Linux-Advocacy Digest #961, Volume #26 Wed, 7 Jun 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("James E.
Freedle II")
Re: SVGALib ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me!
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Marty)
Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: SVGALib (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me!
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students!
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("James E.
Freedle II")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: SVGALib ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 19:08:11 -0500
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> >
> > I was really trying to make the point that Windows is much better to use.
> > The reason that I say this, is that Windows is GUI. Linux is more like the
> > DOS/Windows combination. Sure there are some points which Linux surpasses
> > Windows, but lets get real, I have more important things to do with my time
> > than trying to figure out how to make a stupid computer do what it needs to
> > do in order for me to get my work done. I think in time that more of the
> > Linux programmers will realize that there needs to be standard interface in
> > order to get everything working together. UNIX has suffered from this
> > problem for a very long time. I believe that if the UNIX system developers
> > had realized that they were to busy infighting to help the users. This is
> > why Linux will ultimately suceed over Windows. At this current time, I find
> > Linux/UNIX to be a bear to use. I have a much easier time to get everything
> > that I need done in Windows. I will be nice to see how all this plays out in
> > time, but I think that more people will have to realize that as long as the
> > main system remains free, that everything else can be commercial. The Linux
> > community should develop a standard API and all the developers use this API.
> > This IMHO is what is preventing Linux from taking the desktop from Windows.
> > Depsite the arguments of "dumbing down" the operating system that people
> > argue, it makes it much easier to use if all the configurations that you do
> > to your computer is wrapped in a GUI shell, and that is the only shell you
> > see. The other thing that is messed up is this business of logging on to the
> > computer. If the operating system was good, and you were not on a network,
> > it would not allow remote administration except through a logon. If the user
> > was accessing the system while at the system, then it SHOULD be ready to go
> > when you turn it on!
>
> OK, let's make sure that Linux doesn't allow users any choice in how to
> do things either. Oh yeah, and lets remove all possible multi-user
> functions, and make it suck at networking in large environments, and
> make it nearly impossible to lock a normal user out of screwing with the
> system wide configuration files, and make it so totally boneheaded that
> you have to have a complete brain removal to think it's "cool" and then
> remove anything the least bit usable by real users and then, maybe we
> can finally have Windows beat. God, get real. We don't need to take
> away all the things Linux is good at to make it better. We need to
> enhance what it's good at. And as far as the log in problem, well, if
> you can't handle logging in, then you probably should stick to Windows.
> BTW, even Windows has a login screen by default, you have to give it a
> blank password to make it disappear at boot up.
>
> Quite honestly I'm tired of hearing people say that Linux needs to be
> exactly like Windows. Ever since my early days with Linux (Debian 1.3,
> Red Hat 4.2) I constantly heard from my friends all these little things
> Linux needed to be "usable". Like, why couldn't the filesystem be
> non-case-sensitive (like DOS), why couldn't it use drive letters instead
> of the Unix /... filesystems, why can't it look just like Windows
> (although some interfaces are getting this one, more's the pity), why
> can't it be exactly like Windows and still be free? After all, that's
> what people really want. They want a free copy of Windows, but they
> also want it to be stable and be able to do anything with it they want.
> These two things are completely against everything that MS believes in.
> So, pirate a copy of Windows if that is what you want. But don't tell
> us how much we suck because Linux isn't a complete Windows clone.
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I really was not sugguesting removing multi-user from the operating
system, only when it is installed on a home user's computer, where they
will be the only person on the machine, that it be configured to not
have to log onto the computer. Logging onto the computer is a waste of
time, if you are the only user with access to the system. You really
need to get real, and understand what is being said. I never said that
Linux should be like Windows, but that it should be alot more user
friendly. Personally I am glad that Linux has progressed as far as it
has. Actually I like the way that the UNIX filesystem is, eventhough I
would like to have more choice in where things go, after all that is
what Linux is all about, choice. The system desides where things are to
go, not me. That is just totally wrong!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SVGALib
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:09:29 GMT
Never said I did David. The guy wanted to do a screen dump. Someone
suggested patching in *.c code.
Is/was this necessary?
If it was Linux is lame.
If not, how does one go about it.
That is it in a nutshell.
On 07 Jun 2000 14:47:27 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Another example of Linux lacking. You have to insert code in order to
>> take a screen dump...Pitiful this Linux is...Pitiful indeed...
>
>You obviously don't know what SVGAlib is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me!
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:10:19 GMT
Sorry to disappoint you David but it's not me...
On 7 Jun 2000 23:00:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
Steinberg) wrote:
>Congratulations Steve! You finally managed to change your
>"X-Newsreader" line!
