Linux-Advocacy Digest #883, Volume #27 Sat, 22 Jul 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Christopher Browne)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Java-programmability -- was Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (Jacques Guy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:46:45 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when T. Max Devlin would say:
>Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>>> Quite possible. If you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
>>> I think it may be so contrary to your experience that you might consider
>>> any statement of it to be difficult to understand.
>>
>>There you go with the insults again!
>
>There you go with the assumptions again. I meant that literally, not as
>an insinuation of a lack of experience on John's part.
>
>>> Again, I think this resolves on a preconception of a singular task,
>>> which I didn't take for granted. I would suggest that it could be
>>> reasonable to call any system which this statement applies to a
>>> "workstation". On a desktop, not only is the interactive task the most
>>> important, it is often the only end-user task to speak of.
>>
>>You have a very narrow view of "desktop", one that is quite antiquated.
>
>It was invented by the market, not me.
>
>>I always have many interactive tasks running simultaneously on my desktop.
>>PMT allows me to switch between them instantaneously (by that I mean so fast
>>that the human senses can not detect the time). CMT does not allow that.
>
>This is just the kind of silly statement which causes this to be a
>religious question, when it rightfully should be a technical issue.
>PMT's benefit is to allow the background processes to continue to
>function at optimal balance with *process switching*. The matter of
>task switching at the human level does not really enter into it that
>much. This leads to such common but badly interpreted statements as
>"Cooperative Multi-Tasking is not really multi-tasking."
>
>>> The priority of tasks is entirely independent, and certainly not
>>> determined, by CPU cycles. Tasks have priority for reasons end-users
>>> (and their bosses, often) determine, not CPUs and engineering
>>> efficiencies.
>>
>>Hence PMT.
>
>Hence, hopefully someday, something better than PMT. Engineering
>efficiency is *not* the be-all and end-all of criteria for acceptability
>in the real world, merely another advantage weighed against all others.
>An assumption that a single balance is possible is as meaningless as an
>assumption that a single balance is optimal.
Oh, yes, in a better world, there will be perfect software written for
CMT systems, and thus CMT will magically become appropriate. Not.
Engineering efficiency _IS_ the be-all and end-all of criterion for
the acceptability of:
a) The performance of commercial aircraft,
b) The performance of air traffic control systems,
c) The performance of the telephone system that gives acceptable
results because the engineers built it to be "five nines"
reliable,
d) The performance of the instruments your doctor uses for
surgical procedures, and
e) The performance of the control systems used to manage nuclear
power plants.
If these sorts of things don't work right, PEOPLE DIE. Whether that
is because the plane crashes, or the Cobalt Radiator nukes your brain
rather than the brain tumour doesn't matter much.
There's obviously not a single "balance" that is optimal, but there
_have_ been some common abstractions that have turned out to be
good enough to become dominant, such as:
-> Using floating point schemes for "real number" values
-> Using 2's complement arithmetic to represent integer values,
-> Using interrupts to implement preemptive multitasking systems.
All three of these abstractions have been demonstrated to be useful
enough that most modern microprocessor architectures provide hardware
implementations to support them. The exception of the three is floating
point; many processors used for embedded systems eschew the complexity
of having a FPU.
There may well be scheduler enhancements ahead; that doesn't change the
fact that computer systems that need to have some degree of reliability
and predictability are likely to continue to use preemptive multitasking
on into the forseeable future.
If there were alternatives out there, they would probably be under
development at the OS research groups at MIT, CMU, UCB, University of
Utah, or perhaps Dresden University. I haven't seen any research
papers coming out on concepts to replace PMT.
The only changes I've seen described have been with projects like Nemesis,
which seeks to provide more sophisticated scheduling, but which certainly
does _not_ provide any replacement for PMT.
But perhaps you're hearing cutting edge OS research that none of the
rest of us are; you can readily demonstrate the existence of a successor
model to PMT by naming a project working on one.
