From: "John Beamish" 

Good grief!  I didn't realize that all these messages are stored individually!!!


"Geo."  wrote in message news:3e640732{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> news:3e62b6d2{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > You mean when OS/2 did have that many users.
>
> Whatever, I'm not going to argue it with you, but let me remind you of the
> trustworthyness of the people who told you those numbers
> http://www.barkto.com/canopus/aug1995/451724.txt
>
> > That was also the time that OS/2 was outselling Windows at retail.
>
> Oh another fun fact . Tell me what does "at retail"
mean in a world
where
> you can't buy a new PC without windows (as you so often liked to tell
> everyone)? Why don't you just claim OS/2 was outselling Windows Kuwaiti
> version? 
>
> > Of course, while you were busy watching Linux, MS was protecting its
turf
> > in all manner of ways to prevent anyone - even IBM - from preloading
> > anything but Windows.  The sewer scum wouldn't even allow dual booting
by
> > any OEM as recently as last year.
>
> And yet none of this could stop Linux.
>
> > And there you sit, George, and proclaim that with Linux
> > and OS/2 it was all about user demand.  That's bullshit.
>
> It was, while IBM was claiming all sorts of corporate penetration with
OS/2,
> Linux was quietly winning over the hearts and minds of a generation of
> geeks, at the time a bunch of high school kids who are just now getting
into
> positions where they affect the decisions of corp america. It is happening
> exactly as I had tried to warn MS it would. (actually faster because I
never
> imagined IBM and the like getting behind the linux push like they have)
>
> > >I don't think so, at least not in todays environment.
> >
> > You didn't think so during the years 19950-2002 either.  But that
doesn't
> > change the fact that it was true.
>
> I don't think so post the antitrust settlement.
>
> > I think it's all they can do.  They are very much aware that they have
> > already lost the war to the free software revolution.  Now it's just a
> > matter of maximizing whatever profit they can squeeze out of the end
days.
>
> Maybe, there are still lots of things that can change the course. For
> example a group like Eeye who decides it's time to expose the problems in
> Linux could easily cause huge problems for securing linux boxes which
could
> do as much damage as Eeye did to NT.
>
> > No disagreement from me.  At the time you wrote that, I had been running
> > my website on Linux for two years.
>
> I couldn't find the earlier discussions I had with Will about it.
Question:
> were you running your website on linux or were you just uploading your
> website to someone else's server that was running linux?
>
> Geo.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4