Linux-Advocacy Digest #599, Volume #25 Sun, 12 Mar 00 00:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: The real cost of Linux (Bloody Viking)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Bloody Viking)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Random Liegh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real cost of Linux
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:25:37 GMT
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I understand you've observations. I too have acute hearing (I've been
: known as the guy with "doggie" hearing because I've heard supposedly
: "sonic" motion detectors etc...they obviously weren't, but I was the
: only one that could hear them). At any rate, I have good hearing.
I don't hear ultrasound, but I have good hearing too. I can hear subtle
nuances in peoples' accents, and can imitate several accents with nearly
native quality, with Aussie being my favourite. I have taste in sound
equipment but cost tends to not allow me to indulge. ): I get
oversensitive to treble sounds, with about the worst being in the Navy
with the boatswain's whistle, a dog whistle type device that they would
play into the PA system and in some tunes, the user would rapidly
frequency-modulate it. Very annoying. If the high frequency sound is a
steady frequency, I can hear the reflection effects like sonar, much like
a blind person uses the cane for a sonar system. I would have made for a
PERFECT sonar tech in the Navy.
As it stands, when the ship was driving and the sonar was in use, I could
nicely hear the echo from the bottom. The Med is about 4,000 feet deep in
some spots. Even cooler is when the ship is parked in Gaeta, and they fire
up the sonar. It sounds like an echoey cavern.
On the ship, I would have quite an ear for the equipment I operated, and
as I would walk down the stairs, I would about know what's running or
what's not. If the ship is parked, and I was in the cafeteria, I would
know what to listen for in case of a power outage. (HINT: Listen for the
boiler forced draft blowers to rev up.)
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:32:27 GMT
John Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Ignoring the somewhat "political" issues (anti-Monopoly, Open Source, etc),
: what would be my motivation to run Linux on the desktop?
Sort of like Sir Edmund Hillary about climbing a tall mountain: "Becuse
it's there".
I admit Linux is one of them "acquired tastes", like booze. There are
"normal" apps for Linux now, so that'll help. I started using Linux in
1994, back in the "old days"!
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:56:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:37:47 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:40:26 -0500, Jim Ross
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 02:23:41 -0500, Jim Ross
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> You're just a stupidass thats all. It's really quite simple
>>> >> to use Linux. Have you ever read any books on it?? Not
>>> >> everything is as simple as Win or as shitty). The next project
>>> >> you try keep in mind you might need to use a little
>>> >> more mental elbow grease.
>>> >
>>> >If something were "easy to use" you wouldn't HAVE to buy a book on it.
>>>
>>> No, if something were functionally trivial you would neither
>>> need any references (bought or installed in the form of man
>>> or hlp files) and you wouldn't ever need to expend mental
>>> effort on using it.
>>
>>I disagree. A car is quite complex, but yet quite easy to drive.
>
> The AAA and my state registrar will surely get a hoot
> out of both of those clueless comments.
At the risk of going off-topic:
Cars used to be a lot simpler, prior to fuel injection, electronic
ignition, power steering and brakes, and smog control (at least,
here in California). While the basics are ... um ... pretty basic,
the actual details can be rather mind-boggling; the translation
of the theory of driving something using a small explosion to
successfully doing a tuneup on one's jalopy is not obvious. :-)
A car is also difficult to drive, under certain conditions.
(Think snow, too high a speed, and that curve ahead -- whoopsie!
Or an invisible patch of black ice. Or ramming something at
70 MPH in thick dense patchy fog. Try as the Legislature might,
one can't repeal the laws of physics. :-) ) And then there
are the right-of-way laws around e.g. pedestrian crosswalks
and stop signs.
Just because one can turn the steering wheel (any 2-year-old can
do that :-) ) doesn't mean driving is easy. So the first part of
his statement is in fact correct, but the second part is not.
To try to get back to some semblance of relevance, the same
can be said of the modern computer. Back in the late 70's,
homebrew computers actually weren't all that difficult to work
with (the slow speeds may have had a lot to do with that! :-) ),
but then, they didn't have such things as memory management
and high-speed (and quality) video capabilities, either.
