Linux-Advocacy Digest #160, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 02:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Otto")
Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south) (tholenbot)
Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School (pac4854)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Andres Soolo)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux is awesome! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy (Arthur)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Linux is awesome! ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:08:06 -0400
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
"John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Shs25.3918$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:
: "WhyteWolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8icsuj$4og$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > In article <DZf25.1219$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Otto wrote:
: > >
: > >"Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > >: If a product has increasing market share each year (which Linux has
: > >: achieved in the server os market), they are taking over.
: > >
: > >And if you look at which platforms were loosing market share during the
: same
: > >time periods, then you have the looser platforms. Hint, it's not NT....
: >
: > well that depends on how far you look ...
: > NT had a 70% market share in 1997, that droped to 35% in 1999.
: > while NT didn't change it's market pattern from 1998-1999
: > Linux did ... in fact linux went from a mere 17% in 1997 to
: > 30% in 1999.. in fact the two market leaders right now
: > are NT and Linux ...
: >
: > now while it maybe true that NT didn't *loose* market share
: > it is also thusly true that they didn't *gain* market share
: > which in fact places them in the ripe for loosing catagory
: >
: >
:
:
: The latest IDC stats show that Linux, Unix and NT all grew their market
: shares. Novell was the big looser.
:
: As I remember NT had 70% and Unix went from 31% to 33% which was not
: expected for Unix.
:
: I cannot remember the exact figure for Linux but Unix has a greater market
: share.
Wrong in numerous counts....
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1549312.html?tag=st
Otto
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:40:46 -0400
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> If it were a real, even only vaguely human, being, such as they may
> harbour not at Ann but at Cornell, he/she would have picked
> the intentional blooper which you may find in one of the [snip me]'s.
My last reply to you was generated using the Eliza clone that comes with
Emacs. How predictable that you failed to recognize this fact, as well
as the fact that the nature of the replies in that last message was a
clear departure from my usual posting style.
This bot picked up on your reference to Eliza and switched its botting
algorithms as a result, so either it's not really a bot or it's more
advanced than any bot its author has ever witnessed.
> Welcome back, Hasan B. Mutlu, glad to see you are risen from the
> grave!
Does it surprise you that a posting identity with "bot" in its name
would behave in a bot-like manner? Perhaps you should try using your
brain.
> Are you still with AT&T?
You erroneously presuppose that I was ever "with" AT&T.
[Ed. Yes, I have considered writing a real Tholenbot. Several times in
fact. I have written a Bill Gates simulator, but it just talks to you,
it doesn't reply. I've never found the time to tackle writing a real
Tholenbot. But hope springs eternal.]
--
Prove that it's just a flesh wound, if you think you can.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:15:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You might want to contact the Open Source Education Foundation.
Their website is at...
http://www.osef.org
You can contact their Chief Information Officer, Kyle Buehler,
at...
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe these guys can give you some direction. What you want to
do has been done before with great success. Good luck.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:32:26 -0400
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. The hardware is called crap. Hmmm that's an interesting comment from
> a group of people that seem to like to extoll the virtues of running
> linux on 486 machines.
There is a difference between crappy hardware and low-resource hardware.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:29:10 -0400
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:13:22 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >and tell you exactly hoe many text files I have. Now can anyone tell me
> >how to do that under Windows?
>
> Start - Search (or Find) - Files - *.txt ?
And if the ?.txt file doesn't contain actual text, then what?
you see...unix's 'file' command actuall OPENS THE FILE AND READS IT to
determine what kind of file it actually is.
Assuming that the suffix is correct is...the WRONG answer.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:29:53 -0400
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yea and 90 percent of the world is using it..
>
Do 5.4 billion (90% of 6 billion) people even have computers?
Colin Day
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:51:21 -0400
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So exactly how is Linux going to unseat the already 90 or more percent
> of home/SOHO/desktop users from Windows and entice them into running
> Linux?
Why would I care?
> How about Office suites?
> Sure StarOffice is free, it is free for Windows users also but
> virtually nobody uses it. Why is that? MSOffice carries a hefty price
> tag but is still the standard by which all office suites are gauged.
> Why is that?
> Figure it out for yourself.
