Linux-Advocacy Digest #3, Volume #27 Sat, 10 Jun 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: IE for Linux (Michael Marion)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Michael Marion)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451705 (Marty)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Marty)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Marty)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Marty)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Marty)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Eric Bennett)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Marty)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Jim Richardson)
Re: Games on Linux -- starting to look OK (Jim Richardson)
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IE for Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:20:12 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> (There is an IE for Solaris. From what I've heard, it's a pig.)
Yep it's a massive pig. With the same functionality (having ie and oe open)
as netscape the way I use it everyday, it's about twice the size of netscape.
Of course, ie5 tends to either hang itself, or my entire window manager so
that it has to be killed by hand (telnetting/sshing in from another host if it
hangs the entire wm) after about 15 seconds. My manager tried it on his and
it crashed CDE. I personally tried it under gnome/wmaker, CDE, and KDE... all
were hung at least once by IE5.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
A nerd is someone whose life revolves around computers and technology.
A geek is someone whose life revolves around computers and technology... and
likes it! - Stolen from a /. post.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 22:20:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 31
May 2000 05:33:43 GMT
>>I guess maybe my sig kind of sets it up, huh? I don't see it at the end
>>of every message I type, like you guys do. But, yea, its my burden.
>>You'll be happy to know its about all I got; my personal life is a
>>shambles.
>>
>But do keep up the posts. I personally find the historical and
>technical content enlightening. As for the personal jibes with
>others, well, I suppose one must respond to ill-manners on occasion.
>I'd prefer we all kept to the subject and left recriminations for the
>other newsgroups. In violation of that, I'm sorry to hear your
>personal life is in shambles. This all-too-common state, generally,
>and luckily, usually passes after a time. Hang in there.
Amen, and Thank You.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:23:21 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> 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. :-)
Most HP boxes (HP Unix boxes that is) have this. You hit the power switch and
it runs a shutdown first. Very cool IMO. However, if it hangs on shutdown..
you have to yank the power cord.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"AOL: we make your life simpler provided you don't know what you're doing...
and we intend to keep it that way!" - Another sig from /.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 22:27:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Donal K. Fellows from alt.destroy.microsoft; 7 Jun 2000 09:39:56
GMT
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> PLEASE! remove alt.lang.basic from distribution of this chatter!
>[ stuff irrelevant to my point elided ]
>
>It won't work. Every message has its own set of newsgroups, and it is
>the responsibility of each poster to determine where their messages
>go. However, this is normally done based on the suggestion given in
>the message to which they are replying, and in the heat of discussion,
>it is all to easy to omit to target a message towards its appropriate
>groups.
>
>Trying to stop a flamewar from careening out of control across USENET
>is like wrestling with excrement-flavoured jello.
I disagree, most whole-heartedly. I appreciate Geo's messages (as I do
the direction of follow-ups in your response; I hope you'll forgive the
addition of my "home group"), even if I absent-mindedly contribute to
their repetition. It is only through the simple efforts such as Geo's
that flame-wars are prevented from careening out of control across
Usenet. But I agree with everything else you've said, and even more so
what you've illustrated; setting follow-ups is preferable to relying on
the good efforts of guys like Geo.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:27:13 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> 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.
Not at all. There are three differents kinds of apps in OS/2: PM, console,
and full screen console. PM and windowed console apps have the comforts of
the workplace shell. Full screen apps, such as XFree86 do not. Just as you
can't call X library routines from a Linux console app without an X server
running, you can't expect workplace shell functions to act on a full screen
session. Full screen sessions run alongside the PMSHELL itself as opposed to
inside of it, hence they can't inherit functionality from PMSHELL.
> 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).
I don't see the connection. These can all be ported to the full screen
XFree86 session, or if someone cared to, could be ported as PM libraries. How
would any of those grant me application interoperability for OS/2 native apps,
anyway?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451705
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:37:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 74> in fact, I'd have little reason to even frequent these precincts.
>
> Illogical, Malloy. I post in other newsgroups, yet you don't frequent
> those precincts.
Sounds like an invitation to me, Joe. Have at it!
