Linux-Advocacy Digest #834, Volume #26 Fri, 2 Jun 00 16:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linux vendors (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Keith Williams")
Is This Scenario Possible? ("Raymond Swaim")
Re: History revision 1.27a (was Re: There is only one innovation that matters...)
("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Bob Germer)
Re: Is This Scenario Possible? (Mig Mig)
Re: Observations of a Lurker (Mig Mig)
Re: Observations of a Lurker (Mig Mig)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Jack Troughton)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Brad BARCLAY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 2 Jun 2000 18:57:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: Typical Linvocate response. "NT isn't C2 , it's just the hardware!"
I'm not sure how name-calling or stereotyping is helpful.
And no one mentioned anything about certification involving
"just the hardware", making the quote wholly fictitious.
: Is it really that hard for you guys to admit that NT has better security
: than Linux?
Whether or not NT is capable of better security than Linux is pure
speculation at this point. C2 certification on certain hardware
gives no guarantees and Linux has yet to be tested.
: NT, as an OS, is C2-able. The hardware it's on is merely a small part of
: the total security and design of the system.
Ah, there's the magic word. "C2-*able*" NT alone cannot be certified;
only under a certain hardware configuration does it qualify. That's
the whole point. And that hardware is not a "small part" of the total
security. If I run NT (or any OS) on hardware hacked to send me logs
of keystrokes, RAM contents and CPU instructions, I truly doubt it
would be still be considered secure. Hardware matters.
: NT was designed for security and it's reflected by it's certification.
That's good, but by no means unique to NT. AIX and Solaris have
versions that can qualify for the same certification. OpenBSD is
likely to be more secure than all three, but is not yet certified.
: It was only tested on those four boxes because it doesn't really
: matter about the box. You could put it on any box with the right requirements
: (locking cabinet, etc) and pass. Unforunately, since neither the government
: nor MS have unlimited funds, they only tested the configurations that
: needed to be tested.
I'm glad you admit the hardware matters, which was the point.
Again, NT requires the hardware it runs on to be secure in order to
qualify for certification. NT alone does not.
: This is a weak FUD-ized argument designed to help Linvocates sleep better
: at night.
Please spare us from your anti-Linux crusade. Nobody said anything
about Linux until you decided to bring it up. If you feel threatened
by it, tell it to your therapist and spare us the bandwidth.
: -Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux vendors
Date: 2 Jun 2000 13:55:04 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>So far, IBM has been genuinely involved in the open source movement;
>we just have to be careful that they don't coopt it somehow.
Somehow I always expected them to flesh out WINE to a
'better windows than windows' status. After reading part of
their deposition against Microsoft, I can understand why
they haven't (yet).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Keith Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 19:27:19 GMT
"Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:18:16 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Cox) wrote:
>
> |In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |says...
> |>
> |> You seem to have missed something. Windows version 3.0 had "real mode"
> |> specifically for that; sure it was just a "swap/shell" trick, but it
> |> certainly "had to do with running DOS legacy apps". Windows *still*
> |> runs on top of DOS, up to Windows98, so that certainly doesn't have
> |> anything to do with it. Windows 3.0 also had the "protected mode",
> |> which 3.1 had as well, which I think is what you are describing. They
> |> simply dropped 'real mode' in 3.1, and only used the "protected" and
> |> "enhanced" modes; the latter was the "full 386" default mode we still
> |> use today.
> |
> |I don't believe they dropped the "real-mode" capability in Win 3.1
> |because they needed to support DOS legacy apps on the 8086/8088 and 80286
> |CPUs but I could easily be wrong here...
> |
They did.
>From Microsoft Windows Resource Kit Page 9, Troubleshooting Windows Setup,
Chart 1.1
System Requirements for Windows:
"Note: Windows 3.1 does not run in REAL MODE An 80286 computer with 1MB of
RAM is the
minimum requirement for Windows 3.1"
please note: 1MB! try that these days.
> |>
> |> [...]
> |> >Lots of people bought DOS. You seem to be rewriting history to say
that
> |> >DOS was bundled with all IBM PCs and the compatables since the
beginning.
