Linux-Advocacy Digest #862, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 20:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: VMWare vs. Bootmanagers (sandrews)
Re: Giving up on Tholen (Marty)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism (Osugi Sakae)
Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism (Ron Reeder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:15:53 -0500
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMWare vs. Bootmanagers
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <8bidpe$bdb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> gcaldwel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm going to install multiple OSs on my computer, so I nailed it down to
> > uses Partition Magic and Boot magic or VMware.
> > Are any of you using VMware for Linux? How does the virtual platforms
> > perform. Is there any problems with performance do to running in a virtual
> > window. Can files be shared between the installed platforms.
>
> I know people who are using VMWare under Linux to run NT and who seem
> to be happy with it, and I believe that the sharing files depends on
> exactly how you set it up. However, I have not tried this myself, so
> I cannot comment further in anything other than a prejudiced fashion.
>
It works quite well, VMWare under Linux running NT results in LESS
BSOD's as NT is kept under control. I use this combination at work to
do development work and it gives you a way of testing your apps under
the `Windows Release of the Month`. Setting up all those boxens to test
under was a HUGH PITA. Now I can reproduce the customers environment
quite well. The file sharing is handled by Samba of course!
--
Linux - The power to serve and protect
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:40:04 GMT
Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 3900 15:51:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
^^^^
Still haven't figured it out? Maybe by the next millenium you'll get it
right.
> said:
>
> |>Note that Sutherland was lamenting the *lack* of action by the University,
> |>while Glatt is claiming that action was taken.
> |
> |Note that David subsequently indicates that his "lament" resulted in
> |the University contacting him to inform him that the material of yours
> |he supplied was a violation of the U of H acceptable use policy, and
> |that the University would take action on this violation.
>
> Indicates? Is this like a Marty The Non-Inferrer deduction,
That makes a lot of sense, Bobo. Is that like a Bobo The Hypocrite
unsubstantiated claim?
> namely: reasoning without premises or evidence?
That would be your methodology and words, not mine. I've been requesting
evidence from you for months which you have failed to present, in spite of
your claim that it exists.
And now the cycle is nearing completion. You're right on schedule following
your usual pattern after humiliating yourself and losing an argument:
1] Remove the entire contents of the most damaging post against you and
respond to said post with non sequitur verbal masturbation.
- Check
You did precisely the same thing in the thread in which you were proven
to be a bigot by your own conflicting words.
2] When the new line of posts become sufficiently long, respond to it in
at least 4 separate postings, fragmenting the thread.
- Check
You did precisely the same thing in the thread in which you were proven
to be a bigot by your own conflicting words.
3] Adopt a non sequitur catch-phrase or topic around which you can rally,
vaguely resembling something your opponent said, but completely
misinterpreted and misconstrued in an idiotic fashion, inserting your
own words into it where appropriate.
- Check:
past example: "statistical theory"
current example: "inference and deduction"
4] Leap into other threads spreading this new-found banner where it is
entirely inappropriate.
- Check
You did precisely the same thing in the thread in which you were proven
to be a bigot by your own conflicting words.
5] Ignore everything else that came out of the original thread by only
discussing the new-found banner and your idiotic misinterpretation of
it.
- Check
You did precisely the same thing in the thread in which you were proven
to be a bigot by your own conflicting words.
6] Await being kill-filed and declare victory
7] Disappear as no one is paying attention to you anymore, possibly
changing your e-mail handle when you come back
I move we fast-forward to #7.
Bobo, you're so predictable I can set my watch by you. Don't you ever grow
tired of folks seeing right through you?
> Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
> to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
> act."
>
> David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
> Dejanews:
>
> If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
> particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
> anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
> and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
>
> If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
> *will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
> *will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
>
> I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
> Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
> certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
> admission to personal notification of employer]
>
> Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
> insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
> so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
> discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
> Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
> contacting employer]
>
> Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
Still demonstrating your inability to prove your claims? How embarrasing! No
matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically produce evidence
that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired for using a word, especially in
light of Sutherland's reproduction of the letter he actually sent to the U of
H. I ask again (noting the lack of previous response), where is the part that
proves that Sutherland tried to get him fired for using a word? Can't find
that part, can you? Too bad.