(I even was able to hack in a 8x-frequency video display hack [*]
on a modified variant of an 1802/1861 wire-wrapped mutated Elf.
This was in the mid-80's or so, if not earlier; it was a pleasant
month or two. :-) I'm not sure I could do that today!)
The Amiga was an interesting exception for awhile, in the 80's,
but even it eventually fell by the wayside ... unfortunately.
Oh well.
One interesting thing about the IBM PC was its 1M memory
address capability -- a lot more than its competitors at
the time of its introduction. Sadly, it was caused by the
very strange x86 paragraphing/segmenting scheme which only got
worse as the processors ramped up: 186 (which died), 286,
386, 486, and Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III.
The 68000 was a lot more logical -- but it was late out
of the gate. If only IBM had waited. Sigh.
[snip]
>>Windows and MacOS are in fact proof that Linux can be easier and I believe
>>should be.
>
> You're forgetting Solaris.
>
> Although, there are philisophical reasons for non running
> an automounter which is why I don't run one despite having
> the option.
I used to run an automounter on Linux, but it's kind of a
moot point for a 3-node network, admittedly. :-)
>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Here's easy to use.
>>> >
>>> >Install MS Office 98 in MacOS.
>>> >Insert CD. Wait. You are done.
>>>
>>> That sounds like a StarOffice install.
>>
>>You forget the steps necessary in mounting and unmounting.
>
> It depends on your desktop actually. Mind you,
> MacOS itself has an explicit unmount procedure
> and a pretty whacked up one at that too.
You mean the one where one drags the disk or the floppy to the
trashcan?
*snicker*
(Or are you referring to an API of some sort?)
[snip]
>>> Except for the cultural issue of 'mounting' media, I had
>>> none of these problems installing my commercial copy of
>>> Word Perfect 8 on Redhat 6.1.
>>
>>I don't have a problem either.
>>But I would not consider it easy.
>
> It's not so much 'easy' or 'difficult' as it is DIFFERENT.
>
> "mount foo" or "umount foo" aren't exactly braintwisters
> as arcane computing syntax go. They rank right up there
> with "setup" and "reboot" and "mail".
I for one could make a case -- I'm not sure how strong of one --
in which 'cp' and 'mv' are actually improvements over 'copy'
and 'move' or 'rename', beyond the obvious one of less typing.
They are unusual enough in that one has to think about them at
first blush, and then they become second nature, and have a single
meaning ("oh, 'mv'. The Unix Move mnemonic. That's easy!").
This may be less of an issue nowadays, but I used to have to work
with 4 operating systems: Unix, in school, RSX/11, VAX/VMS, and a Unix
workalike that was called Apollo DOMAIN Aegis (and that later mutated
into a Unix, if one set certain environment variables). Of the
four, I had the most trouble with Aegis (although it was the most
capable), mostly because it liked to slightly change the Unix commands
(which I already had learnt at that point) from 'cp' to 'cpf',
'ls' to 'ld' (aargh, 'ld' is the name of the unix LINKER!), 'ld'
to 'bind', 'sed' to 'chpat', 'grep' to 'fpat'. It actually had
a very nice GUI, though: transparent cut and paste between edit
windows, and one can copy and paste from a transcript window to
another edit window, or even to an input area associated with
each shell (which was also a little editor window to boot; if
the shell wanted to, it would eat lines from the top of this
input window as it required them; if there were no lines available
[because the user hadn't finished typing one in yet] it would sit
and wait). And there was also a small master command window at
the bottom, used for communicating with the Display Manager.
A very elegant and consistent interface, IMO.
I've yet to see a more elegant window manager / editor package,
although it was primarily text-focused rather than the prettifyed
graphics one might see nowadays. (But then, what's the point
of pretty graphics if one can't get one's work done?)
Of course, what happened? Apollo up and more or less died,
of course; HP got the corpse, but I'm not sure if they ever
did anything with the Aegis OS. (Sun just out-and-out beat 'em. :-) )
RSX/11M was the stupidest (anyone else remember PIP just to
copy a file?), although it had the interesting property of
running everything as though '&' were appended to it;
press return if one wanted another '>' prompt; the only
limitation is that one couldn't run 2 copies of the same
program. (It didn't know what a directory tree was, either.)
