Linux-Advocacy Digest #960, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jack Troughton)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (John Jensen)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (dakota)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Arthur Frain)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Mandrake not Linux? (Mikey)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation (Jen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 25 Jul 2000 19:51:16 GMT
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: #define yield() sleep(0)
: if that makes you happy. Totally unportable and non-standard of
: course.
see also:
NAME
sched_yield - yield the processor
SYNOPSIS
#include <sched.h>
int sched_yield(void);
DESCRIPTION
A process can relinquish the processor voluntarily without
blocking by calling sched_yield. The process will then be
moved to the end of the queue for its static priority and
a new process gets to run.
Note: If the current process is the only process in the
highest priority list at that time, this process will con
tinue to run after a call to sched_yield.
POSIX systems on which sched_yield is available define
_POSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING in <unistd.h>.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:55:33 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:37:07 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Microsoft never did what you claim.
Yes, they did. Some of what I claimed is even admitted by MS. To deny
that stuff makes you look, well, uninformed at best. For instance,
MS admits that they charged OEM's different prices based on whether or
not they would sign an exclusive deal.
>Who's trial testimony are you referring to?
I believe it was John Thompson of IBM who testified that MS offered IBM
one price for Win95 if they de-emphasized OS/2, and another if they
continued trying to sell it. MS also witheld pre-release copies of 95
that were given to other OEM's for testing their hardware with the new
OS, which put IBM at a disadvantage.
Compaq (I forget which executive) testified that MS threatened to
revoke their OEM license if they did not eliminate Netscape from the
desktop of preloaded machines.
Marc Andreeson of Netscape testified that MS executives approached
Netscape executives about forming a cartel whereby the browser market
would be divided between Netscape and MS. MS would get the Windows
market and Netscape would get everything else.
And as I said above, the per-cpu exclusive licensing scheme is also
well-known. I belive that was one of the items covered by the consent
agreement between the DoJ and MS.
The judge did not make up his decision out of thin air. There was a
lot of testimony regarding anti-competitive ("strong-arm" if you will)
acts committed by MS.
>That's just one of the myths that pro courtroom competition crowds
>like to keep inventing.
That MS competes fairly and has never employed unethical business
practices is just one myth that the MS apologists like to keep
inventing.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:20:30 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:12:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:45:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> The like of Circuit City can quite easily allow access to rather
>> obscure brands in other areas of electronics.
>
>Why? Where is the demand that would justify the shelf space?
>
>>What's the holdup
>> in terms of computing. Why don't they have at least one BeOS
>> machine on display?
>
>Why? Where is the demand that would justify the shelf space?
>
>
>>Why doesn't CompUSA, or even some of those
>> overrated mom&pop shops?
>
>Why? Where is the demand that would justify the shelf space?
You clearly don't understand how shelf space works in the real world.
Shelf space is bought by the vendor, not demanded by the customer. If
a vendor has enough money to buy all the shelf space, well, too bad
for the (less wealthy but perhaps better) alternatives.
>Face it - Linux and BeOS and all of those are cute and neat and all
>that, but they sell really only to the hacker and geek communities -
>you know, those people that know of software besides an office suite,
>Quicken/Money, and a game or two. Those people for whom "make
>compile" isn't a dirty word...
My mom uses an alternate system; she's no CS major, that's for sure.
She doesn't seem to have a big problem with it.
She also has no idea what 'make compile' means...
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 25 Jul 2000 19:31:07 GMT
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:28:22 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:16:23 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>If people keep popping up with it, it isn't a bogus argument.
>>
>>Tell it to Galileo.
>
>I missed the reference. Galileo?
Apparently he found it hard to convince people that the earth revolves
around the sun. I think it was Galileo, it's been a while.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: 25 Jul 2000 20:00:48 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Jeff Szarka wrote:
: >
: > On 23 Jul 2000 21:07:18 GMT, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: > >Please, give us a fscking break already.
: >
: > As I said in another thread...
: >
: > If in 3 years NET is a big deal and users find it very useful GNU NET
: > will suddenly pop up in Linux distributions.
: Why should I even desire to depend on network communications to run
: a word processor?
There are some deeper issues here than depending on network communications
to run a word processor. The primary goal of component technology is the
independant deployment and assembly of software units. Anyone who has
tried to upgrade their Gnome libraries should appreciate that goal.
Anyone who has followed their 'rpm' dependancies down four levels should
appreciate that goal. It would be sad if the problem became off-limits
simply because Microsoft happened also to be working on it.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 25 Jul 2000 19:55:20 GMT
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:47:55 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>void wrote:
>>
>> You're insulting my intelligence with these obvious falsehoods. Macs
>> *do* crash, applications *do* die horribly, programmers fuck up on a
>> such a regular and frequent basis that I often wonder how most of them
>> stay alive.
