On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:52:44 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:19:02 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:17:23 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>>| * Because it never prompts you to set an Administrator password!
>>
>> Oh, geez. Someone hasn't been paying attention. No, it doesn't ask you
>> for a password, because it randomly generates a secure password for you.
>> Administrator is not supposed to be used anymore, and as such creates a
>> very strong password by default... *AND* it disables the account by
>> default. If you need to use the Administrator account, you'll have to
>> set your own password before you can use it to login.
>
> Oh he's been paying attention alright. He just runs and hides when
> confronted with facts.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> snip---------------------
>
>> [Deleted List of articles that Roy has posted links to *LITERALLY*
>> dozens of times before, wasting bandwith and readers brain cells]
>>
>> How many times are you going to keep posting the exact same articles
>> over and over and over and over again?
>
> Roy is in a panic because he knows that if Vista is a success, Linux on
> the mainstream desktop is all but history.
Linux based distros are no more history with Vista success than with XP
success.
>
> Linux has had YEARS between Microsoft releases and has also had the
> opportunity to capitalize on Microsoft's security blunders.
... network effects of an illegally maintained monopoly.
>
> But truth be seen that people as a group are ignoring Linux as a desktop
> operating system.
... network effects of an illegally maintained monopoly
>
>
> Linux should concentrate on what it does best and that is embedded devices
> and servers.
... unless, of course, some developers would rather work opn desktop apps.
Are you going to tell texstar to drop PCLinuxOS and go work on embedded
devices?
>
> If it hasn't been able to make more than 0.2 percent on the desktop in 15
> years, it's never going to make it.
>
> No matter how much Roy squawks about it.
... network effects of an illegally maintained monopoly
--
Rick
|
|
