On Thursday 11 October 2001 17:14, Shriram Shrikumar wrote:
> Linux is a couple of steps behing in ease of use in comparison to
> windows. Windows is weak where linux is especially strong like
> stability and flexibility. Ms has billions of dollars to invest
> getting windows to be as good as Linux
Colin Watson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 08:44:45PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:28:42PM -0700, Ben Hartshorne wrote:
> > > > And he does have a point. The anti-M$ sentiment has led to a number of
> > > > comments on this list that, wer
e a matter of what is the best fit for the
situation and individual. In my humble opinion, anyways. Hope this wasn't
off topic.
Brad R.
-Original Message-
From: John Gilger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 1:01 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: R
From: "Hall Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Finally, what I'm really interested in is the adamant MS-bashers and
when they've last used Windows. If they're s against it, I
assume they either never have or it's been 5+ years.
I'm not an "adamant MS-bahser", at least I don't think so ;)
Howe
* dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
...
> Sorry to disappoint you Hall, but I have used windows since the first
> release of 95, and still have to use it regularly. Up until about 2
> weeks ago I had to have NT, then 2k on my machine at work.
> Fortunately for me I now have Debian running on
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 02:14:45AM -0700, Shriram Shrikumar wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> firstly, these are just my opinions so lets not start a war.
>
> I think most of us would agree that linux is not the easiest to use
> and in X, it is not the fastest and still not near the ease of use of
> windows
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 08:44:45PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:28:42PM -0700, Ben Hartshorne wrote:
> > > And he does have a point. The anti-M$ sentiment has led to a number of
> > > comments on this list that, were I thinking of transitioning to
Hi All,
firstly, these are just my opinions so lets not start a war.
I think most of us would agree that linux is not the easiest to use and in X,
it is not the fastest and still not near the ease of use of windows - Mozilla
takes a good few seconds to load up on at least the lower spec machines
Hall Stevenson wrote:
...
> This is kinda my point. If you haven't used an MS product in 'x'
> number of years, how do you know it's the fault of the MS program ??
> Simply 'cause MS makes it ?? Because others who also haven't used
that's actually a pretty good heuristics.
(I use windows ever
Colin Watson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:28:42PM -0700, Ben Hartshorne wrote:
> > And he does have a point. The anti-M$ sentiment has led to a number of
> > comments on this list that, were I thinking of transitioning to Linux,
> > would deter me from doing so because self-righteousness
Hall Stevenson writes:
> This is kinda my point. If you haven't used an MS product in 'x' number
> of years, how do you know it's the fault of the MS program ??
I thought you were implying that the "MS bashers" were hypocrites who did
use MS daily rather than people like me who haven't used it in
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Kent West wrote:
> Hall Stevenson wrote:
>
> >
> > Finally, what I'm really interested in is the adamant MS-bashers and
> > when they've last used Windows. If they're s against it, I
> > assume they either never have or it's been 5+ years.
> >
> > Regards
> > Hall
>
>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 09:59:14PM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote:
...
| Finally, what I'm really interested in is the adamant MS-bashers and
| when they've last used Windows. If they're s against it, I
| assume they either never have or it's been 5+ years.
Sorry to disappoint you Hall, but I hav
Hall Stevenson wrote:
Finally, what I'm really interested in is the adamant MS-bashers and
when they've last used Windows. If they're s against it, I
assume they either never have or it's been 5+ years.
Regards
Hall
I'm a support tech at a university, keeping the PCs and Macs running f
> ... I do find discussions of Microsoft and its products boring
> and usually off-topic
Agreed. I guess I'm being a hypocrite though ;-)
> Why shouldn't people with Microsoft-specific problems be
> told to ask Microsoft for help?
This is kinda my point. If you haven't used an MS product in
on Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 02:19:17PM -0400, Hall Stevenson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Your message, and Nathan Norman's was similar, showed up with
> a *.txt attachment containing this:
>
> Mmh, perhaps attached PGP/GPG-Signatures? Does this mail also
> have an
> attachement like the others? It's
on Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 10:58:57AM -0700, Ben Hartshorne ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Royce Bell wrote:
> > Uh...is there a reason why several posts to the list (usually from specific
> > individuals), come with attached text files. I'm not in the habit o
Hall writes:
> Finally, what I'm really interested in is the adamant MS-bashers and when
> they've last used Windows. If they're s against it, I assume they
> either never have or it's been 5+ years.
It's been more than five years since I have used any Microsoft product.
While not much of an M
> > And he does have a point. The anti-M$ sentiment has led to a
> > number of comments on this list that, were I thinking of
transitioning
> > to Linux, would deter me from doing so because
self-righteousness
> > is rarely very friendly.
