Linux-Advocacy Digest #2, Volume #27 Fri, 9 Jun 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Gary Hallock)
Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (Gary Hallock)
Re: democracy? (Smitty)
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) (Alan Baker)
Re: IE for Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IE for Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Where are all the astroturfers? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com ("Brad")
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com ("Brad")
Re: democracy? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: IE for Linux (abraxas)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ([EMAIL PROTECTED]@lava.net)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:08:36 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 23:49:01 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>
>> X programs running elsewhere?
>
>Depends on the flavor of X. If it uses XFree86, then no, as this is not a PM
>application. If it uses PMX, then yes.
Thus proving my point about 'total stagnation' being required for
the sort of 'interoperability' you think OS/2 has. This would also
eliminate the possibility of QT or GTK or GNUstep being ported
natively as well, as well as any other more marginal library you
could care to mention (like SDL for example).
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:17:10 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Someone here in this group claimed Linux is three times faster than
> Windows. I question this figure so I did my own crude test. Here's the
> program I wrote and ran on both Windows 98 SE and Linux Mandrake 7.0 on the
> same dual boot system:
>
> Now, this test can't be said to be any good kind of benchmark - after all
> I'm testing multiple things: compiler optimisation, disk file access etc. I
> do find it interesting that they all roughly run at the same speed.
>
> Except... Linux exhibited very interesting behaviour after running this
> application. I ran the test again, and to my surprise, my system had hung!
> It unblocked after a second or two - so I ran it again, then I noticed the
> disk light was permanently on after running the app. What's it doing after
> this? Why should my system grind to a halt for a few seconds - hardly a
> good feature of a system claimed to faster than Windows!
>
> Pete
Actually, you are really only testing disk IO. There is nothing in the code
to optimize. Try removing the file IO. The time spent in the code is too
small to measure.
I ran it multiple times without problems.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:26:48 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages)
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> The detail on one man page has gone backwards - man tar used to have a lot
> more information, now it is just a reference.
That's because of the emphasis on info instead of man. Try info tar. You
will see all sorts of stuff with hyperlinks (though not html).
Gary
------------------------------
From: Smitty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 21:00:25 -0400
Mark Wilden wrote:
> Salvador Peralta wrote:
> >
> > let's remember that the United States is not now, nor has it ever been a
> > democracy.
>
> Yes it is. It's a representative democracy. The people do rule, through
> their elected officials (in theory, at least).
You are misinformed on that point, Mark. Please refer to the U.S.
Constitution and the legal definitions of republic and democracy.
Smitty
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 18:19:00 -0700
In article <gdf05.505$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <HuZ%4.10315$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Quantum
>>Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>"John C. Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > In article <8h8jrn$a3m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards
>>>> > II"
>>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > : Microsoft already got its lucky break and had purchased from a
>>>> > > : third party what basically amounted to a pirated copy of the
>>>> > > : source
>>>> > > : of CPM/86 for $50k.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > "Pirated"? I hardly think so. Tim Patterson, QDOS's author
>>>> > > stated
>>>> > > that he had used a CP/M manual as a guide for coding QDOS.
>>>> >
>>>> > It was said that disassembly of QDOS revealed Digital Research
>>>> > copyright
>>>> > strings. Not sure whether I believe that or not, but...it was said.
>>>>
>>>> IBM sure believed it. They paid DR millions to keep it out of court.
>>>>
>>>Paying a settlement, doesn't prove anything. IBM could have want to
>>>cut
>>>legal fee or didn't what to look bad to the press, for all you know.
>>>Alot
>>>of companies settle, even if the beleive they are right. Settling the
>>>case
>>>now can be cheaper in the long run.
>>
>>I would say the relatively few defendants settle if they have deep
>>enough pockets to stay the course in court _if the expect to be
>>exonerated_. They fight it out to avoid precisely what we see here:
>>people believing them guilty of wrongdoing because they settled.
>>
>>If Microsoft could have gone to trial with Digital Research and could
>>have expected the verdict to be unequivocaly in their favour why
>>_wouldn't_ they have done so?
>>
>>Fear of the truth coming out appears a likely candidate. <G>
>
>If I might interject, I'd like to ask:
>Why the hell is this being X-Posted to comp.sys.be.advocacy?
Coouldddn't tell ya. Sorry.
Umm, 'cause it's the new Usenet!
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IE for Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:17:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000, Pedro Coto wrote:
> >I'd like to have IE 5.0 (and above) for Linux, do you think it
> >will be available if Microsoft splits ? If it is free I have nothing
> >more against using it that against using Staroffice or Netscape.
>
> While we're on the subject:
> I wouldn't count on any more free IE for Microsoft users.
>
> It just wouldn't pay-off like it did before.
>
> Accordingly, I wouldn't expect a free IE for Linux either.
