Linux-Advocacy Digest #628, Volume #25 Tue, 14 Mar 00 14:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
("Drestin Black")
Re: which OS is best? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Neil")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Darren Winsper)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Darren Winsper)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Darren Winsper)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Darren Winsper)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Bob Hauck)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Bob Hauck)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: (Kar-Han Tan)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (abraxas)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:49:24 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8akd5a$1ijp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > What you describe is quite mysterious. I won't say it didn't happen -
but, I
> > will add (and I can hear the sigh already): I've never seen a FS (any
OS)
> > that just deleted directories/files without warning/reason.
>
> Ive been thinking about it for a while, and I have seen similar problems
> now and again with filesystems like HFS and whatever the hell Be uses. In
> those cases, whats happened is that the Mac and Be equivalents of unix
Inodes
> (except journaled, in MacOS the "desktop" file) become slightly corrupted
and
> the files become "lost". Theyre still there, but since their indexed
> placement becomes corrupted, they are gone for all intents and purposes.
>
> Its recoverable in these cases by simply rebuilding the index file. Is
there
> a W2K equivalent?
not an "index" file but you are thinking of "lost clusters" in FAT - to be
honest, I've never had anything go "missing" under NTFS so I do not know if
there is even such a utility for NTFS... just dunno...
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:26:19 -0600
What children learning software and games are there for your children
on Linux?
What do they typically use the computer for? Learning? Playing games?
Browsing the web?
What type of computer education are you giving them simply because of
your overly-biased and ignorance-founded hatred for Microsoft?
Are you sacrificing the well being and mental development of your
children simply because you're too ignorant?
-Chad
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > I am getting sick and tired of this line. Every single Losedoze
> > from the first to the latest has been "getting better." So
> > what? It's still one of the worst OS's ever made.
>
> <snip>
>
> > users. Personally, I think that Linux will never be as easy to
> > use as Losedoze or the Mac. Why? Because, being Unix, you are
> > always going to have to go to the command-line. Am I wrong?
>
> And I am sick and tired of this line. My kids use Linux on their
> PC (no M$ in this house) and they never use the command-line. They
> login via kdm, wm is xfce and everything they need is setup on
> the xfce control panel. They use it daily and never complain.
------------------------------
From: "Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:54:48 -0000
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So then just admit Linux is for hobby and let's get it over with.
> >
> > NT is serious, Win2K is serious. It's not meant for kids and hobbyists
> > to take it apart and put it back together, it's for getting business
> > done.
> >
> > When Linux grows up, let us know, perhaps we could have a relevant
> > and poignant conversation then, no?
>
> Get on the cluetrain Chad:
>
> http://www.cluetrain.org
>
> Everyone is a hobbiest in the heart, if you are not, then I feel sorry
> for you.
I don't think I'd argue with the "hobbiest in the heart" bit, but to be
fair, the techie community shouldn't necessarily expect that the business
they represent view this as a good trait with the solutions they deploy -
which I think is the point being made.
Perhaps "the business" unwittingly expects and exploits the "hobbiest" in a
lot of good techies, but I think it does draw comment that the choice of a
"hobbiest" may not be the best choice for "the business".
After that frightening use of quotes, I think I'll add I'm not gonna add any
qualification to those comments as to what fulfills each criteria - I really
don't care that much - I enjoy the technology - all of it, and don't lionise
anything.
I don't have an axe to grind with Linux, NT or W2K, I currently use them
all - perhaps for different things.
Neil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 15 Mar 2000 02:02:48 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:08:10 -0500, Jim Ross
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess I'm saying learning how to work a car is obvious.
>
> Not necessarily to drive (but that to do with traffic, conditions, etc, not
> really WRT how to learn to operate the car itself which is nearly as easy as
> possible.)
That's pretty much akin to saying you know how to put together a PC
out of the box, but don't know how to use it to do anything.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 15 Mar 2000 02:02:50 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:11:45 -0500, Jim Ross
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately CRTL-C and CRTL-V doesn't as one may expect.
Actually, it does work with GNOME and KDE apps.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 15 Mar 2000 02:02:55 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:17:13 -0500, Jim Ross
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If fonts were fixed under Linux/XFree86, I feel many programs would benefit,
> starting at AbiWord in Linux.