Actually, I never used MS Office even when I ran Windows
back a few years ago. StarOffice works just fine for
all of my business needs right now, but later this year
we'll look at replacing most of our spreadsheet use
with KOffice components embedded in our custom apps.
> How about hardware support.
Haven't had a piece of hardware that Linux didn't support.
That includes several CD-RW drives, a scanner, and a
digital camera.
> Still using that Daisywheel printer? Dot-Matrix job you bought at an
> IBM fleamarket? I doubt it. Today's PC's come with state of the art
> hardware built in to the system.
Mixing your metaphors a little, or are you really suggesting
that printers are built right into the system? We switched
to laser printers years ago, and Linux supports all of them
from the cheap Oki PCL based lasers to the new HP PS printers
we buy now. The PS printers are still a little pricey,
but we've got all of this extra money that we used to spend
on software ....
> Sure some of it (modem?) might be Win
> hardware, but who really cares? It works...
I care, because the little bit I used the WinModem that came
with the last computer we bought, I got 12Kbps connections,
while the same computer, phone line, ISP with a real modem
does 24Kbps. "It works" hardly seems to apply. (I know
24Kbps is not very impressive, but you haven't seen where
I live)
> Try that same combination under Linux and see what happens.
Linux has worked fine for me for over 2 years of
business use - we haven't used Windows anything in
that time.
> How about all that fine software that was included with the price of
> your Walmart special PC. Guess what!! It won't work with Linux!!!!
Oh gee, am I disappointed. I'll bet that's really fine software.
> So you have to try and acquire equivalent versions of everything near
> and dear to you.
Nope, it all came on the SuSE distribution (although I have
downloaded a few things). My year to date software expenditures
are - oops! there aren't any! I will be spending a whopping
$40 or so later in the year when Linux 2.4 and KDE 2.0 are
released and stable. That's for 7 computers, or less than
$6 per system.
> Let's talk ISP's.
My ISP's (3) run either Linux, Solaris, or HP-UX.
> Talk to Earthlink, Worldnet, FreeWeb, AOL, Compuserv and see what they
> think of Linux.
Why - none of them have local POP's in my area. I
have looked at independent ratings, though, and all
of the ISP's I use come out much higher than the
bozos you're listing.
> Try it yourself and see. Hint,,,,they are not happy......
My goal in life is to make large corporations happy.
> How about Napster, Digital Audio, Digital Video and so forth. Think
> the best programs and hardware are supported under Linux?
Don't use any of these.
> Think again....
> Windows has all the major players and Linux has nothing but a pile of
> promises.
But unlike MS, Linux keeps it promises.
> Come to think about it Linux is all about promises and no
> deliveries....
And you would know that how exactly?
> Point is there is absolutely no reason to run Linux on your desktop
> unless you are too cheap to buy a real operating system.
Maybe I am cheap - I sure don't mind not spending $5K and
more on software every year or so, and getting a better system
in the bargain.
> And again, isn't your time worth something?
Yep, that's why I don't want to spend my time recovering from
Windows crashes and having to do manually things that are
trivial to automate under Linux.
> Run Windows and come home to the family......
What a load of horse manure. I'm running Linux, so
I actually get to spend time with my family now, and
we take real nice vacations every year with the
money we're not paying to MS.
Looking forward to your next fantasy post.
Arthur
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:53:25 -0400
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The Linvocates have been spouting for sometime the "huge" number of
> people leaving Windows and downloading/buying (shudder!) Linux
> instead.
>
> So where are all of these folks?
You're one of them.
Ever use a web-browser?
These days, over 90% of web servers are either Linux (30%) or Unix
(60+%).
>
> Last count it was .3 percent of the market. WebTV did better. Win2k
> did better. Virtually everyone did better than this great "savior of
> operating systems".
Sales figures are unreliable. One Linux CD can be used to LEGALLY
make hundreds of installations.
A lot of Fortune 500 companies are using Linux to make small file
servers out of what WOULD be obsolete Pentium machines.
>
> Why is this?
>
> The figures speak for themselves and again I ask "Where are all of
> these users?"
