Linux-Advocacy Digest #588, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Boyd)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451684 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451684 (tholenbot)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks) (tholenbot)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks) (Gerben Bergman)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost (Alan Boyd)
Re: a great job (Mike Marion)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 19:08:14 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > If the Apps division had access to Windows source, they wouldn't
> > > need to have a completely seperate implementation in their apps.
> > > (And in reality, I highly doubt that the OS division uses much
> > > source code from the Apps anyways, more than likely that code is
> > > highly application specific. They would need to rewrite it to be
> > > generic for an OS. Basicly the Apps division floats the concept to
> > > users in the office apps, if it gets good feedback, they write
> > > something similar for the OS).
> >
> > And yet, Gates' rational for *not* splitting them up along those lines
> > contradicts what you claim.
>
> No, that's not what he said at all.
Well, he did say
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,44557,00.html
The symbiotic nature of software
development may not be obvious outside the
industry, but it is a phenomenon that has
produced enormous consumer benefits. Windows
and Office--working together and drawing on each
other's features and innovations--have improved
personal computing for millions.
Under the government's plan, however,
Microsoft's tablet PC simply won't happen,
because our OS and applications developers will
be unable to collaborate.
Just as chassis developments at Lincoln (owned
by Ford) are shared with Ford's other car
divisions, Microsoft takes the best thinking
among its applications software developers and
shares it with Windows developers (and vice
versa).
You do know what a "symbiotic" relationship is, right? And you can
grasp the concept of "Windows and Office--working together...", right?
And "collaborate" and "vice versa" are in your dictionary too?
But you claim they don't work closely together.
So how is what Craig said "not what he said at all"?
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451684
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 00:12:01 GMT
Today's Haakmat digest:
1> Yes I did.
Where allegedly?
1> You've just not been very specific.
Incorrect, given that I reproduced the exact sentence of yours where
you used "again", Pascal.
1> Are you saying that you did not forget to digest me?
Yes, Pascal.
1> Perhaps you chose not to digest me on purpose?
Of course, Pascal.
1> I want you to get on your knees and ask me to marry you,
Illogical, Pascal.
1> but lacking that, I want you to admit that you forgot to digest me.
Why should I admit to something that isn't the truth, Pascal?
1> Indeed.
Do you intend to do something about that problem of yours, Pascal?
1> Where do you think do I get my impression of you?
I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there.
1> You think I'm sweet?
I know you're a liar.
1> I think your memory has gone bad.
What you think is irrelevant, Pascal. What you can prove is relevant.
1> We can have it examined if you like.
Who is "we", Pascal?
1> Almost certainly not.
The key word here is "almost".
1> What a coincidence.
Non sequitur.
1> Maybe we should get ourselves examined together.
Maybe not.
1> We can hold hands and eat ice-cream if you like.
Illogical, Pascal.
1> Do you like ice-cream?
Irrelevant, Pascal.
1> Because you want more?
Incorrect, Pascal.
1> I never said you should,
Then why do you keep asking me to do so, Pascal?
1> sweet dandelion.
Non sequitur.
1> Nevertheless you keep coming back for more.
For more what, Pascal?
1> "still", Dave?
Yes, Pascal; still having reading comprehension problems?
1> Do you particularly like to say that,
What I like or dislike isn't relevant, Psacal.
1> even though it isn't true?
On the contrary, it's quite true that you weren't specific.
1> More evidence of your memory problems.
You're erroneously presupposing that the event occurred for me to
remember it, Pascal.
1> Ask me later.
Still non sequitur.
1> It's surprising that you think I ever stopped, though.
Why is it a surprise, Pascal?
1> No thanks.
Non sequitur.
1> Perhaps.
On the contrary, it's quite certain that you were non sequitur, Pascal.
1> Perhaps.
On the contrary, for sure you did jump to a conclusion, Pascal.
1> Perhaps.
On the contrary, you did write "if", Pascal.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451684
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:25:10 -0500
In article <lF%U4.4680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Today's Haakmat digest:
Irrelevant.
> 1> Yes I did.
>
> Where allegedly?
How ironic, coming from someone who practices Timbol-esque deletion
tactics.
> 1> You've just not been very specific.
>
> Incorrect,
Prove it, if you think you can.
> given that I reproduced the exact sentence
What is "exact" about it, Dave?
> of yours where
> you used "again", Pascal.
Why?
> 1> Are you saying that you did not forget to digest me?
>
> Yes, Pascal.
What you say is irrelevant.
> 1> Perhaps you chose not to digest me on purpose?
