Linux-Advocacy Digest #864, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 23:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on Tholen ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Giving up on NT (Joseph)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Giving up on Tholen (When in LA)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Jim Richardson)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Jeff Pack)
US v Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Andrew)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:11:41 -0500
Tholen tholens in absolute ignorance (what else is new?):
> Just try to prove that I wrote the text about which
> Sutherland complained.
You just don't get it, do you. SO WHAT if you weren't the originator of the
phrase "kook and a queer," YOU LENT THOSE WORDS YOUR WRETCHED CREDIBILITY
(compromised as it is) BY CITING THEM AS A MEANS OF ATTACK, Tholen. You
know less about language than the average undergraduate, Tholen.
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:11:16 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:37:41 GMT, someone claiming to be R.E.Ballard
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:10:16
>GMT
>> >On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:46:36 GMT, someone claiming to be me" wrote:
>> > I certainly don't call that proof
>> > that MS pressures hardware
>> > manufacturers not to support any
>> > other OS, which is the claim in this
>> > thread.
>Actually, the most dramatic examples of this behavior - as disclosed
>in Judge Jackson's "Findings of Fact" include Microsoft's specific
>targeting of IBM - the only OEM that did not have a license until
>15 minutes before the release of Windows 95.
>
>Microsoft demanded that IBM stop shipping machines with OS/2, and
>even insisted that unless IBM agreed, that Microsoft would insist
>on a license audit (extortion) which it threatened to disclose to
>the public (blackmail). Eventually, to get the license, IBM paid
>nearly $30 million - for nearly 4 million licenses - machines sold
>with OS/2 instead of Windows.
Nice revision of history there. The audit was already in progress,
and MS had reason to believe that the final results would not be
favourable to IBM. Remember, IBM eventually settle the issue with MS
for $31 Mil. Who knows how much more the audit would have shown as
owing? So MS went to IBM and said "Listen, we have an idea. We both
know what audit is going to show, so let's make it some cash and some
concessions as regards your marketing?"
And I find nothing to suggest that MS would make the results of such
an audit public. So the only "blackmail" involved would be the
payment on money which IBM owed MS.
Funny definition of blackmail you have there...
>Microsoft also used it's pricing and discount structure to make it
>more cost-effective to purchase more licenses than you needed than
>to buy too few.
Most volume discounts work this way.
>At the same time, this obligated the OEM to use
>the licenses that were purchased - especially if they wanted a rebate
>in the event of a sales short-fall.
Nope -- MS had their money, they could care less if the software
actually shipped.
>According to Judge Jackson, and Microsoft's testimony in both the
>Java and the Novell case, Microsofts primary purpose for many of
>it's tactics was to protect it's market share from unnamed competitors.
How dastardly! To try to succeed? How * dare * they?
Free hint -- * any * commercial venture will try to protect its market
share.
>This was stated in the Sunsoft vs Microsoft Java case in so many words.
>Microsoft even stated that it had to protect it's market share from
>all sorts of competitors.
The ones Jackson claims don't exist?
>Microsoft's market share at the time
>this testimony was given was nearly 95% of the market. Microsoft
>specifically named OS/2 and Linux as competitors.
But of course, Jackson knows better than MS what their market is, and
the possible competition.
>Even the most
>generous estimates (mine) give Linux less than 7% of the market
>and even then Linux SHARES the hard drive with Microsoft Windows
>due to the application barrier to entry.
You're not listening -- the Linux advocates (okay, the rabid ones,
mostly) claim that absolutely anything that Windows does, Linux does
-- better.
>Notice also that when Windows 98 autoinstalls it removes all
>partitions, creates a single partition that fills the hard drive,
>and then overwrites the Master Boot Record.
What exactly are you referring to as "autoinstallation?"
>Furthermore, the
>OEM is not allowed to alter the installation once it is completed.
Except HP, Compaq, or anyone else that presented a business case for
those terms to be altered.
>Specifically, the OEM can't shrink the partition (which would
>alter the boot sequence (the boot partition would have to be checked).
Of course, the language would not prevent them from doing so * after *
that first boot, and it would be trivial for them to do so.
>The OEM can't add a partition (another alteration of the boot
>sequence). The OEM can't alter which partition boots.
The existence of another partition does not alter the boot sequence.
>In fact, if I understand the language correctly, the OEM cannot even
>alter which drive boots first, since this would alter the boot sequence
>from what it was when the software was first installed.
But after that first boot, all bets are off.
>Simply put, OEMs must install Windows OR Linux, but not both.
Nope. And I note that you acknowledge that they could install Linux
on its own boxes, if they felt that such would sell.