VAX/VMS was rock-solid, stable, and complicated. Sure, it's
so unintuitive to do more or less IBM-style FILEDEFs on SYS$OUTPUT,
or /OUTPUT=filename.lis stuff (if the command supported it), and
its registration of non-builtin commands was, well, peculiar.
But it did have a lot of capability (I've yet to see another
filesystem with built-in bucketing anywhere else, although DD
records on HASP came close), and it ran in a whopping 5 meg of
RAM (which was a lot back then), if not even less (5 meg is the
size of the VAX 11/750 I worked on back in the late 80's). It
also didn't have to fork off processes as often in DCL (which
was a good thing too, as SPAWNing a process in VMS had a lot
more overhead than fork() in Unix), and it also had
built-in path parsing (although why one would want to work on
paths such as DRA0:[ROOT.DIR]FILENAME.EXT;23 on a regular
basis when one could use /dra0/root/dir/filename.ext_23 is
somewhat beyond me :-) ).
Just to make things even more complicated, VMS could emulate
RSX/11M, to some degree. (Gee, where have we seen this before? :-) )
And, of course, Unix, which back then was System 6 or 7
on a PDP 11/70. No GUI to speak of; everything was curses
or text. But it worked most of the time.
If one wants braintwisters, perhaps one can explain the
DOS FORMAT command, which can format floppies using low-level
commands, but doesn't low-level format disk drives, and
is totally brain-dead with respect to partitioning. :-)
In fact, on certain occasions, one has to ZERO OUT the first
few blocks of a partition prior to using the DOS FORMAT command,
because FORMAT actually looks for the media descriptor and does
very stupid things if it thinks it is valid! Fortunately for
Linux, the zeroing out is relatively easy: 'dd if=/dev/zero
of=/dev/hda1 bs=512 count=1' -- and 'dd' has a full manpage
if one doesn't know this arcanity by heart. :-)
What a long, strange trip it's been.... :-)
>
>[deletia]
>
>
>--
> |||
> Resistance is not futile. / | \
>
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
[*] the 1861 was a video chip add-on, which had a resolution of
64 x 192 lines or so. One might call it the "Windisplay" of
its time, for the system had to actually be interrupted to
service it, and it took quite a bit of power -- as if the 1802
had any to begin with: 2 machine cycles per most instructions (some
had 3), 1 cycle = 8 clocks, 1 clock = 1.7 Mhz -- to do the interrupt
servicing. The hack, which I still have, although I'm not sure
I have the specs for it, used a higher-frequency crystal for the
master system clock, dividing it down for the CPU, but retaining
it for a divider register or something (I forget, now!) which
then fed the address of some static RAM, and I think I had
some sort of an interlock so that the system could access it,
too. It worked fairly well, for its time.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NT. The first True(tm) operating system -- except for
all of the other ones.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 03:29:25 GMT
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 00:58:41 GMT, Sal Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:41:05 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Linux has 4% of the desktop and 25% of servers shipped last year. What
>>
>> A Linux port would also cover the gruntwork for any posix
>> compatible system including ALL the other Unixen and quite
>> likely BeOS.
>
>And what percent of the desktop market is that? I think if you added
>BeOS desktops, all *nix system on the desktop, and all Linux desktops,
>you'll still be looking at a maket that is less that 1/10 the size of
>the windows desktop market.
The rest of the desktop sans MacOS isn't a half bad chunk
of the pie actually. Plus there's cross compatibility with
the PSX/2, imbedded systems and anyone else platform not
owned by a company that annoyed the FSF too badly...
>
>>>Second, in order to port Quicktime to windows, Apple had to port a large
>>>amount of Quickdraw. After all, CARBON is based on QuickTime. This might
>>
>> That sounds like they could stand to do some fundemental
>> re-architecting. This sounds as silly as IE on Solaris
>> requiring a win32 subsystem to go along with it.
>
>Probably a lower priority than OSX and carbon, at least in the short term.
Then why should the rest of us non-mac users put up with
Quicktime at all, if apple can't be bothered to make at
least halfway decent vendor-lock decoder?
