Linux-Advocacy Digest #749, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Marty)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ (Marty)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Robert Heininger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Mon, 29 May 2000 16:01:12 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Both Are OS's, they simply rely on each other when joined. (For
instance,
> >Windows provides new DOS API's for DOS applicatins to call when Windows
is
> >running)
>
> That would make plenty of TSR's "OSes" (or provide "OS-like services").
> Dig yourself deeper!
Do TSR's also provide complete API's to it's native applications? Stop
using absolutes. The point is that Windows provides a native API for
Windows apps, but also provides API's for it's host OS.
> >>It's a strawman because you deflect the discussion from "what the hell
has
> >>Windows to do with DOS internal structures" (or some such) to "Windows
is
> >>or is not an OS". I'm not arguing that one either way.
> >No, the argument is that you are claiming that Windows is an application,
>
> Reread the thread, instead of insisting on calling each previous mail,
where I
> address your strawmen, "the argument".
"the argument" refers to the quoted material being addressed. Each of these
posts has multiple arguments, each seperated by quoting.
> >Now, if you treat Windows as an OS, there is also other precedent here.
For
> >instance, OS/2 1.x from IBM ran *ONLY* on IBM hardware. OS/2 1.x from
> >Microsoft ran on IBM and non-IBM hardware. IBM was deliberately limiting
> >it's version of OS/2 from running on it's competitors hardware. This is
no
> >different from Microsoft limiting it's OS from running on non-MS DOS.
>
> Good example. Your "fact" is patently and provably *false*.
> My copy of IBM OS/2 1.3 runs fine on a clone Pentium.
> IBM may have only *supported* it on their own hardware, which is *exactly*
> what people would have wanted MS to do: they don't have to support it
running
> on something else, but going out of their way to *prevent* it is plain
wrong.
I should have been a little more clear. IBM took over the entire OS
development between OS/2 1.2 and 1.3. 1.3 was the first IBM only release,
and thus IBM also inherited the previously MS marketed code.
IBM OS/2 1.1 and 1.2 only worked on IBM hardware because it relied on the
asychronous bios of the PS/2 series (or ABIOS). This was a reentrant form
of the PC BIOS, which could be used in a multi-threaded environment. IBM
OS/2 required this.
> >My argument is purely from the point that MS's intentions are irrelevant,
> >since they had the right to do what they did, much like it's competitors.
>
> So why do you keep trying to defend them with (made up) 'facts'? Just say
what
> we've thought all along: as far as "Erik" is concerned, whatever MS does
is
> fine.
> Oh, and those competitors didn't have monopoly products that they used to
tie.
No, I don't agree with many of the things MS has done. I simply don't
belive in painting every action MS does as having only one nefarious
purpose. There are shades of grey here, and many times MS has legitimate
reasons to do what they do, even if it also gives them an advantage.
> >>Linux is entirely available in source code, but that doesn't mean the
> >>internal data structures of the kernel are available to me or they are
> >>suddenly exposed in an API. You're reaching here...
> >They are available to you. All it takes is a few seconds in the kernel
> >source and voila! The data is yours.
>
> Are you just bein obtuse or are you *really* that simple????
> Try to get to the internal data from you user mode application at runtime
in
> the product(s) as you bought it.
Oh, as you bought it. I forgot, you're not supposed to alter Linux. That's
not it's intended function. Right.
> >Well, you said that Doom and Dark Forces are DOS extenders just like
> >Windows is, then state that the nature of a DOS extender is to expose
API's
> >to applications.
>
> Have you missed some reading lessons? There's an 'if' in there.
> *IF* they expose an API to apps, they have become the DOS extender
themselves.
> For Windows, that 'if' evaluates to 'true', for Doom and Dark Forces to
> 'false' (to my knowledge anyway).
You're the one that claimed Doom and Dark Forces were.
> >>You keep banging on the 'own' file system services that DOS Extender
> >>Windows happens to provide. Is that your criterion for 'extending' DOS,
> >>providing your own file system services??? You must be running out of
> >>arguments...
> >That was an example.
>
> Overuse of one example wears an argument thin.
But it's also a very obvious one, and one that is very central to an OS. If
you're arguing that MacOS isn't as stable as Linux, you can't help but
re-use the fact that only portions of the OS are memory protected.
> >Windows provides many other services that DOS extenders do not, such as
> >device management, I/O, etc..
>
> So, again, it's all a question of how much services happen to have chosen
to
> be replaced by the DOS extender, in your 'argument'.
