Linux-Advocacy Digest #484, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 23:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Christopher Browne)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Christopher
Browne)
Fill out Linux Developer Survey to win $500US ("Evans Research")
Fill out Linux developer survey to win $500 ("Evans Research")
Full out Linux Dev survey to win $500 ("Evans Research")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Linux Developer survey ("Resarch")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Linux business proposal, help me please !!! ("ax")
Re: Blatant Plug: Sexiest Geek Alive - Go Linux - Go Me! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fragmentation will kill Linux :( (pac4854)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Blatant Plug: Sexiest Geek Alive - Go Linux - Go Me! ("Chris")
Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users (pac4854)
I can't stand this X anymore! (Michael Gu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 03:15:09 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jon would say:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:20:02 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> > > a) Resolution of the 2038 problem. 2^31-1 seconds from Jan 1, 1970
>> > > happens to be in 2038. Stuff Will Break Then.
>> > >
>> > > This is the end-of-epoch that is the UNIX equivalent to the "Year 2000
>> > > cliff" that everyone worried last year about.
>>
>> I am not sure that I care about this one, it is 37 years away. In 37
>> years, 64 bit computers will be obsolete.
>
>This is precisely the logic that *created* the Y2k problem.
>Thinking that the problem will go away by itself due to software
>or hardware obsolesence is a huge mistake. Anything you write
>today that will break in 2038 and happens to have your name on it
>will generate a following of People Who Curse Your Name in 37
>years. Corporations have a nasty tendency to buy/invest only
>once and hire consultants to fix things later on. This results
>in much longer than expected lifespans for hardware and software.
*Somewhat* fair comment. A couple of caveats:
a) Are there PCs being made now that will likely still be made in 37
years? Realistically, I don't think so.
b) The usual availability of source code to software means that there
are realistic ways to remedy problems. Fix the library, recompile,
and things (hopefully) work.
This is in stark contrast with the mainframe situation where in
many cases people are running, today, hardware that is emulating,
complete with old bugs, the same software that was compiled 20
years ago.
Linux has had a couple of "incompatibility cliffs" already that
have mandated recompiling things from scratch, thereby resolving
incompatibilities with old environments, namely:
i) The a.out-to-ELF object code format change,
ii) The libc5-to-GLIBC2 change.
Painful though these two things have been, they have underlined the
importance of starting with source code.
For the most part, little effort was required beyond recompiling
with new compilers/libraries in order to resolve the issues.
As a result, if there's a Debian source .deb or a source RPM, or a
BSD Ports package available, the issue is largely moot. It seems
reasonable to expect that if anyone cares enough about the
software, remedies will be made.
c) It may very well be that the "2038 problem" will get solved
concurrently with the (also-about-32-bit-limits) problem that NFS
and filesystems and applications and libraries tend to be
restricted to 2GB files.
*THAT* issue is biting people, which is likely to justify the
efforts required to change libraries and filesystems to move things
up to 64 bit limits (or similar).
It makes sense to jump off both cliffs at once, as it were...
d) While it may be unwise to simply *ignore* the issue as being "37
years away," it would be *equally* unwise to take the position that
we must "hack" a "patch" into place *instantly.*
I'd prefer to see this issue resolved within the next five years,
but would not have any problem with waiting even that long.
e) I could even go along with the idea of waiting ten years, and
allowing time to sweep the majority of systems on to 64 bit
platforms, where neither 32-bit-isms bite them.
At *that* point, moving things over to have Linux emulate 64
operations on 32 bit platforms becomes an option; performance gets
hurt, but if AMD/Intel are still making 32 bit chips in ten years,
they'll be rather faster than they are now, thus making the loss a
bit more acceptable.
I think it's more realistic to expect that file/date ops will move to
being 64 bit operations on IA-32 some time over the next couple of
years.
--
"I visited a company that was doing programming in BASIC in Panama
City and I asked them if they resented that the BASIC keywords were in
English. The answer was: ``Do you resent that the keywords for
control of actions in music are in Italian?''" -- Kent M Pitman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 3 Mar 2000 03:15:37 GMT
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 00:40:21 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> Certainly within X there's no good excuse for mutually
> exclusive font subsystems.