>
> Charlie
And it seems that Microsoft has begun using the "triple threat" of Front
Page, IIS, and IE to promote an ever-increasing number of Microsoft
proprietery extensions to web standards. They can keep IE, I have no
use for that kind of monopolostic bullshit on my system.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: IE for Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:33:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 09 Jun 2000 22:46:30 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 09 Jun 2000, Pedro Coto wrote:
>>I'd like to have IE 5.0 (and above) for Linux, do you think it
>>will be available if Microsoft splits ? If it is free I have nothing
>>more against using it that against using Staroffice or Netscape.
>
>While we're on the subject:
>I wouldn't count on any more free IE for Microsoft users.
>
>It just wouldn't pay-off like it did before.
>
>Accordingly, I wouldn't expect a free IE for Linux either.
>
>Charlie
>
To be extremely strange about it, one might try WinE
(http://www.winehq.com). Last time I tried it, it almost worked.
Of course, there is the caveat that it's been "almost working"
for a fair number of months, if not years, now; however, it does
handle the Windows et al APIs sufficiently well to allow the
execution of such programs as solitaire (yeah, like that's hard!),
freecell, Wordpad, and a fair number of games (Unreal among them).
As for the future of IE ... I don't know. It has served its
purpose, more or less (Netscape no longer is the dominant browser,
as it was -- IE is, now). I suspect IE5 will continue to be free,
and "IE6" might be, too. However, it might not.
I do wonder if "IE5Linux" will ever see the light of day, though.
(There is an IE for Solaris. From what I've heard, it's a pig.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where are all the astroturfers?
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:30:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it that every time Microsoft has a big setback, the
steady-state
> level of astroturfing here drops almost to nothing for a few days? Do
> they all get called back to Redmond for a strategy meeting or
> something? Did Bill fire them for failing to influence the outcome?
> Are they hurriedly trying to learn something besides VB to put on
there
> resumes?
You certainly drew them out of the woodwork with this one.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:37:40 GMT
"Bob Germer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3940e65d$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On 06/09/2000 at 11:21 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman) said:
> » I can only imagine that you
> »must be self-employed as I can't imagine a company putting up with
> »efficiency penalties that using inferior tools would bring in.
> That just proves that you will propound your opinion as if it were a
> fact written in stone without having a leg to stand on. No different
> than your pronouncements about OS/2, actually.
Here, I absolutely agree with you. I am sure Brad would be shocked to find
out how many small and mid-size companies refuse to replace DOS/Windows
3.11, WordPerfect 5.1, etc., etc. Many companies don't replace what ain't
broke!
---
Oh I totally agree with you on that, Bob. But that has much more to do with
inertia in some companies. The machine sthey purchased came with DOS/Windows
and so they stuck with it. Whereas I suspect RJ, who managed to not
actually answer the question if you noticed, probably is not using OS/2 in a
large business. Most businesses standardize their software on a given
platform (for better or worse). For desktop use, OS/2 is not the best
choice.
Brad
--
============================================================================
==================
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: "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:37:41 GMT
"rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:22:21 "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> ¯> ¯What "work" is it that you do?...
>
> ¯> Technical documentation; editing; translation; online help
> ¯> systems; business web page design and implementation
>
> ¯What are you using to get these jobs done?
>
> Lotus SmartSuite; SmallEd plus HTML extensions; DragText;
> PMView; CorelDraw; Gismo; Photo Tiger; Impos/2, Ventura
> Publisher; Framemaker; CFMTwain; RSJ; AutoCad; Visio;
In short, some older Windows software and a few OS/2 utilities?
>
> ¯What are you using for editing? Wordpro is pretty long in the tooth...
>
> Bullshit. When it first came out, WordPro had its problems.
> But between the updates and the fixpacks, it is now the best
> wp I have used - and I have used most of them - including
> that abomination MS Word.
Uh sure you have, RJ. Sure you have.
>
> ¯ and Star
> ¯Office I don't think is supported on OS/2 officially now is it?
>
> Don't care - never liked it. But as someone who has been out
> of touch with the software doings on OS/2 for quite some
> time now, it may come as a surprise to you - who pompously
> proclaims that "no one" is writing software or OS/2 - that
> Papyrus (a word processor; dtp; and html editor) recently
> came out; that Maul Publisher recently came out.
>
> Some 'expert'
I am aware enough to know that Papyrus didn't just come out for OS/2. It
has been out for OS/2 (and Atari btw) for years. They simply updated it
recently on all their platforms. It is not a bad entry level word
processor.
>
>
> ¯And on web
> ¯page design, things are even more bleak when it comes to professional web
> ¯design from a tools standpoint.
