On Saturday 26 January 2002 1:04 pm, you wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 12:17:48AM -0600, Rodd Ahrenstorff wrote: > > On Saturday 26 January 2002 9:42 am, you wrote: > > > Can't speak for the others here, but Linux is on all my home > > > desktops, and that's about all the growth I care about. > > > > Does this mean you do not want Linux to gain in popularity? > > No. I'm not against it, but I'm not for it either. So long as Linux > is there for me and can do what I want it to, I couldn't care less > what the rest of the world uses. (I care very much about protocols, > data file formats, etc., as those need to be standardized for the > sake of interoperability, but what OS someone else uses to speak > those protocols or create those files is of no interest to me.) > I too care about protocols and file formats (although I may not be as well informed as you). But would you say that Microsoft has a good history of following these protocols and formats? Or does an OS like Linux or Mac do a better job? Would it be in our interest then to see Linux become a popular OS? > > automatically configuring samba networking and including a Network > > Neighborhood. Home users may likely have a Windows PC and sharing files > > has never been easier. You won't find any reference to samba in > > Lycoris...it's working behind the scenes. > > *sigh* And just when Red Hat had figured out that turning every > service under the sun on by default is _not_ a good idea... > > Would it really kill the average home user to have a 'Yes, I want to > share files with Windows machines' checkbox and only turn on samba > for those who are going to use it instead of just assuming that > everyone wants it? Although the automatic networking feature is nice...I would agree an on/off switch is needed.