>
> Of course, Pascal.
Also irrelevant. How predictable.
> 1> I want you to get on your knees and ask me to marry you,
>
> Illogical, Pascal.
Why?
> 1> but lacking that, I want you to admit that you forgot to digest me.
>
> Why should I admit to something that isn't the truth, Pascal?
Non sequitur.
> 1> Indeed.
>
> Do you intend to do something
What a silly question.
> about that problem of yours, Pascal?
What "problem"?
> 1> Where do you think do I get my impression of you?
>
> I see
Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
> that you didn't answer the question.
On the contrary. You simply failed to comprehend the answer.
> No surprise there.
Illogical.
> 1> You think I'm sweet?
>
> I know you're a liar.
Your erroneous "knowledge" is irrelevant.
> 1> I think your memory has gone bad.
>
> What you think is irrelevant, Pascal. What you can prove is relevant.
How ironic.
> 1> We can have it examined if you like.
>
> Who is "we", Pascal?
Don't you know? Perhaps your erroneous "knowledge" has something to do
with this.
> 1> Almost certainly not.
>
> The key word here is "almost".
What is "key" about it, Dave?
> 1> What a coincidence.
>
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect.
> 1> Maybe we should get ourselves examined together.
>
> Maybe not.
Aren't you certain?
> 1> We can hold hands and eat ice-cream if you like.
>
> Illogical, Pascal.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> 1> Do you like ice-cream?
>
> Irrelevant, Pascal.
Evidence, please.
> 1> Because you want more?
>
> Incorrect, Pascal.
Evidence, please. Meanwhile, you still fail to make a logical argument.
> 1> I never said you should,
>
> Then why do you keep asking me to do so, Pascal?
Prove that he has asked you to do "so", if you think you can.
> 1> sweet dandelion.
>
> Non sequitur.
Irrelevant.
> 1> Nevertheless you keep coming back for more.
>
> For more what, Pascal?
Can't you tell?
> 1> "still", Dave?
>
> Yes, Pascal; still having reading comprehension problems?
Haven't you been paying attention?
> 1> Do you particularly like to say that,
>
> What I like or dislike isn't relevant, Psacal.
What alleged "Psacal"?
> 1> even though it isn't true?
>
> On the contrary, it's quite true that you weren't specific.
Incorrect. You failed to understand the specifics.
> 1> More evidence of your memory problems.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that the event occurred for me to
> remember it, Pascal.
Illogical.
> 1> Ask me later.
>
> Still non sequitur.
Still incorrect.
> 1> It's surprising that you think I ever stopped, though.
>
> Why is it a surprise, Pascal?
Ask your asteroid, Dave.
> 1> No thanks.
>
> Non sequitur.
Why?
> 1> Perhaps.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite certain that you were non sequitur, Pascal.
What is "certain" about it?
> 1> Perhaps.
>
> On the contrary, for sure you did jump to a conclusion, Pascal.
How ironic.
> 1> Perhaps.
>
> On the contrary, you did write "if", Pascal.
Evidence, please.
--
On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
(was Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:26:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gerben Bergman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm aware of Bennett's attribution problems, Myrat, like I'm aware of
> yours.
What alleged "attribution problems"?
> Evidence, please.
He has already provided the evidence. Predictably, you failed to
comprehend its significance.
--
On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:36:57 -0400
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g0sl1$q5j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> : I wonder if you have an alternate explanation Jedi for why Linux isn't
being
> : used much on the desktop.
> : I don't know anyone using it on the desktop. I personally can't stand
using
> : it in that roll for over 20 minutes at a time myself.
>
> I don't particularly enjoy using Windows for any length of time, myself.
> But that's beside the point. People don't use OSes to move the
> little windows around; they use them for the apps. When Linux
> gets the killer app people need to have on their "desktop", people
> will switch to Linux. Forget ease of use. Forget stability.
> It's all about apps.
>
> Linux has all the apps I want. Now we just need to write something
> everyone else can't live without.
I always hear the apps issue is off-limits.
It is in fact the most important issue on a desktop machine.
Linux doesn't have as many high-quality GUI apps as Windows does.
In addition in the email I was trying to say in addition Linux doesn't have
all the
infrastructure to even have all the Windows apps ported.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Gerben Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
(was Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 02:37:02 +0200
Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
| > I'm aware of Bennett's attribution problems, Myrat, like I'm aware of yours.
|
| What alleged "attribution problems"?
The ones you're suffering from, Eric.
| > Evidence, please.
|
| He has already provided the evidence.
