Re: READ THIS B4 POSTING IN COLA. C.O.L.A Newcomer FAQ (Read This Before Posting in COLA)

From: Aragorn (stryder_at_telenet.invalid)
Date: 09/13/05 

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:14:05 GMT

On Tuesday 13 September 2005 02:20, Heather stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses...:

> C.O.L.A. Newcomer FAQ and Primer
> Edition: 14.079.0712.91P - 7/4/05
> Group: comp.os.linux.advocacy
> Copyright (c) 2002-2005 Linux Reality Team
>
>
> Welcome to comp.os.linux.advocacy, otherwise known as cola.

You are also cross-posting this to...

- /alt.os.linux.suse;/
- /comp.os.linux.misc;/ and
- /alt.os.windows-xp/

... which are not advocacy groups. At least, the first two in that list
aren't. I don't know about the Windows XP group, but I don't see what
that group has to do with Gnu/Linux.

The latter strongly suggests that it's a troll attempt, i.e. an attempt
to keep people busy debating and arguing.

> This FAQ will try to address most of the issues regarding Linux and
> this group. Unlike the other FAQs, this one will try to be as
> realistic as possible.

I disagree. It's quite biased in regards to the people using Gnu/Linux
and the operating system itself. Cynicism is barely realism.

> If you want the straight information from real people, continue
> reading. If you would like to be told what you want to hear, or read a
> bunch of misinformation that you will regret later as you find things
> don't work as they should, feel free to read one of the other "FAQS"
> in here.

In where? I repeat that you've cross-posted this message to three other
groups, regardless of the subject line mentioning
/comp.os.linux.advocacy./
 
> OK, on to the info! ADDED NEW SECTION BELOW!
>
> Here's a list of some frequently asked and answered question here
> and elsewhere that you may find useful in your quest to try linux.
> Read these carefully before you decide to invest time in Linux, you
> may find that you have better things you can do instead.

Don't mind if I spout a few comments on that...

> SECTION ONE - INSTALLATION
> --------------------------
>
> 1.1 Q: I heard linux was easy to install, is it?
> A: That depends on what distro you try. Most of them will have
> trouble detecting all your hardware.

False. Most of the desktop-oriented distributions are very good at
detecting your hardware, unless you have "designed for Windows"
hardware in your system.

> Most new hardware devices are not supported.

False. This only applies to Windows-specific hardware for which there
are no FOSS drivers available. I've never had any hardware
compatibility problems in all of the years I've been using Gnu/Linux.

Once upon a time and on a blue Monday, long before I even had an
internet connection at home, I had a machine with Windows NT 4.0 on it.
And there, I _did_ have difficulties in setting up my AWE64 soundcard,
my ATI videocard and my Brother laser printer. Not quite exotic
stuff...

It required Service Pack 3 to recognize the AGP slot and I needed to
contact with the hardware vendors to obtain suitable drivers for
Windows NT. The CD-ROM's I got with my computer only covered Windows95
and earlier.

I never had any problems setting up that hardware in Gnu/Linux.

> If your lucky you might be able to find something that someone threw
> together on the net. But that's after spending a couple hours
> searching and probably won't take advantage of your hardware to it's
> fullest capability.

False. Distributions such as Mandriva and SuSE have very good hardware
support.

> 1.2 Q: Once I get it installed, then what?
> A: Then you get the joy of making sure everything is configured
> right. Plan on a minimum of two hours per device to get it to
> work. That's if the device is even supported.

False. The distribution typically sets up everything with default
settings, which you can tweak later but which will generally work for
most set-ups.

Your assumptions must be based on the Linux From Scratch distribution or
else you haven't been looking at Gnu/Linux a lot lately.

> 1.3 Q: What happens if I'm in the middle of an install and the
> installation freezes or just stops?
> A: You get to reboot and start all over again. This happens
> every so often with Linux. It seems like it's buggy install
> routines or something. Ain't Linux grand?

Misleading. If the boot process stalls, there could be many causes.
One of the more prevalent causes is that something went wrong while the
user was creating his or her CD's or DVD from the downloaded /.iso/
files.

Most downloaders typically forget to check the /md5sums/ on the
downloaded image files against the ones in the accompanying text file
on the mirror site.

Other possible causes could be that the install kernel needs a boot
parameter because there are some (hardware) problems with either the
(local) APIC or ACPI. This is therefore a BIOS-generated error
scenario.