>
> I have absoulutely no problems doing the type of web page
> design that I do to earn my living with the tools available
> to me. They are just as 'professional' as anythign out
> there. There is nothing 'bleak' about it.
Do you have a URL for one of your webpages then? Technically you could do
your kind of web design with a text editor on a modified C-64 probably.
>
>
> ¯I am not saying you can't do any of these things on OS/2 today but you
would
> ¯be doing them at a far than optimal situation...
>
> How would you know? You don't even know what is available -
> you're just going back to the 'full-of-shit' debate style.
> Making extreme pronouncements with nothing but your own
> over-inflated opinion to back it up.
RJ, you really need to get out more. It isn't exactly difficult to keep up
with what is happening on OS/2.
>
> ¯ In fact, it
> ¯was the necessity of moving to Page Maker 6 that forced me to switch from
> ¯OS/2 in the first place. What do I use Page Maker for? Technical
> ¯documentation.
>
> I've used Page Maker - I pity anyone who used it for
> technical documentation. It has to be the worst tool for the
> job I have ever had the misfortune to run across. It's
> strength is single page layout - you can use it to do
> manuals, but there are so many other tools out there that
> are better for the job.
This coming from someone using an older version of Framemaker via OS/2's
WinOS2 support.
>
> Choosing to leave OS/2 so you can use Page Maker 6 has to be
> the most pitiable reason I can think of. Frankly, I don't
> believe you.
It really doesn't matter what you think, RJ. You're so out of touch with
mainstream society based on what you say here. I'm quite comfortable with
the facts as placed in front of you.
>
> ¯> ¯You keep making these claims on how there's all this development going
on
> ¯> ¯for OS/2 and how OS/2 is doing just fine which just flies in the face
of
> ¯> ¯reality.
>
> ¯> Your *concept* of reality is just that - your *concept* of
> ¯> reality.
>
>
> ¯My "concept" of reality represents what most people consider reality at
> ¯least in the OS world...
>
> You are wrong - and they are wrong. There has been an awful
> lot of misinformation printed about OS/2 - much of it
> deliberate; you have been responsible for it, yourself -
> that people read and believe. The fact that they believe
> erroneous information doesn't make it right.
The whole world is wrong but you? Well, someday you'll be forced to
reintegrate yourself with society and we'll see how "wrong" it is. You
sound almost like someone who'd join a militia or something.
Ultimately, OS/2, like MacOS, BeOS, and the rest are just pieces of
software. They are not causes to fight for. You need to get a grip and
take a reality check.
>
> ¯Are you saying that I'm the only one who thinks OS/2
> ¯is marginalized on the desktop?
>
> Nope - but that isn't what I criticized you for saying. You
> want to say that it is 'marginalized' on the desktop, you'll
> get no argument from me.
>
> But, when you claim - categorically and across the board -
> that OS/2 is dead on the desktop, I say in no uncertain
> terms that for the business user you are full of shit - the
> developments bely your words.
So basically your problem is that we don't define "dead" the same. At what
point do you consider something "dead"? Where do you draw the line?
>
> When you claim - categorically and across the board - that
> nobody writes software for OS/2, I say in no uncertain terms
> that for the business user you are full of shit - the
> developments bely your words.
>
Please show me where I said that "nobody writes software for OS/2"? *I*
write software for OS/2. My employer writes software for OS/2. However,
new software and support for OS/2 is at such a low level that it does not,
in my opinion, cross the threshold of being a viable desktop platform for
someone to switch to.
The point of OSWars 2000 is for someone on one OS to see how the others are
doing. I don't see how someone using another OS would be terribly convinced
to jump on OS/2. Tha'ts not to say that nobody in the entire world would
ever do such a thing but those numbers would be so low as to make it very
unlikely.
> What most people "think" about OS/2 does not correspond
Yea, if you live in an isolated compound in Taiwan or something but if you
have to deal with the rest of the world, you'll find that what people think
actually matters.
>
>
> ¯> Papyrus just came out for OS/2;
>
> ¯Have you actually used Papyrus?
>
> Yes.
And how does it rate as a word processor in your opinion?
>
> ¯Now it's been while since I played with it
> ¯(I think it was 5.0 which came out a couple years ago if memory serves)
but
> ¯it was a nice but limited word processor on par with Clearlook...
>
> Which proves how out of touch you are. Version 8.1 just came
> out. That your pronouncements about the world of OS/2 are
> not based in reality - they are based on some vague memory
> you had of the time when you used to be involved in OS/2 "a
> couple of years ago."
Before you type, do you read? I mention below that 8.2 just came out. I
haven't tried 8.2.
>
>
>
> ¯Additonally, Papryus has support for things like the Atari ST computer as
> ¯well. I think they just released 8.2 recently but what does that prove?