>
>But here's a free hint: if you keep posting the exact same thing
>everytime, people don't even have to LOOK at your headers!
>
>Seriously, can anyone figure Steve out? Is he really the world's worst
>troll? Is he really a Micorosft-employed astroturfer? Does he really
>suffer from a multiple personality disorder?
>
>What's the deal? Who would spend so much time writing the exact same
>thing over and over again, pretending to be different people?
>
>It's fascinating and disturbing at the same time...
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:09:57 GMT
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <393e40d6$6$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 06/06/2000 at 03:48 PM,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) said:
>
> >> >The Mac OS failed because it was rejected by American business which
> >> >adopted the Intel platform because of much superior software,
> >> Superior in what way?
> >There were at least 5 major word processing programs for the Intel
> >platform in 1984 when these decisions were made, WordStar, Word,
> >WordPerfect, Volkswriter, and one whose name I don't recall.
>
> However, were they comparable to MacWrite in WYSIWYG features?
Wordperfect had some cleverly done WYSIWYG. The text mode app mimicked the
printed output as well as it could, reporting real positions in inches (or
your choice of unit of measure) on the status bar and wrapping lines
appropriately. You could then hit a key combo and view it in graphics mode,
which supported many high resolution modes. I used to kick into 1024x768 for
my preview and what I saw in the preview was *always* how it looked on the
printer. The app itself allows editing only in text mode, which made it
really speedy, given how slow the hardware was in those days.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me!
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:12:13 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:01:13 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:45:42 GMT, Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
>>businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
>[deletia]
>>First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
>>useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
>>but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
>
> This assertion seems suspect.
...and another thing: StarOffice under X responds to resize
events just like any other Window. Under both X and Win32
there are main menu items that will stop it from monopolizing
your desktop.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: SVGALib
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:13:53 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:08:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Do you ever speak english?
>
>The guy asked to do a screen dump?
...while using an app coded in some lowlevel console based
graphics rendering library, outside of X or any similar
enviroment.
>
>Some other guy suggested *.c code be inserted to perform it?
>
>What is so difficult here?
You have no understanding of what's being discussed.
>
>
>
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 20:30:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>
>> ...the difference between there being a built in infastructure
>> already in place as well as a distinction between the enviroment
>> and the application, or not.
>>
>>[deletia]
>
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me!
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:15:08 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:01:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:45:42 GMT, Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
>>businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
>[deletia]
>>First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
>>useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
>>but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
>
> This assertion seems suspect.
Actually I hade the WOrdperfect suite crash on me a couple of times
under Linux, but truthfully the experience was no worse than
Wordperfect (Corel variety) under Windows.
The on screen fonts were painful though, but it did printout fine.
>[deletia]
>>explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
>>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
>>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>
> This, I think, is the clincher. While I'll agree that there
> may be certain subjective aesthetic considerations to consider,
> this strikes me as much the same as certain OS advocates that
> look down on cheap 19" monitors for no other reason then that
> they are cheap.
I saw osha come in and fine a client for not having wrist pads on
their PC's because some user complained. I also saw them fine another
client for having a coat hook too close to the bathroom door, meaning
someone could hit their head on it.
Nothing would surprise me with osha.
>>
>>More problems surfaced.
>>
>>Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
>>on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
>>under Linux seems to be dismal.
>
> SB Lives in Office machines?
I agree. this is doubtful. More than likely they are running the
Yamaha embedded SoundBoard whose name escapes me at the moment. XG
something or other.
Most sudio I have seen is done over a laptop via an on screen
projection system and they usually use Ensoniq sound chips.
I agree with you jedi.
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:15:10 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 18:20:35 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>James wrote:
>
>> Yup, wish I had Linux (and a PC) in '80. However, Win2k and the numerous
>> commercial packages for it would have been better for producing
>> reports/theses.
>
>How is MS Word better than TeX/LATeX in this regard?
Does generating bulkier files count as "better"?
How about helping justify having a computer with the horsepower of a cray
so that it isn't sluggish?
