Linux-Advocacy Digest #818, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: I just don't buy it (WesTralia)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard
))
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("Marcus Turner")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 14:10:42 -0500
I will look into Python - I've never used it before.
Thanks!
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > From the experience I've had with VB, it sucked. Perl is much more
> > > powerful IMO (and I can use perl on almost every platform out there).
> >
> > More powerful? Perhaps. But is it as easy to use as VB? I use VB cause I
can
> > crank out code in a hurry and with very little debugging and the tools
and
> > 3rd party support is fantastic.
>
> In that case, your language of choice should be Python. Easier to use
> than VB, lower learning cost, lower defect rate, and portable, to boot.
>
> > show a programmer some VB code and I'll bet he can figure out what it's
> > doing quickly and usually pretty close to accurately.
>
> The same is true of Python.
>
> --
>
> If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> John Stevens
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Jul 2000 19:16:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>thinking about it, if neither clean room or reverse engineering is
>applicable to any other copyrighted material ...
There are court decisions that have to do with copyright and reverse
engineering and clean rooms. I suggest you start with:
_Computer Associates v. Altai_, 20 USPQ2d 1641 (DC ENY, 1991)
_Computer Associates v. Altai_, 23 USPQ2d 1241 (CA 2, 1992)
_Atari v. Nintendo_, 24 USPQ2d 1015 (CA FC, 1992)
_Sega v. Accolade_, 24 USPQ2d 1561 (CA 9, 1992)
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:15:24 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:26:23 +1000, Ian Pulsford
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> >8. What can .NET do that an intranet + an internet gateway cannot do?
>
> It makes things easier. The innovation comes from providing new
> features to people who otherwise would not have access to them. Many
> of my co-workers would love an easy way to bring their work home
> without using floppy disks but most can hardly manage that task.
>
This has already been solved with thinkfree.com and Java.
> If user A could login and save things easily to his online storage
> space, go home and work on it he'd be very happy. It can be done now
> fairly easily but we're not just talking two PC's sharing data online.
>
Does Java ring a bell?
> I think it's about time someone created such a set of features.
>
http://wwwThinkFree.com/
http://www.javasoft.com/
> PREDICTION:
>
> Within 2-3 years there will suddenly be GNU .NET. Everyone saying what
> a bad idea it is now will be praising GNU .NET and proclaiming it the
> Microsoft killer.
It will be 2-3 years before .NET steps out from the vapor. By
that time most chip manufacturers will have chips on the market
which translate Java byte-code.
-wt
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:08:55 GMT
In article <6Mxd5.3004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Spud wrote:
> >
> > (deletia)
> >
> > > Where Linux will be in 2-3 years
> > > depends on a lot of things, not least of which is whether it can
> > > sustain the effort to provide a truly competitive solution for the
> > > home-user and office-user desktops - which means, among other
> > > things,
> > > compatability with existing document formats, (..)
> >
> > ...precisely the ones that are unnecessarily a moving target,
> courtesy
> > of MicroShit.
>
> Don't know who "MicroShit" is,
Microsoft has a number of names among it's competitors, especially
among Linux advocates, Internet advocates, UNIX advocates, and
administrators who are staying up until 3:00 A.M. (or getting called
out of bed at 3:00 A.M.) - thay include:
M$ (popular among managers slapped with yet another bill resulting from
yet another license audit).
Microsloth (usually used by people who have a recurring problem that
renders servers or workstations totally useless in a matter of weeks),
Microslut (for the ability of Windows/Office to pass viruses faster
than a 42nd street hooker),
Microsnot (the view of a Microsoft rep at a fortune 500 company
when dealing with a mere purchasing agent who is balking at a
price increase - as he looks down his nose and mentions "Bill" and
your CEO on a first name basis).
And Microshit (named after the experience of loosing your laptop 5
minutes into a 30 minute PowerPoint presentation due to a
Windows 9x crash).
There's also WinBlows (reference to the projectile vomiting that
follows being chewed out for not having a document ready because
O2K mangled it into something beyond recognition an hour before it
was due to the secretary for copying and distribution).
There's also WinDose (reference to the short naps taken during the
Hour-glass display on Windows 3.1)
And there's Microsoft Orifice - so known for letting really nasty
things in via the back door.
Microsoft Internet Exploder - so known for inviting little time bombs
to come in and do nasty things to your computer, especially at 3:00
A.M.
There's Microsnitch - for Microsoft's software "enhancements" that
allow it to do license audits by parsing e-mail and word attachments
routed through MSN links. Also refers to other software which sends
confidential information to Microsoft for undisclosed uses.
Of course, we all know that the name was changed from Micro-soft
to Microsoft because they didn't want anybody to think they were
soft, especially customers, OEMs, pirates, competitors, and even
allies.
