Linux-Advocacy Digest #819, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
No win situation for Linux market (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 20 Jul 2000 14:29:20 -0500
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I realize this isn't my "fight", but I had some questions for you.
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
> > >That's (barely) tolerable for the
> > > workstation/desktop environment, but insane on the server side. And
> > > how can I turn off the GUI so it's not sucking down extra resources
> > > when it's running as a server?
> >
> > is your server so pitifully weak that it can't give up a couple of megs
for
> > the gui so you can increase your productivity and make your job easier?
> >
> > Answer: you can't, and that's not the
> > > only thing you can't turn off.
> >
> > Answer: you can. Don't log into the server. Telnet in and mange it that
way.
> > Or log into one server with the full GUI and manage all the others,
which
> > aren't logged in, remotely. Think past the typical *nix FUD, answers are
> > there.
> >
>
> How does logging in remotely "turn off" the GUI? It is still up, and
> this is still a valid complaint for someone coming from the *nix world.
> It isn't FUD as you say, but a fact that you cannot have NT come up
> without a GUI. I have three *nix servers in my server room, one has a
> monitor on it, none have a GUI running. How would I do this with NT?
Turn on the NT computer. Let it boot up but do not log in to it at the
console. Bingo, the GUI is not running. All of it's services are functional.
> Oh yeah, and no keyboards or mouse either (except for the one with the
> monitor). I realize you can now log in remotely through terminal server
> (or whatever it's called now), but how do I actually "turn off" the
> GUI? I don't believe this is possible.
Don't invoke it in the first place.
>
> > >There are all kinds of unneeded things
> > > running like Explorer. It's always running; why? Does a server really
> > > need this stuff? And does a server really need to have browser
> > > functionality "integrated" into it to install some of the server
> > > components that M$ sells?
> >
> > because the GUI is integrating the desktop with a HTML engine - it's
called
> > advancing technology> new ideas, new functionality. You don't think it's
> > cool you can plop an HTML or activex object right into your desktop
> > background and interact with it while you work in other windows? Just to
> > name the first thing that comes to mind.
>
> And this helps on a server exactly how? I don't think there are many
> administrators that will spend the entire day working productivity apps
> off the desktop (my previous boss would, but he also loaded Red Alert on
> two servers so he and a friend could play over the high speed network).
> This comes back again to the question posed above of "turning off" the
> GUI. On a server that shouldn't really even need logged into on a
> regular basis, how does it help that you have a full GUI with HTML
> and/or activex capability in the desktop? And if you want to turn these
> features off, why can't you? And please, save us the "you should buy
> hardware that can handle it anyway" line. Some of us have hardware that
> could handle it, but why not put that hardware to use for what you
> "want" it to do?
Just don't log into the server at the console.
>
> I'm just curious why MS thinks we need a full GUI, and a full web
> browser (Internet Explorer) on every server, no matter what it's purpose
> is. It seems a waste of resources. Yes, there is hardware that can
> handle it, but when all you need is a file server, or a database server,
> why do you need the capabilities to use that machine as a web
> browser/email viewer/news reader/productivity desktop/etc. Maybe for
> you it makes sense, but to me a server should be a server (for whatever
> purposes) and not a superset of a desktop. And I know that I am not
> alone in this feeling. This is not an attack, it is a simple question.
> Why can't we "choose" what runs on our servers with Windows?
Choose not to log in at the console. Telnet in and use the CMD CLI.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:26:24 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> And you cannot presume to learn if you don't believe that you know what
> you already do know. Hand-waving contradictory opinions as "just
> opinion, and you just think your opinion is right because its yours and
> you're arrogant" is not a good basis for intellectual discussion.
> Someone presented a hypothesis, I illustrated broadly how it was
> contradictory to facts and evidence, and tentatively concluded that
> unless further reasoning or information is presented in support of the
> hypothesis, it is false. I don't think that's arrogance, or a matter of
> arguing based on opinion. Learn from it or not, at your option.
>
I learn more from those that approach me with a semblance of respect
than from those that approach me in the time-honored usenet tradition of
"your faulty".
As for the rest of your response.... why bother?
Sorry I got involved in another conversation with a ego-maniac. It
won't happen again. At least not with you.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [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 19:30:35 GMT
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:17:21 GMT, Marcus Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"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:
[deletia]
>> 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.
Hardly. This action was brought about under a 100 year old
statute. Microsoft just blew it off and suffered the fate
of ANYONE that blows off a judge.
This is true of litigation in general, civil or criminal:
blow off the case and you essentially forfiet allowing the
your adversary to completely define the situation.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:02:42 -0300
Chad Irby escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 14% of iMac users are what percentage of PC users? 0.5%?
> > In that case, you could confidently say that for .5% of PC users
> > PMT is less important than ease of use and pretty cases combined.