Great, Jedi ! you are finally starting to get it. This in turn would
mean that we actually do need "shared" code, right ?
>>So why make life hard for applications vendors? It's all well to blame the
>
> It's their job to have hard lives for our benefit.
No, it's their job to "vend applications". It does not help us to make it
harder for the application vendors, because it only means they will do less
work in more time which makes for lower quality software.
>>application vendors for being lazy, especially if you have no understanding
>>of what the task at hand requires. But the fact remains that the Linux
>>development tools are primitive and difficult to use in this instance.
>>Surely, this is not a good thing.
>
> The lack of eye candy in emacs or CodeWarrior is not
> really relevant here.
I am not clear what you are talking about. When I say "primitive and difficult
to use", I am refering to the font handling mechanism, not emacs and
Code Warrior.
> anyways. Adding a bit more is not going to be quite
> such a burden.
So you're arguing that the development tools already suck, therefore it's
OK if we settle for sucky font tools ? Sorry, that doesn't cut it ( especially
if you don't buy the assumption that the other development tools suck )
>>No. But it's not a terribly easy task, and it should not be necessary
>>to rewrite this code for each and every application.
>
> It depends on the context. A programmer shouldn't have
> any problems dealing with it.
I'm telling you straight out that it is a pain in the butt for Linux
programmers in practice. Since you don't seem to understand what's involved
here, you are out of line making comments about how difficult it is or isn't.
from what I've been hearing from programmers who actually write useful code
( as opposed to usenet clowns like yourself ), it is a nontrivial issue.
> That's what they're paid
> to do.
May I remind you that a lot of Linux programmers are not "paid" to do a damned
thing -- and that their efforts are entirely voluntary.
> Although, if the inhouse code is written right
> it's certainly not going to be replicated for each and
> every project.
RPM was "written right", but it's still not used in every distribution. Getting
everyone to agree on the one thing is difficult.
> My comments aren't disparaging to developers in general,
> just some of them.
Who are you to criticise any developer? Show me one file in my distribution
with your name on it ...
>>How could they make it easier, Jedi? Tell us an easy way to build WYSIWYG
>>printing into an application ( in a way that makes it easy for the user ).
>
> Simply code your app to manipulate the fonts that X already
> knows about in a suitable fashion.
No, no no. You are not getting it Jedi. How do you find the outline
files in the first place? For the umpteenth time, how do you get
a list of outline files and metrics with an X11 API call? ( hint:
you don't ! )
You are going on and on about how this is easy, and how any developer
who doesn't know how to do it is stupid, and yet you are unable to
make an intelligent comment as to where you could even start.
> The print subsystems for KDE and Gnome are doing just this.
The print system for KDE just uses QPrinter. QPrinter just guesses
the postscript/ghostscript name of the font from the XFLD ( if you
know what that is ). And it often guesses incorrectly. I haven't used
gnome-print enough to know exactly how it works.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 03:16:11 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donovan Rebbechi would
say:
>On 2 Mar 2000 23:10:14 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The term "conspiracy theory" is applied as a disparaging,
>>invalidating label, generally by Right-wing propagandists
>>against people who research and publicize covert Right-wing
>>operations.
>
>You have not shown that what is going on to be any kind of
>"operation". The problem is that you have no evidence to support a
>lot of the claims you make. At least you've coughed up some evidence
>to show that some of these guys are liars. But there's still no
>evidence that any of them are working for Microsoft.
It's highly unlikely that any of them would be directly employed by
Microsoft; if news of such ever *could* get out, that would be
extremely embarrassing to Microsoft.
It's unlikely that it is reasonably provable that these guys are
working for MSFT in any formal manner.
>> The labelling is intended to prevent the public
>>from accessing the information that such researchers provide.
>
>Well that would assume that the "researchers" are providing
>information. By and large, you haven't done so.