About all you're doing in this thread is to demonstrate that there
are some deficiencies in your understanding of concurrent programming.
The more important thing that it demonstrates is that you're unwilling
to acknowledge that weakness, but keep blathering on about how _maybe_,
_someday_, there may be something better than PMT.
The major change in concurrent programming over the last five years has
been that systems have introduced threading, internal-to-processes, to
try to get better performance in carefully designed programs. The fact
that threading corresponds, roughly speaking, to CMT, means that all the
deadlock conditions that were true back in the '80s for MacOS, Atari GEM,
and such, rear their ugly heads again. None of this stuff is particularly
new; it's all technology originally developed in the 1960s and 1970s,
getting rehashed in different ways.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #56. "My Legions of Terror will be trained
in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target
at 10 meters will be used for target practice."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 22:45:19 -0400
John Hall wrote:
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:LlId5.36590$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > 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.
>
> VB has very poor error handling (well certainly the versions I've used) -
> it makes it very difficult to write large-scale, robust applciations.
>
The problem is fools like DB who have a trade-school education,
yet think they're in posession of PhD level knowledge.
> john
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 22:50:55 -0400
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> Cihl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : Motherboard:
> : Anything with an Intel-chipset is perfect. Others work well, too, but
> : i'd test it first, like VIA-chipsets for example.
>
> Watch for BIOSes though. The cheaper ones have funky BIOSes that can make LILO
> not work right. This is why I use Loadlin.
>
> : CPU:
> : Anything will do. For price, i'd choose a Celeron.
>
> The K-6 works nicely too. If you go away from Intel and are willing to go with
> a clone, you can get a good deal. The Celeron is a stripped-down Pentium,
> lacking cache memory. Allegedly "celeron" means "cvastrated one" in Latin.
> Urban legends, anyone?
Let's look at 500 MHz CPU's
K6 Celeron
cache: 256k 0 to 128k
retail price: $90 $250
The "better value" is obvious.
>
> : Memory:
> : Something in the 64 to 128 MB range will do nicely.
>
> Linux will run on a lot less, but more memory is better. Memory is cheap, so
> go for it, and the same CPU will go all the faster.
>
> : Video:
> : There are many, many card that work well in Linux. Some brands support
> : Linux better than others. Seek these out, like ATI/3DFX/nVidia and
> : such.
>
> This is one where you want to consult with the associated HOWTO file.
> Otherwise, go with 16 colour. Finding a good video card shouldn't be hard at
> all though.
>
> : Harddisk:
> : No significant problems. The minimum you can buy today is 10 Gigs, and
> : that'll do nicely. If it's UDMA-66, test it first. Full UDMA-66
> : support is in kernel 2.4. (Remember that no other OS's have
> : UDMA66-support out of the box either. The new Linux will also have
> : UDMA-100 support)
>
> I'd go with below the 8.4 gig "limit" since I don't have expierence with
> above, at least not yet. Some BIOSes (older ones of course) may not support
> over 8.4 gig. A 6 gig model is awful cheap nowadays. That should do for a
> beginner.
>
> : CD-ROM:
> : The cheapest IDE-cdrom will do.
>
> Yep! So long as it's IDE, it will work great. Nearly any one will do.
>
> : Network?
> : Cheapest NE-2000 compatible card is good enough. PCI preferably,
> : IsaPnP sucks, IMHO.
>
> I use NE2000 myself, and I consider it my standard. The ISA cards work fine.
> The PCI cards will be easier to set up as you pre-know the interrupt.
>
> : Modem?
> : Watch out for this one, unless you get them an external one. Many
> : internal PCI-modems are brainless ones. (Windows only, Resource hog,
> : avoid!)
>
> I only use external modems. It's the only way to totally prevent Winmodem
> problems. I simply don't trust ANY internal modems anymore.