>What I have noticed in my dialogues with Roger is than when I have
>provided new information, within a matter of days, the DOJ is acting
>on that information. I don't know if Roger works for the DOJ, but
>he is a good investigator rather than the usual "Microsoft lackie".
Sure they are. Every time. Uh-huh...
>Other Microsoft activities worth investigating:
> The use of nondisclosure agreements during the development of the
> USB standards.
Documented where?
> The use of nondisclosure agreements during the development of the
> DVD-CSS standards.
Documented where?
>In both cases, the contributing parties/organizations would
>have been better protected by a software patent and hardware
>patents or patent applications, but were prevented from doing
>so by the agreement with Microsoft.
Documented where?
>Note that DVD and USB were both key strategic additions to
>Windows 98.
Note that DVD support is a function of drivers supplied by the
manufacturer of such drives -- there is no MSCDEX analog for such.
>Note also that Microsofts efforts delayed the introduction of
>Fire-Wire, which was a public standard published by the IEEE.
Documented where?
>Linux supports FireWire and simple functions of USB. The lawsuit
>over DeCSS was not initiated by Microsoft, but what role did Microsoft
>have in it's enforcement?
Can you document that they had any?
>Did Microsoft have any influence on the
>sites that advertized DeCSS as a piracy tool?
Can you document that they had any?
>Did Microsoft issue
>any communications to the DVD-CSS or MPAA organizations requesting
>or demanding enforcement? Are Microsoft lawyer in any way involved
>with the civil actions intended to block the dissemination of DeCSS
>as a legitimate Linux driver?
>
>I'm asking these as questions - that Roger might want to have his
>people ask - not as questions I expect anyone to answer.
And certainly not as something that you would have to support --
you're just asking, after all. See, that way, it won't spoil you
record of infallibility.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:21:02 -0500
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 3/28/00, 1:03:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang
> Weisselberg) wrote regarding Re: Giving up on NT:
>
> > Run fvwm-95 on it, if you need 'similar to M$-Windows'[1]. Or
> > KDE. Or any other 'tuned' WM. Actually, try a different WM.
> > Your users might like that. Andf if not ... well, let them choose
> > a different one.
>
> > Remember that you can run almost any window manager under X. X
> > itself is -- as you probably know -- not much different from a
> > driver in function: It gives an open, standardized, usable,
> > network-transparent, ... interface to accessing the screen. And
> > yes, X runs under most unixes, you can use it from your Win-PC
> > (MIX, eXceed, ...) and as you might have guessed: there are quite
> > a few implementations (including X-Terminals). At least one of
> > these (XFree86 -- for 80x86) is free (GPL).
>
> I think the idea that a window manager can give you the Windows user
> interface is deceptive.
>
> You can change a window manager, but you can't change the toolkit
> that the application was built with*. QT, GTK, Xtoolkit and so-on all
> look and behave differently.
>
> You can't even change the behavior of basic cutting and pasting with
> your window manager.
This is an agrument not specific to windows but to MS's OS, tools and
libraires. The windows L-A-F is a de facto, not formal standard. By
virtue of their monopoly, MS has delped define a common look and feel
that they can change whimsically by installing OS DLLs with MS apps.
One need only go back a few years when MS was in competiion with Borland
(OWL) and others to see the mess that existed on Windows itself. VISIO
made an Office plug in via OLE that worked with MS Office with a MS
office L-a-f. Visio later came out with L-a-F for Smartsuite users.
X is sufficiently primative to accomidate a windows L-a-a and windows is
sufficently primate to allow for different windows managers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:37:02 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:30:41 -0600,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8bqssr$cop$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Because Microsoft want the money and their public relations and
>> advertising departments hoodwinked enough of those with purchasing
>> authority to believe that NT server is the only way to go.
>
>Becase it's the only end-to-end solution that
>a.) doesn't require a Phd to set it up (just some common sense)
I lack a Ph.D. does that mean that the two laptops and the server at my boat
(all running linux) are not set up? I mean, I and my wife can browse the
web, send and receive E-mail and read/post to usenet, not to mention the
network gaming, ICQ, IRC and napster stuff...
Oh, the web/email/database server at the company I used to work for too...
>b.) doesn't require a group of people to maintain
um, just me, see above.