I see your signature is unchanged. So much for:
BO> See I am not such an unreasonable guy Marty. I will work with you
BO> on this.
More hot air. How convenient that you lied about my response to this
statement.
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 28 Mar 2000 23:45:03 GMT
In article <8bqtgh$on$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>However, you greatly increase your TCO with a *nix desktop because the setup
>time required by even the sysadmin to get *nix to achieve the usability and
>intuitiveness of Windows or MacOS would take a long time and possibly even
>involve re-writing portions of the GUI to customize it for your organization
>or to achieve certain features that users like about Windows or the MacOS.
Chad,
I just for fun and because I had a demo cd of W2K installed it and tested
W2K and let me tell you it is still crap. I can not remotely log in and
administer a W2K box..this means if I was masochistic enough to install it
on my network of 23 Servers + 6 workstations. I would have to take the
systems out of useage to admin the systems. The 29 Machines I have now are
never down e.i no users loged in for more then 2 minutes. If I have to reboot
a system I shedule this a week in advance and do it at 4.30 AM when no user
or process is working. My internet gateway has a uptime of 120 days on a
386DX with 8 MB RAM running FreeBSD. My other servers are running SunOS, *BSD
or Linux and work perfect for my needs. The day Windows will be able to give
uptimes of 120 days upto years and support Intel, Sparc, Alpha, RISC
systems. I will be interested in evaluating it again until then it is no
more then a toy.
>Just because you have a sysadmin, doesn't make it easy, or even cost effective.
It is easy enough to support a Unix enviroment on different platforms,
flavours of Unix and make it look like a single machine to the user.
>Again, a strawman. How would you run PowerPoint in *nix? See, strawmen.
>Yea! *nix can do text manipulation and email! Ok, when you're ready to
>do *real* business such as Sales contact management, product layout and
>design, art production, digital video editing and mastering, collaborative
>messaging (no, not sendmail and NNTP) even power-user word processing,
>then we can talk.
Software exists to prepare Presentations under Unix, apps for the other
tasks are available also however you have one advantage over windows with
those packages that is that you can simply set up one server with the
application and have the users connect to that machine and run the app on
their terminal without having to jump trough hoops.
>oh boy! Text manipulation. They pay you a sysadmin salary for text
>manipulation? "But boss, I did it with one command line!"
Those are not sys-admin specific tasks any user can create the script the
admin only has to give joe-user permission to write to the directory in the
example.
Michael
--
Michael C. Vergallen A.k.A. Mad Mike,
Sportstraat 28 http://www.double-barrel.be/mvergall/
B 9000 Gent ftp://ftp.double-barrel.be/pub/linux/
Belgium tel : 32-9-2227764 Fax : 32-9-2224976
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:53:43 -0800
>a.) doesn't require a Phd to set it up (just some common sense)
Neither does Linux.
>b.) doesn't require a group of people to maintain
Just Microsoft's tech support?
>c.) supports modern applications (not just text manipulation as you
illustrated
> earlier)
Linux runs applications like WordPerfect, StarOffice, LaTeX, etc.
>-oh, and it supports more then 2GB of files, unlike Linux (unless you want
to
>run unstable kernels on your production boxes)
Which filesystem are you think of? But you are right I don't want to use
unstable kernels on my production server hosts. That is why I prefer to not
use WIndows NT on my critical systems.
Linux runs on system that are based: on Intel style processors from 80386
to the most modern Intel style processors; 68000 family processors, PPC,
Sparc, etc.
You can install a network server with no video, keyboard, or mouse. The
system can have just the hard drives, drive controllers, and a network card.
A Linux host client or server host can multiple simultainious users.
Besides
the user at the main system console, Linux can also support additional users
via, telnet and other network login protocols and terminals connected by
serial
ports to the host.
Then there is the software cost for installation of a new host. With Linux
the
cost is zero. While you may purchase a copy of Linux in a box at the store,
the cost is not for Linux or the other freeware software in the
distribution. Once
you have one copy you can legally install it on as many computers as you
choose
without any additional software purchases or lincense fees. You never have
to
worry about purchasing a disk to expand the licensed number of simultanious
users that can connect to your servers.