XFree 4 has decent Truetype support IIRC. I'm waiting for it to appear
in Woody (Debian's current unstable tree) before I give it a proper
test drive.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 15 Mar 2000 02:02:52 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:18:34 -0500, Jim Ross
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No I was trying to the the CTRL-C, CTRL-V keys, instead of middle button.
In Netscape, you have to use Alt-C and Alt-V. Before you say how daft
that is, I agree :)
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:11:05 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:37:55 -0500, Rich Cloutier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> IOW, I think you've probably picked a feature here that even most Windows
>> users don't use much. One of those things that makes another feature
>> check in the reviews that hardly anybody actually uses.
>If most Windows users don't use DnD it's because they are still using their
>video displays at 800 x 600 or less and there is no room to open two windows
>side by side to drag and drop anything, what with all the menus and toolbars
>taking up all their screen real estate.
When I was running an ISP, in the early days, I would sometimes go out to
people's homes to help them get set up. I would say that 99% of them were
running at 800x600 or less because that was the default when they took the
computer out of the box.
So I think it is safe to say that your conditions are met.
>Also, most people really only use one app at a time, partly because they're
>too afraid that Windows will crash and they'll lose TWO unsaved documents,
Yes, there is that, although this applies more to Win9x than to NT.
>If EMACS users don't demand DnD, it may be because there are other ways to
>accomplish the same thing. Ways that programmers have used and gotten used
>to ever since the the old days of CLIs and "mouseless" computers.
I find that tab completion in the minibuffer is much faster _if_ I already
know the path to the file I want. When I'm doing coding, that is usually
the case. Using DnD to open new files would slow me down.
>Sometimes users just feel uncomfortable using a feature if they don't
>understand what is really happening.
And sometimes the feature is poorly implemented such that the user can't
ever know what is really happening.
>However, when users actually try to incorporate OLE into their
>documents, they wind up being utterly confused by what each term means, and
>the ramifications on their data. This is further reinforced by the fact that
>when you open a document in Word, for example, and there's a drawing in it,
>it is not readily apparent whether this drawing is linked or embedded.
This is exactly what I was getting at. The technology is there and can do
some cool things but the usability is lacking because there are no tools
provided to manage the links. Usability is so lacking that users run the
risk of making major mistakes if they use OLE as it is intended. We
therefore don't want to go down the path of slavish immitation. It is
better to think it through and do it right even if it takes an extra
couple of years.
At this point in time I think that things like CORBA and DCOM are useful
mainly for linking servers together into a sort of cluster, or for
providing ways of accessing server data from the desktop. They aren't
terribly useful for embedding documents within each other. The former is
how people with clue really use these technologies, the latter is how
marketing is selling them.
>As a programmer, do you just start using version control, or do
>you manually double check what the program is doing for the first two dozen
>times you use it?
I'll admit to double-checking when I first started using it. But that was
years ago and long fogotten <g>.
Your point is well taken though, that people don't trust new technology
at first. My point is slightly off to the side of that and is that people
can't trust new technology that hides it's workings and doesn't provide
tools to assure oneself that things are ok.
With RCS, for example, I can look at the archived files since they are
just text. I can check things in and out and verify that I got back what
I put in. There are ways to assure myself that things are working
correctly, as well as the fact that the software proves it's reliability
day in and day out. It just does not fail mysteriously like so much
consumer software does. These assurances are lacking in OLE-style
technology, in my view.
>> I'm not saying IDE's are bad. I used to be a big booster of them until
>> they got so monstrous that I started feeling like I was driving the Death
>> Star by using a long, skinny, stick to poke at buttons I couldn't see
>You experienced the "discomfort" I was referring to earlier.
Yes I did. A great deal of it.
>That's where OSS, IMO, is superior. The features that get added (or don't
>get added) to software are driven by the people who need them, not by
>marketeers who think they can sell more units if they have them.
That is a very important difference. Saying that is _not_ the same as
saying "to hell with new users", as is so often alleged.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:16:06 -0500
"Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7qqz4.1336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Uh, guys, I think you're debating about much older versions of the
document
> linking/embedding technology. You *can*, for example, still link external
> spreadsheet files into WP documents, but the typical situation is that the
> spreadsheet data (or drawing or JPEG image, etc) is embedded in the doc
> file. The link cannot be broken because there's no link--all the data
> travels together in the single document file. Users could not easily stop
> doing this even if they wanted to--any time they paste a bit of a
> spreadsheet or a picture into a WP document, this is how it is handled.