------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:50:17 GMT
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 06/09/2000 at 08:59 PM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) said:
>
> > I dont run windows by the way, or OS2. In case you thought you were
> > getting my goat or something. :)
>
> Then there are only 2 possibilities. You are running a MAC which is
> nothing more than a glorified Playstation or you are running some form of
> unix which makes your machine virtually useless for 99.98% of business
> customers.
Bob, the Playstation has memory protection and dynamic memory allocation.
<ducking and running from the Mac-huggers> :-)
------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:50:50 GMT
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 06/09/2000 at 08:59 PM,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) said:
>
> >> I dont run windows by the way, or OS2. In case you thought you were
> >> getting my goat or something. :)
>
> > Then there are only 2 possibilities. You are running a MAC which is
> > nothing more than a glorified Playstation or you are running some form of
> > unix which makes your machine virtually useless for 99.98% of business
> > customers.
>
> I could be running BeOS, or RISCOS, or Workbench, etc. on a variety of
> systems, etc.
>
> Tell me once again how useful OS/2 is for business customers.
Been to any banks lately?
------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:51:55 GMT
tinman wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > I can see Bill Gates mounting his horse right now!
>
> EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWW! Really, is it absolutely necessary to bring in his sex
> life to this discussion? I was just about to eat dinner.....
How ironic, coming from someone who is going through all of this because of
his sex life. I warned you about going down that path, tinman.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 22:53:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Yannick from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 05 Jun 2000 21:01:52
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[...]
>> If you are a non-admin user, and you are responsible for a process which
>> then makes messes which you can't control, *shouldn't* you have to need
>> a sysadmin? I realize you can be caught with "the sysadmin" out to
>> lunch, but that is an organizational, not a technical, issue. Thus
>> fixing it with technology, such as ACLs and their added level of
>> complexity, generally results in more of a security problem than a
>> security solution, as they are used as an "easy way out", essentially
>> limiting security to simple authentication.
>
>You miss my exact point. I work on a machine where several development
>projects are going on, by different people. I don't want root access
>on that machine because I don't want to risk messing up the other's
>projects doing a mistake (which can happen even for a sysadmin, as
>my example proved). On the other hand, you can consider that I am,
>both in terms of responsibility and because of what is expected of me,
>sysadmin on _my_ project. My need for a sysadmin does not result
>from the fact that I am not sysadmin for my project, but from the fact
>that it is not technically possible.
And you miss my exact point. You are mistaken in terms of the scope of
responsibilities of a sysadmin, or you are unaware of the requirements
of software products such as servers and operating systems. The faulty
project and host management of your organization isn't the issue; the
technical requirements of an internetworking device demand that the
sysadmin responsibilities are not "partial" in the way that you seem to
desire.
>The only problem is that, unless you have ACLs, your only choice under
>linux seems "to be root or not to be root". I thought linux was multi-user,
>why not multi-admin ?
Aside from being something of a malapropism, it isn't an issue.
Regardless of what the issue seems to be, you described a conflicting
set of requirements.
>Besides, I don't want to hear about "organisational rather than technical".
>The technique should be at the organisation's service, not the reverse
>situation.
Alas, human behavior is far more mutable than physical reality, and if
wishes were horses than beggars would ride.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:54:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Alan Baker writes:
>
> > Okay, then if OS/2 is superior to Windows, why isn't it dominant?
>
> Okay, then if a Lexus is superior to a Chevy Cavalier, why isn't the
> Lexus dominant?
And if Tholen "logic" is superior to the logic of meer mortals, why isn't
Tholen "logic" dominant?
[The key word is "if".]
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 23:01:43 -0400
In article <39415447$5$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The overwhelming ignoring of it by airlines, manufacturers, etc.
> shows just how poor a design it was.
Hmmm, what could I conclude about OS/2 by applying this to the computer
industry?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 03:04:55 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <39415447$5$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The overwhelming ignoring of it by airlines, manufacturers, etc.
> > shows just how poor a design it was.
>
> Hmmm, what could I conclude about OS/2 by applying this to the computer
> industry?
