Linux-Advocacy Digest #662, Volume #25 Thu, 16 Mar 00 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (William Burrow)
Re: Linux based software to US government? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Aaron Melgares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Burrow)
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: 17 Mar 2000 02:44:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12 Mar 2000 15:23:57 GMT,
Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>William Burrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 11 Mar 2000 20:16:20 GMT,
>> Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Indeed. It definitely doesn't scale. That's where BSD wins hands down.
>
>> So, why is it that to upgrade from OpenBSD 2.5 to 2.6 I had to run
>> tkdiff, read through the whole config file line by line and create a
>> merged file? What a pain.
>
>I don't know. I haven't had to do anything but copy the lines I changed the
>last time. Upgrading from FreeBSD 3.2 to 3.3 then 3.4 I didn't even do that,
>there wasn't anything in the new config I needed.
You copied the lines? You mean you memorized the exact spot of each
line? What exactly does ``copy the lines'' mean? Perhaps you don't
understand what I wrote: tkdiff is a fancy, graphical diff that shows
the differences in two (or more) files with colour coding. The relevant
changes can be made with the click of a button (i.e. specific lines are
copied) and at the end, a new merged file is created.
Perhaps you are saying you enjoy reading 300 dry lines of options. I
just want a working kernel (GENERIC does not boot) without surprises or
missing new features.
BTW, if you have avoided a graphical environment, or only use one at
grievous inconvenience, take a look at tkcvs, tkdiff and its ilk -- they
are worth the few minutes if you use cvs or deal with much source code
(at least give them the amount of time you give configuring your kernel
;).
--
William Burrow -- New Brunswick, Canada o
Copyright 2000 William Burrow ~ /\
~ ()>()
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux based software to US government?
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:51:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Scotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can neither confirm nor deny that the US government already uses
Linux
> in network servers and firewalls.
>
The Department of the Army uses Linux in numerous key roles, according
to publicly available records. For example, ....
http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/tecom/
Talk to your contracting officer's representative for information on
supplying Linux with your project. It is not specifically excluded.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 17 Mar 2000 03:05:37 GMT
On the subject of Michael Paquette's commentary,
Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: And just when I was beginning to think that I was the only person in the
: world who couldn't understand what the self-proclaimed "Free-Software
: Advocates" (not to be confused with the *real* free-sofware advocates--you
: know, the ones who actually contribute to the movement) were bitching about
: when someone refused to personally hand over a copy of their source to
: every script-kiddie and 3L3373 d00d just so they could burn it on to a CD-R
: for their "archives".
: *sigh*
: Pardon my rant.
Of course you are pardoned, when you rant politely. (I've said "pardon me
while I go off", and some people still had the poor taste to complain ;-)
I think I read the Paquette post on two levels. On the surface it is an
obvious statement, that begging or demanding anything is silly-at-best and
demeaning-at-worst, and that the most straightforward thing to do is write
some code.
I couldn't help think though, that there was another level below the
surface of that essay. The strong feeling Paquette feels towards some who
might share QuickTime code might be overdone. Especially in light of the
open source software being consumed in the creation of MacOS X.
If you'll pardon my rant, it is as if "We've got our BSD, we've got our
Mach, we've got our GNU tools ... but don't come around with your hat in
your hand asking what we can do for you. We're Apple and we don't go for
all that commie stuff."
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:19:42 GMT
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 00:26:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>>
>>You have never been to Europe have you?
>
> What you are implying would not be sufficiently realized if
> one had only 'been' to Europe. Besides, Europe was made up
> of (relatively) sovereign states last I heard...
Pick a country in Europe. Just about any country will do. Phone rates
are quite a bit higher than you and I pay here in the USA and local
calls (one dime, talk as long as you like) are not the norm.
You knew that though I am certain.
>>>>
>>>>> Although that is incorrect. The source for Xfree 4.0 is 3 files.
>>>>>
>>>>Assuming you have all of the correct libraries and other programs
>>>>installed that will allow it to compile.
>>>
>>> Quit talking out your ass.
>>
>>The questions should be hitting the setup groups any minute now.
>
> Nope. You're still talking out your ass. The Xfree 4 source
> comes with everything except glide. The last beta release
> that's sitting at 3dfx.com now in rpms is complete even
> including glide.
