<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Biased against GNU/Linux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rvbhute.org/2005/06/biased-against-gnulinux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rvbhute.org/2005/06/biased-against-gnulinux/</link>
	<description>My shadow's the only one that walks beside me</description>
	<pubDate>Wed,  7 Jan 2009 00:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Hrishi</title>
		<link>http://rvbhute.org/2005/06/biased-against-gnulinux/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Hrishi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rvbhute.org/?p=8#comment-2</guid>
		<description>There is a reason Pacenet would not support Linux. Their billing and throttling software was previously incompatible with Linux, and hence. Yes, I know they should have used a better software, but then when an academic institution like our college cannot make a shift to Linux, why blame Pacenet, a commercial venture?

Though the absurd policy of not allowing Linux for connections lower than 64 kbps is ridiculous. My friend has been using Pacenet on Linux for a few weeks now, (64 kbps plan) and he reports it is only a decent experience, with actual download speeds being lower than those in Windows...

And Pacenet has it's own advantages... Try using P2P such as ODC... You can get a lot of stuff that way for free!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a reason Pacenet would not support Linux. Their billing and throttling software was previously incompatible with Linux, and hence. Yes, I know they should have used a better software, but then when an academic institution like our college cannot make a shift to Linux, why blame Pacenet, a commercial venture?</p>
<p>Though the absurd policy of not allowing Linux for connections lower than 64 kbps is ridiculous. My friend has been using Pacenet on Linux for a few weeks now, (64 kbps plan) and he reports it is only a decent experience, with actual download speeds being lower than those in Windows&#8230;</p>
<p>And Pacenet has it&#8217;s own advantages&#8230; Try using P2P such as ODC&#8230; You can get a lot of stuff that way for free!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: samajahh</title>
		<link>http://rvbhute.org/2005/06/biased-against-gnulinux/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>samajahh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rvbhute.org/?p=8#comment-3</guid>
		<description>The bottomline here is ..&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Pacenet sucks.... MTNL rulz.. take the dialup MTNL connection.. and u can surf using whatever u want to .. LInux....windows.... u name it...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The bottomline here is ..</p>
<p>Pacenet sucks&#8230;. MTNL rulz.. take the dialup MTNL connection.. and u can surf using whatever u want to .. LInux&#8230;.windows&#8230;. u name it&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