> but I can comment on Microsoft's
> probable way of thinking in regards to this sort of issue. Let's
> see... are they in business to support Linux? Nope. Are they in
> business to make a profit, both for themselves and for their
> shareholders? Yup.
No problem here. Of course, there is the concept of "percieved value
pricing", which is based on the premise that if I can purchase enough
advertizing, influence enough CEOs, Managers, and magazine publishers,
I can charge a rediculous price for a cheap product that is inferior
to the competition - and they'll pay it.
It worked pretty well, Microsoft blew away WordPerfect with Word 2.0
for DOS (using a bundleware contract with the OEMs), They blew away
Lotus 1-2-3 with Multiplan (using a similar bundleware contract with
the OEMs). They blew away Corel Draw, Harvard Graphics, and Visio
with PowerPoint (using yet another set of bundlware contracts that
required Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) be installed
on each machine sold.
There's only one problem, the OEMs, corporate customers, and employees
would like to make a buck or two along the way too. Microsoft seems
to think that they are entitled to half the corporate profits of
the Fortune 500, the S&P 500, the Dow, the Russel 2000, and the
Wilshire 5000. They don't spell it out that way, they just look
at the revenue, the expenses, and estimate sales quotas based on
1/2 the previous year's earnings excluding the cost of Microsoft
software. If the company made 35 cents/share, and Microsoft got
25 cents/share last year, then Microsoft needs to generate 30
cents/share this year, but if the companie's growing at 20%/year,
then Microsoft expects the rep to generate 35 cents/share.
> Well, let's see. There's a competing tool out there (say StarOffice)
> attempting to provide much the same functionality they're offering.
> Thing is, it's free. Letting it "get on board" - letting it get hold
> of our document file formats - would mean people could use the free
> program instead of their commercial program... is that a good thing
> for them or their investors, money-wise? Doesn't seem to be.
Of course not. Microsoft would like to collect as much revenue as
possible from as many people as possible. The investors gave up
any expectitions of tying price to earnings years ago, today, they
expect Microsoft to increase it's revenues by at least 20% if they
want to continue having stockholders pay 100 times earnings and 20
times revenue for the stock. If revenue falters, or earnings falter,
Microsoft share prices drop like a rock.
> However, they'll toss a bone to them anyway. Want to exchange
> documents between the two? Fine... why not export your document as
> HTML or RTF? Both of those are documented well enough. Oh, sure,
> you'll lose any scripting and suchlike... but then again, they're not
> in business to make someone else's free products flourish, so whoopee.
Scripting might be a nice thing for internal composition, but any UNIX
administrator would warn you that passing executibles, scripts, or any
document that includes the ability to execute commands that allow you
to read, write, and execute files on the recipients machine is like
sending engraved invitations to hackers. One of the reasons there
is so much source code for UNIX is because most administrators refused
to allow even commercial code unless they knew source code was
available. In many cases, the administrators would pay a premium
price for direct support from people who had direct access to the
source code. In many government contracts, if a vendor failed to
meet service level agreements, their code was published to simtel-20
and competitive bids for service level agreements were accepted.
> That's what I find bizarre about the whole Linux zealot[1]
> mentality... "Our OS is free, so everyone, even organizations fully
> intent on making profit, should provide everything we need, also for
> free, to help put them out of business." Yes, and I'll have some of
> what these folks are smoking, too.
You're missing the point (but Microsoft isn't). Linux software is
free, including the source code. But the support is sold, in the
form of consulting, outsourcing agreements, and service level
agreements. There are about 10 million web sites whose owners
pay someone to install a Linux or FreeBSD system, get it up and
running, set up a co-hosting site in a local office, and keep both
machines up, running, and synchronised 24/7 even under adverse
conditions. The cost, depending on the type and quality of service,
ranges from $100/month on up to $1000/processor/month.
People pay $40 for Red Hat instead of downloading it off an FTP site
because the extra $40 entitles them to make phone calls, get e-mail,
and ask questions via whatever means available to get their systems
properly installed and working.
People pay $99 for Corel Office because they'd rather have the extra
support, compatibility (via word perfect formats) and convenience
of WordPerfect and CorelDraw than use Lyx and Xfig for Write and draw
functions.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, publicly defined standards provide a
form of interim agreement that enables numerous publishers to play
on the same field and reach the widest number of people. A publisher
who loads his site with ActiveX, VBScript, JScript, and other
Microsoft-only features not only forfiets access to tens of millions of
customers, but may even alienate hundreds of thousands of key decision
makers.
> [1] As opposed to Linux user/promoter/supporter/advocate/fan.