>
> Actually, you'd be a lot more accurate by saying that more like 90% of
> PC users haven't got a clue about what PMT is, much less what benefits
> it might give them, and that following the herd is more important than
> anything else they might know about computers...
Yes, that's probably true, too.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:01:27 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> Or rough descriptions of the libraries
> >> functionality, written on the back of a napkin.
> >
> >Who says those exist? Please don't introduce extraneous elements.
>
> They perforce exist, and therefore are not extraneous. Your calling
> functions in a library, and you don't even know what it does? I think
> not.
Well, you obviously are not a programmer, then. Think "plugin
architecture".
> >> Perhaps even discussed
> >> verbally; I'm not sure where the court draws the line on the "concrete
> >> form" requirement. I do know that you can steal a person's idea without
> >> copying their work verbatim.
> >
> >And stealing an idea is not necessarily a violation of copyright, of
> >course.
>
> Tell that to the screen writers who sue because "they stole my idea!"
It is not necessarily not a violation of copyright, either.
[snip]
> 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.
It could be considered as a translation, if you do the same things in
the same ways using just a different syntax.
for (int i=0;i<10;i++)
printf ("%d",i);
Doesn't seem different from
for i in range(0,10):
print i;
Of course for any non-trivial program this result is almost impossible
to achieve by accident.
> >> [...]
> >> >You can't be serious. For example, when the first PC BIOS were cloned,
> >> >it was done using cleanroom, why? Because the final state was not enough to
> >> >show that the clone was not a derived work.
> >>
> >> Actually, I thought it was because the BIOS was considered protected by
> >> trade secret, rather than copyright. Clean room replication of
> >> protected works is not sufficient to pass a legal challenge, whether the
> >> IP is patent or copyright.
> >
> >The cloned BIOS is not a replication of the original BIOS, only a
> >funtional equivalent.
>
> Ahh. So the BIOS was copyrighted, and was replicated without
> infringement by a clean room replication. But the code wasn't
> replicated, so it wasn't the intellectual property they were developing
> in the clean room. It was the operational functionality, which is not
> covered by copyright. Its an idea, not intellectual property, right?
Right. So, you are finally getting that functionality of software is
not covered by copyright?
> So a clean room implementation means there can be no legal challenge.
> If, however, a clean room implementation is therefore challenged (my
> thinking went), then the fact it is clean room is not going to be
> sufficient.
Well, usually it would mean that after the court sees the clone was
done using cleanrooming, and if there were no patents involved, the
cloner wins.
> If it *is* a replication of the original, then it is
> infringement. Well, actually, that would be plagiarism, wouldn't it?
Probably.
> Infringement actually refers to "derivative works" in the classic sense,
> which is something that copyrighted software is immune to. Nobody could
> come out with something that is very much like Word but is not Word and
> have it be infringement, because functionality, including "look and
> feel", and AFAIK feature set, is not protected.
Right.
> So I guess "clean room" just means "we wrote a program to work just like
> that one", and "reverse engineering" means "we decompiled the code".
No. The terms have been defined before. Read it. If you can't, there
are dozens of online technical terminology dictionaries.
> [...]
> >> Honestly? Because you used progA and libB and libC, which made keeping
> >> track of the elements more trouble than it was worth, as I was already
> >> aware of the intent of your example from both your argument and your
> >> declaration of the result. Had you used progA and libA, it might have
> >> been a tad easier, but even these don't scan well, particularly in the
> >> narrative form you used. Next time, I would suggest using Program A and
> >> Library #1 and #2. If your example remains as basic as it was
> >> presented, though, referencing the program as 'A' is redundant. It is
> >> merely "the Program".
> >
> >Good programers leave room for expansion. Anyway, this would show
> >you have a very serious reading disability. Keeping track of three
> >objects regardless of their names is something anyone over 10 should
> >manage effortlessly.
>
> And if perhaps I have a reading disability?
Well, let me know, I will use short words for you. Perhaps you should
not
get in discussions too complex for your understanding.
> I track text very poorly,
> and particularly so when it is an asinine and pointless mish-mash of
> stupid labels. I think a brain which would come up with it is far more
> disfunctional than one that pointed out that it was senseless.
Well, any fool can say it's senseless. It would even appear senseless
to the fool.
> And, of
> course, I've been right all along; the careful reading, even the
> re-phrasing, of the whole thought experiment was useless in allowing you
> to understand why a program can be derivative of a library it links to.
You had said a program is a derivative work of the libraries it links
to,
without qualifying the assertion. Are you now saying that a program is
SOMETIMES a derivative work of a library it links to? That is a whole
new can of worms.
> I've had enough of it. You and Lee can go bug Richard Stallman about
> it, for all I care.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
> It was his idea to begin with; I'm just trying to
> explain why its comprehensible. If you want to insist its not, that
> would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, now wouldn't it?