Balderdash, Eric. He's done nothing of the sort.
| Predictably, you failed to comprehend its significance.
You're erroneously presupposing that he has provided the evidence, Eric.
--
Gerben Bergman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:38:00 -0400
Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jim Ross wrote:
> ware out there, quite complicated, having all sorts of
> > > fancy filters etc, costing no more than £9.99, which is $20?
> >
> > Name some for our benefit.
>
> Ohh, I can't remember, there are so many programs with wierd names. Emm,
> LivePix, PhotoDeluxe (£14.99) and many more. Just look at the covering
> disks of PC-Format, PC-Plus etc. Every month there are 1-2 image
> editors. And most of them are cheap.
Thanks for enumerating them.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:51:56 -0400
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 01:24:53 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:28:05 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Ian Bell wrote:
> >> >> > Trial versions? Maybe they're good when the full version costs
more
> >> >> > thatn the scanner itself.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is more software out there, quite complicated, having all
sorts
> >of
> >> >> fancy filters etc, costing no more than £9.99, which is $20?
> >> >
> >> >Name some for our benefit.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > No, it never will.... I have to give you that one, no-one will
ever
> >> >> > develop any applications for the fastest growing OS platform in
the
> >> >> > world...
> >> >>
> >> >> lol
> >> >
> >> >That is as a server.
> >> >
> >> >And why would a server OS need scanner support?
> >> >That's clearly a desktop application.
> >> >
> >> >Linux only has 4% desktop market share and won't grow since it's not
easy
> >> >enough,
> >> >and missing critical features like anti-aliased support.
> >>
> >> If that's all that you think is missing then you are going
> >> to be quite dissapointed.
> >
> >No.
>
> Certainly. Both the major desktops already have anti-aliased
> font suppot and the standard X server just got support for it
> as well.
Can you tell me which versions of KDE and X server has it?
I'd like to upgrade to that version as lack of anti-aliased fonts are
unacceptable to me.
StarOffice 5.1 is a good example of an app where the fonts look unreadable
at most point sizes.
I've installed XFree86 4.0
Are you saying I ran StarOffice 5.1 under XFree86 4.0 and installed some
TrueType fonts from Windows into it, the fonts don't look insane as
they have in the past?
This would be great if that were true.
>
> [deletia]
> >I wonder if you have an alternate explanation Jedi for why Linux isn't
being
>
> 10 years of forced bundling and the perception that it 'runs
> everthing'. REAL people don't give a SHIT about 'antialised'
> fonts. They want their pet applications to work and to be able
> to deal with the cruft other people send them.
>
> [deletia]
I understand your point.
I also think you are 100% wrong.
Here is why.
Say I have my pet apps and fonts look extremely bad like in StarOffice 5.1
does for me.
I can't really use that for hours on end without eye strain, and add other
issues like
copy/paste that often doesn't work between toolkits (QT & GTK), lower
refresh rates, etc.
These problems add up to an unuseable system.
Ya, I've bought Corel Office 2000 for Linux.
You know what, I can't stand staring very long at bad fonts, and not having
copy/paste work 100%
of the time as it does in NT.
Corel Office 2000 was the killer app for me. Still I find I can't use Linux
long.
Web surfing is the other thing I do alot.
Netscape widgets look insane, the Mozilla is unstable.
Many Mozilla builds don't even have a back/forward button. Frames don't
work right at all.
>
> ...thus why a superior MacOS lost.
>
> History has already contradicted your assertions at least once.
Maybe.
But I'm telling you anti-aliased fonts are in fact critical.
Anything bad enough can be a showstopped.
I can have my pet apps and if the screen only runs at 320x200 screen res,
that doesn't work.
Again, fonts in StarOffice are so bad as to be a showstopper.
Anyone I've shown RedHat 6.X too, without prompting, has asked me why the
fonts look bad and
Netscape looks funny. RedHat comes with TrueType support.
I wouldn't be able to force people to use a GUI that looks that bad.
I wouldn't have the heart.
Not on a desktop system.
Jim
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of'
|||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / |
\
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 00:54:50 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 20:36:57 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8g0sl1$q5j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> : I wonder if you have an alternate explanation Jedi for why Linux isn't
>being
>> : used much on the desktop.
>> : I don't know anyone using it on the desktop. I personally can't stand
>using
>> : it in that roll for over 20 minutes at a time myself.
>>
>> I don't particularly enjoy using Windows for any length of time, myself.
>> But that's beside the point. People don't use OSes to move the
>> little windows around; they use them for the apps. When Linux
>> gets the killer app people need to have on their "desktop", people
>> will switch to Linux. Forget ease of use. Forget stability.