Source, rpm's, binaries it really doesn't matter like everything in
the Linux world it will be a problem for users to figure out.
When it is part of a distribution this will change but for now...
Is that glib-c, or glib how come I get symbol errors and so forth.
What about all of these failed dependencies?
If Windows operated like Linux does, as far as updating and
customizing, they never would have sold a single copy.
By the time you figure out all the crap you need to install X-
program, you'll forget what program you started to install.
Try Gnome for a taste.
Kde is even more fun.
You need a spreadsheet just to keep track of all the crap you need
just to get it to install.
> People are having problems with the DRI modules however.
>
> But that's something other than what you were cluelessly
> rambling on about. That and those complaints hit the
> newsgroups minutes after the announcement on slashdot.
Your right I haven't a clue what a DRI is.
> So, your timing is off as well.
I wouldn't waste a cycle on /.
>>
>>> X is a pretty fundemental bit of code. It's not like gqmpeg
>>> that might require all the fiddly little bits of gnome plus
>>> mpg123 as well.
>>
>>See above.
>
> The 2D part of Xfree doesn't have much in the way of
> library dependencies. You're just a rambling idiot if
> you claim so. OTOH, quite a few other libraries are
> quite dependent on the X libs.
My experience with trying to install virtually ANYTHING on top of a
working fresh out of the box Linux system is that more often than not,
there is always something missing that I need to install the program.
And the error messages generated can be quite cryptic as well.
Judging by the newsgroups I seem to be in the majority with that
observation.
> But, you are too ignorant to come up with this potential
> problem issue on your own.
I don't have to deal with it at all I've been using great fonts that
are crystal clear and not jagged looking under Windows for years.
I say kudo's to the Xfree developers for allowing the Linux world to
see what they have been missing all these years.
Your eyes are gonna love the difference.
Steve
>>
>>>[deletia]
>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although that is an artificial need brought about primarily
>>>>> by those that insist that anything not Windows be a Windows
>>>>> clone.
>>>>
>>>>No it's a need brought about by the thousands of comments in the Linux
>>>>groups from people who use other operating systems that are so much
>>>>more pleasing to the eyes as to why the fonts look so crappy.
>>>
>>> IOW they're conditioned to the way Windows looks in particular.
>>
>>Possibly. But Windows is so much easier on the eyes.
>>
>>>>
>>>>It's about time too.
>>>
>>> For those of us for whom Windows was our 4th or 5th GUI,
>>> it's not quite as obvious...
>>
>>So your used to looking at crappy looking fonts.
>
> Not at all. You just can't manage to express this issue
> in anything except purely subjective terms.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:19:43 GMT
On 17 Mar 2000 03:05:37 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On the subject of Michael Paquette's commentary,
>Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: And just when I was beginning to think that I was the only person in the
>: world who couldn't understand what the self-proclaimed "Free-Software
>: Advocates" (not to be confused with the *real* free-sofware advocates--you
>: know, the ones who actually contribute to the movement) were bitching about
>: when someone refused to personally hand over a copy of their source to
>: every script-kiddie and 3L3373 d00d just so they could burn it on to a CD-R
>: for their "archives".
>
>: *sigh*
>
>: Pardon my rant.
>
>Of course you are pardoned, when you rant politely. (I've said "pardon me
>while I go off", and some people still had the poor taste to complain ;-)
>
>I think I read the Paquette post on two levels. On the surface it is an
>obvious statement, that begging or demanding anything is silly-at-best and
>demeaning-at-worst, and that the most straightforward thing to do is write
>some code.
>
>I couldn't help think though, that there was another level below the
>surface of that essay. The strong feeling Paquette feels towards some who
>might share QuickTime code might be overdone. Especially in light of the
>open source software being consumed in the creation of MacOS X.
>
>If you'll pardon my rant, it is as if "We've got our BSD, we've got our
>Mach, we've got our GNU tools ... but don't come around with your hat in
>your hand asking what we can do for you. We're Apple and we don't go for
>all that commie stuff."
Mind you, noone is asking Apple to do anything that they haven't
done for others and done so free of charge. Podlipec is more than
willing to implement a codec under NDA, could he do so instead of
just getting the runaround from Apple and Sorenson who perpetually
pass the buck in this matter.
Be, FreeBSD, OS/2 and Solaris users are in the same position.