> |>
> |> Depends on when you define "the beginning", but I'm sure it was earlier
> |> than you think. And even then, few bought DOS; most bought PCes with
> |> DOS on them.
> |
> |I define "the beginning" as when the IBM PC was first introduced in 1981.
> |(God, I've been in this business too long...)
> |
> |>
> |> >For quite a few years after the IBM PC was introduced you had to pay
> |> >seperately for the OS. Lots of people bought DOS as an upgrade from
the
> |> >version they already had. The new version wouldn't have sold to these
> |> >people if it broke their legacy DOS apps. No one would have wanted
> |> >the new version if it didn't support the existing DOS apps. Why is
this
> |> >simple fact so hard for you to understand?
> |>
> |> Because whether DOS was listed as a separate line item is not the
issue.
> |> When I said people didn't buy it, I didn't mean they didn't pay money
> |> for it. I meant they didn't make a choice to pay money for it.
> |
> |What more do you want? When you bought your computer you could choose to
> |buy DOS or not. DOS cost extra. I believe it was usually around
> |$70.00 retail. Isn't that what you've been screaming about that you want
> |all these months: to be able to buy the OS of your choice as a separate
> |transaction?
> |
> |>
> |> >Max, I really don't understand why you raise such arguements when you
> |> >obviously don't know anything about the very early IBM PCs. You argue
> |> >about nit-picky details that really don't mean anything. The only
> |> >reason I respond is because everyone that wasn't there at the time
like I
> |> >was would just believe whatever you said if I didn't at least try to
set
> |> >the record straight.
> |>
> |> Well, if the only reason you respond is to set the record straight,
then
> |> it is more than worth my while to post, regardless of how brain-dead or
> |> nit-picky you may think I am. I know quite a bit about the very early
> |> IBM PCs, just not the same things other people might know. The
> |> interesting part is seeing how much what some people know doesn't agree
> |> with what other people know.
> |>
> |> Which is also why I tend to get nit-picky; I've noticed that people who
> |> know a lot of details about things often don't recognize how important
> |> those details are, and very rarely understand how the details work with
> |> things they don't know about. In other words, I'm just trying to keep
> |> it all straight in my head. Sorry if I bored or disturbed you.
> |
> |You don't bore or disturb me until I hit one of your posts that comes off
> |as a real rant full of absolutist statements. I just want to tune you
> |out when that happens.
> |
> |>
> |> >If you want to rant about Microsoft illegal behavior why not stick to
> |> >facts you can support with direct evidence? Do you really have to
make
> |> >stuff up to support your side?
> |>
> |> I leave the direct evidence to the Department of Justice; they have
> |> access to it, I don't. I'm not "supporting my side"; I'm explaining
the
> |> situation in as accurate, consistent, and practical a way as I can
find.
> |> If you have any suggestions, I'd be more than happy to listen.
> |
> |What would really help IMHO is that when you post, differentiate between
> |what you "once heard", what you "believe", and what you "know for a
> |fact". You tend to write everything as "known fact" when, in reality,
> |it isn't. If you look at my posts I try very hard to make these
> |distinctions. It makes it much easier for everyone to understand where
> |you're coming from and should allieviate a lot of the "you're lying"
> |accusiations. Instead, it will just be a case of "you're mistaken" and
> |we can move on.
> |
> |OK, end of tirade...
> |
> |>
> |> --
> |> T. Max Devlin
> |> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> |> Managed Services
> |> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> |> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> |> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> |> applicable licensing agreement]-
> |>
> |>
> |> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> |> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> |> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
> |>
> |
> |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------
From: "Raymond Swaim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Is This Scenario Possible?
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:32:31 -0500
Microsoft gets split into 2 companies.
Gates takes control of one of those companies,
Ballmer takes the other.
End Result: 2 separate companies, but it's business as
usual.
Possible?