Linux file servers can appear to be a Novell NetWare fileserver using
IPX/SPX,
and Microsoft networking fileserver using TCP/IP, a Macintosh fileserver
using
TCP/IP, a unix NFS fileserver, and several more exotic unix fileserver
protocols,
all similtaniously, without any additional purchases. A Linux host can
access files
from network fileserver with any of those protocols as well.
I have a Linux box that ran 24/7 for just short of four years, until a
blackout that
lasted long enough the cause the UPS to signal a shutdown. That host has
required no maintenance and was never rebooted in all that time.
A wonderful sight is a uptime report of:
2:43pm up 1405 days, 12:22, 21 users, load average: 3.61, 1.45, 1.19
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:06:20 -0600
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> With the Unix "admin" account, you *CANNOT* "take ownership" of other
> >> peoples files. In fact, you cannot delete/modify other peoples files
> >> unless they give you permission first.
> >
> >An admin should be able to to do whatever he wants in a system. He
> >shouldn't be at the mercy of his users.
>
> So while using the created Admin account, if it turns out that your
> really *do* want to delete those user files, you can then su root and
> do so. The accidental deletion of user files is thus prevented.
Unless you su root, type rm * -rf and then realize you were in /home rather
than /home/userx
> >The argument isn't about security, it's about safety. For instance,
suppose
> >you run a program as root that has a bug in it, and it randomly writes to
> >disk sectors or it accidentally trashes a file it shouldn't be touching.
>
> Are you suggesting that if you run a buggy program in NT that it
> cannot write to disk sectors or trash files it shouldn't be touching?
Yes, if your permissions are set accordingly.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:12:32 -0600
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >An admin should be able to to do whatever he wants in a system. He
> >shouldn't be at the mercy of his users.
>
> You can use the root account when you want to do what the admin
> account won't allow with "su -c".
Completely obliterating the effects of having a non-root account in the
first place.
> >The argument isn't about security, it's about safety. For instance,
suppose
> >you run a program as root that has a bug in it, and it randomly writes to
>
> You don't run a program that's this badly written as root. Just like you
> don't run trash-the-system.exe with the admin account. Seriously, there
> are very few programs that need to be run as root, and unless you are
> running well tested code, you should not be running it as root.
As i said. Saying "don't do that" is a bandaid. Not a solution.
> >disk sectors or it accidentally trashes a file it shouldn't be touching.
> >Under Unix, a program run under root can do just about anything it likes.
> >Now, you can argue that you shouldn't run untrusted or non-thoroughly
> >debugged applications under root, but that's just a band-aid.
>
> You have the same kind of issues on NT -- certain applications will need
> to run with elevated priveliges. DOn't any processes need to run as
"system" ?
> How does your mail server deliver to a user's mailbox ?
Yes, they typically do run as system. Though that's really just laziness.
They really should run with special rights to allow them to impersonate
other users for file access.
> >them. Note that i'm not advocating removing absolute power. I'm
advocating
> >removing absolute power without safeguards.
>
> You can do this by creating an "admin" account. When you want to do
something
> that the admin account cannot do, use su -c "command", as opposed to using
a
> root shell interactively.
Which completely removes *ALL* safeguards, rather than just the ones you
need removed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:12:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ron Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> The GPL is extremely powerful and all credit to Richard Stallman
> for it. (Though his ego doesn't require any stoking - this is the
> Guy that want the linux renamed to lignux ... note the gnu in the
> middle of it.... He even resorted to counting lines of source to
> justify his position... ie. that since there where more lines of
> GNU code in a linux distrobution than linux kernel... to call it
> linux was a misnomer).
<snip>
I'd be upset, too. GNU was not just some little project
that snowballed into something huge (like Linux - nothing wrong
with that). Stallman chose to devote his working life to proving
and spreading his free software values. Now, GNU has been hijacked -
not by closed source software companies (the GPL protects against
that) but by Linux. The software is still free and open, but is
mainly driving up IPO's instead of spreading Stallman's values, because
it has been adopted by the "open source" crowd who mainly advocate
the _utility_ of freeness instead of social justice itself. Just
as the FSF was nearly completing the underpinnings for their
free software platform, an upstart (linux) jumps in to provide the
last but most visible piece of the puzzle, stealing all the glory
and largely divorcing GNU software from the RMS message.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:33:09 -0600
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8bqurt$hal$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bad idea. Most customers don't have the technical expertise to install
> off-the-shelf versions of any operating system, including windows,
> without the special OEM files provided by the manufacturer.