>
> I know many people who have TRIED Linux, I don't know of ONE who has
> STAYED with Linux. Not a single soul.
You need to get out more.
>
> Corel just laid off a couple of hundred workers.
> They can't even produce a native Linux Office Suite that doesn't
> depend on Win libraries via WINE.
>
> TurboLinux (backed by IBM $$$$) did the same.
>
> So what gives here?
>
> Seems to me the Linux FAD is going the way of the Pet Rock and
> Hoola-Hoop.
You don't get out much. Throughout most of Europe, all the way to
Russia,
Linux is being used as a serious desktop office platform.
You know what's really funny? In Russia, there are no copyright laws,
so people burn both Linux AND LoseDows CD-Roms and sell them in kiosks,
etc. Linux actually commands a HIGHER price than does LoseDows.
Why is that?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:57:15 -0400
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is incorrect. WindowsNT runs a modified
> microkernel design. Windows9x is a tad more like
> your description, but there is an awful lot more to
> it, that doesn't quite fit with your contention.
The original design for NT was for the an NT operating system that contained
no windowing components or a command shell. The user would be able to plug
into the NT OS any of a number windowing system or command line shells that
Microsoft was touting. There was going to be a Dos like shell and several
of the standard unix shells. There was going the be a Windows 3.x windowing
system, a new NT windowing system, a X windowing system, a Motif windowing
system, etc. Even though the graphical user interface was first developed
by Xerox and then perfected through project Athena; this was during the big
legal battle between Microsoft and Apple over the control of the graphical
user interfaces. When the first version of NT was offered to the public
only the Windows NT windowing system was available, with the promise of more
to follow. There were claims by Microsoft that one day soon, any program
written for any windowing environment could compiled for run on the NT OS
and the correct user interface Then the legal trouble was over and the
promise of the other interfaces dissappeared.
That was when NT was promoted as a better unix than unix. It would permit
the user to run their programs using whatever they were comfortable with. A
dos user would not know he was not running dos. A unix user would not know
he was not running unix. etc.
So the original NT OS and the Window NT interface were totally sepperate.
If Microsoft lost the control of their Windowing environment they could sail
right along by offering the remaining user interfaces which were either
publc domain or they had licensed from the owner(s). This ploy was a fall
back position in case they lost the legal battle with Apple. What was
called the NT OS is what is now called the NT microkernel. If the
distinction between Windows NT and NT OS has blurred then that is more proof
that Microsoft takes steps to artificially bind their products together.
> BTW, you were aware that Linux running X is "nothing
> more than a graphical environment that runs on an
> actual operating system", weren't you?
Yes, of course. Since everone already knows that and and unlike Windows no
one has tried to claim that X is an operating system that is not a factor.
If anyone would ever had the guts or stupidity to step up to a podium and
try to claim that X is an OS. That person would be laughed off the stage so
fast that he would catch fire from the air resistance. I hope that you
don't think that the fact that X is not an operating system is a profound or
little know fact.
Thank you for mentioning X, it is like any of a number of other windowing
systems that run on sepperate OS's, just like Microsoft Windows does.
> I'm not going to waste my time explaining it, as it's
> obvious that you have a lot of homework to do, regarding
> operating systems design.
Quite uncalled for and quite incorrect. It would take you a long time to
catch up to my level of experience.
> Windows95 and Windows98 run DOS applications just fine, if
> they are run from DOS mode only
Do you know that there is in fact no such thing as Dos mode? The term "Dos
mode" implies that your are running Windows in a mode that makes it
compatible with the behavior of Dos. That is very misleading Microsoft
Speak for running the Dos OS, in a way that is designed to trick users into
not knowing that Window 95 and 98 are still as dependent on Dos as was
Windows 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x. The only difference is that Microsoft has
bundled the sale Windows and Dos together and have reduced the quantity of
utilities that they provide for Dos.
> (running them in a Windows
> DOS session can cause problems). However, WindowsNT does
> have problems with some DOS applications, because it does
> not allow any direct hardware access whatsoever. But all
> things considered, I think the VDM works pretty darned well
> for an emulated environment.
