On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:42:42 -0500 (EST) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quietly intimated:
> My friend had brought up a thread he raised here reguarding not being > able to download the ISO's from the RedHat Network. I was forwarded > the answers he had received one of which I feel has been the downfall > of the exceptance of Linux as well as many other open source software > packages. I have personaly experienced the backlash of comments made > without fondation against Microsoft and other proprietary software > first hand through my boss and about 90 percent of the other employees > at my place of employment. Comments like: > > "Not off hand. But I can guarantee a little research can turn it up." > > Makes the Linux community look like a bunch of uninformed anti > Microsoft drones. To say something is broken and then say: > > "History. Read about it. It's all over the internet, some phony, some > real." > > Is not argue the benefits of Linux it only makes the community look > like the only way that their product will make it in mainstream > business is not to point out Linux's pluses and advantages it has over > Windows. but instead make the community look like mud slinging > politicians whos only way to win is by smearing mud in the face of the > competition. > > Anyways all I am saying is PLEASE don't make Linux out to be better > because Microsoft has a bad history. Instead point out the pluses that > running a Linux server can bring to a buisness. Lets face it folks the > old stance well Linux is more stable and so on will not work for ever > even a blind squirle finds a nut everyonce and a while and face it the > latest battery of Windows OS's have definatly started to prove > themselves more stable as the years have past. Instead we need to > focus on the flexiblity of customizing programs by modifying source > that is freely available with out the worries of high cost and EULA > that have over time become even more constraining over time. As the author of lose lines, let me take my shot. Yes, I penned those words exactly as given. However, context it missing, And without it the appearance is far different than this would make things appear. The specific question was, how could I be sure MS was deliberately making the browser less than functional rather than just messing it up by accident? My reply was the "history" part. And not everyone has an unlimited time period to go look up and cite sources to get everything needed to back up claims at a moment's notice. But, I left open the possibility of doing so later, if a challenge came to the content, which it did not in this case. I started making a long reply in answer to this. Instead I'll simply say, keep things in context next time. Then if you want to rant against the context, we can deal. And, my reply stands. If anyone can't see the history of how MS manages to kill off competition, or take over their products and push them out, or any of the myriad other things they've done and are doing to this day, no amount of explanation is going to suffice. Stories are everywhere. You can't believe everything you read, and some of it is intentionally made up or distorted. But it is all over the web. And a little filtering can clear away a lot of the sewage that passes for fact. It was a simple reply to a question, and based, as now, on the fact it's early AM and I have to get ready for work soon. I left the possibility open for further research if the content was challenged. That hasn't happened, as your going on appears more about the tone than the substance. Too bad. Keep it in context next time if you really want to appear o be making a challenge. The question was not about the merits of linux. It started about why a link wouldn't work. I presumed, since it was a download, that it was FTP. It then turned out it was https, and it was being attempted with IE. I pointed out (rightly) that IE has problems and was asked about it. Your furthering of it subtracted the context and made it sound as if I was failing to misrepresent linux, or represent users of it in a poor light. Again, nothing about linux was mentioned, excepting the link that started this all was about downloading a linux-related item. I made my point, not to say linux is superior, or that they should use linux and forget the other stuff, but to say IE is a kludge. It is. I stand by it. And if you'd like to challenge _THAT_ then say so and I'll get beck to you when I get home tonight. > ANYWAYS... > > Sorry about the rant its just I hate having to mend the damage this > type of Microsoft flaming causes me in talking my boss into allowing > more trouble free Linux servers into the work place :) No flaming happened at the outset. The original claim by me, not altogether different from your statements below, was that IE had problems, and using other things (different browser and download manager were both offered as examples) would get around that. How is my _original_ statement any different from your own below? What you took issue with was the aftermath, when the question was asked about whether it's intentional or bad programming. > IN ANSWER TO THE THREAD: > > On to the problem just a thought I am not sure how your set up works > but could it be that after following the link to download the ISO that > it is then being redirected to an ftp site uses as does the normal > public ftp.redhat.com email for a password anonymous ftp access??? If > so I it is more than likely running into the same problem IE has with > ftp.redhat.com in that the ftp server is rejecting the anonymous > password that IE passes which is "IEUser" which is rejected by the ftp > server due to the fact it is not formated as an email address??? > Netscape formats a "fake" email address off the bat to get around > this. See, I could take your simple statement above, about IE having problems, remove the context, and claim you're just making anti-MS statements. Instead, you statements, IN CONTEXT, are factual and relevant. Please learn to keep things that way. > If this is the case if RH was to do away with the email for password > or no access clause in the ftp servers config things should start > working. Besides does anyone actually put a real email address as > their password anyways :) This sig is a coincidence. But, how appropriate! -- The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