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 19:16:49 -0500
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> >
> > Yes there were great interfaces for Windows 3.x, I particularly liked Norton
> > Desktop, but when Microsoft showed the new interface of Windows 95, I knew
> > that was what I was looking for. The reason that I said that Windows was
> > GUI, was that unless you specially went to the trouble of initiating a
> > command prompt window, you would hardly use a CLI. In the future, there will
> > be no CLI for ANY computer system on the planet. One does not have to look
> > too hard to realize that CLI is a dead interface. Do you see a CLI on
> > Macintosh (not that it is a very user friendly operating system)? Do you see
> > a CLI on a Palm? Computer Systems have evolved where the Command line is a
> > throw back to when the computer was not capable of producing a graphical
> > display. In the future, the operating system that we use may be some form of
> > UNIX, and then again it may be some form of Windows. Who knows, and more
> > importantly how cares. I do not believe that the computing future should be
> > rested in the hands of one corporation, but in the hands of the people that
> > use the computer systems. The computers should be as easy to use as the open
> > end wrench. At this very moment, Windows fits that bill. Linux, as the very
> > nature of the operating system, is positioned to fill that void where
> > Windows lacks. Humans remember things graphically. They remember pictures,
> > sights and sounds. Words, structure and syntax are abitrary notions that
> > take quite a bit of time for anybody to remember. I have not doubt that it
> > has taken you several years to learn UNIX, and that system works great for
> > you. I think that if we all can put I collective heads together to create a
> > better system than all current offerings combined. Linux is closer to being
> > an appliance than Windows, but realiability is not the only side of the
> > equation. I am sure that you do not walk to work, I am sure that either you
> > use a car, or public transportation of some sort. Walking will get you there
> > realiably, but it is not very enjoyable.
>
> I don't know why I keep biting, but here we go:
>
> What really makes you think that all command lines will disappear? Not
> only do I think you are wrong on that, I think your reasoning behind it
> is wrong. The people that really push systems forward are the technical
> users, and technical users still want to have access to that wonderful
> command line. I know, there will always be systems that don't have a
> command line in them, but there will always be demand for a CLI. I for
> one would hate to see a computer without any access to the command
> line. There are just so many things you can do with command line based
> utilities. And with scripting and pipes and various other things you
> can always have something more created quickly and easily. I think you
> are basing your hopes for computers in the future completely on just one
> persons needs, your own. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but
> don't say as a definite given something that is nothing more than
> opinion. There are hundreds of thousands of Linux/Unix users out there
> that left the Windows world to get a breath of fresh air and to get
> access to a truly useful CLI shell. Why would they (which are usually
> the creators of new shells CLI or GUI) push to eradicate one of the
> things that they consider the most useful?
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Command line will disappear once people get over the notion that they
are neccessary. I only use one when I have to, and not by choice. I am a
technical user, and I do not use the CLI unless there is no other way. I
see users everyday trip and fumble on CLI of the Sun server that we use
everyday. The CLI is not very intuitive, because you have to visualize
what to do next. The only people that think that the CLI is intuitive,
are the people how where told that they will learn it, and therefore
they pass this on. This is not improvement, but putting off the
invetable. The CLI will fade just like the dinosaurs! In my experence,
scripts are neccessary when the program was written incorrectly. The
correctly written program would function as the user needs, not as the
programmer's think. User's dictate the usage of the program, not the
programmer!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 7 Jun 2000 18:14:01 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> Things that happen inside of only one box aren't much more
>> interesting to me than things that happen inside of
>> one application. Perhaps I've missed the significance
>> of why it should be.
>
>Things that happen inside of one box are more efficient with regard to data
>transferrence.
Yes, but if the data is already there, what interesting thing still
need to happen to it?
>Local access to storage is faster than access from a foreign
>machine.
And less interesting. I already have that data.
>In addition, home users are far more interested in what can be done
>on a single standalone box because they can't afford (or don't want to buy)
>extra equipment.
So, the application can only deal with my own typing?
>The paradigm of favoring interoperability between systems as
>opposed to interoperability between applications is clearly business and
>large-task oriented and is a poor trade-off for home users.
There is no trade off. Programs that actually do interoperate
don't mind running on the same machine if that is all you have.
Besides, anybody posting here probably has more than one machine
at home too.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me!
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:21:15 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000, Tiberious wrote:
>I run a small hardware / software consulting firm and being a
>businessman educated in solid business principles (Wharton if you must
>know), I thought I saw an opportunity to get my foot in the door and
>promote Linux as an alternative to Windows and less so Apple. Let's face
>it there are millions of folks out there "consulting" at various levels
>of competency and in truth, just looking at my own area it is
>frightening the level of MSCE that is out there. Some of these people
>can barely format a diskette via a command line.
>So anyway, I started investigating the various Linux distributions and
>hired 2 Linux Systems Engineers who knew the product so well it was
>scary.
>I am not exactly a Unix newbie either having dealt with IBM/AIX in the
>past, but my function was mainly to garner support and try and sell
>Linux.
>
>Our business plan called for the money to be made in pricing Linux much
>lower than similar Windows configurations (not hard at all) and making
>our money on hardware and the system software set up as well as
>maintenance of the above items.