>
>What, you *NEVER* make mistakes!?
Sure I do. Frequently. That's why I try to make sure my systems and
networks are resilient in the presence of mistakes ... just like PMT.
>And just what would your response look like had you been forced to use a
>serial input device to compose said response?
>
>;->
I posted that by making whooshing noises into the phone. Who needs a
stinking modem?
>Only gurus can use cat on a raw mode terminal to write defect free C
>compilers . . .
>
>Guru == GOD! :-)
"cat"? I write compilers on floppy disks ... with a very small magnet[0].
>> When I hear people going on about the "end-user's perspective", it seems
>> to me that they're usually defending a position of ignorance. Ignorance
>> is not worth defending.
>
>Ignorance, bad (unproductive) work habits, and a situation where desire
>is given a higher precedence than *need*.
>
>Hence the cardinal rule of the customer-liason officer: half teacher,
>half baby sitter (NO! You CAN'T have that, it will ruin your dinner!)
>
>;-)
>
>(Yes, I'm kidding . . . sorta).
I've adminned systems for developers, some of whom had what I've heard
called "enough knowledge to be dangerous". Suffice it to say that I
know what you mean.
[0] I hope it's clear which parts of this post are serious and which
parts are facetious.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:08:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I already know you are an asswhole, so why is it you're here?
I'm too stupid to defend an argument, so I'll just compulsively
insult you!
Regards,
Ed Letour
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dakota)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:18:58 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:51:45 GMT, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Allow me to introduce you to my 1996 Impala
>SS..............
>
>
Nice car, but the bmw has a "neck-breaking" 12-cylinder engine.
>
>
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 06:58:11 -0700, dakota
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>about that car comment, I own a 1995 BMW 850Ci and a 1995
>>Thunderbird SC so you tell me.
>>
>
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:10:36 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Besides, there's nothing keeping private interests from
> > exploiting the potential of hydro-electric power should
> > they foresee the value in such a thing and be willing
> > to invest in it.
> >
> > Given this 'no fuel cost benefit', one would think that
> > greedy interests would be clamouring to exploit this
> > sort of technology.
It turns out fuel only accounts for about 15% of
utility revenues, which is small compared to the
difference in rates.
> To build a hydro-electric dam, the first thing you have to do
> is get all of the people off of the land that will be flooded.
> Private companies have to purchase it.
> Government agencies just CONDEMN THE PROPERTY and tell the
> owner to beat it after paying them a paltry sum (usually
> far below market value).
You are clueless, aren't you? Private utilities use
eminent domain all the time for transmission line
right-of-ways and other purposes, and get the same
bargain prices on land. The fact is that one of the
dams my county now owns *was* owned by a private
company which couldn't successfully operate it, as
were literally hundreds of abandoned hydro sites
throughout the Midwest and East.
Reality seems to be getting in the way of your
political dogma again.
BTW - the cost of that land, even at bargain prices,
is a disadvantage to hydro compared to fossil fuel
or nuclear.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:05:02 -0400
John Jensen wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Jeff Szarka wrote:
> : >
> : > On 23 Jul 2000 21:07:18 GMT, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> : > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : >
> : > >Please, give us a fscking break already.
> : >
> : > As I said in another thread...
> : >
> : > If in 3 years NET is a big deal and users find it very useful GNU NET
> : > will suddenly pop up in Linux distributions.
>
> : Why should I even desire to depend on network communications to run
> : a word processor?
>
> There are some deeper issues here than depending on network communications
> to run a word processor. The primary goal of component technology is the
> independant deployment and assembly of software units. Anyone who has
> tried to upgrade their Gnome libraries should appreciate that goal.
> Anyone who has followed their 'rpm' dependancies down four levels should
> appreciate that goal. It would be sad if the problem became off-limits
> simply because Microsoft happened also to be working on it.
I would prefer the status quo over ANY Microsoft pollution.
The reason: Microsoft is not to be trusted in any respect.
Especially giving them the power to turn off access
to applications.
>
> 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:29:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Spud in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>I see. So, despite the fact that he supposedly refuted your points,
>and even provided you with the support for his position, you not only
>couldn't be bothered to read his post, you also couldn't be bothered
>to see whether or not you were being shown to be a complete and total
>idiot by defending an indefensible position.
>
>Good bye, Mr. Devlin.