It is noteworthy that the Linux kernel does offer solutions for BIOS
shortcomings in the form of boot parameters. Distributors of Gnu/Linux
should however pay more attention to this in their configuration of the
kernel and/or via their website.

> 1.4 Q: What's the deal?! I installed Linux and it took up almost 2GB
> hard drive space!
> A: The Linux distros usually install a LOT of never-used programs
> on the default install.

Last time I checked, I had a pretty good chance to choose what I wanted
installed and what not.

I also don't consider all that software as useless. At least you get
some great and stable software for free with your operating system,
while Microsoft requires you to spend extra money on the purchase of
useful software, other than Minesweeper and Solitaire.

> You can pick and choose what you want, but good luck figuring out what
> programs are needed and what is useless, obscure tools.

Most distributions allow you to select the packages and give you a
description of what they are. If you don't understand the description,
chances are that you don't need it.

For every binary installed in */bin,* */sbin* and the similar
directories under the */usr* and */usr/local* trees, there are /man/
pages and /info/ pages. There is typically also a great collection of
/HowTo/ documents in HTML under */usr/share/doc,* and more recent
versions of these can always be read or download from the Linux
Documentation Project.

        http://www.tldp.org

> Linux usually installs stuff like 10 different editors, 12 different
> mail clients, and so on.

... so that you can choose which one you like best. ;-)

> (more to come...)

... and hopefully less cynical...

> SECTION TWO - CONFIGURATION
> ---------------------------
>
> 2.1 Q: What's with all these cryptic files?
> A: All of Linux is configured with cryptic text files.

I hardly consider plain text to be cryptic. Nobody complained about
cryptic text files when Windows and OS/2 were still using /.ini/ files.

In my brief experience with Windows NT, I opened up the Register Editor
a few times in an attempt to customize my system a bit more. I find
the Windows Registry far more cryptic than the plain text files in
Gnu/Linux.

> Some of the more user-friendly distros have configuration utilities
> that claim to do it for you, but success with these works
> sometimes and other times don't, so sometimes you have to
> edit them by hand. With Linux's spotty reliability in UI
> programming, you might as well get used to it.

Outdated. Most distributions allow you to download newer versions of
their software, including their configuration utilities, in which the
bugs are greatly cleaned out.

> 2.2 Q: What is killall, HUP, ls, cat, rm, which, etc and why are
> these programs telling me to do them? Arggg!!
> A: These are command line programs that do things within the
> system. It's what makes Linux a powerful OS for those that
> are experienced with it.

It is worth mentioning why many of the shell commands are so
abbreviated. This dates back to the days of UNIX - of which Gnu/linux
is a clone - and was a necessary evil because of the slow serial
connections between the minicomputer and its terminals and the number
of simultaneously logged in users on such - for todays standards -
quite slow machines.

I have personally had the experience of trying to write a COBOL program
on a dual 25 MHz Motorola 68k minicomputer with 12 MB of RAM using one
of the 30 populated terminals connected to it.

As the screen output is only an echo of the commands sent to the
computer by the terminal, you can imagine that it took a long time
before you got any keyboard response.

/cp/ is only half as long as /copy,/ and /rm/ only one third of
/remove,/ so...

> But it's also what makes it a pain in the arse to use and inefficient
> as a desktop system.

Only if you have a sore ***... <grin>

> Who wants to type all the time when they can just click?!

People who are interested in computing, rather than in using a household
appliance, maybe?

> (more to come...)

Same comment here as earlier...

> SECTION THREE - APPLICATIONS
> ----------------------------
>
> 3.1 Q: Where can I get some programs to run on linux?
> A: Good question. Because Linux doesn't have a large user base
> on the desktop,(I think it's about 0.24%, less than 1%)

Well, I've already read today that it was about 3%, in a post on another
newsgroup, and from someone just as clueless as you are.

The number is much higher than what you're saying, and even higher than
that 3%, since the latter only applies to the sales of commercial
distributions.

The number of downloaded and self-toasted Gnu/Linux distribution CD's
and DVD's alone is probably already twice as high.

> companies that make software won't write their programs for
> Linux.

Some do. Sun's StarOffice is an example. VMWare and Blender are
commercial software as well. So is IBM's /wysiwyg/ webdesign suite - I
forgot its name.

> There's a lot of community created programs out there,
> and some are fairly good, but those are few and far between.
> Most of the Linux software that tries to mimic it's windows
> counterpart is substandard.