>A portable QT engine would be a good idea. The market for quicktime on
>things like TiVo or WebTV style set top boxes might be pretty big in a
>few years.
>
>>>The Quicktime _file format_ is a published standard. In fact, it is the
>>>basis of the MPEG4 file format standard. The CODECs on the other hand
>>>are owned by others. It might cost Apple money to port the CODECs to
>>>Linux.
>>
>> This is the real rub. Linux developers are willing to do this
>> work, even under NDA, yet they're being snubbed. Apple isn't
>> even being open with it's CODEC licencing, nevermind source
>> or specs...
>
>Huh? Apple is open with the specs. It doesn't _own_ the CODECs so it
>can not give specs or code for them away. As far as licencing, Apple
>pays to use the CODECs. It might even have some exclusive deals on
>some CODECs but it can not stop the CODEC owners from porting to
>Linux in cases where it doesn't have an exclusive deal on a CODEC
>
>> They're quite the hypocrites when they drone on about 'freeing'
>> an OS core which they got most of for free to begin with...
>
>They opened up a little bit more than just Mach+BSD. QTSS, NetInfo
>OpenPlay. Maybe something else I missed.
Like I said: MOST of what Apple tooted it's own horn about
giving away was corporate welfare from others...
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 03:48:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:22:10 GMT,
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > Not to defend RH, but you know that KDE and Gnome are related in
> > > the same way as X and a window manager? Gnome != WM. KDE == WM.
>
> > Do you know that what you said is totally wrong? ;-)
>
> Foot-im-mouth-disease. :-) see other posts.
>
> > KDE is not a WM. KDE has a WM. KDE's Wm (kwm) has no support
> > whatsoever for GNOME (unlike E or Window Maker).
>
> And here I was, thinking that kwm was (going to) work nice
> alongside Gnome ... Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Well, that is currently not true (you will lose some minor integration
with the WM), but it will be true in the future, since KDE and GNOME
people (and several other WM authors) are working in a common WM
integration specification.
That's still 6 months away at least, though.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 03:58:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > > But, I think there's still advantages with Xt-based toolkits. For
> > > one, the API is predictable.
> >
> > What's unpredictible about the Qt or Gtk+ API? Is QButton randomly
> > refusing to accept it has a setGeometry(int,int,int,int) method?
> >
> > Or you mean that the API of all Xt toolkits is similar? That's a
> > non-advantage, since there are about two toolkits (Xaw, Motif), and
one
> > is widely recognized as a proof of concept (Xaw).
>
> Well, all I guess the API is predictable for me. Don't worry -- hold
> you pants on. I'll be trying to learn Qt. I'm not very good at C++.
> I mean the API for Xm is predictable in the sense that you have the
> widget creation functions that are predictable:
>
>
XmCreate{Label,Form,PushButton,{Error,Message.Information}Dialog,Form,BulletinBoard,RowColumnWidget}.
On Qt it's even easier :-)
QPushButton *mybutton=new QPushButton(parentWidget);
> This gives Xt some predictability. Really, I never mentioned Qt
> wasn't predictable; I just said that I though Xt was.
No biggie. I just assumed that if it was worth mentioning it had to
be a feature :-) After all, if all toolkits are predictable, it can't
be all that hot to be predictable ;-)
> This sounds like a toolkit flaming war, and I want out of here.
Nah, no flaming. Your first post had a pretty beligerant tone, though.
> Obviously, Xm and/or Xt doesn't work for you. That's OK. I had a
> pretty easy time learning Xm and Xt, but Qt was pretty tough for me to
> get a grasp of. I don't know why.
Well, you say above that you don't know C++. That's a hurdle.
Also, I have found that knowing Motif is a small liability when learning
Qt or Gtk+. People expect things to be harder and tangle themselves in
self invented trouble.
After a few weeks, most snap out of the bad habits, though.
> But, of course, maybe motif is
> going to be outdated soon, I don't know. But, I think you'll have to
> admit that, as someone who really doesn't like Motif, that Lesstif is
> a great thing. :-)
I fail to see a practical use for lesstif today. What applications
do you run linked to it? What nice application is in development that
you could link to it?