>
>What seemed like a good idea at first quickly blossomed into the worst
>nightmare a person in my field could ever imagine.
>
>The basic problem was that NOBODY WANTED LINUX!!!!
>
>We couldn't GIVE IT AWAY!
>
>They were so entrenched in Windows that to even consider switching was
>out of the question.
>
>The first problem was providing Microsoft compatible applications. I
>tried most of the applications we were going to pitch to the end users
>and quite frankly thought that although they needed a little polish here
>and there, for the most part they were Microsoft compatible.
>
>Boy was I wrong, BIG TIME!!!
>
>First we tried Wordperfect but it kept crashing far too much to be
>useful. The demo's were getting embarrassing. Then we tried StarOffice
>but even on decent hardware (Pentium II 450mhz with 256 meg) it ran like
>molasses and took over the entire desktop. As a last resort we tried
>Applix, which seemed to work ok until one client asked us to try and
>import his payroll/tax spreadsheets.
>Applix died on the launch pad like Apollo 0ne.
>
>Other problems were the general dislike of Netscape. People, for some
>reason or another, seem to hate that program. They keep bringing up
>features and the general look and feel of Explorer as being far nicer.
>
>Look is another area where Linux let us down. We kept getting complaints
>about the screen layouts. Essentially the end users could not adjust the
>screen so that the text looked smooth and clear. My Linux gurus
>explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>
>More problems surfaced.
>
>Several clients use video and audio embedded applications which depend
>on the Creative Sound Blaster Live Card. The support for this device
>under Linux seems to be dismal.
>
>What we discovered about Linux is that while it may look like a great
>and superior system on paper, the truth of the matter is that the end
>users ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LINUX.
>
>They are interested in solutions to their problems and Windows 2000
>provides them in a polished, ready to go package that is the current
>standard and is supported by THEIR clients. We had other consultants
>blowing us out of the water with their offerings and although our
>clients were trying to be loyal to us because of our integrity and long
>term relationships with most of them, the honest truth was Linux was NOT
>and option if we intended to remain their consultants.
>
>
>Linux is lagging terribly in polished world class applications. Even the
>SoundBlaster Live card has Liveware! available for Win2k, despite Win2k
>just being released. Linux has been spouting support "coming real soon
>now" for a long time. Still no full support for this popular card.
>
>Linux drivers are bare bones and no Livewire is even in sight.
>
>In conclusion, we have dumped Linux because Windows is really the
>future.
>Linux shows it age with every command line instruction.
>
>We tried to support and sell Linux but the truth of the matter is that
>the end users have spoken and Linux is NOT in their vocabulary.
>
>Tiberious
Ha. Well, I don't doubt you had some problems Tiberious.
But just out of curiousity, will you be going back to slide rules in the next 5
years when Microsoft falls off it's pedistle?
I mean to say, you can't actually believe Microsoft is the future?
Do you have cancer or some serious terminal disease which would prevent you
from living past 4-5 years?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SVGALib
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:21:31 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:13:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:08:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Do you ever speak english?
>>
>>The guy asked to do a screen dump?
>
> ...while using an app coded in some lowlevel console based
> graphics rendering library, outside of X or any similar
> enviroment.
Explain this to me?
If something is on the screen, why can it not be dumped?
>>
>>Some other guy suggested *.c code be inserted to perform it?
>>
>>What is so difficult here?
>
> You have no understanding of what's being discussed.
I have to admit, maybe I don't.
Explain this to me, I am always willing to learn.
My perspective is:
1.He wants to do screen dump.
2. Code patched in is suggested.
3. Why do we need to patch anything?
Translate for me please.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 20:30:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ...the difference between there being a built in infastructure
>>> already in place as well as a distinction between the enviroment
>>> and the application, or not.
>>>
>>>[deletia]
>>
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:21:42 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:28:13 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >>
> >> Things that happen inside of only one box aren't much more
> >> interesting to me than things that happen inside of
> >> one application. Perhaps I've missed the significance
> >> of why it should be.
> >
> >Things that happen inside of one box are more efficient with regard to data
> >transferrence. Local access to storage is faster than access from a foreign
> >machine. In addition, home users are far more interested in what can be done
> >on a single standalone box because they can't afford (or don't want to buy)
> >extra equipment. The paradigm of favoring interoperability between systems as
> >opposed to interoperability between applications is clearly business and
> >large-task oriented and is a poor trade-off for home users.
>
> ...until they have to acquire some Robber Baron's bit of software
> just because "everyone else" is using it & it tries to be as
> incompatible with everything else as possible...
True interoperability between applications on the same box doesn't stop at
file formats in my book.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