> Fine, give us the criterion. How many services must be replaced in order
for a
> DOS extender to be called "an OS"? Name an exact number.
It's more like a percentage, since no two OS's, much less no two versions of
the same OS have the same number of services.
So fine, I'll pull a number out of my ass. If it's > 50%, then the value of
the host OS is less than the value of the OS itself.
> >The difference is this. An API is called by an application. As such,
it's
> >passive. A CPU is active, in that it runs the application, not the
> >application running it.
>
> Hello, who has English as his native language here?????
> An 'application' is ... the application of something. You apply it.
> If you apply semiconductor technology, you get chips. If you apply chips
and
> chipsets etc., you get a computer. An OS is one application of a PC, and
> running a totally different OS makes another application of it.
> Using OS system calls is an application of that OS (this is the only API
you
> want to see now that it suits your 'argument') and using eg. Word
functions
> (like eg. VBA does) is an application of Word.
> Do you really have problems with concepts, or is just one concept holy
> (Microsoft ueber alles)?
This is a useless argument. Of course an OS is an application to the PC.
But it's not to the applications that run under it, it's providing the
services needed to run the applications.
> >I have read the book carefully. I know exactly what Windows provides. I
> >also know that Schulman states matter of factly that the Windows *IS* an
> >OS.
> >He also states matter of factly that Windows 95 doesn't run on DOS, but
> >rather DOS runs under Windows. I can provide quotes for you if you like.
>
> That's exactly why I have *not* been arguing Win95 is a DOS app. You can
> squirm all you want to try to paint me as doing that, but I'm not. I'm
only
> using *your* 'arguments' to show things that you don't want to concede
> (whether or not I agree with not wanting to concede such a point). That
would
> show any ordinary, logical person that there must have been a fallibility
in
> their 'argument' and learn from it.
> But "Erik Funkenbusch" isn't here to learn, he's here to blindly defend
MS, no
> matter what they have done.
Do you see me defending MS for their poor trial defense? No, I think they
blew it. Do you see me defending MS for per-processor liscensing? No,
that's wrong. Do you see me defending MS for infringing upon Stac's patent?
No, it's not right (though you will see me pointing out that Stac also
infringed on MS's EULA by reverse engineering DOS, something which most
people talking about the case conveniently forget about).
I don't believe that every action MS does is wrong, simply because they are
the ones to do it. Similar actions done by someone else would be considere
savvy in many cases, but because MS does them, they're evil.
> >>>An OS is something that provides OS-like services.
> >>An ape is an ape-like creature, to stay in your inappropriate
comparison.
> >>Talk about circular reasoning.
> >Not inappropriate at all. If it walks like an ape, grunts like an ape,
> >looks like an ape, acts like an ape, then it *IS* an ape.
> >Are we going to sit here and define what an ape is like, or what an OS is
> >like? I think those definitions are pretty well know.
>
> Yeah, most Winvocates like you can easily trot out the 'OS-like
services'...
> Great criteria.
> An ape is an ape-like creature.
> A football is something that has football-like qualities.
> A light is something that gives light.
> An OS is something that delivers OS-like services.
>
> Can we give this guy a prize or what?
You clearly aren't listening. We know the definition of OS features. You
do, I do, most other people do. There is no reason to define them.
> >>Ah, so DOS isn't an OS after all. Nor VMS or Unix when you're not
running
> >>the X Window System (DECWindows) or those pesky mainframes...
> >>Gee, intelligent criterion, Erik... What did you have in mind, only
> >>Windows must qualify???
> >What are you talking about? Unix most definately does provide graphical
> >input/output. A TTY is graphical input/output, and certainly that's
built
> >into the kernel.
>
> What? Now characters are graphical??????
> You're reaaaaallllyyyy reaching here....
I don't use graphical to mean pixelated (even though on CRT's, characters
have pixels). I'm talking about visible input/output to the human, as
opposed to disks, tapes, serial ports, etc..
> >>Not very coincidental when you name only Windows 'services' as "OS-like
> >>services".
> >I didn't realize that file services and device management were "only
> >Windows 'services'".
>
> That was in the DOS - Windows context, and they were "coincidentally"
exactly
> the criteria you gave in which Windows replaced DOS...
Yes, they were in DOS, and that proves my point. Windows provides similar
services to DOS, but with it's own implementations.
> >>How'bout rock-solid stability? Windows doesn't provide that service (and
> >>no, NT doesn't qualify for me anymore, when it freezes on me at least
once
> >>a week, just running some apps)...