Fatal flaw. Gnu/Linux software does not always try to mimic a Windows
counterpart. You are assuming - or intending to spread the belief -
that Gnu/Linux was intended as an alternative to Windows.

Gnu/Linux is a UNIX clone. The GNU project was brought to life in 1984
by Richard M. Stallman as an alternative to proprietary and non-free
UNIX systems.

GNU was intended to use a microkernel design, and while its Mach kernel
was usable, the userspace serverset known as the Hurd which was
supposed to run on top of that microkernel, was still under heavy
development.

Linus B. Torvalds wrote the Linux kernel for use on his own machine as
an exercise on programming for the Intel 80386 CPU. He thereby used
the GNU tools, originally on Minix, later on the GNU operating system
but with his own kernel. After having heard a lecture by Richard
Stallman, Linus Torvalds decided to release his kernel under the GNU
General Public License.

GNU didn't have a fully functional kernel before Linus's project, and
Linus and friends only had a kernel but no operating system. The rest
is history. Windows has no place in this history.

In addition to all of the above, I would hardly call The Gimp or
OpenOffice substandard. More correctly would be that most of the
Gnu/Linux distributions out there today come with loads of software
that you would have to pay big dough for in the Windows world, only to
end up with substandard software, compared _to_ FOSS software.

I would also like to add that most of the more workstation-oriented FOSS
software is also freely available for download to Windows users.

> It's usually slow and buggy and early in development.

Slow? Buggy? Gnu/Linux gets updated regularly, but usually doesn't
swell much unless a whole bunch of new features (or eye-candy) is
introduced.

Compare the functionality of Windows NT 4.0 with that of Windows XP
today and then look at their respective hardware requirements. You
will find that the improvements in XP over NT 4.0 don't justify the
hardware requirements.

If there is anything that's bloated, it's Windows. There is however a
reason for this: it's an artificial bloat! The heavier the hardware
requirements, the more the customer will invest in newer hardware.

It's only an excuse to keep the industrial treadmill on the roll.

> 3.2 Q: I tried to install an RPM but I got 'failed dependencies', what
> is that?
> A: That's Linux's version of DLL hell. Different versions and
> distros use different libraries. So unlike windows where
> programs will run on many different versions, Linux programs
> will fail if they're not made for your specific version.

Highly exaggerated. While it is true that there are better alternatives
to the RPM standard - e.g. Mandriva's /urmpi/ or Debian's /apt-get/ for
instance, or even Gentoo's /portage/ system, which offers the
dependency resolving for source-based packages - the libraries needed
in Gnu/Linux are not really restricted to one version in specific.

There usually are requirements in the sense of "package X needs package
Y in a version a.b.c. or better", but this problem also exists in
Windows. And from what I've been told, Windows does not allow certain
things - like DirectX, for instance - to be downgraded.

> 3.3 Q: What is compiling and configure, make and make install? And
> what is a makefile?
> A: This is a way to build the programs from the source code
> under Linux. When the question above fails, you can always
> build it yourself. The advantage is that it works most of
> the time. The disadvantage is that it takes forever to build
> large programs, you need to know some cryptic commands and
> you have to do all this on a command line.

I hardly consider...

        /.configure
        make config
        make install

... to be cryptic. GNU /make/ even has a /man/ page. But of course, if
you assume that everyone using Gnu/Linux is a former Windows-addict who
only knows how to click a mouse, then I suppose it would seem cryptic.

Is driving a car with a manual transmission cryptic?

> Unlike Windows where you just double click and you are done.

Yeah, if you're lucky...

> 3.4 Q: Can I go to my local store to buy any Linux applications?
> A: Not really. You can buy Linux itself at various stores. But
> not too many commercial companies make applications for Linux,
> there's no profit in it with 0.24% of the desktop market.

Your percentage is wrong, as I said above. There are commercial
applications for Gnu/Linux, but they are usually not within the
financial reach of the household PC user.

UNIX operating systems - and this includes Gnu/Linux - are typically the
platform of choice for scientific computing. The Windows counterparts
of those applications only came much later and are just as expensive.

Most of the normal desktop-style applications for Gnu/Linux are freely
downloadable anyway.

> (more to come...)

