'...
>
Relax.
Todd just got it slightly wrong (what would you expect, he uses wintendo)
What he meant was "W2K sucks rocks, and linux rules".
Peter
--
LAWS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING:
I. Any given program, when running, is obsolete
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 23:21:53 GMT
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I don't see it your way ... but you don't want me, a web site designer,
> the luxury of *not* having my web pages defaced by additional
> hyperlinks.
>
> Why do you have special privileges?
It's a question of property rights. He owns
the computer; he can say what it displays.
You can, because of intellectual property
rights, forbid him from obtaining a copy
of your web pages- though as a technical
matter that's hard to enforce.
But if you do permit him to view the page,
you do not thereby gain any rights over his
computer.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 17 Jun 2001 17:21:57 -0600
"Se�n � Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > They still work since the old libraries still exist. The worst that can
> > happen is that you didn't get all the dependencies and the new app does
> > not work. Previously installed apps will be unaffected.
>
> Nonsense, Gary. One of the biggest reasons for using shared libraries is to
> allow apps to inherit library fixes. So previously installed apps are most
> certainly affected; that's the whole point. The way this happens on Unix is
> different from the way it happens on Windows (overwritten symbolic link vs.
> overwritten library file), but the effect is the same; at the end of the
> day, all apps linked against a given major revision all get the same minor
> revision. Sure, other minor revisions may still be on the disk, but they're
> just sitting there doing nothing.
You forgot to mention the bit where your distribution tries very hard
to make sure everything cooperates before giving it to you.
Random Joe, downloading some whiz-bang source package fresh from CVS
has absolutely ZERO right to complain about it being difficult to
install and compile. Linux applications (and UNIX in general) NEVER
overwrite shared libraries; the distribution does that, and only when
instructed to do so. They may inform the developer that they need
version X.Y.Z to use this product, but by the time a distribution
ships it, that's all taken care of.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:37:22 -0400
>
> WHy would someone send you an exe? any files sent, that are exe or vbs,
> I instantly delete.
>
There is no legitmate reason for sending a VBS file but there can be
reasons to send an EXE file. Maybe you have found a problem with some
software you urgently need to use and the company or programmer wants to
send an update, maybe a friend is a programmer and wants to send their
latest program in binary format. Just because 99.9% of EXE's sent are
either crap or viruses there is still the posibility you may need to send
one and don't want to risk zipping it in case the other person doesn't have
an unzipping program ( this happened several times at my last employer - a
software company).
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 17 Jun 2001 17:25:16 -0600
"Se�n � Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > First of all, DLL Hell doesn't mean a ton of libraries; it means a ton
> > of libraries THAT INSTALL OVER EACHOTHER (like MFC40.DLL, for
> > instance).
>
> The Unix scenario is exactly the same, except that it wastes disk space on
> no-longer-used minor library revisions. It doesn't matter how many versions
> of libfoo.so.1.* are on the disk, because the libfoo.so.1 symbolic link can
> only point at one of them.
So? An application can link against minor revisions.
> > UNIX does not have this problem because we have this
> > amazing thing called v-e-r-s-i-o-n-i-n-g on our libraries.
>
> No offense Craig, but you really don't understand the problem, so I suggest
> you drop the attitude.
No offense, Mr. Anonymous, but I've been developing under UNIX for the
last 10 years -- I fully understand the problem.
> > They still have them. If you attempt to upgrade a library that
> > something else *depends* on, apt will scream at you; then you can
> > install *both* libraries happily together on the same system.
>
> Again, it doesn't matter if both are on the disk, since the symbolic link
> through which apps load the library can only point at one of them.
I must be crazy then, because I did this exact same thing with libc
just last week to install Oracle 8.1.7 on our new ten-thousand dollar
box.