Ask your mentor, grasshopper.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:41:50 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 00:14:40 -0700,
Alan Baker, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nohow
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>The Avro Arrow was well and truly ahead of its time... like warp,
>>>you could say:)
>>>
>>
>>It's the classic case of building an great product without knowing
>>what the market wants. In this case there was little or no demand for
>>high altitude, long range interceptors
>
>Bullshit. The McDonnell-Douglas Phantom II was first flown in the same
>year as the Arrow. It had a range of 1,750 miles and a service ceiling
>of nearly 60,000 feet. Only it didn't have near the thrust to weight
>ratio, which for the Arrow was around unity and among the first aircraft
>to achieve it.
>
Well, the BAe Lightning was > 1:1, but it was by no means a long range
plane.
IMHO, the F4 Phantom II was just about the greatest all rounder of this
century, one of the few (two?) planes used by all branches of the US Military,
and sold to just about every Nato and Seato ally as well.
(but a stone cold bitch to work on, too many damn blind connectors grr.)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Games on Linux -- starting to look OK
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:50:35 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:31:56 -0400,
Gary Hallock, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> Read my post again. KDE suddenly stopped working when I installed it.
>> The result was that I needed to download all the KDE packages.
>> But to do this, I needed to get myself an internet connection that
>> didn't depend on GUI tools and had to futz around with minicom.
>> Once I downloaded the new KDE packages, one of them had some problem,
>> so I needed to rebuild from the source RPM.
>>
>> The bottom line is that while a "routine install" would have been easy,
>> there were a lot of complications that made life quite difficult.
>>
>> --
>> Donovan
>
>That's why I always keep a test partition around. I've been tempted to
>try XFree86 4.0. When I do, I'll first try it on my test copy of Linux.
>If anything goes wrong, I still have full GUI internet access from my
>production copy.
>
>Gary
>
This is why the bountiful heavens have provided us with cheap HD's...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 03:29:06 GMT
"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
Sometimes, you never know, unless you are one of the parties in the case.
Sometimes companies do that, and other times they settle. A bucket load
of bad PR, even if they are right, can hurt more than any settlement.
Unless you have some information no one else. It only YOUR opinion, which
is equal to mine.
> 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?
>
I have no idea, all I did was give a different view on why someone would
settle even if they are right.
> Fear of the truth coming out appears a likely candidate. <G>
>
Like I said, unless you know something no one else does, that a guess but
I would tend to agree.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 03:31:06 GMT
"Shice Beoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gdf05.505$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <HuZ%4.10315$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Quantum
> >Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I might interject, I'd like to ask:
> Why the hell is this being X-Posted to comp.sys.be.advocacy?
>
I have no idea, but who ever created the message, though it would nice to
include you also. ;)
I never did get Be to work with my Cable modem. (so it Be related)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 03:52:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> if (file)
> {
> for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
> {
> fprintf(file, "The lamb lies down on
broadway\n");
> }
>
> fclose(file);
> }
Excellent coding style. Obviously, you are an ex-DEC'cie. :-) Excellent
musical taste also.
> The file it generated is 30MBytes long, and from reading the timings
these
> are the results I got:
>
> Visual C++ 6.0 6 seconds
> Borland C++ Builder 6 seconds
> GNU C++ 6 seconds
With all due respect, this is not a very interesting test. The main
thing it tests, by far, is the file cache. I ran this on my Alpha with
VMS, and it took just under 6 _minutes_ to complete. As you may know,
VMS uses a write-through disk cache, which accounts for the difference.
(The fact that it wrote the file to a network disk on an old VAX didn't
help either!)
> 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.
If you want to test compiler optimization, it would be much more
interesting to do it with CPU benchmarks. There is a pretty good suite
of benchmarks available online (whetstone, fft, queens, and lots of
others) which you can use to test compilers. Unfortunately, the SPEC
benchmarks are not open source, as they are the best CPU benchmarks.
I have tested benchmarks on my computers, both Linux vs. VMS on Alpha
hardware (using DEC's compiler), and Linux vs. Windows on Intel
hardware (using Microsoft's compiler). In both cases, Linux lost by a
very wide margin due to its toy compiler - by up to 50% on some of the
tests. A lot of Linux zelaots may not realize it, but when you use
Linux, and have compiled your programs with GCC, you are getting much
less out of your hardware than if you the software you run is built
with a good compiler.
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
******************************