RSS
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: History revision 1.27a (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: 2 Jun 2000 19:33:30 GMT
R. Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In article <8h88pu$917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >R. Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: >: In article <8h49c8$n3p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: >: Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >: >R. Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >: >
: >: >: In article <8h38fi$hvg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: >: >: Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >: >
: >: >: >Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >: >: >: Microsoft lucked into the sweetheart deal of the century: it's
: >: >: >: verifiable fact. And you were aware that IBM only came to Microsoft in
: >: >: >: the first place because of family connections (Gates' mother on the same
: >: >: >: board as the president of IBM, or some such) aren't you?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >Huh? This is completely wrong. Bill's mother was a homemaker,
: >: >
: >: >: And also the first woman to sit on the boards of directors for
: >: >: Seafirst Bank, Pacific Northwest Bell and a number of other corporations.
: >: >: (Her father, and Bill's grandfather, was a major banker in the Puget Sound
: >: >: area).
: >: >
: >: >And do you have proof of this claim?
: >
: >: Yes.
: >
: >: Try the proxy statements for Seafirst and PNB circa 1980s.
: >
: >: Also, consider my mailing address. Consider that I work in the
: >: fundraising department. Consider that Mary Gates was a Regent when I
: >: started working for UW. Consider that the files on our Regents are very
: >: extensive.
: >
: >: Now don't be a typical Comp Sci dweeb with no experience outside
: >: of silicon.
: >
: >Hmmm... it seems I struck a nerve.
: No, just a bad day on the *.advocacy groups.
A "bad day"? Are you a career poster, or something? The only way someone
can have a "bad day" on USENET is to have an overly-exagerrated priority
set on it, which is not only childish, but pathetic as well.
Lighten up, and find a _useful_ hobby.
: >I smell bull cookies.
: Better change your pants.
Er, now who's acting like a high-school student?
: >: >I would, if I cared at all.
: >
: >: Then keep your yap shut.
: >
: >I'll get you at recess. THHHHP!@#
: Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you, at least,
: completed high school.
: But, really.....this is all very well known information about Mary
: Gates. Check her obituaries on it, for a small fraction.
For kicks, I might. The info I posted was taken from transcripts from
Triumph of the Nerds, which was a documentary on the rise of the PC
industry, hosted by Robert Cringely. They can be found at
http://www.pbs.org/. Some people dismiss it as "idiot box snake oil", but
it's kind of hard to ignore the facts presented in it, as most of them
come from the mouths of people who were actually directly involved in it.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 17:47:11 GMT
On 06/02/2000 at 05:26 AM,
JFW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 09:48:02 GMT, John Wiltshire
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Interesting ploy, but wouldn't really affect the antitrust suit.
> >Microsoft USA would still have to face the music even if they did
> >become irrelavent in the face of Microsoft Canada.
> What precisely do you believe is the leverage push-comes-to-shove that
> the US government has over Microsoft? Do you really believe the US
> government isn't more or less wholly reliant on MS for their IT
> infrastructure desktop-to-desktop?
No the US is not more or less wholly reliant on MS for their IT
infrastructure. The goverment owns hundreds of thousands of licenses for
Novell and could go back to Novell on file servers from NT in a matter of
weeks at most. Some agencies are heavily into Unix as well.
> You understand, they cannot even shut MS out of the US (it'd cripple the
> US technology economy), nor are there any domestic alternatives (Corel's
> Canadian, for example). The Feds have zero actual leverage.
Just how would our technology economy be crippled by shutting out MS?
There ARE multiple alternatives despite your absolutely wrong assertion
above. Have you forgotten that LOTUS is a US company? Have you forgotten
that LOTUS makes a complete suite which can read anything Office wrote?
And Corel would not be shut out just because MS is. We would not seek to
punish Canada per se,- just not permit it to gain from the move by keeping
it from reaping any taxes on sales to the US government.
> AT&T's breakup was feasible because it was largely a domestic issue, and
> AT&T didn't have a ton of options externally. MS's situation is VERY
> different, in that regard.
That much is true. But to think that the US Goverment is afraid of a gang
of crooks led by Bill Gates is absolutely the height of absurdity.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zf Registration Number 67
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is This Scenario Possible?
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:55:29 +0200
Who cares!
Raymond Swaim wrote:
> Microsoft gets split into 2 companies.
>
> Gates takes control of one of those companies,
> Ballmer takes the other.
>
> End Result: 2 separate companies, but it's business as
> usual.
>
>
> Possible?