>> It's all about apps.
>>
>> Linux has all the apps I want. Now we just need to write something
>> everyone else can't live without.
>
>I always hear the apps issue is off-limits.
>It is in fact the most important issue on a desktop machine.
>Linux doesn't have as many high-quality GUI apps as Windows does.
Alternately, most Lemming users don't use as many high-quality
apps as Windows has and quite often MS Advocates will only
advocate using far fewer 'high-quality apps' as Windows has.
That's one of the annoying bits about WinDOS culture.
>
>In addition in the email I was trying to say in addition Linux doesn't have
>all the
>infrastructure to even have all the Windows apps ported.
It will be interesting watching you support that assertion,
assuming you bother...
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 19:57:05 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
(snip)
> *That* I could see spreading around the world. *That*, while still malicious,
> is at least somewhat clever. But "ILOVEYOU"? PLEEEASE! You gotta be kidding!
>
> Bernie
>
> P.S.: And one might want to include and maintain a list of one-way hashes
> of the email addresses the thing sent itself to on its last 5 hops.
> That way, you can at least reduce the chance of hitting the same
> individuals over and over again, with messages that, while believable
> on their own, are similar enought to be noticeable when viewed in
> bulk.
Man, have you been reading "Evil Genius in a Nutshell"?
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:03:44 GMT
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> > N.B. Don't give me crap about how PCs or MS sofware are expensive.
>
> MS software is more expensive than Linux. And why shouldn't we give you
> crap?
Not to mention the fact that PC hardware has gotten cheaper over time, while MS
software keeps going up in cost.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that
curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly."
- Arnold Edinborough
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:06:19 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 20:51:56 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 18 May 2000 01:24:53 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:28:05 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Ian Bell wrote:
>> >> >> > Trial versions? Maybe they're good when the full version costs
>more
[deletia]
>> >> If that's all that you think is missing then you are going
>> >> to be quite dissapointed.
>> >
>> >No.
>>
>> Certainly. Both the major desktops already have anti-aliased
>> font suppot and the standard X server just got support for it
>> as well.
>
>Can you tell me which versions of KDE and X server has it?
Xfree 4.0.
>I'd like to upgrade to that version as lack of anti-aliased fonts are
>unacceptable to me.
>
>StarOffice 5.1 is a good example of an app where the fonts look unreadable
>at most point sizes.
No they don't. They're quite readable even at msword default sizes.
This is simple exaggeration, or fabrication.
>I've installed XFree86 4.0
>Are you saying I ran StarOffice 5.1 under XFree86 4.0 and installed some
>TrueType fonts from Windows into it, the fonts don't look insane as
>they have in the past?
No, I'm willing to state that Star's Font's don't look 'insane'
even under Xfree 3.3.
Unfortunately, commercial developers seem allergic to font servers
that are not their own.
>This would be great if that were true.
>
>>
>> [deletia]
>> >I wonder if you have an alternate explanation Jedi for why Linux isn't
>being
>>
>> 10 years of forced bundling and the perception that it 'runs
>> everthing'. REAL people don't give a SHIT about 'antialised'
>> fonts. They want their pet applications to work and to be able
>> to deal with the cruft other people send them.
>>
>> [deletia]
>
>I understand your point.
>I also think you are 100% wrong.
>
>Here is why.
>Say I have my pet apps and fonts look extremely bad like in StarOffice 5.1
What does that have to do with HISTORY?
Along with 'history' comes legacy. One has to deal with all that
data you've accumulated over the years in formats that will likely
not be completely decoded in anyone else's applications.
In some niche's, this even works AGAINST msword.
>does for me.
>I can't really use that for hours on end without eye strain, and add other
>issues like
This is pure fabrication.
>copy/paste that often doesn't work between toolkits (QT & GTK), lower
>refresh rates, etc.
Actually Cut/Paste is a part of the X server itself so it is
unlikely not to work. It working as designed isn't the problem.
Although, a user like you is unlikely to need a true clipboard
anyways.
[deletia]
>> ...thus why a superior MacOS lost.
>>
>> History has already contradicted your assertions at least once.
>
>Maybe.
>But I'm telling you anti-aliased fonts are in fact critical.
Yeah, sure they were critical when DOS was still very much
exposed to the end user underneath Windows, sure they were
critical when DOS was the only interface available.
[deletia]
Even that 'excuse' won't be around for much longer.
It will be interesting to see what sorts of speculative fiction
you come up with then.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