We are trying to explain to you why what you say makes no sense.
I have been explained the theory of the hollow earth a dozen times,
and it still doesn't make no sense to me. Am I too dumb to get it?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 20 Jul 2000 14:32:41 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l4qtn$34d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> >There are vendors selling W2K solutions with 99.999% uptime - just
> >> >like the other *nix vendors.
> >>
> >> Really? Who? Got a few URLs?
> >Start here: http://www.stratus.com/
>
> Tried to, it hung up my modem line ;-). Well, the modem line *did* hang
> up just when I tried to go there, I don't think there is anything causal
> about it....
>
> Anyway, I'll have a look next time I am online.
weird modem...
>
> >> And the big question always is: What will they do for you when
> >> their hardware fails to achieve those levels? I remember the first
> >> time someone put out a 99.99% (or was it 99.9%) uptime guarantee
> >> for NT. If you had more downtime, they would take some percentage
> >> off the cost of the next regular service visit. Oh great!
>
> >Tell me - how does ANYONE guarantee 99.999% uptime for any OS? Do they
grant
> >you their first born? And you phrased your question correctly "when their
> >hardware fails" - not the OS.
>
> When you get to 99.99% or so (that's one hour in 10,000, or roughly 53
minutes
> per year), you need both a very very stable OS and very very stable
hardware.
> And for the customer, it doesn't really matter which part fails, as long
> as the server goes down.
OK, right.
>
> As to what they *could* guarantee? Well, for one thing, they could promise
> to have someone with a complete mirror of your hardware out at your site
> in less than 1 hour; Someone who actually knows enough to transfer all
> data in a quick and safe way and get that new server up and running. Or
they
> could insure you against any loss of income and/or data caused by the
> excessive downtime --- hopefully themselves being insured against
resulting
> claims through someone as big as Lloyd's of London, i.e. someone who won't
> go under the first time a company loses a few dozend million to a new
> variant of the Ping of Death.
Why do you automatically assume that there HS to be a difference in
guarantees any more than the difference from any other guarentee from any
other vendor of any OS anywhere? Why would the W2K guarentee automatically
(cause it's a MS product) be different?
>
> I don't know what the UNIX places promise, but it sure has to be more
> than a partial reduction in the cost of a scheduled service. In fact,
> I always wondered why a server, once set up, would require scheduled
> servicing?!?
You describe a scenario that COULD be applied to ANY OS/hardware vendoring
offering such a garuentee - I dont' see the relavence...
>
> >> >I tried to trigger it so I could get a number and stopped just
> >> >past 1 million. Yep, it was FRIGGIN' slow to close the app (felt
> >> >like it had crashed) but, nope, no blue screen here...
> >>
> >> >Gee, a bug, you found a bug. Wow, amazing! And they've fixed it in
their
> >> >very first service pack. Your complaint?
> >>
> >> So you say you don't have SP1 installed, either?
>
> >Um... I do.
>
> So *if* it is fixed in SP1, and *if* you have SP1 installed, then how
> do you expect to be able to trigger the bug?
Because I have more than 1 W2K box... and I didn't install the beta of SP1
on more than the one box I had license to do so....
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 20 Jul 2000 14:34:12 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l60bm$4av$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> >There are vendors selling W2K solutions with 99.999% uptime - just
> >>> >like the other *nix vendors.
> >>>
> >>> Really? Who? Got a few URLs?
> >>Start here: http://www.stratus.com/
>
> Got something more precise? I searched for "99.999" on their site, and
> got three hits. One was in French, and the other two were talking about
> HP/UX systems.
>
> What I didn't find anywhere was any mention of "Windows" anywhere near
> "99.999". But maybe I missed something? So please point me at the right
> stuff!
>
Front page:
Stratus ftServers: Enhancing Sofware Reliability and Availability for
Windows 2000
http://www.stratus.com/whitep/ftserver/
Continue there. MS has information about this company too.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:36:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John W. Stevens) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Choice of two unfinished desktops or six minimalist ones.
>
>Versus: you get a single, incomplete desktop that you are stuck with
>under Windows?
Works for me (my preference).
>> Some choice.
>
>Yes. Infinitely more than with Windows.
My preference (I'm changing my tune here).
>> And there are so many more games for Windows than there are for
>> Linux, aren't there?
>
>Yes, there are. On the other hand, Quake runs a *HECK* of a lot better
>under Linux, than it does under Windows.
Quake? Not Quake II or Quake III? Quake III runs very nicely on my new
Voodoo 5 card, thank you. As does Unreal Tournament. Both with 3D sound.
>> I have Netscape on Windows too. Looks a lot better than the same version
>> on Linux.
>
>Actually, the reverse is true. Netscape looks a lot better on Linux,
>than it does on Windows.