> >That's not a service, that's a characteristic. And i've never read an OS
> >text that requires an OS to provide such a characteristic as grounds for
it
> >being called an OS. Certainly MacOS doesn't, nor did AmigaOS, or TOS, or
> >DOS, or Minix, or Coherant (Mark Williams early Unix without memory
> >protection).
>
> Hey, if you can just name some things as "OS-like services" that are
clearly
> meant to differentiate between DOS and Windows in favour of Windows
(which, I
> guess, according to you makes DOS not an OS since it doesn't provide those
> "OS-like" services), then so can I.
I didn't say DOS didn't provide them. I said that Windows replaces them.
> And it's "Coherent" BTW, and it's no coincidence you don't have *that*
name
> right...
What is that supposed to mean?
> >>We agree Windows is not a *simple* DOS extender...
> >I'm glad you agree. Just because something *IS* something, doesn't mean
> >it's not something else as well. OS/2 is a DOS extender as well.
>
> Rubbish. It not only 'replaces' 100% of DOS (which might technically still
be
> a DOS extender)
How is it rubbish when you just agreed with me?
>, but it also isn't started as a DOS application (from DOS).
That is completely irrelevant. Netware is started as a DOS application as
well.
> But if it rocks your boat to call it such, then go right ahead. But don't
go
> blaming others for *you* looking stupid (and don't complain if someone
then
> calls NT a DOS extender too).
Sure, it's a DOS extender, but it's also an OS.
> >>>Are you now changing that statement?
> >>What part of "needless" don't you understand???
> >Well, buffer exploits in Linux are needless as well. Bugs happen.
>
> Don't worry, without those showstoppers we're talking about here, MS has
> plenty of bugs left to iron out.
How is that relevant?
> >And how do you know that every time some software is broken that they're
> >using the API as documented? I've had some experience with my companies
own
> >software breaking after applying a service pack, and 9 times out of 10,
> >it's because the developer had misunderstood some part of the
documentation
> >or relied on some undocumented side effect that went away in the SP. In
the
> >few times it was an actual bug in the SP, I certainly am not arrogant
> >enough to believe that MS was "targeting" our company (especially when
they
> >don't even compete in our market).
>
> That 9 times out of 10 the programmers were at fault doesn't disprove MS
> deliberately broke something.
Nor does it prove they did.
> And maybe some real competitor *was* targeted with this removal of side
effect
> that may have been 'documented' to them (there are more ways to document
> things, and then there are different versions of documentation, and then
> there's deliberate vagueness or strategic non-documenting that enables one
to
> pull a trick).
Do you see black helicopters as well?
> >This stuff happens. It happens on the Mac, it happens on Windows. It
> >happens in Unix (why do you think they give version numbers to
libraries).
>
> Because they've actually thought the stuff over?!?!
So, you agree that incompatibilities happen, and you agree that more often
than not a break is unintentional (not thought over).
> If you change something incompatibly, then the major version number
changes
> and the 'user' can decide to keep the old one for the apps they don't want
to
> break. Install an MS app and you get all new versions with the same names
and
> your old apps suddenly break because the working version has been
overwritten.
> How innovative...
Whether this is or isn't a good thing is beside the point of this
discussion. The point is simply that the way things are much more likely to
have caused problems than intentional ones.
> >Microsoft goes well out of it's way to ensure compatibility. The book
you
>
> Maybe, but then they're not very good at it....
I guess that explains why OS/2's windows compatibility is much less than
Windows 95's (you know, little things like VxD's, for instance).
> >keep telling me to read carefully has an entire section talking about the
> >windows compatibility flags and the amount of effort MS spends on making
> >sure faulty software continues to run. You did read that part when you
were
> >carefully reading it, right?
>
> Sure. I'm just not sure that you're using the same terms as Schulman, or
> whether or not you're leaving something more descriptive out, because he
*can*
> tell things completely and understandably (and correctly).
> There are no "windows compatibility flags" as an independent entity, so
> someone interested in actually communicating should also tell people what
> entity it relates to (like "DOS compatibility flags" would need the extra
> reference to "SETVER.EXE").
I'm not sure what you mean by this. No "windows compatibility flags" as an
independant entity? What's that supposed to mean?
> >>Which ofcourse isn't monopolistic either eh? Still want to maintain the
> >>app competitors aren't disadvantaged.
> >>They should test API conformance, not specific apps.