There's a big difference between spending $500 for W2K, $600 for O2K,
and $500 extra for premium hardware (none of which provide profit to
the OEM) so that Microsoft can promote yet another wave of "New
Technology" (designed and engineered to make the old technology
obsolete) so that they can make a profit, and spending $300 for
a "bare bones" PC, $40 for commercial Linux distribution, $100 for
a full-featured office suite, and selling it as a preconfigured
system for $600 along with a 1-800 number and support line access
via Internet. VALinux takes a $700 machine and sells it, with Linux
and applications and support contract, for about $1500. Many customers
are actually willing to spend a little extra for a machine they know
will work.
Contrary to popular opinion nobody's just "giving it away", they
are just setting up a different economic model in which thousands
of very small companies pool resources and leverage the common
intellectual capital to generate more revenue all around.
In 1991, there were no commercial publishers on the internet
(it was illegal to advertize, promote products, or sell goods
over the government sponsored lines).
In 1992, there were only 30-40 local publishers and about 20
corporations selling products and information via the internet.
In 1993, Dow Jones, the first nationally branded publisher on the
internet, was literally "giving away" Dow Jones news feed information
via the Internet.
Today, a huge portion of Dow Jones revenue comes from resale contracts
to internet sites. Dow Jones even has it's own Wall Street Journal
Interactive site. There are 10 million organizations and corporations
who sponsor servers on the internet for everything from consulting to
on-line trading.
To look at Linux in 1999, say "gee, nobody's making billions this
month" is like looking at a bamboo tree. A bamboo tree grows for
several years, but it grows down extending it's roots to the deep
well water and underground aquafers. Suddenly, in a matter of months,
it shoots up 20-30 feet into the air, becoming a huge plant which
appears as if it grew overnight.
Linux/UNIX has been fueling the Internet growth for years. As a quiet
little work-horse it serves millions of web sites, hundreds of millions
of customers, and billions of documents every day. The system is so
reliable that it's a news event when Linux/UNIX actually crashes.
Imagine having your name in the paper because your PC crashed.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 20 Jul 2000 14:21:32 -0500
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:00:02 +0200, David Brown wrote:
> >
>
> >I would not consider Visual Basic for teaching, but there are a lot of
other
> >Basics that are much better. Call me old fashioned, but I think a BBC
Micro
> >with BBC Basic is still one of the best educational systems available.
>
> I've used some of the old basics and they were horrendous. They encourage
> bad practices such as the use of GOTOs, and writing directly to memory.
> They're not really "structured". They are certainly not "object
oriented".
Writing directly to memory? What BASIC class did YOU take? Not the way I
learned it. I NEVER wrote directly to memory from BASIC. GOTOs - what's
wrong with properly used GOTOs - do you never use a JMP in assembly? Does
this make assembly bad? Original old old basic was not structured or object
oriented, You should review VB6 and rethink your comments.
------------------------------
From: "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:17:21 GMT
"Gilbert W. Pilz Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:36:03 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I remember the IBM OS2 SDK being priced at $2500 while the Microsoft SDK
was
> >about $100.
>
> Exactly. Microsoft (having recently grown from a startup) understood
> that there was a large and important segment of developers for whom
> $2500 is basically out of the question. IBM couldn't get past its
> Fortune 500 bias to see this.
>
> Of course, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Microsoft was actually
> on the side of small developers. If you happened to be successfully
> with something that they viewed as threatening to any of their core
> businesses and they would crush you like a bug using any and all means
> at their disposal including some with dubious ethical and legal
> implications.
>
> I worry that what Microsoft is *really* being punished for is not its
> offensive and illegal behavior in the software market, but its failure
> to play the game the way Washington likes it to be played. If
> Microsoft had been a little quiter about its disdain for the power of
> the feds, if it had gotten into the lobbying and campaign contribution
> game a little earlier I suspect things would have never reached this
> point.
Judge Jackson has stated several times that he was concerned w/ Microsoft's
unrepentant attitude towards the trial.
Seems to me to be another case of Legislation by Litigation.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 20 Jul 2000 14:23:18 -0500
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 18 Jul 2000 17:47:34 -0500,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Glad to see that your simply criteria for a good langauge is based on
it's
> >name and original purpose dozens of years ago. Ignoring the evolution of
the
> >product... maybe we should do what borland did, change the name from
turbo
> >pascal to delphi and call it "new and improved" and people will
convienently
> >forget it's the same old thing...
> >
>
> Nothing has changed. It's easier but less powerful than other
> languages. Good for simple applications, not for large complex ones.
>
>
But Perry - in what way? I mean you say it but don't suppor it. How is VB so
"weak"? Assuming both a C programmer and VB programmer can reach into 3rd
party add-ins to complete his/her toolbox - where is VB's primary weakness
that makes it *unable* (not just difficult, you suggest unable) to create
complex applications. I don't see it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Jul 2000 19:23:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Perhaps now's a good time to hear what anyone has to say about whether a
>program can be written into a different language and not considered
>derivative. It seems like the source code could not possibly be
>identical, so no infringement could occur, unless the object code ended
>up being identical. From what little I know of programming languages
>and their diversity and implementation, that would be impossible.