I'm already holding my breath... <grin>

> SECTION FOUR - SPEED ISSUES
> ---------------------------
>
> 4.1 Q: Why is Linux so slow?
> A: Linux is built on the technology of the old UNIX OS's. Even
> the graphical user interface of Linux is a separate program that
> is the same type they used back in the older UNIX days. So
> working with old technology will give you the old technology
> responsiveness.

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Alias FUD (TM). UNIX was already way more
advanced than Windows is today long before Windows even existed. In
addition, it has continued to evolve. In most benchmarks, Gnu/Linux
simply outruns Windows and even commercially vended UNIX systems such
as Solaris or AIX.

> Also, a lot of the GUI's, although nice to look at, are still not
> mature. Using them is slow and sluggish compared to, say, Windows.

More FUD. KDE and Gnome are quite mature, albeit one a bit more than
the other. They are far from sluggish compared to Windows, they are
visually far more appealing _and_ they are customizable.

/Enlightenment/ and /WindowMaker/ are also a great window managers and
they are extremely fast compared to anything from Microsoft.

> (more to come...)
>
> SECTION FIVE - CONSISTENCY
> --------------------------
>
> 5.1 Q: Why are the windows different looking?
> A: Since Linux isn't built by one company, group or have any
> governing body, programs and interfaces can vary dramatically.
> You can have everything from the nice look of KDE, to something
> as ugly as TK and everything in between. You'll usually see some
> varying UI stile in Linux.

True, but some may find this a charming aspect of the system. I use KDE
and I personally prefer its consistency (and appearance) over Gnome and
GTK applications, but I am just as happy *using* a GTK application
every once in a while if it gets the job done in a better way than its
KDE counterpart.

> 5.2 Q: Should I buy Suse Linux?
> A: No. They make it difficult to get it for free. All the other
> distros provide free ISO's to download. Suse is the only one
> that doesn't provide them but instead has a FTP install that's
> hard to get to work. Why should they make it easy? The more
> people that can't get the download to work have to spend $80
> or more for the boxed set. And on top of all that although
> it might have a few more user friendly tools, it's still the
> same base Linux system that's in development and that all the
> other distros are using.

I believe downloading SuSE is now a little easier again, since Novell
took over the company. I could be wrong though, as I don't use SuSE
myself. It is however a very good distribution.

In addition, please note that the word "free" in Free Software refers to
/freedom,/ not to "gratis". The latter may be welcome for many less
fortunate computer owners who wish to use Gnu/Linux, but for those who
don't value the true spirit of FOSS, it would be pure opportunism to
opt for Gnu/Linux over any other operating system only because of its
freely downloadability.

Lastly - in regards to the price of boxed distributions - I don't think
one has the right to complain. First of all, the money will be well
spent as it goes to the community that tries very hard to maintain the
system and all of its software and not to a monopolizing mogul, and
secondly you typically get all the application software in the same box
as the operating system, and installed at the same time as the
operating system, completely integrated with it, but without breaking
things as the Windows Registry tends to do - which is about the only
integration taking place on a Windows platform.

> In other words, they're all on about the same level of struggling to
> catch up to Windows, so you're not going to find any earth-shattering
> features in one compared to another.

Some commercial distribution vendors do attempt to compete with Windows,
because they are businesses. However, that was never the idea behind
Gnu/Linux.

> (more to come...)
>
> SECTION SIX - LINUX COMMUNITY
> -----------------------------
>
> 6.1 Q: What is RTFM?!
> A: This is an acronym for Read The Fuc*ing Manual. This is a common
> answer you'll get when asking for help in the Linux community.

Yeah, in the Slackware groups, probably. The community that I'm part of
typically provides for quality help.

The reply one gets to a Usenet post with a question regarding Gnu/Linux
typically depends upon the question itself and how it was asked. If
you post a question in a snotty and trolling way, then the replies you
get will be accordingly.

UNIX is not user-unfriendly. It just requires the user to be a little
more computer-friendly. This requires using ones brain. You can't
expect to drive an F1 racecar the same way you drive a stationwagon
without doing some research and assuming some responsibility.

If you can't bring yourself to doing at least a bit of your own
research, then Gnu/Linux is not for you, period.

> It's meant to make you feel inadequate while boating the Linux
> persons ego at the same time.

Hogwash!

> See, Linux enthusiasts consider themselves to be guru like and above
> helping out the simple newbie.

I suppose you don't get out often? Try looking a little further than
your nose is long. I participate in four different newsgroups on
Gnu/Linux, and I see a lot of useful help being given.