>
> RSS
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Observations of a Lurker
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:57:53 +0200
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Nico Coetzee wrote:
> > > 2. I use Netscape for Internet surfing but it does have some problems.
> > > For one you should turn of JAVA on your first run. The mail client is
> > > very nice and I prefer it above Outlook Express. Overall I must say my
> > > Internet experience is faster under Linux then under 95 or NT (haven't
> > > used 2000 with dial-up yet).
> >
> > Whats with you people and Netscape under Linux??
>
> It *has* gotten a lot better with 4.72, but I can still crash it if
> Java is enabled; it _never_ crashes on me when Java is disabled.
Please post a URL.. would like to find out why i dont have those problems.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Observations of a Lurker
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:58:45 +0200
Secretly Cruel wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2000 22:51:22 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Whats with you people and Netscape under Linux??
> >
> >I dont get it. It runs perfectly all the time, it never crashes (and i have
> >5 -6 windows open), it does not crash on Java applets.. it does everything
> >Netscape for Windows does and i think its even more stable than Netscape on
> >Windows.
> >
> >The Java thing was something that belonged to Navigator pre 4.7. Since
> >version 4.7 i have had no problems with it.
> >
> >Your problems are probably related that you either use a version prior to
> >4.7 or you have updated your previous Navigator version - i did that and
> >had problems. The solution in to remove Netscape - wipe it out - and
> >install the new version. NO probs after that.
>
> Sorry, but I've done several fresh installs of Netscape on clean Linux
> systems and I've always had problems like you mention above. If Opera
> for Linux ever reaches full usability, Netscape is *off* this here
> machine forever. :-)
Please post a "crash" URL
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 14:52:31 -0400
Brad BARCLAY wrote:
>
> Eric Bennett wrote:
> >
> > Checked my calendar just to be sure, and it's not April 1.
> >
> > British Columbia says it's actively trying to get Microsoft to move its
> > HQ to Canada, and is willing give Microsoft a loan for new headquarters
> > there (Microsoft would need a *loan*???). Microsoft has apparently not
> > offered any comments on the report, except to deny that there have been
> > "secret negotiations" with Canadian officials.
>
> Speaking as a Canadian (and not as an employee of my employer :), I
> find this news highly suspect. The articles in question cite no details
> as to where or how this information was obtained. And while I have
> respect for the BBC as a news service, it makes me wonder why they'd get
> this news first, as opposed to a Canadian or US source, like the CBC or
> CNN (all of the other articles I've seen thus far appear to stem from
> the BBC wire).
>
> Besides which, there are major legal and logistic problems. First,
> Microsoft already has a Canadian arm. Secondly, I don't think that the
> Canadian Federal government would grant work visas to all of the
> American Microsoft employees - which would mean that if MS were to move
> they would need visas for their managers and other key personel, and
> then hire all new employees from the Canadian talent pool. And I can't
> imagine any high tech company doing something like this.
>
> Besides which, any US presence they continued to have could still be
> levied whatever punishment the DOJ decides to dish out.
>
> I don't see any logical way in which this can be done. And I can see a
> wide variety of legal problems that would make such a move either
> impossible, or tantamount to corporate suicide. MS can't just entirely
> pull out of the US as a market.
>
> I, for one, will be interested to watch The National on the CBC
> tonight. There has to be some sort of provincial/federal government
> reaction to this.
Don't forget though... this is news coming out of the province that
gave us Wacky Bennett, Bingogate, Fantasy Gardens, etc etc. To a
certain extent, that the NDP in BC might try this doesn't surprise
me at all. The only people wackier than the NDP in BC are the Social
Credit guys... also in BC!
Mind you, just about everything except politics in BC is great, but
the politics is truly twisted... must be the killer weed they grow
on Vancouver Island.
<ducking and running while holding a mylared asbestos blanket
overhead>
Jack
Montreal PQ
CANADA
------------------------------
From: Brad BARCLAY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 15:58:55 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Funny how massive surgery of a company with more arms than a mutated
> millipede is a job so simple it can be accomplished in a few months, yet
> moving a company without any restructuring is suddenly a major logistical
> problem.