I'm glad you recognize this, since it conflicts with parts of your later
statements.
> So getting to the bottom line: What should be included in the
> settlement.
>
> Business Practices:
>
> Pricing schedule:
> Microsoft should be allowed a spead of 20% on no more than 50%
> of the previous year's sales. If the manufacturer orders more
> than 50% of the previous year's sales, they will get no further
> discount. The Federal Trade Commission would be given the right
> to monitor all contracts to make sure than the spread does not
> exceed 20%.
So now you are penalizing an OEM for increasing their sales by more than
50%.
If I buy 1 copy last year, and this year I want 100, I have to pay full
price for 98 of them?
> Tie-ins:
> Microsoft will not be able to offer discounts in exchange for
> non-monetary compensation such as the inclusion or exclusion of
> competitor productes. Each component much be independently
> managed and marketed.
So, Microsoft could not offer discounts to OEM's that, say, follow the
latest PCxx standard? They couldn't offer discounts to those that get their
software certified (and most larger OEM's create their own software for a
number of things) instead of just producing buggy garbage?
> Innovations:
> Microsoft may not provide any incentives for the inclusion of
> products for which there are other competitors. For example,
> Microsoft may offer Internet Explorer as a complimentary product,
> but may not make the inclusion of it, or it's placement on the
> desktop a requirement for aquiring the operating system.
Well, guess MS would have to get rid of the calculator, wordpad, notepad,
edit, more, the CD command (since commercial versions of these exist). It
couldn't even ship with a command line shell since that would put hardship
on 4Dos.
> Predatory coding:
> Microsoft may not create code that would damage any existing
> subsystem whether provided by Microsoft or any competitor. This
> includes any modifications of the Master Boot Record, the
> partitioning, or the release of upgrades that damage competitor
> products. When there are disputes over predatory code, Microsoft
> will submit the code in question. The arbiter could be the FTC.
So, how would those cluless newbies you mentioned earlier figure out how to
modify their own MBR?
> The Findings of Fact Stand:
> All portions of Judge Jackson's findings of fact are accepted
> by Microsoft. Microsoft will be given amnesty for previous
> conduct, but will be treated as a monopoly, and all testimony
> and findings can be used in the event of future misconduct.
There are things in the findings of fact that are proveably wrong. For
instance, this would essentially make it law that Apple could not compete
with Microsoft for the same market. The FoF is also misleading in many
places. The testimony about OS/2 completely ignores the fact that IBM was a
competitor to other OEM's, and that most OEM's wouldn't put OS/2 on their
systems if they were paid to do so, regardless of any MS contracts.
> Nondisclosure Agreements:
> When a competitive standard is provided in a publicly available
> formate, Microsoft may not use nondisclosure agreements or
> incentivess for creating alternative proprietary standards.
> All future communications protocols will be regulated by the
> Federal Communications Commission. The use of proprietary
> hardware interfaces will be regulated by the Federal Trade
> Commission. This will only apply to protocols and standards
> that are not available under the same terms as competitive
> standards, and will only apply to standards bodies in which
> Microsoft is a contributing member. Microsoft may not use
> nondisclosure agreements to prevent the disclosure of
> information that could otherwise be copyrighted or patented.
I assume you're talking about Java here. Java is not, nor is it likely to
ever be, a standard other than a defacto one. Even then, Sun does a great
job of violating it by itself in it's various version changes.
> Deceptive Marketing:
> Microsoft will not be allowed to use nondisclosure agreements
> to suppress reports which are accurate but unfavorable to
> Microsoft. This includes, but is not limited to, benchmark
> results, bug reports, feature comparisons, or comparisons to
> competing technology.
With the exception of beta software (which NDA's should apply to, since the
results can change), the NDA's you're referring to are signed in order to
get free versions of the code for testing. If they want to do non-biased
benchmarks, they could buy it.