>
>You are merely pointing out that the term "conspiracy theorist" is used
>to attack visionaries and whistle blowers. However, it's also used to
>attack kooks. This reminds me of the line "They laughed at Gallileo, they
>laughed at the Wright borthers", etc. They also laughed at Krusty the
>clown.
Get the quote right! :-)
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the
Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
-- Carl Sagan
>>attempt to "give them the benefit of the doubt", in spite
>>of a great deal of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
>
>The only evidence ( and not much of it, btw ) you've offered is
>entirely circumstantial. And you've offered no evidence of collusion.
>You've offered some evidence of deception ( namely using multiple
>identities )
If they get anything "from Microsoft," it's likely to be that a friend
of someone that used to work for MSFT has a company that is giving one
or another of them:
a) Free Internet access (with *fast* access to the porn sites!)
b) A "consulting" job
c) Perhaps a brother/wife/sister is being recompensed more than one
would expect.
>>But you are making progress. You recently wrote, in response
>>to Jeff Szarka, a lying pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
>>spammer of long standing:
>>
>>] And the very fact that I am running semi modern hardware
>>] with Linux proves that your statement is a lie ( I would
>>] have merely said "your statement is false" but when you
>>] repeat a false statement after it has been refuted, it
>>] becomes a "lie". )
>>
>>That's telling it like it is, Donovan! Apparently even
>
>Yes, well he said an outright lie, and I called him on it.
I suspect that some sort of benefit flows from MSFT to some of
these guys; I have *no* expectation that there will ever be anything
anyone would reasonably consider proof.
Alternatively, they may just have far too much time on their hands,
and a whole lot of anger over some perceived slight.
--
Just be thankful MICROS~1 isn't a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Evans Research" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fill out Linux Developer Survey to win $500US
Date: 29 Feb 2000 19:01:29 EST
Hello,
Evans Marketing Services is an independent market research company focused
on the software development community. We form panels of developers who
give us their opinions on technology issues and we turn these into compiled
reports for major companies. We're now forming a panel of deveopers working
on and/or targeting Linux.
We'd like to invite all Linux developers to fill out a survey on Linux (and
OSS) development at:
http://evansmarketing.setlist.com/Linuxsurvey.asp and so join our panel.
Not only will your opinions get heard, but you'll automatically be entered
in a drawing to win $500 cash.
ALSO - THIS INFORMATION IS NEVER USED FOR SALES. WE WILL NEVER TRY TO SELL
YOU ANYTHING AND YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL NEVER BE GIVEN TO ANYONE
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Please take a look at the survey. We think you'll find it interesting.
The Research Team at EMS
------------------------------
From: "Evans Research" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fill out Linux developer survey to win $500
Date: 29 Feb 2000 19:03:21 EST
Hello,
Evans Marketing Services is an independent market research company focused
on the software development community. We form panels of developers who
give us their opinions on technology issues and we turn these into compiled
reports for major companies. We're now forming a panel of deveopers working
on and/or targeting Linux.
We'd like to invite all Linux developers to fill out a survey on Linux (and
OSS) development at:
http://evansmarketing.setlist.com/Linuxsurvey.asp and so join our panel.
Not only will your opinions get heard, but you'll automatically be entered
in a drawing to win $500 cash.
ALSO - THIS INFORMATION IS NEVER USED FOR SALES. WE WILL NEVER TRY TO SELL
YOU ANYTHING AND YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL NEVER BE GIVEN TO ANYONE
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Please take a look at the survey. We think you'll find it interesting.
The Research Team at EMS
------------------------------
From: "Evans Research" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Full out Linux Dev survey to win $500
Date: 29 Feb 2000 19:06:33 EST
Hello,
Evans Marketing Services is an independent market research company focused
on the software development community. We form panels of developers who
give us their opinions on technology issues and we turn these into compiled
reports for major companies. We're now forming a panel of deveopers working
on and/or targeting Linux.
We'd like to invite all Linux developers to fill out a survey on Linux (and
OSS) development at:
http://evansmarketing.setlist.com/Linuxsurvey.asp and so join our panel.
Not only will your opinions get heard, but you'll automatically be entered
in a drawing to win $500 cash.