Who ever said that a breakup would be easy? Last I checked the DOJ
suggested a 4 month period for MS to simply *plan* a breakup. That is
quite a bit different from actually completing the breakup.
And yes, the logistics of moving an entire multinational corporation to
another soverign country, with a different set of laws and immigration
requirements *would* be more complicated than a breakup -- and either
way both would have to be accomplished with a federal government
overseeing the entire process (except that in the case of a move, all
three of the Canadian Federal Government, the BC Provincial Government
and the US Federal Government would have to oversee and direct the whole
thing).
Moving a corporation to another company isn't like moving to a new
house down the block. You don't just hire a bunch of movers and have
them take your stuff elsewhere. Consider the following:
1) BC and/or the Canadian Federal Government wouldn't agree to any such
move if there wasn't something in it for Canada - and that "something"
is money in the form of taxes.
2) The bulk of money derived from taxes wouldn't be in terms of
corporate taxes, but in terms of taxable income of the employees.
3) In order to tax the employees, they would have to be citizens (or at
least would have to live in Canada for sufficient time to became
taxable). This would mean they need to be pre-naturalized, or have work
visas.
4) This would mean that Microsoft would have to either get visas for
all of its existing employees and move them to Canada (something which I
know the Federal Government wouldn't allow), or they would have to lay
off most of their existing US workforce and hire all new employees from
the Canadian talent pool. (Typically the federal government will grant
some visas for executives and management, but stipulates that the
majority of workers would have to be Canadian -- otherwise there is no
benifit to Canada, and ergo the Canadian and Provincial Governments).
5) Which would mean that MS would lose most of it's experienced
developers, and would wind up hiring probably about 15000 new employees
who have never even seen the Windows source code (nevermind the source
for any other MS product). This would mean that for a year (or more)
after the move, MS wouldn't be able to do much more that try to train
their new employees - their product development would be at a near
standstill (and their competition would have a field day :).
6) IIRC, the executive would have to be Canadian. The stock would have
to be transefered to a Canadian exchange, traded in Canadian dollars.
And while in our fastasy scenario we can probably assume that MS won't
care about the foriegn content rules that would suddenly affect its US
shareholders, it would force a massive stock selloff.
Sorry, but breaking up would be a whole lot easier to do than moving to
Canada at this point. The requirements in place to make such a move
would be suicide to such a large multinational company, especially one
in the technology industry, where any delay can spell doom.
> Most countries will grant visa's if there are not enough employees to meet
> the load. Microsoft already has an employee deficit of several thousands
> (last I looked, over 3000 open positions). If they could guarantee those
> jobs to canadians, all the better.
*IF* there are not enough employees to meet the load. I know of no
western countries which allow companies to exist within their borders
staffed entirely by forign nationals.
Last I heard MS had about 20 000 employees at its Redmond campus
alone. The Federal Government would never give all of these people work
visas. I think if they were being really generous they'd let Microsoft
bring *maybe* 5000 people with them. There is no benifit to Canada if
Microsoft hid within our borders if there was no employee tax base to
draw from.
> > Besides which, any US presence they continued to have could still be
> > levied whatever punishment the DOJ decides to dish out.
>
> How does the US government "split up" a marketing and distribution office?
> They could asess billions of dollars in fines, but then those would be owed
> by the US company and not the canadian. The US company goes out of
> business, sells it's assets, and MS opens a different company or
> subcontracts one to distribute in the US.
Who said anything about splitting them up? If Microsoft moved, the DOJ
could apply to simply seize all of MS's US property.
> They don't have to. Unless the US assessed tarrifs so high that customers
> couldn't afford the software, but then I doubt those officials will get
> re-elected.
Such a move is meaningless if all product development wasn't moved out
of the country. If it wasn't, the DOJ could still break them up. If it
wa, then MS would have to do it by getting rid of the majority of its
existing developers and hiring all new. Either way, it the high tech
industry both are tantamount to corporate suicide.
(The US can't legally apply such tarrifs anyways - the FTA and NAFTA
forbid it).
Brad BARCLAY
(Not speaking for my employer).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Location: 2G43D@Torolabs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
