On Sat, 11 Jul 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
> The problem with that is two fold. They paint a false picture of Linux
> and they also strengthen the hold of those applications have on the market by
> insisting they be everywhere. I've been bitten by that misconception. I've
> been asked three t
Steve Lamb wrote:
> The problem with that is two fold. They paint a false picture of Linux
> and they also strengthen the hold of those applications have on the market by
> insisting they be everywhere. I've been bitten by that misconception. I've
> been asked three times now to submit my re
Steve Lamb wrote:
> The problem, though, is that every article repeats the same thing over
> and over and over again, and much of it is incorrect. They say that Linux
> doesn't have top quality applications. They mean the *WINDOWS* applications.
> There never is one that says "While Linux d
On Sat, 11 Jul 1998 09:21:05 -0600, Rick Macdonald wrote:
>Oh, sure, but I figure the more places people see and hear about Linux
>the more they take (serious) notice. It helps move it out of the hacker
>arena into the businessplace, maybe.
The problem, though, is that every article repeats t
Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:41:16 -0600, Rick Macdonald wrote:
>http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_wb9493.html
>
> Wow, same article that has been floating around for, what, the past year
> or so?
Oh, sure, but I figure the more places people see an
On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:41:16 -0600, Rick Macdonald wrote:
>http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_wb9493.html
Wow, same article that has been floating around for, what, the past year
or so?
I think this sums up about 95% of all the articles written about Linux in
the
http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_wb9493.html
--
...RickM...
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
7 matches
Mail list logo