If you would read the definition of a derivative work in the Copyright
Act of 1976, you would have your answer.
For those who actually want to learn by reading, here it is --
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which
a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is
a "derivative work".
Then think about what a translation is.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:23:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Spud) wrote in <aDxd5.3003$47.80094
@news.bc.tac.net>:
>>Windows will crash at the login prompt if you let it sit for a month.
>
>That last comment was made by one Aaron R. Kulkis, as I read it. The
>comment suggests that Windows (note that it's not qualified by
>version, so we must assume _every_ version of Windows, from 1.0 to
>2000, has this issue) is in fact so unstable that it cannot even
>manage to show a logon prompt for a month without crashing - let alone
>do any work at all.
>
>If Pete's comments are to be believed, he has a server which has, in
>fact, not only been up for more than a month, but actually doing work
>for that time. Low demand work, perhaps, but certainly more than just
>sitting waiting for a logon.
>
>Given that others have had similar experiences - myself with NT4 and
>Win2K for example - it would seem that Windows, in some flavours at
>least, can in fact be up for more than a month, as opposed to the
>apparent blanket assertion above that Windows (by implication all
>versions) cannot, in fact, do this.
>
>So which is it? Was the blanket statement about Windows simply wrong?
>Or are all the companies and individuals who have, in fact, had
>Windows boxes up longer than a month simply lying? All of them?
This is one reason I originally kept using the term "Linux", instead of
qualifying it by "Linux with KDE" etc. So much nonsense has been written
about Windows (which one, eh?) I saw no reason not to.
Incidentally, the server is still up, running Windows 98 SE.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 20 Jul 2000 14:25:15 -0500
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 19 Jul 2000 09:20:44 -0500,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:13:02 +1000,
> >> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> From http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~bergmann/history.html
> >> >>
> >> >> "BASIC (standing for Beginner's All Purpose Symbolic Instruction
> >> >> Code)...the designers wished it to be a stepping-stone for students
to
> >> >> learn on of the more powerful languages..."
> >> >>
> >> >> 'nuff said.
> >> >
> >> >And this stops it being useful.........how ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Huh?? You really are a terrible reader. My quote of the article
> >> clearly indicates what BASIC was intended to be useful for: training
> >> beginners how to program.
> >>
> >
> >Ahhhh but your own addition of "'nuf said." and your previous posts
strongly
> >imply that you consider BASIC to be nothing more than a novice langauge
for
> >students and that "more powerful languages" in that quote to mean that
BASIC
> >is not a powerful langauge itself. I think your bias against BASIC is
> >obvious and a previous writer put it much better than I could so I'll let
> >you read that post from MH.
> >
>
> No, I mean it's a simple language, good for simple jobs. Not for large
scale
> complex jobs, or jobs with specific hardware interface requirements.
>
Can you be more specific? In what way is VB failing on a large scale that is
not revealed to us "little scale" programmers who are having no trouble
using VB for most anything. As for specific hardware interface requirements:
again, can you be more specific. And cannot a VB (and C) programmer call
upon a 3rd party support add-in to provide some funcionality that is not
there in the basic language. All the hardware interfaces I've needed came
with DLLs that I linked to and called, they were written in "whatever
langague" and I didn't care. I just called them and let them do the work.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Jul 2000 19:25:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>The technical manual had a copyright notice, but that doesn't
>copyright the BIOS, right?
Wrong again. It would copyright all the expression in the technical
manual. But the BIOS listing had its own copyright notice.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:27:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Spud) wrote in <eZQc5.1509$47.47533
@news.bc.tac.net>:
>Mandrake 7.1, IIRC. Run their little tool for configuring the sound
>card. "Do you want to scan for ISA devices?" No. Oh, well, let's
>scan anyways, and lock the system so hard it requires a reset. Not
>ctrl-alt-del, but reset.
Yep, I managed to hang Linux trying to configure the sound card with
sndconfig. So that's two of us.
>Win98, ME and 2K: Install the OS, sound card is automatically detected
>and configured.
Windows 98 SE installed the driver without batting an eyelid.
>Can't say I had much of a problem with the GUI, other than that it
>felt sluggish... almost as if the video drivers weren't using the
>acceleration features on the video card.
Can't say I noticed any sluggishness in XFree86 4.0.1 on my Voodoo 5.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:29:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin R. Day) wrote in <3974F05A.A51D6486
@ix.netcom.com>:
>The ability to have four xterms on one desktop, and Netscape on
>another.
I'd rather go for a 21" screen or a two head display, but that's my
preference.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