>
The point is that you can do BOTH. What you want to do will depend on your
circumstances. If you're forwarding a document to someone who has no access
to your network, you need to embed, and if you're sharing the file locally,
you can link with the other document, because other users have access to it
too.
That is precisely my point. Without understanding exactly what is happening,
most users don't realize that by linking, they risk the document recipient
not getting all the data, and by embedding, they risk skew.
--
Rich C.
"Have you supported a new Linux user today?"
To reply by email, remove the "abc_" from my address.
------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:23:02 -0500
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8algc7$qhg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <38cdfa06@news>, Rich Cloutier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > As far as standards go, [DnD] needs to be done at the LOWEST COMMON
> > DENOMINATOR ie, XFree86, so that every graphical program can conform
> > to the standards, whether it be KDE, Gnome, or Fred's Desktop
> > Environment.
>
> No, it goes in at the toolkit level so that no matter what display
> hosts your Linux session, you can use DnD! Furthermore, supporting a
> DnD protocol, especially one as rich as Xdnd (which is used by both
> KDE and Gnome,) takes quite a lot of work to do even after you handle
> the basics of actually talking the protocol, since you need to deal
> with all the user activity during the drag, etc. Hence it is doubly a
> natural for the toolkit level, e.g. Qt and GTK[-+]*.
>
> Donal.
Then you've got to make sure that EVERY toolkit is DnD compatible. To me, as
a non-programmer, that seems like more work than implementing it at the base
level. The toolkits would then simply provide convenient vehicles for
implementing the base functionality, and it wouldn't matter if they were all
different, because the same thing would be happening at the core level,
between apps.
--
Rich C.
"Have you supported a new Linux user today?"
To reply by email, remove the "abc_" from my address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:21:35 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:39:31 GMT, Mark Weaver
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Uh, guys, I think you're debating about much older versions of the document
>linking/embedding technology. You *can*, for example, still link external
>spreadsheet files into WP documents, but the typical situation is that the
>spreadsheet data (or drawing or JPEG image, etc) is embedded in the doc
>file.
That is the default, but you can still use "paste link" to embed live
documents. Which is what people keep telling me is the "power" of
COM/ActiveX/OLE/whatever-it-is-today.
But even the non-live embedding has problems. For example, I have to
write specifications. I do simple drawings in Powerpoint because that is
what the comany provides. If I embed a drawing as you describe, then I
have to edit it inside of Word in a tiny little window that behaves very
strangely and tends to cause Word to become unstable.
It is _much_ more reliable to simply export the drawing as a metafile and
import that into Word. Yes, it is a couple of extra steps, but at least I
know exactly what's going to happen when I do it.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:32:55 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 'To an end-user, portability means "can I exchange documents with my clients
>> or with my officemates" and "can I run the programs I want to use".
>> Obviously the existing Mach-kernel based MOSXS or MacOS X developer previews
>> which let people run MS-Office, IE, the Adobe suite and so forth (*); as
>> well as Mac games (**) has got better portability than a Linux kernel which
>> did not host Mac platform apps.'
>
> That's not what portability means.
Not to a developer, agreed. To a developer, portability is a concept that
applies pretty strictly to how feasible (or how much work is required) to
build a particular collection of source files on a platform. It involves what
the header files look like, which system calls and C library routines are
available, and which platform specific bugs or idiosyncracies may require
changes to the source code.
I'm a sysadmin who used to be a developer. I find still value in the
developer perspective, but I also see portability in a much broader sense--
ie, "which components does a particular piece of software require or depend on
to function?" rather than "how many lines of source code do I have to change?"
How much work does it require to get a particular platform to a state where it
is satisfactory for the system's intended purpose?
And to an end-user, portability refers to the quoted material above. End
users don't change source code-- either because it is not available, or
because they lack the time or skillset required. The internals of a program
and often the way the system or the network has been configured are opaque to
them.
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:33:27 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:19:11 -0600, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>heh.. <sigh> Why do I have to continually explain the obvious and
>inherrant to you guys?