3rd parties (like compupic) are prevented from fullfilling the
need themselves (under NDA, for $$$) because of this little trust.
--
So long as Apple users Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based videoa 'Windows only' Club for x86, / | \
Apple is no less monpolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 17 Mar 2000 03:45:39 GMT
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Mind you, noone is asking Apple to do anything that they haven't
: done for others and done so free of charge. Podlipec is more than
: willing to implement a codec under NDA, could he do so instead of
: just getting the runaround from Apple and Sorenson who perpetually
: pass the buck in this matter. [...]
I'm not sure the merit of your request has any bearing. It may be that
input from these other platforms is simply not being entertained.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:53:55 GMT
On 16 Mar 2000 23:47:12 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: If someone tells a business owner that he has to learn a lot
>: in order to use Linux, the business owner will lose interest
>: on Linux right away. Business owners are only interested
>: in getting their daily jobs done taking computers as tools.
>
>True. And if someone tells a business owner that he will
>be able to switch from *any* OS to *any* OS without having
>to learn a lot, then that someone is lying. (Assuming we
>are talking about an actual OS switch here and not just a switch
>between flavors of the same OS (like WinNT to Win2000, or RedHat
>to Debian). )
This is of course true.
>In other words, while you think you've found a problem with Linux
>you haven't. You've found a problem with changing OSes in general.
>It's an expensive effort to switch. Thus if you want someone to
>swtich to a new OS, it isn't enough to just be a bit better. You've
>got to be a *lot* better to overcome the expensive cost of switching
>things around. The more expensive the effort is to switch, the greater
>incentive there is in the marketplace to accept a monopoly so people
>don't have to switch often. When it comes to computer OS'es the effort
>to switch is more expensive than the cost of the entire system, so the
>incentive toward monopoly is huge. MS happens to have been in the
>right place at the right time when that incentive started getting
>powerful. They got lucky.
I mostly agree with this, especially the fact that MS has the market
share and it is indeed difficult to get already entrenched business to
switch even if the OS IS far superior.
The problem with Linux is that the only advantage I can see for a
small business owner is the much lower cost and that really only
applies to larger business's which have multiple systems and thus
higher licensing costs.
If you are talking about Burger King going to Linux from MS I could
see a valid reason to investigate simply based on their license costs
for a company of that size.
You're going to sit this guy who owns a clothing store for example
down in front of Linux and tell him how great it is and how he is
going to save tons of money and not be tied to Bill Gates anymore and
he will listen at first. Up until he starts discovering that his
inventory program won't work and he can't import his data even if he
could find a Linux equivalent program. Proprietary format? Sure but
that's not his fault. He is running a business not designing his
software. The program works for him and he is happy. Then the bank he
uses for Mastercard/Visa sales doesn't support Linux for transactions
via his PC. Then his accountant, who imports his financial via Quicken
has never heard of Linux, or worse yet you try to suggest CBB as a
replacement for Tax/Financial packages like a Linux supporter in this
group seems to like to do. A joke at best. I wrote a checkbook program
on my Commodore-64 many years ago.
Then he gets to see Netscape in all of it's ugly looking font'ness,
not to mention Wordperfect 8 in which the fonts are so jagged you
dizzy looking at them and by now the guy is gone out the back door.
Later he finds out that half the Win hardware he foolishly bought
wouldn't have worked and his ISP is Linux hostile and he would be on
his own for dialing up.
So what is the reward for switching to Linux?
Having the source code? I doubt he even knows what it is.
You have given him no reason to switch and in fact have given him
every reason to stay with MS. He wants to run a business, not
re-invent the wheel and have it turn out square.
I have seen this scenario re-played over time and time again.
I've offered up Linux many times as an alternative and each and every
time I come away from the conversation feeling like an idiot for even
bringing up the subject. For a non-programmer, applications based
person for whom a PC is a tool to run a business I can't think of one
single reason to switch to Linux. Not even one.
When Linux can offer superior applications to Windows and do it the
Open Source way, it will steam roll Windows over time. Currently it is
not even close, and looking at the cryptic applications that folks
seem to be writing for Linux these days I doubt it ever will.
Sidtools?
Meminfo? Don't we have enough of those already?
GPM? I thought you guys had figured out how to use mice by now?