For programs that need special hardware access through a Dos driver, they
could run if the VDM provides the ability of running a VDM driver that
provides the services that the Dos program needs. For Dos programs that
require direct access to standard hardware the VDM could provide hardware
emulation or the equivlence of the VDM driver that I mention for the
previous situation. For direct access to special hardware for which a
program would not have a Dos driver, a VDM driver that provides emulation of
the hardware or otherwise controls access the the hardware could enable
those programs. For really unusual situations or for hardware for which
there no possibility to provide any support by the methods covered above;
VDM could permit limited direct hardware access as configured by a system
administrator. There could be risks in this last procedure, but weighing
the benefit against the risks would br the administrator's job.
Full support for all Dos applications by NT is possible, limited only by the
unwillingness of Microsoft to provide this support for it's user base.
There are many reasons that could be cited against this position but there
is no valid excuse when one considers the resources that could have been
placed on the project, if Microsoft cared in the least for the needs of
their customers.
> Microsoft doesn't necessarily make software go obsolete (though
> they do have quite a bit of control over its lifespan).
What an oxymoron! You are getting good at newspeak.
> Some
> software just literally loses popularity, because of a lacking
> in features, and functionality. This happens on every OS.
Popularity of a software package is not a factor here, Microsoft's
willingness to permit it to run on current systems is.
> That's because real-mode never made its way into Windows v3.x.
> In order for Microsoft to move forward, they had to leave some
> things behind... real-mode applications were one of those things.
Real mode was still in included in Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.0a. It was not
until Windows 3.1 that it was dropped.
Real mode is not a factor either, since a properly written Windows program
could run in any of the modes. It was the imprudent tricks and short cuts
that were used in some programs that could have cause a problem. Microsoft
even blamed these programming methods for inability to support the programs
written when Windows ran in real mode only. But this could be viewed as a
conivence since those tricks were first popularized through Microsoft's own
publications. Since they seemed to be giving those tricks their blessings
they should have supported the programs that were written that way, or they
should have not encouraged the use of those tricks in the first place. This
includes many Microsoft written programs that included them as well.
> By your logic, we should all be driving cars that still have
> oil lamps on them.
Your analogy and the point that you are trying to make are both invalid and
incorrect. The type of automobiles that you are citing are to old to
represent the programs written for Windows 1.x, if you were to consider the
length of the time line of computer history. I would say that an Edsel
would be a better match.
Now restating your analogy, "By your logic, we should all be driving
Edsels." Even when restated your anaology is still incorrent. I would
never say, "we should all be driving Edsels". However, I would say "that we
should be permitted to drive Edsels, if we own them and we choose to do so."
Now expanding on your analogy, if WIndows is the roadway, it should not be
purposely designed to prohibit the use of an Edsel on it.
> Would you suggest that every software company simply cater to
> every single old-timer out there who doesn't want to upgrade
> their ancient OS/application installations? That makes no
> sense at all.
Old-timer? What is this, age discrimination? Verbal elder abuse? No
software is truly obsolete so long as there is a single person who still has
a desire to run it.
We are not talking about every software company, we are talking about just
one software company, Microsoft. And what is wrong with not designing
planned obsoletence into their operating system and user environments. The
driving force behind a user's desire or requirement to upgrade their
software should be the desire to gain access to desireable new features.
Not the desire to be able to keep running it at all.
> Progress is the nature of things, and it's
> necessary if a business of any kind wishes to survive.
No not progess, it is change that is the nature of things. As they say, the
only constant is change. But change alone is not always progress. As for
true progress it can come in many forms, but prohibiting the use of existing
software is not progress. Since you have already started using anaologies,
I will offer this. Building profits through the forced upgrading of their
products just so their users can still keep running them, is like blackmail
or even financial.
> Well, it's silly to think that you should be able to run every
> single piece of legacy software out there on each progressive
> new version of an OS. If your software is that old, then it's
> simply time for you to upgrade it.
What about software products that are no longer supported, perhaps to the
point that the developer does not even exist anymore and if there is not
other product that would provide a viable replacement? If there is a need
to contiure to run it, why shouldn't some one be able to.
>That is the nature of
> computing.
>If you don't keep up, you simply get left behind.
