Hi Jason,

I don't believe that there any deliberate anti-Linux bias on the part of the UT. If there is a shortage of Linux articles on the UT I think submitting articles for posting on the front page would be a more positive solution than taking the UT to task over it.

Best regards and Happy Xmas.

Liam






>I find it funny when I head to the front page and find a head line saying that Linux won't run on the P4 but don't see a thing about Linux v. MS on the future Iridium processor. First off, that stuff about Linux having a problem with the P4 is bullshit. Yes, the majority of distributions don't have the necessary hash tables to run on the P4, but one that does is Red Hat, and the majority of Linux users out there use Red Hat. MS DOS doesn't support jack shit but that doesn't mean that MS is falling behind on hardware support does it? NO. Besides, it usually takes a few days for distributions to release fixes for problems (or, as in this case, hardware changes) unlike some other OS developer that doesn't even fix security holes until they have been exploited on a major level.
>And then on the other hand we have the Iridium, Intel's 64-bit processor. MS doesn't plan on support for the Iridium until months after it is released. Linux will already run on and utilize the 64-bit processor being developed. But is there a front page story about that on the UT? Can I get a FUCK NO? Excuse the language, but I have had enough of ignorance like this.
>So the UT publishes anti-Linux propaganda with misleading headlines that do more damage than the actual article and they don't publish articles that tell of the excellence of the operating system.
>
>How rediculus.
>
>j