RTP? So now I can turn my $450 Sony display into an etch-a-sketch.
QextMDI? Yet another library that I am certain is needed somewhere and
for something.
This stuff is scary..It reminds me of stuff I used back in the mid
1980's to tweak my IBMPC, like NumLockOff.
Absolute FlintStone period.
BTW this was taken off the http://www.freshmeat.net page today.
>: If someone tells a business owner that he has to buy
>: new computers in order to get Linux up and running,
>: the business owner will give up on Linux since preserving
>: current technology investment is business owners' high priority.
Absolute truth and the main reason why for small business owners Linux
is not an option.
Steve
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:50:44 GMT
In article <ZhXw4.10390$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Itchy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a small business owner I
> am always interested in
> ways to save money. We
> switched from Apple to
> IBM when Apple's pricing
> became too much to handle.
You certainly seem like a sensible person.
> I recently tried Redhat
> Linux in the hopes
> that I could save some money.
What was your goal in choosing Red Hat. Red Hat is very
well adapted to functioning as a Server. Their primary
market is the Web Server market and secondary support
server markets.
As a workstation, Red Hat has pretty much delegated support
for Workstation users to the Mandrake team. Mandrake 6.5 is
reasonably nice and not terribly expensive.
The SuSE distribution is probably the Luxury Car of Linux
distributions. They throw in a great deal of extra software,
and they even provide a demonstration copy of VMWare that lets
you run both Windows (NT or 95) and Linux on the same machine
at the same time. I generally like the "look and feel" of
SuSE.
Corel Linux is a good introductory system. It's not terribly
expensive, the deluxe version comes with some very nice commercial
software, and you can install it into the C: drive without
repartitioning your hard drive.
Remember that when you buy a Linux distribution from the store
instead of downloading it, you get a certain level of service
and support as part of the deal (in fact, most of the Linux
distribution is free - you are only paying for support there.
You should feel free to call the distributor for assistance
and help. Red Hat is notorious for having one little "gotcha"
somewhere that requires a 10 minute phone call to clear up.
They know what the problem is, how to fix it, and can get you
up and running very quickly. I'm not saying they do this on
purpose, but it does give them a much better measurement of
the user base. It also reduces piracy. If you borrowed this
CD from a friend, you can usually get a new registration number
(and the support) by giving a credit card number and expiration
date.
> Well I spent 11 days messing around
> with this so called operating system and
> for the life of me can't figure out why
> in the world anyone in business would
> want to waste time on this obviously
> hacked together, half finished program.
You spent 11 days unsuccessfully playing with Linux?
Did you get it installed properly?
Did you install a commercial office suite?
Did you try the different GUI interfaces?
I could certainly understand your complaint about
the lack of slick applications - using Red Hat
as a workstation platform is like using a Kenworth Tractor
as you personal commuter vehicle.
Keep in mind that unlike the Microsoft Monopoly, Linux
is a very competitive market. Each distributor targets
certain markets. Caldara for example targets the Small Office
and Home Office markets. SuSE targets the international Workstation
market. TurboLinux targets the Asian workstation market, and
Corel targets new Linux users.
If you decided that you wanted an OS/390 system, IBM could
probably install a PC/390 in your office, but it probably isn't
what you wanted for a personal workstation.
> Maybe some day when it is completed I
> will try it again but for now, it has
> been thrown in the garbage can where it
> belongs.
11 days isn't very long to really experience a
new paradigm. The first Web users had a hard time
configuring TCP/IP, they had difficulty with setting
up the phone dialer, the static IP addresses, and the
DNS hosts. At the time, it seemed like much more work
than Prodigy - which only required one phone number
(and only gave you access to one service). Today,
we can dial in using the dialer, let DHCP configure
the IP address, DNS addresses, and the gateways.
Linux is something like this. There are hundreds of
applications that aren't mapped to the menu in Red Hat
systems because Red Hat has concentrated on making only
the system administration functions available.
On other distributions, you get applications that are fully
configured to the start menu, and you can choose a number
of different options for look-and-feel depending on your
hardware, your performance requirements, and you color
preferences. Fair warning - you can configure KDE with
a photographic background on a 32bit per pixel palatte, and
you could even do it on a system with 8 meg of RAM, but
it will be very slow - especially in 1600x1200 mode.