Aside from my last point above, upgrading a piece of software for no valid
reason is other than to be using the latest version is foolish, wasteful,
and risky. Some times some older software can be better than the equivelent
current version. And remember some older software may not be upgradeable or
replaceable.
> Such as? If you're referring to how well each of them handles
> legacy software, yes, that is true to a point. If you're
> referring to this "lack of a standard API" thing you keep stating,
> then you are very misinformed.
If you believe that, then I suggest that try to run any software that is
written to the unique features of any of the varations of Windows that are
in regular use and run the program flawlessly on all of the other varations.
> True Win32 applications run just fine on both platforms. As
> far as this topic is concerned, I really have no idea what
> you're complaining about. I've never had an application
> that would only work under WindowsNT but not Windows9x, or
> vice versa.
What about the other varaitions of Windows? And why are you limiting the
discussion to Win32 applications only?
> The only programs that I've had problems getting to
> work under both environments similarly are some games,
> and usually, the problem was that they needed the latest
> version of DirectX. With Windows2000, this problem
> has been solved.
Now you contradict your prior statement.
> Win32 is the standard Windows API. If your apps don't work
> on both Windows9x, and WindowsNT, don't blame Microsoft...
> blame the dumbasses who wrote your application, because it's
> most likely a stupid programming flaw on their part that is
> causing the incompatibility.
What about programs that have this problem that are written by Microsoft?
> As I said, if it's a true Win32 application, it will.
Again why are you limiting the discussion to Win32 applications, we are
talking about ALL Windows applications AND utilities.
> If it doesn't work on both platforms (assuming DirectX
> isn't an issue), then it's not a true Win32 application.
So, you are saying that if a given program proves you wrong, it should be
eliminated from the discussion? It would be like you saying that all the
dishes in your house are clean, and when someone finds a dirty dish in your
kitchen sink, you say that it doen't count because it is not really clean.
> They have had to make some sacrifices, but leaving old
> and cumbersome technologies behind is not a "bad" thing.
Microsoft did not have to make sacrifices, they choose to abandon the
support. It is not a bad thing, unless you are the one that is hurt by
their choice.
> I honestly see no reason for you to have a beef with
> Microsoft, when it seems that it is you who is unwilling
> to upgrade your applications properly for the OS you are
> running.
I don't "have a beef" with Microsoft, I wouldn't touch any meat that they
would try to sell me. I also wouldn't touch a piece of software produced by
a slaughter house either.
"Unwilling to upgrade you applications properly?" You make it sound as
though I have a responsibility to upgrade my software? To whom do I owe
this responsibilty? To Microsoft? To Microsoft's corporate partners? Why
does any customer owe any responsibilty to someone selling them software.
It is Microsoft that owes responsibility to go the extra mile to not build
forced obsolences into thier product that would render existing software
that depends on it useless.
> You can't run Windows9x, or WindowsNT, expecting
> to be able to run all of your DOS 3.3, or Windows v2.x apps
> seamlessly.
And why not?
>Such a request is simply absurd.
The only thing that is absud here is that you could possibily believe that.
Unless you have a vested interest that your statement supports.
One thing I thought some one would point out that it is still possible to
run old Windows software on a copy of Windows that was current when the
software was written. Of course this is in most cases legaly impossible,
since back when we upgraded from the old Dos or Windows, we lost the legal
right to run the prior verion . Unless we performed the upgrade by
purchasing a retail version instead of an upgrade version. Or we had
additional lincensed copies of the prior version that were not also
upgraded.
Now if Microsoft would release Windows 1.x and Windows 2.x and maybe some
older versions of Dos as well, as freeware it would help to make some amends
for their past planned obsolences. That would not hurt the sales of their
current product line and it would help them in the good will department and
it would cost them nothing or next to nothing. Today's harware could
require a few patches, like software timing loops, but the small effort that
they would have to invest in that would also help them in the good will
department. In the long run effort like that might make it possible for
them to be able to compete openly and fairly in the market place and still
keep their market share.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:31:07 -0400
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Applix? you mean the "build it yourself Office suite" that has buried
> the Word count icon 10 levels deep in some convoluted menue.
>
But I suspect that Applix's word count actually works :-).
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