I doubt it, Mr. 'Spud'. As long as people post crap, I'll be here to
point it out. If thinking is just too tough for you, then feel free to
excuse yourself. But if you aren't familiar with the mechanisms of
comprehension and synthesis, you're probably not going to stop posting,
either.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 25 Jul 2000 16:29:39 -0400
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >I'm mostly thinking of Mac OS 4.2 and 6.00.004, as that's where the bulk
>> >of my Apple experience lies. I haven't used Macs much in the last five
>> >years, but my comments are still entirely valid, and will remain so even
>> >after everyone is using Linux on their desktop. It wouldn't surprise me
>> >if it was a Linux which allowed adjustment to just how pre-emptive the
>> >multi-tasking is.
>>
>> It would be impossible for Linux to support non-pre-emptive multitasking,
>
>Technically, that may be true due to some requirement vis-a-vis the
>timer interrupt being the only way to run the scheduler, but in theory,
>it should be possible to run Linux in a stripped down mode in CMT mode.
>
>> because Linux programs almost never call sched_yield(), and therefore,
>> Linux without preemptive multitasking would only be able to run one
>> process at a time, like DOS.
>
>Um . . . no. Linux processes yield the processor every time they make a
>blocking I/O kernel call, so you'd still see multi-tasking behavior,
>albeit with a very chaotic time slice . . .
...forgot about that.
--
Microsoft Windows. The joke that kills.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:31:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I already know you are an asswhole, so why is it you're here?
BTW: Your brain didn't know if it wanted to say "asshole" or
"asswipe" and got both wrong :-)
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Mandrake not Linux?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 05:41:09 -0400
Thus Sprake [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >> High security under mandrake (which isnt even actually linux) is a very
> >> bad idea if you ever plan on using it for anthing more than an extremely
> >> secure router/service machine.
> >
> >IMHO Default *anything* is bad when it comes to security. btw, Mandrake
> >not Linux?
> >How so?
>
> It isn't your only option and those that choose to install it
> on their machines (OEMs) aren't bound by contracts not to
> change it.
Do you mean by adding unofficial changes to the kernel for more specific
machines?
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:42:35 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:29:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >In article <8l58vb$hbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >-- snip --
> >
> >> > Given that MS-Cheerleaders have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
> >> > rational discussion seems fruitless.
> >>
> >> Given that anti-MS zealots have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
> >> rational discussion seems fruitless.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I am not an "MS-Cheerleader", I'm simply pointing out the simple fact
> >> that machines without Windows, without an OS, or with your OS of
> >> choice have *always* been available.
> >
> >To hard-core geeks, yes. I have already said as much, but we are talking
> >about Joe and Jane General Consumer and the typical retail channel,
> >which dc has already admitted that MS has "sewed up pretty tight."
>
> You clearly don't understand the difference between 1) not *allowing*
> Linux boxes to be sold, which you haven't proven and 2) there being no
> demand for Linux boxes. And if there was demand, I have every reason
> to believe CUSA would stock Linux boxes.
Let's use BeOS instead of Linux, since its much closer to being usable
by Joe Average.
There's no demand for BeOS because there are no apps and because you
can't get a BeOS machine at CompUSA. You can't get a BeOS machine at
CompUSA and there are no apps because there's no demand for BeOS .
Catch-22. One of the many very large barriers to entry that protects
Microsoft's market share. The only two OSes that have a chance are
Linux, because developers of open source software typically don't care
about demand (they're not in it for the money), and Mac OS, because it
already has a sufficiently large app base to be a viable alternative for
the vast majority of users.
But Linux, for all the efforts to improve ease-of-use, is still an OS
written by geeks for geeks, and Mac OS won't really take off unless
Apple ports to Intel, which isn't likely to happen any time soon.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:38:21 GMT
In article <8ljekl$5l9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > As I've been saying all along, a competent network administrator can
> > support a heterogeneous population of operating systems ... while
NT
> > administrators whine and moan about having to support Macintosh.
> >
> > --
> Mac support isn't hard to implement under NT.
Then why all the whining??? And if they have to support some Unix NFS,
Watch out.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Date: 25 Jul 2000 15:54:24 -0500
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:02:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>(1) Interrupt arbitration (to get around the IRQ mess)
>>(2) Device identification
>>(3) Automatic driver location & installation
>
> Nope.
>
> PNP is just the first two.
>From http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/respec/pnpspecs.htm
There are a variety of Plug and Play technologies, including BIOS,
ISA, SCSI, IDE, CD-ROM, LPT, COM, PCMCIA, and drivers. Each Plug and
Play device must have all of the following capabilities:
It must be uniquely identified.
It must state the services it provides and the resources it requires.
It must identify the driver which supports it.
Finally, it must allow software to configure it.
> Even with PCI, some cards still can manage to make themselves
> a nuisance. There are also limitations of the XT architecture
> itself that can be encountered such that the pnp qualities of
> PCI are rendered moot.
Excuses, excuses huh?
The *XT* architecture!? LOL
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