IMHO, it looks worse on Linux. I prefer to run Netscape with smaller
buttons. One time it shrank the buttons but didn't reduce the toolbar.
Oops! I've never seen the Windows version do this.
>> If I wanted to, I could use Netscape for EMail on Windows.
>
>Yes, you could.
I stopped because I use several ISP's. Netscape doesn't handle this very
well. Also has a tendancy to crash too much.
>You could also use LaTeX!
I could use DSR Runoff, I suppose. Actually perhaps I should use VAX
Document.
>> I use Delphi on Windows.
>
>For free?
About £300. Well worth the price.
>> I also use Visual C++ but I prefer Delphi. I
>> don't think anything even comes close to Delphi on Linux
>
>Not just close . . . way, way past.
Like what?
>> (though it will
>> this year, as Delphi is being ported to Linux!).
>
>Gag!!!
Each to his own.
>> So your like your desktop with its different style per application do
>> you?
>
>Hmmm? What? Oh, that. Heck, that's something that only bothers
>newbies. This is like complaining about the miniscule differences in
>the wheel, pedals and panel between a Saturn Sedan, and a Ford truck.
Well... perhaps you like having your steering wheel on the left one minute
then on the right the next, with the pedals reversed? I'm exagerating (sp?)
but you get the picture.
>Real drivers know that a speedometer is a speedometer, regardless of the
>finicky little differences.
Unless one is in KPH instead of MPH.
>> Really? I seem to be pretty productive in Windows.
>
>Trust me, that's just an illusion produced by a lack of contrast . . .
>;->
Naaaa, it's a matter of opinion. So I'm told. 8)
--
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 19:39:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John W. Stevens) wrote in <397612F7.1AD51149
@basho.fc.hp.com>:
>> Because Linux is supposed to be better than Windows, yet I find areas
>> that definately need improvement. It's got nothing to do with what I
>> want, but with what I find on Linux.
>>
>> I mean, if it is claimed to support hardware, and I find myself doing
>> extra work to make it happen, what does that tell me?
>
>That it works on both systems.
With extra work it works on Linux yes, let's not forget that important
point.
>Hmm . . . Linux installs and runs on a spare PPC Mac we have sitting
>around here. Heck, it even installs and works on one of the spare
>PA-RISC based workstations we have sitting around.
>
>Stick the Windows98 CD into either box . . . Nada. Not even a "little
>bit of work" will make Windows work with this hardware.
>
>Conclusion: Windows lags behind Linux.
In this instance yes.
>Bash works out of the box on all of my Linux machines. After much
>tweaking and sweating, I finally get an ugly and limited version of Bash
>running on a Windows 98 box.
>
>Conclusion: Windows lags behind Linux.
I consider most of the UNIX shells ugly anyway compared to a GUI, so this
is a bit pointless IMHO.
>Linux, running a Kerberos KDC, can authenticate every box in the lab,
>except for the Windows boxen.
>
>Conclusion: Windows lags behind Linux.
Windows 2000 is broken because Microsoft chose to alter the standard to
force customers to stick with their software. Another example of the
monopoly Microsoft is trying to maintain.
><hint>
>Pete chooses the conditions of the test to guarantee that Windows will
>win, states opinions as fact, and fails to admit that what he claims as
>"Linux" failures are self-induced failures.
>
>He's also painfully unaware of these facts.
></hint>
I'm not trying to induce failures for Linux, this is what I'm finding.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
Subject: No win situation for Linux market
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:41:35 GMT
"'Chicken and egg' prevents user and industry commitment
THE Linux market is trapped in a chicken (or perhaps penguin)-and-egg
situation, as suppliers wait for users to show serious interest in Linux-
based enterprise applications and users wait for suppliers to produce the
goods, writes John Leyden. According to analyst IDC, Linux users in Western
Europe are seeing the value of buying into the web server and networking
offerings of the open-source software but few are planning more complex
solutions which would generate revenue for vendors. 'Users are attracted to
Linux for its cost effectiveness and rnalicability for specific- purpose
devices, both for client and server. However, the lack of available
applica- tions and perceived lack of service and support offerings are
major inhibitors to this market's growth; noted Kirsten Ludvigsen, Unix
research director for IDC Ludvigsen said the industry is waiting for user
demand to pick up before it develops enterprise applications and commits to
the Linux environment. This, she argues, has lead to a 'chicken-and-egg
situation in which the Linux industry may suffer from a lack of sufficient
funding to continue developing future products. IDC also predicts that the
major areas of deployment of Linux will be in the enibedded or appliance
space for both clients and servers until 2004. 'Clients will have many
forms and shapes, and we believe smart handheld devices and cable TV
devices will be the major areas of growth for Linux in Western Europe,'
said Ludvigsen."
Computing, 20th July 2000
--
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
******************************