>
> For one thing, it makes your claim that "nobody writes
> software for OS/2" look ridiculous. Which, by extension,
> makes the rest of your pompous pronouncements wrt the death
> of OS/2 look ridiculous. None of them are based in reality -
> only your obscured and jaundiced view.
>
And where did I write that nobody in the entire world writes any software
for OS/2?
>
> ¯> PMView was just updated for
> ¯> OS/2;
>
> ¯A great graphics viewer. Possibly the best graphics viewer available but
it
> ¯is still ultimately a graphics viewer.
>
> So, can we now say that "people DO write software for OS/2?"
Absolutely. I write software for OS/2 too. Please show me the post where I
said nobody writes any
< long winded paranoia deleted>
Well RJ, I think I've put things as succinctly as I can. It's really not
point arguing with you further. I think the facts are plain enough to any
objective observer to determine for themselves whether OS/2 is a reasonable
desktop OS at this point.
Brad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:43:04 GMT
I would personally like to see Billy do twentyfive-to-life for
racketeering. The DOJ has been far too lenient.
Wonder how long before government witnesses start disappearing or dying
off from mysterious causes? Seems a logical next step for Microsoft....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:52:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:30:30 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Someone here in this group claimed Linux is three times faster than
>Windows. I question this figure so I did my own crude test. Here's the
>program I wrote and ran on both Windows 98 SE and Linux Mandrake 7.0 on the
>same dual boot system:
[rest snipped for brevity]
If you're going to do a decent benchmark, then go get a
decent benchmark. Dhrystone comes to mind, although that is
a CPU benchmark, as opposed to a disk I/O throughput one.
But there should be one out there somewhere. I'd have to look.
All the above benchmark does is test sequential disk access speed,
at best -- and that's controlled by the head position on the platter
(modern drives have more sectors on the outer rings than the inner)
and the rotational speed ONLY. Timings the same? Of course they
are; the bottleneck is the hardware!
The speed may also be highly dependent on the amount of memory on
the system (it generates a 31,000,000-byte file), what else the
system is running, the fragmentation of the disk, and whether the
pages are queued up in memory prior to actual writeout, but written
*after* the program quits. In an ideal case, the program would
take absolutely no time to run, fill up those 31 megs of RAM,
and then exit; the system would then write them out. (This may
explain your lit disk light, as that's the kernel writing the
dirty pages out -- and the benchmark generated a lot of them.)
I'm not saying Linux does this, of course, but it sure looks
like it does. (There's a graphical utility called xosview that
might be of assistance here, as well; it has, among other displays,
a graphical indicator of how much memory is in use, and how much
memory is cached.)
The two runs I did try on my system (which is a P200/64MB
with Adaptec SCSI and 10 MB/s drives, and was heavily loaded doing
a write to a removable with apparently developing badspots) showed
a 12 second and a 9 second timing, respectively. Considering that
your timing has a 1-second resolution, the benchmark isn't all that
good, although it's about as simple as one can get. (And yes,
I'm being slightly sloppy.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:02:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:24:04 -0600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> > Now, perhaps I'm being a bit naive here, but sticking a floppy
>> > into an otherwise C1- or C2-compliant system breaks a lot
>> > of assumptions. Similarly for CD-ROMs.
>>
>> Unless access to these devices is controled, which it has to be and is (for
>> NT).
>
>So . . . NT will override the reset and power switches?
>
>Wow. NT has some capabilities that no other OS in existence has!
>
>;->
Modern x86 computers seem to have brought back a capability I first
saw on an Apollo DOMAIN DN-660, which has apparently some sort
of switch to allow for the computer to control the power supply,
rather than the user. Simply put, the power switch is treated as
though it were a suggestion. :-)
Linux also has this capability, I think, at least on x86 boxes.
>
>--
>
>If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
>John Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: IE for Linux
Date: 10 Jun 2000 02:04:51 GMT
> Accordingly, I wouldn't expect a free IE for Linux either.
Based on IE for solaris (which ive used quite alot over the past
couple of years) you dont want to see a linux version. Its absolutely
awful.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@lava.net
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: 10 Jun 2000 02:08:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@lava.net
In <8horc4$e05$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Bob Germer wrote:
>> [...]
>> I saw the signs to the major E-W highway listing nord, sud, est,
>> ouest. I saw the signs for exits in both languages, services in
>> both languages, while driving from Vancouver to Calgary in 1995.
>
>] In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>] Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>]
>] Sure you did. I'd refer you to another post in this thread from Alan
>] Baker, a Vancouverite. You are talking bullshit about which you know
>] nothing again, Bob.
>
>Bob is correct. In preparation for the Calgary Winter Olympics
>multilingual directional signs were placed on the major highways
>between Calgary and other international airports (Vancouver,
>Edmonton, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg).
>
Saskatoon has an international airport now! Wow!
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