It will take a bit longer to initialize the program, since
you will be swapping quite a bit.
On the other hand, if you use reasonable settings like 1024x768
at 16 bit/pixel and have 32 to 64 meg of RAM and a reasonable
amount of hard drive, you shouldn't have too many problems
with performance.
If you really want to run lean and mean, you use fvwm at 8 bits/pixel
and put you swap space on a second drive. You can do very well
with 8 meg of RAM.
You aren't "hacker" enough for it, but if you use TWM, at 16
bits/pixel, and stick with athena widgets, you can run lean
and mean with 4 meg and a 100 meg drive. It isn't "glitsy"
but the programs will usually run.
> I have a business to run
> and can't waste time searching the
> internet looking for ways to accomplish
> simple tasks.
Good. There are people who have made a business
out of helping you learn to accomplish simple tasks.
Keep in mind that somebody taught you how to use
Windows, how to use Word, how to use Excel, and
how to use Power Point. If you use Applix, you
will feel right at home - the Icons are a bit
simpler, but the programs run clean on any X11
server.
There are new tools you aren't even aware of
that take a bit of time to learn, but give you
some awsome power over the computer.
> Mr. Gates provides me easy ways of
> running my programs and as a
> result running my business.
Yes he does. His programs are easy to learn.
For $600 (retail price of Office) he should have
someone come in and hold your hand. When you
begin to realise that you are spending over 1/2 million
per thousand people, you have to wonder if it's worth
that much to have a dancing paper-clip pop up and hold
your hand.
Of course, you have to do things the Microsoft Way.
You create a fancy document in Microsoft Word, perhaps
embedding some Excel Spreadsheets, and perhapse a powerpoint
drawing and a VBGraph Chart. You then send this black
blob (no sense if it's true content) via e-mail to someone
who must trust you enough to open the document. He may
make some revisions, send it back to you, and you have
to trust him. Eventually, you come up with a document
that's pretty enough for both of you, and you get the
order.
Now comes the fun part. You file the document in a black
hole directory, perhaps on a file server. You then forget
all about this document. 3 months later, your customer's
lawyer is waving a draft in front of you face that looks
a bit like the one you remember sending. He wants to see
all of the related documents. You can't even remember what
folder it's in. Two months later, your lawyer and their
lawyer are still trying to sort out what happened.
With Linux, you use standard formats like HTML, JPEGs, and GIFS.
You provide the critical information, let a program generate
your standard form contract, and post a note indicating which
URL, UserID, and Password they will need to get to the web page
(PGP encrypted of course). They send back a counter-offer asking
for an extra percentage point - and the deal is done. From
this point on, when he wants to make an order, he can use your
web site, confirm inventory, and get delivery (including Fedex
airbill code) within seconds. Eventually, he can even set it
up so that he automatically orders when his customer's order,
and you automatically place parts orders when he places an order.
You could probably cook up something like this in VB or VC++, and
have to make changes every time the terms change. The key with
Linux is that you are in control of the system, rather than the
system being in control of you.
> Linux had better wake up, fast.
You don't have to use Linux. You can keep on creating pretty
documents that you can't find and filling up hard drives with
OLE objects that you can't decipher without the latest version
of Microsoft Office. Word does have limited search and scripting
capabilities. You might even be able to read them.
Yes - Office 2000 does support XML documents, but still encourages
you to store the bulk of your critical information in proprietary
formats - many undocumented.
And of course you might get some e-mail that has some particularly
nasty attachments like Melissa or ExploreZip - embedded within a
very tempting offer, of course.
> Aimee
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Melgares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:07:02 -0800
(JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> Ultimately, the most sensible course of action is to
> move the market away from vendorlock that forces those
> of us that would like to have reasonable free will in
> our buying choices to essentially 'steal' someone else's
> patented work without their permission.
For God's sake, this is the most incoherent doubletalk I've seen on
Usenet in ages. I'm nominating you for this years' "OpenFreeSourceLinux
GreedyCorporateBastardsKilledMyDog Award"
Yeah, Linux users are very oppressed not being able to watch movie
trailers and other corporate commercials on their computers. What a
crock...
- Aaron
--
Aaron Melgares, Junior Programmer
AppleScript, Frontier, FoxPro, FileMaker Pro, MacOS Toolbox in c, and REALBasic
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