> >Testing API conformance isn't going to prevent apps from breaking. As I
> >said, in my experience 9 times out of 10, when an app breaks, it's the
apps
> >fault.
>
> Then those 9 aren't at issue here, the 1 is.
I think the issue is that you can't say that just because an app breaks,
it's MS deliberately torpedoing it.
> >>>>Get real. Applications get blamed for faults with Windows than the
other
> >>>>way around.
> >>>By people that know. Your average joe will blame MS though, rather than
> >>>the App.
> >>a) Rubbish
> >>b) Aren't buying decisions done by people who know???? (you don't need
to
> >>answer this, we know this not to be true)
> >So, you just made two conflicting statements here. First, you claim that
> >I'm wrong, then you claim I'm right.
>
> No, I was so foolish to assume you could understand such a shorthanded
> reaction so I wouldn't have to type "this is rubbish, but if you want me
to
> assume your rubbish to be truth for the sake of argument, then ...".
> Like I said, foolish of me. I knew you are in pedantic mode.
It still makes no sense. What's rubbish exactly? That clue-less end users
wouldn't fault windows if DR-DOS caused a crash in windows?
> >>Oh and BTW Gates disagrees with you, you know he said there a no bugs in
> >>Windows 95.
> >For someone that claims to understand english so well that you KNOW what
a
> >person means when you read between the lines, you can't even seem to get
a
> >simple quote right.
> >He said (and I quote) "There are no *SIGNIFICANT* bugs that any
> >*SIGNIFICANT* number of users want fixed".
>
> And you thought I didn't leave those "I'll say those weasel-words in so I
can
> weasel my way out later" words out on purpose?
Oh, so you were deliberately being deceptive. I understand.
They weren't weasel-words, they were conveying specific information.
Information that you choose to ignore and pretend that gates said something
else. You *WANT* gates to have said it had no bugs, so that you can prove
him wrong. The fact that he didn't say that only frustrates you, so you
pretend he didn't say them to make your point.
> Anyone who doesn't see them for what they are is either stupid or a lawyer
(or
> both)...
> And you kinda take away the pizazz out of "do what our customers want" if
you
> call millions of people cursing your product "not a significant number of
> users", eh?
They do what the majority of their customers want. No company can do
everything, every customer wants since customers are often contradictory.
As for customers cursing the product, they would have cursed it more if it
wasn't as compatible, or was more difficult to use or install.
> >Which is not saying that there are no bugs. He's saying there are bugs,
but
> >they are not significant, or if they are significant, they are not a
> >significant number of people effected by them.
>
> Yeah, what's a reboot among friends?
> Bill "Ostrich" Gates (and Erik "Denial" Funkenbusch).
A reboot is much better than your apps not working at all (which was a major
concern with OS/2).
> >But that's just it. Novell had acknowledged incompatibilities. And MS
had
> >no way to know for sure if the services it needed would always be
> >available.
>
> So as soon anyone acknowledges an "incompatibility" (whatever tiny, rare
thing
> it might be), then it's OK for MS to *go out of their way* to identify the
> product and *refuse* to run (on) it???
Tiny? It didn't allow the product to run *AT ALL* in standard mode. You
call that tiny?
> Get real!!!! Talk about an MS Apologist. You certainly deserve a capital
A.
No, I simply believe in the right for a developer to say "Don't do that"
when a customer says "It hurts when i do this".
> >>And what MS did was the equivalent of ACME game programmer looking to
see
> >>if this was ACME Mindblows 2000 with Direct3D or Microsoft Windows 2000
> >>with Direct3D, which both implement the same game programming APIs, and
> >>refusing to run on the MS one (or just giving a warning at beta time to
> >>see if they can get away with it or that a stink is raised).
> >Which would be entirely within ACME's rights to do.
>
> And again, when all factual arguments run out, it's "Duh, the can do
whatever
> they want" time for "Erik".
No, it's not "whatever they want". It's that *THIS SPECIFIC BEHAVIOR* is
within their rights.
> You know, I've done my best to not take any cheap shots at your (alledged)
> name, but your actions really make it very applicable: Flunkybusch.
So it finally comes down to throwing away all arguments and name calling.
You shouldn't throw stones in your glass house. I won't stoop to that
level, and you've finally ended this argument by admitting you lost.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:50:58 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > Spelling Camp. ;)
> >
> > How ironic, coming from the person who recently wrote:
> > "Now it's time for Microsoft to puck blood."
>
> "puck blood" is a comp.sys.mac.advocacy inside joke.
