Note that I just read an article in which Ballmer is quoted as stating
that Windows 2000 is more stable than Linux, among other BS. Laughable,
but public perception is no laughing matter when the whole world is
involved.
Note On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:56:30 +1130
Mike Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 02:05:55PM -0500, Matthew Carpenter wrote:
Note that I just read an article in which Ballmer is quoted as stating
that Windows 2000 is more stable than Linux, among other BS. Laughable,
but public perception is no laughing matter when the whole world is
involved.
It's
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 11:05:23AM -0500, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Saturday 19 January 2002 10:57 am, Bruce Marshall wrote:
In fact, checking with
www.barkto.com, there is a better explaination of what really happened than
I just gave from memory.
I correct myself. The what really
Michael spake:
Let's just make sure we don't take anyone who dares offer constructive
criticism of Linux or reports to have found a security problem and
immediately fry them as a mole, troll, plant or whatever. Tarring
and
feathering needs to be reserved for the real thing; not some innocent
On Saturday 19 January 2002 5:26 am, Mike Andrew wrote:
There are a (very) small number of people on this list, who will confirm
for you, that FUDmongery is real and was a paid for veritable disease in
the OS/2 vs Msoft warz. The basic rules are, you take your opponent's os
apart and find