> > And how have you solved it, exactly? AFAIK, Windows 2000 still has
> > DLL hell, but instead of implementing library versions, they installed
> > some facist piece of software that writes over any libraries that an
> > application installer installs. That falls under the 'kludge'
> > category, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> Sure, Linux doesn't have it, so it's gotta be fascist, a kludge, etc. And
> yet when asked what to do about DLL Hell, most Windows bashers say, "It's
> simple; let the system files be modifiable only by OS service packs."
Exactly.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 17 Jun 2001 17:29:20 -0600
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > apt-get install gnucash
> > > >
> > > > Where's the problem?
> > >
> > > Obviously LWN has it all wrong as does /. according to you...
> >
> > First of all, DLL Hell doesn't mean a ton of libraries; it means a ton
> > of libraries THAT INSTALL OVER EACHOTHER (like MFC40.DLL, for
> > instance). UNIX does not have this problem because we have this
> > amazing thing called v-e-r-s-i-o-n-i-n-g on our libraries.
>
> This seems rather crap. Libraries should provide a *single* binary that
> simply gets added to and bugfixed. Changing interfaces is EVIL, WASTEFUL
> and reeks of poor design and a bad philosophy. In other words it sucks
> big time and you should admit it!
>
> I am not defending windows dll hell, just that this "solution" is crap.
Call me after you find all the perfect programmers that will write
perfect code. Good luck on your search!
I won't leave the light on for you... ;)
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:22:35 -0500
I'm not sure what your point is. You said you don't understand something,
but then ask a question.
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik, the big thing I don't understand is this;
>
> Charlie talks about how bad Windows is, and how unstable, unsecure
>
> it is, etc etc, then posts his comments here. Now, as a
> UNIX/Linux/Windows 2000 Pro user, I personally don't give a shit about
> his anacdotal stories. If people choose to run Windows, Linux or any
> other OS, good for them, however, don't come bitching and moaning
> because you server/workstation was cracked, or infected with a virus.
> Don't come out, all guns blazing because [product] doesn't do [feature],
> or moan because someone insulted OS.
>
> 1. It is just software, not an animal, partner, sex toy or any other
> "exotic" life necessity.
>
> 2. If you use Windows 2000 Pro, or Linux, then who cares? not me. How
> is someone using Windows or Linux going to affect me? its not, hence, it
> is not an issue.
>
> 3. Who cares what Microsoft does? I'm not worried about what Microsoft
> does in its "secret under ground lear".
>
> 4. If you like using a particular piece of software or hardware because
> it suites your needs, then so be it. Let the market place, and the
> technology forums decide what is superior.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 17 Jun 2001 17:34:10 -0600
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Jon Johansan wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > but, ok, so that installs gnucash and it's very specific versions of
> > > libraries. But, um, what happened to your other applications that need
> > > other very specific versions of those same libraries?
> >
> > The other versions are still there. It's called "versioning." It
> > has worked just fine for a long time how.
>
> I can feel my hard disk creaking at the seems with this wonderful new
> code/space saving device called "versioning"
Get used to it. Windows IA/64 requires 2GB of disk space and 1GB of
RAM.
> IT SUCKS! You may as well use static compilation and put users out of
> their misery.
That may be the optimal solution for many applications; nobody is
going to argue the point. Most Windows applications are effectively
static-linked because they include their own set of DLL files in the
installation path (which, bizzarely enough, is searched *before* the
system DLLs are). Most commercial Linux apps are also static-linked
as well for various reasons; many for their licenses.
If GnuCash were to ever sell it in a box, I wouldn't be surprised to
find it statically linked.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 17 Jun 2001 23:33:15 GMT
On 17 Jun 2001 03:35:09 -0700, /p@- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> >
>>Netscape sucks, but Linux/Mozilla rules.
>>
>
> you guys keep living in a dream world.
>
> IE is the best browser. numbers talk for itself. I used all
> of the browser, and IE is the best of them all.
>
Sure it is.
It came preinstalled, with your OS, you paid $$ for it and it just
*has* to be the best.
Keep dreaming Wintroll.
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