>
> : Mouse:
> : Cheapest you can find. It's gotta be a cheap computer, no need to lift
> : the price over a mouse. :-) PS/2, USB, doesn't matter, it all works.
>
> A PS/2 mouse works perfectly. So a cheap one will be fine. Watch out if you
> are a lefty though. To my knowledge, you can't config a mouse lefty.
>
> : Printer:
> : Watch out for Winprinters, like HP720C and such. Other than that,
> : almost all Epson and HP printers work well. (Watch out for Lexmark.
> : They're cheap, but have very expensive cartridges. They break down
> : easily as well)
>
> This is a case for consulting with the printing HOWTO file. Watching for
> printers can reduce headaches.
>
> : Scanner:
> : All SCSI-devices will do, but they're more expensive. Wait for kernel
> : 2.4 and pick a USB-scanner. Most Parport-scanners have a proprietary
> : protocol which only works with Windows. (Microsoft is in court for
> : things like this, isn't it?)
>
> Yeah, SCSI is an expensive habit.
>
> : Did i leave anything out?
>
> You left out sound cards. These buggers can be a real pain in the arse, even
> with Windows. No wonder you left out that annoying item.
Sound Cards are cheap. The price difference between genuine Sound
Blaster and imitators is less than $10. Save yourself some headaches,
and just get the real thing.
>
> --
> DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:51:53 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Slava Pestov wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > there is a series of algorithms, published in Russia in the
>> > 1960-70s, and only the simplest ones were implemented on computers
>> > -- a BESM... forgot the number. The more complex ones
>> > were checked... by hand!)
>
>> Incorrect. Your lack of culture is showing, Jacques.
>
> BESM-2. See B.V. Sukhotin's "Eksperimental'noe vydelenie klassov bukv s
> pomoshchju elektronnoj vychislitel'noj mashiny", in: Problemy
> strukturnoj lingvistiki, Moscow 1962. Playing at being a bot is fun, to
> a certain extent, but it should not completely exonerate from a bit of
> factual accuracy (except in the case of Tim Palmer, but old Tim is
> exceptional: he has a riotous sense of humour).
Tim is merely a waste of bandwidth. If only he was a bit more original...
> Another algorithm, the
> one I was referring to as "checked by hand", was by the same fellow,
> and was the automatic segmentation of continuous text into its component
> morphemes, but I don't have the Russian original with me, only a French
> translation, with just a title: "Algoritmy lingvisticheskoj
> deshifrovki", again in "Problemy", 1963 (hey, same year Dresden Black
> claims to have become a computer guru!)
None of these algorithms can program in Java, hence I am not a bot :-)
And I think Dresden mispelt "pornographer" as "programmer".
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:55:40 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Slava Pestov wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > Slava Pestov wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Are you implying that you have already lost all possible arguments?
>> >
>> > Yet another person who doesn't know the difference between an
>> > implication and an inference.
>>
>> Jumping into discussion again, eh Marty?
>
> Not at all, Slava.
Denials don't change the truth, Marty.
> Meanwhile I see
You see incorrectly. Open your eyes, Marty.
> you have failed to note the
> difference between an implication and an inference.
On the contrary.
> No surprise there.
See above.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 22:58:24 -0400
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> [chop with stone axe from boss]
>
> G'day, arsehole! Why do I like Linux? Simply becuse of the cost of fucking
> software for that other OS. I've been fucking around with Linux since 1994.
> And if you want PGP, get the international version and edit out the "i" to
> port it for Yank/Seppo use.
>
> Keep in mind that only the IT industry is at all hot in the economy, and once
> you reach 30 years old, you will be about unemployable in it due to age
I'm 35, and I'm still in hot demand, idiot.
> discrimination. So, enjoy the "boom" while supplies last. And when your little
> world collapses, don't whigne.
The stock market is overvalued, primarily becaue baby-boomers are
purchasing stock as a commodity (i.e. like buying bread), thus,
driving up the price (abundant dollars chasing a scarcity of shares).