I also seem to be getting some nice comments on the advice I myself am
giving. I don't consider myself to be a guru - although I'm hardly a
newbie - as everyone has his or her own field of expertise and we all
learn from eachother. That is what community spirit is all about.

By the way, have you ever had to contact the Microsoft Helpdesk? Well,
I have, and only to post-order the various service packs for my NT back
at the time, as I didn't have any internet connection at home yet.

You call their number. You hear a recorded message, urging you to press
a certain key for your language. You press the key, and then you hear
another recorded message, inquiring about the reason behind your call,
which you have to answer by another keypress in the multiple-choice
offer of possible answers.

It takes a few more of these auditive menus to wade through, every once
in a while guessing on what it is you really need to pick, since most
of the questions relate to business deals or public relations. You get
slapped around the ears with $2000 titles and flashy commercial terms
which are as hollow as your wallet will be by the time you finally get
to talk to an operator.

And then, the moment of revelation: you get to talk to an operator. Oh
wait, he doesn't speak your language very well. Oh, but he'll connect
you with someone who does. Some muzak and again several minutes later,
you get to talk to an operator who does speak your language. And then
you have to explicitly and repeatedly tell him what you want, because
he is likely to misunderstand you. So you order the latest Service
Pack CD.

Order taken... You have to first transfer the money or send a check to
an obscure PO box before they send you the CD, of course. You agree,
and you say "Allright, will do. Thank you, Sir. Have a pleasant day"
and you hang up the phone.

Three months later, your Service Pack hasn't arrived yet, and then you
suddenly get a call from Microsoft. The guy tells you that the check
you sent them is for a far too low amount for Office 97. Office 97?
Duh! You ordered Service Pack 4 for Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. You
already _have_ Office 97.

Yup... Quality help...

> You have to earn your respect by spending countless hours becoming a
> kernel hacker before you're worthy of getting any help.

More cynical hogwash...

> 6.2 Q: Why does everyone think they are better than you when using
> Linux?
> A: Same as above. When people use Linux they believe since it takes
> a little more knowledge to use Linux, they are technically superior,
> and see themselves as an elite group that doesn't have time for the
> pathetic little Windows people.

We don't think of ourselves as better than the people who use Windows.
We do however prefer not to hear about the idiosyncratic comparison
between Windows and Gnu/Linux and "how Linux (sic) sucks" because
"Windows is so great when this or that".

If there is a loose nut between the keyboard and the chair, then
problems arise, especially if the loose nut starts spreading FUD.

All we ask is that if you want to drive a car, you'd at least try to
familiarize yourself with a steering wheel and a gearshift instead of
whining that there isn't a driver on the bench at the top of the coach
and that there are no horses.

> (more to come...)

<sigh> Don't bother...

> SECTION SEVEN - LINUX ADVOCACY, HELPING OR HURTING?
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> 7.1 Q: Everyone in here says linux is perfect, why would they say that
> if it isn't?
> A: We really don't know. Maybe they've used Linux so long that
> they've gotten used to it. Some of these people haven't used
> Windows in years so they are comparing Linux to the last windows
> they used, maybe Windows 3.1 or 95.

Gnu/Linux is not perfect. We never said it was. We do however feel
that it is a very good operating system architecture, created by a
strongly driven and idealistic community with a great philosophy behind
them.

And once again, not everyone using Gnu/Linux has ever been a Windows
addict. I myself have used NT for about three years. Before that, I
was using 32-bit OS/2 - while mainstream Windows was still based on
MS-DOS but misleadingly sold as an operating system, i.e. Win95/98/ME.

Ever since I was using OS/2, I had a soft spot for UNIX. Commercial
UNIX systems were expensive, that is why I chose to try NT for a short
amount of time. Then I switched to Gnu/Linux, and I've been using it
for longer now - and much more intensely - than I've ever used OS/2.

I was not looking for an alternative to Windows. I was interested in
UNIX and I liked operating system technology in general. Installing
Gnu/Linux without any Usenet assistance was a breeze - and this was
many years ago; today's distributions are far easier to install - and
when I read about the GPL and the OSI, I was hooked for life.

Gnu/Linux never gave me any of the problems I had when I was using
Windows (or OS/2, for that matter). I specifically started posting on
Usenet to share my knowledge with other Gnu/Linux users, because I like
giving something back to the community, and because I like helping
people.