ALSO - THIS INFORMATION IS NEVER USED FOR SALES. WE WILL NEVER TRY TO SELL
YOU ANYTHING AND YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL NEVER BE GIVEN TO ANYONE
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Please take a look at the survey. We think you'll find it interesting.
The Research Team at EMS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 3 Mar 2000 03:22:17 GMT
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 00:47:58 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 3 Mar 2000 00:25:03 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Of course they think this way. They're doing what obviously
>>> could have been done by any other X coder over the last 15
>>
>>"Any other X coder"? What would you know about X coders anyway?
>>How many font renderers have you written?
>
> I said 'any other X coder', not myself. The existence of ANY
> example is sufficient to prove my point.
Logical error, Jedi. You said "obviously could have been done by any
other X coder". To prove this assertion, you need to show that it's
true for every X programmer ( ie that any programmer would be able to
do it ). On the other hand, one counter example is sufficient to prove
your claim false. Take a course in elementary logic and learn about
"quantifiers" some time.
>>You wouldn't want to. Metafont is not designed for rendering in real time.
>>
>>However, with other applications, you only need to install fonts once.
>
> So then, what happens if I want to use latex on Windows
> and use those 'spiffy' tex fonts?
Like I said, Metafont cannot be rendered in real time. This is a technical
limitation with Metafont, and in particular, a limitation with "those
spiffy tex fonts". Moreover, there does not exist any system which even
attempts to render metafonts in real time. This is not a limitation of
Windows or MacOS. It's a limitation Knuth put in Metafont -- because he
wanted quality at the expense of fast rendering.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Resarch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Developer survey
Date: 01 Mar 2000 14:51:30 EST
Hello,
We are an independent market research firm specializing in the software
development community. We're recruiting developers who are hosted on Linux
and/or target Linux to participate in an industry survey about Linux
development tools, types of apps targeted, attitudes about OSS, etc.
The study is not sponsored by any company, and all personal information of
the developers taking the survey is held strictly confidential. The results
are aggregated and turned into reports. No one will ever try to sell you
anything for participating, your opinions will become known to dev tools
companies, and everyone who fills out the survey is automaically entered in
a drawing to win $500US.
To take our survey and enter the drawing please go to:
http://evansmarketing.setlist.com/Linuxsurvey.asp
We think you'll find it interesting.
Research team at Evans Marketing Services
www.evansmarketing.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 3 Mar 2000 03:28:05 GMT
On 3 Mar 2000 00:10:28 GMT, Mike Kenzie wrote:
>If this was the case in an open source model they would be free to build a
>front end to these packages to make them as friendly as they like.
"They" of course means the developers. Joe user is not "free" to program
anything because he does not have the time or skills required to program
every tool he needs. He would rather pay someone to do it, and the copyright
licensing model creates an easy way for users to share the development
costs of software packages.
The copyright model has produced a lot of good software, and doesn't
infringe on anyone's freedom. Therefore, I believe that it should certainly
not be dismantled. Rather, it should be left to coexist/compete with
OpenSource on its merits. This way, users can reap the benefits of both
OpenSource and proprietary software development models.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 3 Mar 2000 03:30:42 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:39:54 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
>You mean "Chad Mulligan" actually called your house?? What'd you do,
>mention the word TCO? ;-) That was a sure fire way to piss off
MSB said that he (CM) was being paid by Microsoft. CM then called. It was
established that CM's call was rude, obnoxious, and harrassing. Unprecedented,
even in this group ( at least IME )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Linux business proposal, help me please !!!
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 03:33:21 GMT
A software called "Business PlanPro" from PaloAlto Software Inc.
will help you out.
"peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I need some sample business/technical proposals.
>
> I'm doing a linux gateway project for school and along with the
> hardware, I need a business/technical proposal. On the computer side
> I'm fine, but I don't even know what a business/technical proposal
> looks like. I need a sample, it doesn't have to be a "linux"
> proposal, just a business proposal that covers something "technical" .