50:1 Price/Eerning ratios cannot continue indefinitely.
Which is why *I* am grabbing as much money as possible ****NOW***.
I don't give one ounce of credence to any company's "retirement
benefits"
as corporate america has a 20-year history of reneging on the
same social contract....that is, laying off people at 15-years
w/o a penny's worth of retirement benefits.
It's also why I decided that my wife must be fluent in a large
number of langauges...because when the bubble bursts, I don't
know where the decent economy will be.
This gas-price thing almost put the whole economy in the drink.
>
> --
> DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 22:59:35 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l8l8t$3j9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >This is my understanding of Big Endian and Little Endian:
> > [...]
> > >So, I took it to mean inputting: 0x12345678 I should output: 0x78563412 -
> > >and so on.
> >
> > >FUNCTION EndianFlip (Value)
> >
> > >Temp$ = HEX$(Value)
> > >IF LEN(Temp$) MOD 2 THEN Temp$ = "0" + Temp$
> >
> > >Bytes = LEN(Temp$) \ 2
> > >FOR X = 1 TO Bytes
> > > Build$ = MID$(Temp$, (X - 1) * 2 + 1, 2) + Build$
> > >NEXT
> > >EndianFlip = VAL("&H" + Build$)
> >
> > >END FUNCTION
> >
> > Yikes! If I give you 0x00012345, you'd give me back 0x00452301, which is
> > completely wrong. There is a huge difference between something begin zero
> > and something being empty, or not existant.
>
> Yes, you are right. That was a mistake and easily fixed.
i.e. he admits he didn't test his work.
You can't even be bothered to test a simple 10-line program, and
yet, you expect us to believe your other exhortations?
Come now, we're not nearly as stupid as you, punk.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:04:39 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8la2i1$5ha$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > For the hardware. They don't say anything about system availability.
> >
> > In other words, Drestin wrote
> >
> > There are vendors selling W2K solutions with 99.999% uptime - just
> > like the other *nix vendors.
> >
> > and has yet to name a single such vendor.
> >
>
> Bernie - it's the same thing. You are splitting hairs. Do you really think
> they are stupid enough to offer 99.999% but you can't access the machine but
> it's still running and consider that "up"? Please... I did what you asked
> and you can't accept it. You should.
If Stratus could even get 99.9% SYSTEM availability on a Microsoft
Platform, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, as ANY
knowledgeable person already knows that even THAT would be a remarkable
achievement.
Instead, Stratus only talks about HARDWARE availability for M$ systems,
which indicates that they don't trust the O/S enough to make any
claims about how long even they can keep it going.
Bernie is "splitting hairs" because STRATUS is splitting hairs,
so that they don't wind up in court for false advertising.
Because you are so self-deceptive, you REFUSE to see the implications,
because your unconscious mind KNOWS that to acknowledge bernie's
observations is an admission that your whole career is devoted to
promoting a fraud..i.e. Microsoft as a "reliable solution" to anything
beyond creating an expensive, noisy, flashing paperweight.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 03:11:51 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Java-programmability -- was Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Slava Pestov wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > there is a series of algorithms, published in Russia in the
> >> > 1960-70s
[snip]
> None of these algorithms can program in Java, hence I am not a bot :-)
All can be implemented in Java of course, therefore you ARE a bot.
The code for a few was published, and Sukhotin used ALGOL.
We implemented the text-segmentation one in Simula 67 about
23 years ago at ANU. The first, the vowel-recognition algorithm,
I implemented in C, later Turbo-Pascal, and G. Sassoon
implemented it in BASIC (!) for an article in Cryptologia.
Now, if *that* can't be implemented in Java -- or Z80 assembler
for that matter... Therefore, a bot you are.
> And I think Dresden mispelt "pornographer" as "programmer".
Even more creative than Old Tim, our young Dresden, isn't he?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