> 7.2 Q: Why does everyone call you a troll when you ask something that
> questions linux?
> A: Most of the people here in C.O.L.A. think of Linux more like a
> religion than an OS.

The GPL does cover a certain philosophy. It is therefore only natural
that this philosophy gets defended. I believe that this is why the
group's name ends in the word /advocacy./

> They mostly are MS haters and feel that Linux is the greatest thing to
> ever hit computing. So when someone questions Linux it's like
> questioning their belief system.

I wouldn't speak out on what was exactly the greatest thing to ever hit
computing, but Gnu/Linux and everything it stands for may just be that,
yes.

> Instead of looking at it with some logic and reasonable judgment, they
> will lash out at you can't claim your are a troll or a paid MS
> supporter.

There are such paid MS supporters, and this has already been proven more
than once. Microsoft considers it one of their priorities to spread
FUD about just about every other kind of operating system out there,
and infesting Usenet scouting for newsgroups dealing with such
operating systems is part of their strategy.

Some users may be more vigilant or more paranoid than others in regards
to trolls. People are people, and everyone has his or her limits.
Some have a longer fuse than others.

However, trolls do exist. Whether they are paid by Microsoft or whether
they do it just to get off on the number of people they manage to rub
against the hairs, they are real nevertheless.

> 7.3 Q: Why does everyone <PLONK> you if you question Linux?
> A: Fairly similar to above, Linux advocates can not argue their
> point rationally.

Hogwash! I usually don't /plonk/ anyone unless they really become
offensive, and by this I mean "on a personal level".

I am always open to a debate, but the debate must be fair. Typically,
anti-Gnu/Linux posters are prejudiced and misconditioned from years of
using Windows and not having to use their brain anymore.

I always try to reason with people of whom I believe that their outlook
on things is incorrect. If such people are not interested in reasoning
but only wish to post some crap in order to stir up trouble, then there
is no point in a debate.

I usually give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but if they really are
trolls, then this will surface sooner or later. And usually quite
soon...

> So to make it look like you are under them or you are not worth it,
> and at the same time find an easy way out of having to prove
> themselves, they will <PLONK> you.

Hogwash, once again.

> (more to come...)
>
> SECTION EIGHT - LINUX EVANGELISM, ZEALOTS
> -----------------------------------------
>
> 8.1 Q: There are some people that call this FAQ lies and seem to treat
> it like it's a conspiracy against them, and post all sorts of links to
> anti-microsoft articles. Why are they reacting so strongly?

A: Because they may be right, perhaps? It is quite obvious that you've
had one or two attempts at installing a Gnu/Linux distribution - or at
least, someone in your social circle has - but you are quite clearly
biased and cynical.

Cynicism is worse than sarcasm. Sarcasm has reason, while cynicism
doesn't. Everything said in cynicism therefore has no value. That
leaves about /0.24%/ - to use one of your favorite statistics - of this
post as being accurate.

> A: The people that are reacting so strongly are most likely the Linux
> extremists that believe everything negitive that is said about Linux
> comes from Microsoft.

Most of it does. I wouldn't know who else would start dissing on
Gnu/Linux. Apart from SCO, maybe. But then again, they are funded by
Microsoft shares, for just the right amount of capital to keep the
trial against IBM going.

SCO is a sinking ship, and Microsoft is the only company in the world
that doesn't know that.

> Like many cult-like groups, the people that belong to them don't have
> the ability to see things rationally or outside of their view.

Being afflicted with Asperger's Syndrome, I can assure you that I am a
*very* rationally thinking person.

> If someone replies to the FAQ, or anything questioning a non-favorable
> view on Linux, that seems a little "over the edge", do a google search
> on the person (http://groups.google.com/) and look at his/her posting
> history then decide for yourself if the person is credible or not.
>
> (more to come...)

Everyone is welcome and encouraged to do a Google search on my nick.
I'm quite confident about my credibility.

How about yourself? Posting from a Hotmail account is not quite
guaranteed to earn you credibility as a Gnu/Linux user, and neither is
cross-posting to three other groups than C.O.L.A., especially not with
one of those groups being a Windows XP group.

I'm strongly beginning to suspect that you are the creature known as
/flatfish./

Either way, I stand by everything I've written here in reply to all your
prejudiced FUD. At least this way, the newbies will have a chance of
reading the truth. 

-- 
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)