> Conditions for lifting the restrictions:
> The restrictions listed above would be lifted once competitors
> have penetrated at least 50% of the market. This includes both
> coexistant (dual-boot) systems and competitor only systems.
> This 50% will only include those platforms on which Microsoft
> Operating Systems are licenced and the regulations would be
> lifted on a market-segment by market-segment basis. Thus,
> if Microsoft controls less than 50% of the hand-held market,
> there would be no restrictions on that market, but the existing
> restrictions would still exist in the Intel PC market.
Microsoft is not being tried for any other market than PC operating systems.
Therefore, any agreement should only apply to that.
> The 50% rule also applies to all competitive products installed
> on an after-market basis.
Huh?
> Penalties and Enforcement:
>
> If Microsoft violates the initial court decree, they would
> be in contempt of court. Furthermore, executives ordering
> actions which violate this agreement could be jailed for
> contempt, fined based on a percentage of personal assets, or
> prosecuted under criminal racketeering laws.
That would be unconstitutional, given that the Sherman Act is a civil,
rather than criminal code.
> Microsoft would be fully liable for all damages to competitors
> and for damages to the consumer market as a whole for any
> violations. These would be subject to binding arbitration by
> an appellate court and could only be appealed to the supreme
> court.
And tie up the legal system for decades while companies try to make fast
bucks by claiming violations.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:01:35 -0800
Looks like a pretty good rough draft. Here are a few small
suggestions:
Don't say things like "last year" or "recently" unless you want
to have to rewrite it in a year or two. Give specific dates.
Give more historical background on the Free Software Foundation,
GNU, and GPL. Without those, linux would not be where it is
today.
My 2 yen,
Osugi Sakae
* 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: Ron Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:03:00 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ron Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> > The GPL is extremely powerful and all credit to Richard Stallman
> > for it. (Though his ego doesn't require any stoking - this is the
> > Guy that want the linux renamed to lignux ... note the gnu in the
> > middle of it.... He even resorted to counting lines of source to
> > justify his position... ie. that since there where more lines of
> > GNU code in a linux distrobution than linux kernel... to call it
> > linux was a misnomer).
> <snip>
> I'd be upset, too. GNU was not just some little project
> that snowballed into something huge (like Linux - nothing wrong
> with that). Stallman chose to devote his working life to proving
> and spreading his free software values. Now, GNU has been hijacked -
> not by closed source software companies (the GPL protects against
> that) but by Linux. The software is still free and open, but is
> mainly driving up IPO's instead of spreading Stallman's values, because
> it has been adopted by the "open source" crowd who mainly advocate
> the _utility_ of freeness instead of social justice itself. Just
> as the FSF was nearly completing the underpinnings for their
> free software platform, an upstart (linux) jumps in to provide the
> last but most visible piece of the puzzle, stealing all the glory
> and largely divorcing GNU software from the RMS message.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Of Course - You are absolutely correct.
Remeber the first post that Linus put on usenet concerning his
(at the time unnamed OS) Paraphrasing... that it was something
to play with till GNU finished their verion of UNIX...
Nobody Hijacked GNU... In fact the popularity of the Linux related
IPO's only proves Stallman's point "Free as in Freedom" not no cost.
I believe that the establishment of GNU and its principles required
some like Stallman, I believe the development and success of linux
required some one like Linus - as Tom Steinberg said:
"Linus Torvalds' combined social and programming skills to drive the project"
That expression "Hijacked GNU" really bothers me.
It's as if some Social Activist couple, had child, raised that child
with social teachings... then had the child grow up and founded a
Corporation on social principles... and being disappointed the child
didn't growup to head the Farm Workers Union. I mean you put something
out there... and you lose control... It developes a life of its own...
You can't be angry that it didn't do exactly what you wanted it to...
The power of the GPL through the GNU utilities, and XFree project, and
others is being manifested though the enrichment of those companies that
have invested their future into FSF. It's not a corruption of GNU or
GPL or opensource but a realization of the its power. And ain't it
Awesome!?
--
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Ron Reeder | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Denver Technical Support | Phone: (303) 389-4408 |
| Western Geophysical Company | Fax: (303) 595-0667 |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