>c.) supports modern applications (not just text manipulation as you illustrated
> earlier)
Gimp, word perfect, Xesslight, oh, a few dozen other modern apps, only a few
of which are "text manipulation"
>-oh, and it supports more then 2GB of files, unlike Linux (unless you want to
>run unstable kernels on your production boxes)
I *think* you meant >2GB in a single file, because Linux has no problem with
supporting > 2GB of _files_. As for the 2GB limit, pick a FS that supports
it, or switch to a 64bit architecture, both of which are valid choices for
Linux, choices which are sorely lacking in Win*
>-oh yeah, and it scales well. It actually lives up to the term SMP, unlike
>Linux.
ooh, so Windows runs on >Intel hardware now? I knew it had deprecated
support on Alpha, are you saying it runs on say, RS6000? S/390?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: When in LA
Reply-To: When in LA
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: 29 Mar 2000 03:45:52 GMT
On Sun, 28 Mar 3900 23:40:04, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|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.
Hey Marty you are the one that say one can not infer guilt that one
has to deduce it.
|Is that like a Bobo The Hypocrite
|unsubstantiated claim?
MA>Have trouble with inferences that require more than one word?
MA>Not at all, Bobo. One does not infer to decide guilt. One deduces
MA>and proves guilt. One can only infer from a metaphor.
BO> Merriam Webster, 10th Edition Deduce: 1. Determine by deduction;
BO> specif: to infer from a general principle.
Marty provides link to his fav dictionary:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=deduce
MA>That's #2, taking a back-seat to:
MA>"1. To reach (a conclusion) by reasoning."
BO>The first definition for "infer" IN YOUR DICTIONARY is:
BO>1.To conclude from evidence or premises.
Come on Marty lets not be changing the subject. How you do decide
guilt without make an inference?
BobO
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:53:29 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:26:55 -0600,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8bqssq$cop$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Not true, first you are confusing the role of the end user and the system's
>> administrator.
>>
>> Secondly, unix systems for the end user are no more cumbersome that any
>> other operating system. It all depends on what you have been trained and
>> for and have experience with. Some one who used only MacOS would find
>> Windows or OS/2 cumbersome. Someone who used only Windows would
>> find OS/2 or MacOS cumbersome. Someone wh used only Windows would
>> find OS/2 or MacOS cumbersome. Someone who used only Dos would find
>> all three cumbersome. Once they become used to the new system they will
>> be productive. It is no different for someone switching to a unix operating
>> system.
>
>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.
Like what? click on the url in krn, and konqueror goes and grabs and displays
it, drag a file to the printer, and it prints... what's tough about that?
oh, you mean setting it up was tough? no, just selected kde when I installed
SuSE, somewhere along the line, told it the what the printer was.
Now after that, I customized the heck out of it. Because I don't *like* the
way windows does some/ a lot of stuff. But that was my choice. Getting to
the same point as say, Win98, was easy. Going well beyond, was fun.
(now I use windowmaker, with gnome and kde bits. It was so tough, I mean,
rpm -Uvh package_name was a real brain twister.)
>
>Just because you have a sysadmin, doesn't make it easy, or even cost effective.
>
and you claiming otherwise means what exactly?
>> Consider this situtation: You have a directory
>> /usr/share/corporate/documents filled with a large number of
>> compressed text files, your boss (user name boss,
>> hostname bigboy.corpnet) wants you to extract all the words from
>> those files put them on sepperate lines, sort them, no words
>> duplicates, put the resulting wordlist file in the shared directory
>> /usr/share/dictionary/corporate with the name all.words, email
>> him a copy of the wordlist, the wordlist also need to contain
>> all the words in compressed wordlist files now in
>> /usr/share/dictionary.
>
>Strawman.
>
so you couldn't easily do it on your $OS_OF_CHOICE?
>>
>> How would you do it with Windows,
>
>Windows scripting host, easy.
>
example?
>> Dos, OS/2, or MacOS?
>> Here is a single line command for unix that would do it:
>>
>> zcat /usr/share/corporate/documents/* /usr/share/dictionary/* |
>> words | sort | uniq | tee /usr/share/dictionary/corporate/all.words |
>> mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s "Here is the new dictionary"
>
>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.
>
well, you could use Star Office's powerpoint thingy, I think applix has one,
and WP Office 2000 will have (release this month?)
Maybe you should start reading computer magazines less than 5 years old
for your linux info Chad.
>> If you don't want to wait for the command line to finish you could
>> queue it as a batch job by entering.
>>
>> echo '
>> zcat /usr/share/corporate/documents/* /usr/share/dictionary/* |
>> words | sort | uniq | tee /usr/share/dictionary/corporate/all.words |
>> mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s "Here is the new dictionary"
>> ' | batch
>
>oh boy! Text manipulation. They pay you a sysadmin salary for text
>manipulation? "But boss, I did it with one command line!"