Incorrect, as it has been used as a joke outside of CSMA.
> He spelled it correctly.
Irrelevant, as an incorrect word spelled correctly is just as inappropriate as
a correct word spelled incorrectly.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:58:18 GMT
WickedDyno wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >WickedDyno wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >ZnU wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Edwin wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > > news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> > > > Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > [snip]>
> >> >> > > > Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > According to Goodwin's law, this thread is officially dead. Move
> >> >> > > along
> >> >> > > folks. No thread to see here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If I make a silly statement, llike "if someon mentions Hitler,
> >> >> > the US dollar has no value" will you start insisting on payment
> >> >> > only in gold and silver coin?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You speak of Godwin's COMMENT as if it's the Law of Conservation of
> >> >> > Energy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyway, we've discovered
> >> >
> >> >Who is "we"?
> >>
> >> As has been discussed elsewhere, "we" is us.
> >
> >Evidence, please. Where is "elsewhere"?
>
> Here.
Illogical.
> Please ignore the inherent contradiction.
How convenient it would be for you if I were to do so.
> >> >> that the _real_ way to end a thread instantly
> >> >
> >> >How instantly is "instantly"?
> >>
> >> Depends.
> >
> >Having specificity problems, WickedDyno?
>
> I refuse to confirm or deny that statement.
No surprise there.
> >> >> (or at least all useful discussion on one)
> >> >
> >> >Illogical, as discussion (useful or otherwise) occurs in a thread, not
> >> >"on" it.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> >Yet another example of your pontification.
>
> You incorrectly presume the existence of "example".
Not at all, WickedDyno.
> >> >> is to turn it into a Tholenbot thread ;-)
> >> >
> >> >Evidence, please.
> >>
> >> Unnecessary.
> >
> >Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Unnecessary.
> >> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> >
> >Open your eyes, WickedDyno.
>
> You foolishly presume the existence of "eyes".
Incorrect. My presumption was anything but foolish.
> >> Why, nowhere to be seen!
> >
> >How ironic, coming from someone who is nowhere to be seen.
>
> Typical invective.
Incorrect.
> >> Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Irrelevant.
>
> Incorrect.
On what basis do you make this claim? I notice you have failed to demonstrate
the relevance of Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and have instead taken to
pontification. No surprise there.
> >> SCSI is *NOT* magic.
> >
> >Yet another example of your pontification.
>
> Is it then your position that SCSI *IS* magic?
Seeing things that aren't there again, WickedDyno?
> Evidence please.
Illogical. Why should I provide evidence for your claim?
> >> There are *fundamental technical reasons*
> >
> >Such as?
>
> Don't you know?
I see you failed to answer the question. No surprise there.
> >> why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now
> >> and then.
> >
> >How often is "now and then"?
>
> As often as necessary.
Having specificity problems, WickedDyno?
> >> -- John Woods
> >
> >You are presupposing the existence of "*fundamental technical reasons*".
>
> Incorrect.
Typical pontification.
> I am presupposing the existence of "John Woods".
Irrelevant. Meanwhile, I see you have failed to address your presupposition
of the existence of "*fundamental technical reasons*". How convenient.
> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
Haven't you been paying attention?
> Why, nowhere to be seen!
Open your eyes, WickedDyno.
> | Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
> | SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
> | reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
> | to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Reading comprehension problems? I've already addressed this issue.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:59:17 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 20:08:27 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Pete Goodwin' wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote in <8gtq10$c4j$1
>@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>>The bad side, is that this allows (just like in windows) any user to
>>mess the sharing settings, maybe disrupting another user's, or for that
>>matter, opening the whole computer! but for a single user system in
>>a private non-connected net it's not that nasty.
>>
>>It will never make it into the regular KDE distribution, though.
>
>Whyever not? Surely you would want to add ease of use features or is that a
>no-no?
Ease of use that compromises security (as explained above) is a BIG no-no
in my opinion. The key issue here is "compromise". When using Linux as a
multiuser server or even as a home Internet gateway / router / firewall /
desktop, security is a *paramount* issue. On the other hand, a single user
stand alone desktop doesn't need tight security, and Linux is widely used in
both situations. Therefore, compromises must be made to achieve the best of
both worlds. I think Linux is right where it needs to be as a very *versatile*
cross between a server and desktop OS.
--
Robert Heininger [ Powered by: Linux 2.2.5-15 ]
Where Do You Want To Go Today?
Every time I get asked that question, someone wants to take me for a ride.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