> I would never spend the money for something like
> that, and I acknowledge that the commercial version of Motif has
> memory leaks.
>
> I'll be working a little bit with Lesstif, but probably not much. Xt
> based toolkits have flaws, such as sometimes the widgets disappear
> from the window if the callback functions don't return fast enough.
I never had that happen to me, but I'll take your word for it.
> I think Lesstif is a great thing, and it's a pretty decent alternative
> to the commerical Motif. Even if various toolkits suck, it's still
> great that we have a choice. All I'm saying is that ALL toolkits have
> the right to be considered for projects, although some may be better
> than others.
Whatever, really. As you said: it's ok to like motif. IMHO it is also
ok to dislike motif very very very much.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 22:24:14 -0600
In article <8ae9su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8ach6b$1tk6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Incidentally, how do you go about specifying things like default IRQs in the
>> >Linux config file? That's part of your configuration documentation as well.
>
>> I take the easy way and fill in the form in 'make xconfig' for that.
>> The X setup is a bit more event-driven and lets you go directly
>> to the component you need to configure. Do you ever make syntax
>> errors when you edit the kernel file directly?
>
>Yes, but a lot less often than I make mistakes filling in interactive forms,
>and MUCH less often than I make mistakes going through a bunch of prompts.
>
>"config ... syntax error ... fix ... done" is a lot less annoying than "y ...
>y ... y ... n ... n ... whoops, that should have been yes ... ^C ... make ...
>y ... y ... y ... n ... y ...".
Hence the appeal of menuconfig where you have curses-based access
to just the category, then item you want to change without touching
the others, and even more so for the xconfig version where you
don't even have to scroll past the other sections to change the
one you want. Scrolling prompts are a primative last resort, except
in the case of an update to a working system where 'make oldconfig'
is nice for the quick selection of new features only.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Random Liegh)
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 04:44:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Sanders wrote:
>proculous wrote:
>>
>> When there are so many great windows and mcintosh programs out their
>> what is the point of wasting time on a build it as you go along system?
>> i've used linux and as far as i am concerned it is a complete waste of
>> time to configure and set up all in the hopes that there might be some
>> application that you can really use. Hardware support is in many cases
>> at a very basic level. I can walk into just about any store and buy an
>> application that will do anything. mention linux and people start to
>> look at you funny.
>>
> Man, this type of thread is really tiresome. If Linux is a waste of
>time for you, don't use it! Stay with windows.
No SH**; I really wonder about the motives about those who post those
kinds of articles on newsgroups about *other os's*. Wtf is up with
that? Lack of things to do on those long weekend nights?
> How about this: If you don't already have some experience on UNIX, or
>you don't care to learn anything about UNIX, or you don't have an
>interest in exploring other OS's, then just don't! Contrary to what
>many here say, Linux is _not_ for everyone. It's not a requirement for
>anyone to use _any_ particular OS. The success of Linux is not
>dependent upon every desktop in the world to be running Linux. How many
>users (other than the developers) were there before the 1st version of
>Linux was available? NONE.
And, in all honesty--how many users were there even in 1995 (wasn't
it?) when kernel 1 was released. Most users (as far as I know) have come
along *since then* to a party well in progress.
>> you linux supporters have no idea how much you are missing in the way
>> of great applications. Too busy compiling your cernels i suppose.
> I would guess that you would be hard pressed to find someone who runs
>Linux that has zero familiarity with a Windows OS. Yes, there have been
>times that I was busy compiling my Kernel. I've have a box with a
>custom SCSI boot proceedure and another Kernel that runs on an embedded
>Motorola system. Can you buy that app?
> [deletia]
I /HATE/ kernel compiling, and for me it works just fine to tinker with
the settings in /etc/rc.d/rc.modules =)
The rest of the time I'm surfing the net w/ tools that are *tons*
faster/better/more reliable than their windows counterparts, or learning
gimp.
You have to admit; using linux if all you're into is *games* is *in fact*
a waste of time (mostly, yes--there are exceptions). Perhaps mr
proctologist-of-bore(g) should stick to games, maybe?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