We're trying to get your head to explode.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Kar-Han Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:45:49 -0600
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >so.. why should they bother ? :-) their customers buy the software
> >anyway, sloppy or not, and that about justifies anything for them, I
> >imagine.
>
> They could ride the 'hype wave' by releasing qtlib with
> minimal effort and cover all their bases at the same time.
You know, MS doesn't need 'hype waves' to market their products. Others
ride the hype waves created by MS, or the 'anti-MS waves' created.
[btw, what is qtlib? is that Qt or Quicktime? how is it relevant to MS?]
> >> >so, yeah, you can create your own digital media architecture and movie
> >> >player, but in the mean time if you want to view the cool trailers, you
> >> >need to get Quicktime, and for that you need Apple.
> >>
> >> This is a completely artificial constraint.
> >
> >'Artificial' seems to be a subjective matter here, but the effect is real
> >- its making lots of people want some form of Quicktime. Before free
>
> Free alternatives are available. They just don't have nice
> marketing and sales departments to back them up. The success
> of Quicktime very likely parallels the success of NT within
> the ranks of non-tech management.
what free alternatives are there with the same level of functionality,
playback quality, and developer (content provider) support as Quicktime ?
on the issue of 'non-tech' management liking NT (since you seem to be
using it as a sort of negative comment), I think you have to realize that
the larger your user base is, the more non-tech they will be. It also
means that to reach a large user base, you need to address the non-tech
needs (like common perception of quality and reliability, 'coolness', ease
of setup and use). It also means that if the product continues to be 'for
the technies', it will remain in that techie niche. I don't think there's
anything sad or disappointing or wrong or right about it, its just the way
it is, kinda like CSNA getting more newbie posts (like this one) as
NeXTStep gains a larger user base.
------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:49:52 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's fine. Sun does, and WebObjects runs just fine on big, honking Sun
>> Enterprise machines (in fact, we just had a client go with a E4500 to
>> handle a processor-intensive website).
>
> its only a midrange server (sun says :) ).
True, the E4500 is a midrange enterprise-class server. On the other hand, Sun
only offers two models which are larger: the E6500 [up to 30 processors per
machine], and the Starfire, or E10000 [16 minimum to 64 maximum processors].
The E5500, like the E4500, supports a maximum of 14 processors and the two
systems differ mainly in physical form factor-- the 4500 does not have
extensive internal storage capacity, whereas the 5500's larger cabinet has
space for up to 500 GB of internal storage.
>> True. MacOS X Server is a decent WebObjects development client, but it is
>> approximately unusable for production deployment.
>
> I do not like to development on a complete other system than I deploy
> too ... (imho)
That's pretty common from people who have never worked in a good heterogenous
environment. Even though Apple has effectively killed the potential for Cocoa
to be a viable cross-platform solution because of no available licensing,
remember that WebObjects consists of a bunch of Cocoa apps and frameworks, and
the technology actually works.
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:56:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Everyone is a hobbiest in the heart, if you are not, then I feel sorry
>> for you.
> heh.. <sigh> Why do I have to continually explain the obvious and
> inherrant to you guys?
When there comes a time in which one notices that the majority of
people around him posess a common perspective of him, the time in
question is that of introspection; the world is never crazy, its only
YOU.
If people generally are not understanding you, chad, it is always and
only because you are not making yourself clear.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:05:28 -0600
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8am21c$bn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> When there comes a time in which one notices that the majority of
> people around him posess a common perspective of him, the time in
> question is that of introspection; the world is never crazy, its only
> YOU.
The problem with that, is that the majority DON'T think differently
than I, just this small band of Ignorant crusaders that seem to make
it their job to make everyone <sigh> and shake their head every time
they post.
It is merely out of good will and charity that I sit down and take
the time to explain the obvious facts that everyone else sees to them.
> If people generally are not understanding you, chad, it is always and
> only because you are not making yourself clear.
Not people, just Linvocates. They're a small band of closed minded,
blinded and ignorant people. I used to have a little respect for them
in the way that they moved like a heard, or dare I say, collective and
always had a mantra for every single issues that the inceasantly repeat.
Even new Linvocates who join the fray from time to time tune into this
collective ignorant heart-beat of FUD lies and deceit.
But now I just take them for what they are: hapless, brainwashed
one-offs from Mac advocates with no hope of seeing the truth, listening
to facts, or understanding common logic.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