>
> I've tried searching, but found nothing helpful, so I'm hoping some of
> you out there "in the work field" can help me out. The one thing
> about the Linux community, is that you can always count on someone out
> there to help out, THANKS !!!
>
> Even though this is very difficult, I'm glad I'm getting the
> experience now...
>
> Thanks for help,
>
> peter
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Blatant Plug: Sexiest Geek Alive - Go Linux - Go Me!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 03:34:14 GMT
No way! Now number... 5 :-)
Chris
> I love free software. I thus love Linux. We are just at the start of
> the information revolution...years from now computers will permeate
> every aspect of our lives. The computing platform for the next
> millenium must be based on free and open software.
>
> The plug:
>
> Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way. I am one of twelve
> finalists for the Sexiest Geek Alive contest. Of the twelve I am one of
> three who is not Microsoft certified. Being a lover of Linux, I would
> hate to see the crown go to someone who has sold their soul to Bill.
>
> So vote for me: http://www.sexiestgeekalive.com/bios.html?12
>
> Thanks for your support! :-)
>
> ---
> Chris Hubick
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.hubick.com/
>
>
==================================
Posted via http://nodevice.com
Linux Programmer's Site
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Fragmentation will kill Linux :(
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:36:24 -0800
So why will "fragmentation" kill Linux? It hasn't killed UNIX,
and it hasn't killed Windows; there's a significant number of
variants of both, and they're all alive and well. There's a lot
of us that enjoy market diversity, and being able to freely make
appropriate choices depending on the requirements and the
environment.
Or the profit margin. Gimme WinME for RedHat prices and I might
change sides....
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 2 Mar 2000 21:33:46 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hopefully they will not be an example of two applications
>> trying to do low level manipluation on the same hardware
>> at the same time.
>
>But why is it that suddenly linux is afforded the luxory of saying: "oh, it
>never crashes and you can't include instances of this or that" or "that type
>of crash doesn't count." When we explain that pcA v8 crashing is not a
>Windows "bug" it's poo-pooed - but, an example is given where linux hangs
>solid and suddenly: that doesn't count.
>I will not play within double standards.
OK, how about the crashes that have nothing to do with direct
hardware access? We have an NT app in development which
does nothing at all directly to the hardware, but when it
crashes and invokes a Dr. Watson or system error dialog and
you click either OK or cancel on that dialog, there is
about a 90% chance that the machine will just die instantly
(it runs until you touch the dialog box...).
By contrast, buggy user level apps in Linux just dump core
and the system continues on.
Installing patchlevel 6 on the NT box seems to have helped
things and I think the bug in the app has finally been
identified, but still it is hard to trust an OS like that.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blatant Plug: Sexiest Geek Alive - Go Linux - Go Me!
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:46:40 +1100
And on this note, how the hell did number 11 get over 50% of the vote????
:-)
Chris
Chris Hubick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3SEv4.776$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I love free software. I thus love Linux. We are just at the start of
> the information revolution...years from now computers will permeate
> every aspect of our lives. The computing platform for the next
> millenium must be based on free and open software.
>
> The plug:
>
> Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way. I am one of twelve
> finalists for the Sexiest Geek Alive contest. Of the twelve I am one of
> three who is not Microsoft certified. Being a lover of Linux, I would
> hate to see the crown go to someone who has sold their soul to Bill.
>
> So vote for me: http://www.sexiestgeekalive.com/bios.html?12
>
> Thanks for your support! :-)
>
> ---
> Chris Hubick
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.hubick.com/
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:46:41 -0800
I got the same stupid WinXX CD from my ISP. It only took about
five minutes of rudimentary hacking to get all the info I needed
to set up Caldera. There must be some incredibly difficult part
of this that I keep missing....
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.app
Subject: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 03:56:44 GMT
if Steve Jobs think Microsoft Windows is 'absolutely tastless' , i
really would like to know what kind of words will he be using regarding
X windows, Motif or CDE.
-- this is purely fiction:
What do you want a big screen(more pixels) for?
X windows: Bigger letters, of course!
Windows: So you can see more letters at once.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