I think it's more along the lines of
"Sure boss, it's done allready"
rather than
"well, I gotta point and click my way through this, I should be done
in an hour or so."
Out of curiousity Chad, is windows scripting host text manipulation ?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: 28 Mar 2000 22:53:38 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (piddy) writes:
> BEOS 5 is ready for downloading, but the site is too busy.
> Btw, it's well worth taking a look at. It's fast, looks great, is as
> easy as the Mac. Just click around and you can figure things out.
> Don't count on it working with Win-modems and the off brand sound
> cards though.
Well, it did look good, but it doesn't support my laptop's graphics
controller or my Ethernet card, which cuts into its usability. In
addition, sometimes on boot my keyboard was dead. (There may be
drivers available if the version 4 drivers work, but I haven't been
able to reach any Be-affiliated site consistently today.)
Still, with a bit more driver support it could be a great replacement
for Win9x.
> It defaulted to 640x480 on my computer, but in less than 5 minutes I
> found a way to adjust it to 800x600 and changed the refresh rate from
> 56 to 72 to cut down on flicker. Try that with Linux!
It's been a while since I did that, but it's just a trivial modification
to XF86Config (which contains comments and examples), right?
> My wheel mouse worked and scrolled most windows. I'm seriously
> thinking of getting a different modem and sound card and using
> this for web browsing, file downloading, and fun stuff.
I would like to get Be working, because it looks really promising for
casual use. I didn't use it enough to get a feel for its resiliency,
though, and the GUI didn't look as flexible as Enlightenment.
> If it had apps, I'd say it had an excellent chance to make it big.
It's been out for 12 hours or so. Give it time.
> piddy -- Linux now sucks more!
Linux hasn't changed much since yesterday. And it's better than all
the other options available to me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: US v Microsoft
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:44:47 GMT
I think that what many people lose sight of in defending Microsoft is
that any concentration of power of this magnitude has the potential
for being abused. I think that this litigation has been very broadly
based and courageous; I respect the government lawyers for using the
rule of law to attempt to check the tyrannical exercise of power.
I also think that Microsoft has already suffered great reverses in the
court of public opinion, especially expert opinion. It is incumbent on
those of us who have expert knowledge to marshall that knowledge in
the service of fair play.
In one sense, the points raised in this litigation have been made moot
by certain technical advances, most notably the open source movement.
The unavoidable reality is that these developments have come about in
spite of the concerted efforts of Microsoft the thwart them. That, I
believe , gives the lie to any claim of Microsoft to be an
"innovator."
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:58:08 -0800
Microsoft should be broken up into an OS company and a
independent applications software company.
The law should be passed that no computer or harddrive can be sold
by with a preinstalled OS or be bundled with and OS or software. No
hardware manufacturer, OS producer, or application software producer
can be operate in any of the other field and may not form stratigic
agreements with any of the prohibited fields. Much like the division of
banks, insurance, and security brokerages after the crash of 1929.
If a computer hardware firm wants to provide copies of of OS's
"preinstalled", they would have to sell the OS as a sepperate
purchase with the installation media preconfigured with all needed
drivers to automatically install to OS onto the precise computer model
for which they would have other wise install it on to. The customized OS
packages and media should be marked with a message like:
"Warning this copy of GeeWizOS version 3.5 has been customized
for use on Supercomp model 20X3.Y revision 30.1 computers only.
This copy of GeeWizOS and may not operate on any other computers
including on a Supercomp model 20X3.Y revision 30.1 computers if
modified in any way from the factory configuration.".
Any violation of the rules should be punishable under RICO. I am certain
that I have left some loop holes in this discription, but you get the
general
idea.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>There should be a law that a customer must have a right to buy any PC
>without any operating system installed.
>This will give a customer choice of any OS, or if someone aleady have
>Win on desktop, why he/she have to pay to M$ an additional fee for OS
>on laptop?
>
>Zalek
------------------------------
From: Andrew <[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 23:04:05 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
Perhaps you didn't look at the software hard enough. If you installed Terminal
Services you can remotely administer the machine with the full GUI. Yes, I know
MS didn't package a Linux or Solaris client, but from what I understand, the
Citrix ICA client is fully compatable with it (they use the same protocol). I've
never done it with the Citrix client myself, so YMMV. As for W2K Professional,
you can remotely administer NT servers decently enough for many duties with the
Computer Management MMC plugin. These are just two built-in examples. NT/W2K has
a way to go before it's perfect in this respect out of the box, but it's goten a
HELL of a lot better with this release.
> 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.
You knew the latter was not true and you obviously did not have enough time to
test the former, so why did you even bother?
Andrew
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