>
> I couldn't agree more. Despite not having used a Micro
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:17:19PM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> I don't recall the specifics, but I don't think anything
> definite was agreed upon. I *thought* some people did in fact
> blame mutt (more specifically, an old(er) option in people's
> /etc/Muttrc or ~/.muttrc that needed updating).
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:28:42PM -0700, Ben Hartshorne wrote:
> And he does have a point. The anti-M$ sentiment has led to a number of
> comments on this list that, were I thinking of transitioning to Linux,
> would deter me from doing so because self-righteousness is rarely very
> friendly.
I
Ben Hartshorne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Strictly, I guess you're right. But then, MIME itself isn't a standard
> yet either.
True, but it's one step further down the line.
Check out RFC2026 for the difference between proposed standards and
draft standards.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:35:02PM -0700, Ben Hartshorne wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:52:28PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> > Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > mutt doesn't want to change because it's using the open standard
> > > correctly and m$ doesn't want to change becau
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:52:28PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > mutt doesn't want to change because it's using the open standard
> > correctly and m$ doesn't want to change because it's using the open
> > standard incorrectly.
>
> It's not a standard
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:24:36PM -0700, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> Unfortunately, as is usually the case with interoperability problems,
> there's no clear place to go first: mutt doesn't want to change because
> it's using the open standard correctly and m$ doesn't want to change
> because it's using
"Hall Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So Microsoft isn't wrong ... yet ??
I don't know whether MS is wrong or not, not using the mailer myself,
and not being entirely sure what the MIME standards require mailers to
do in the case of multipart subtypes they don't recognize. I do not
beli
> > mutt doesn't want to change because it's using the
> > open standard correctly and m$ doesn't want to change
> > because it's using the open standard incorrectly.
>
> It's not a standard, yet.
So Microsoft isn't wrong ... yet ??
You're a brave man for claiming that mutt's wrong about
standard
Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mutt doesn't want to change because it's using the open standard
> correctly and m$ doesn't want to change because it's using the open
> standard incorrectly.
It's not a standard, yet.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
Duck
* Royce Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011010 11:20]:
> Hall...
>
> I appreciate your comments, but hasten to reply that the only thing
> comparable to the arrogance of Microsoft is the reverse arrogance of their
> detractors. I would have sworn that my questions to this list were in the
> interest of
> IMO, mutt and Mailman are both doing the right thing by
> properly implementing the relevant standards. You may
> or may not agree.
I don't recall the specifics, but I don't think anything
definite was agreed upon. I *thought* some people did in fact
blame mutt (more specifically, an old(er) o
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 02:19:17PM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> As I recall from a past discussion/arguement/debate over this,
> it had something to do with mutt actually doing something
> wrong... Or was it a misconfiguration on some user's part in
> their mutt config ??
None of the above, IIRC
Your message, and Nathan Norman's was similar, showed up with
a *.txt attachment containing this:
Mmh, perhaps attached PGP/GPG-Signatures? Does this mail also
have an
attachement like the others? It's signed with GnuPG.
It also contained a *.dat attachment containing this:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNAT
t me that much.
rpb
=
R. P. Bell
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Hall Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Oops, forgot...
>snip<
>You've been over-educated... They are safe to open believe it
>or not.
>
> Hall
Royce Bell schrieb:
> Uh...is there a reason why several posts to the list (usually from specific
> individuals), come with attached text files. I'm not in the habit of
> opening ANY attachment, not even from friends I know well, and this is quite
> disconcerting.
Mmh, perhaps attached PGP/GPG-S
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Royce Bell wrote:
> Uh...is there a reason why several posts to the list (usually from specific
> individuals), come with attached text files. I'm not in the habit of
> opening ANY attachment, not even from friends I know well, and this is quite
> disconce
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Royce Bell wrote:
| Uh...is there a reason why several posts to the list (usually from specific
| individuals), come with attached text files. I'm not in the habit of
| opening ANY attachment, not even from friends I know well, and this is quite
| disconce
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Royce Bell wrote:
> Uh...is there a reason why several posts to the list (usually from specific
> individuals), come with attached text files. I'm not in the habit of
> opening ANY attachment, not even from friends I know well, and this is quite
> disconce
> Uh...is there a reason why several posts to the list
(usually
> from specific individuals), come with attached text files.
> I'm not in the habit of opening ANY attachment, not even
> from friends I know well, and this is quite disconcerting.
This has been brought up before, but I don't recall w
38 matches
Mail list logo
