Linux-Advocacy Digest #35, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 17:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("John W. Stevens")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("John W. Stevens")
Does VB and SQL work under linux? (YAWN)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Jul 2000 18:19:49 +1000
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Actually, all instances of Windows, whatever processor they run on,
>> share the same endianness (and bugger if I can ever remember which one
>> is which ;-). The Alpha and x86 share a byte order, and are different
>> from the 68k.
>That's true now. But wasn't there a short lived ppc version? ppc is big
>endian. x86 is little endian and I believe Alpha is little endian.
I seem to recall that NT/PPC was only available for PPCs that could switch
endianness at boot time, and was using the little endian mode.
Bernie
--
Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value
Marechal Ferdinand Foch
Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Jul 2000 18:34:03 +1000
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>welll guess what Aaraon - you couldn't be more wrong. I don't think there
>are barely 10 lines in that code that would eactually execute.
Considering that there were only 4 lines of actual *code* in there, that
is hardly surprising ;-)
And while the intrepid coder has demonstrated more familiarity with C
than with BASIC, he at least managed to provide a working algorithm ---
unlike both you and Perry....
He also provided pretty damn good commenting on his code. So out of 10,
he'd lose two marks for the syntactic problems (there is nothing easier
to fix than syntax problems!), and get 8 out of 10. Make that 6 or 7 for
not documenting one of the important (and non-obvious) assumptions.
That assumption is that those integer variables actually do division
like unsigned integers do in C --- which quite possibly isn't true for
for variables declared as "int".
Then there is the issue of "which BASIC are we talking about?". For
the argument's sake, it should probably be ANSI BASIC, at which point
it is fairly likely that not a single poster in the group could manage
a non-trivial program without a lot of RTFM first.
Bernie
--
My own view is that taping of conversations for historical
purposes was a bad decision
Richard M. Nixon
US President 1969-74
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Jul 2000 18:37:49 +1000
"Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> My education includes over 70 credit hours of Electrical
>70 hours, across three disparate fields, only one of them related to
>programming? While I'd never be one to suggest that self-learning
>can't be as solid as any other sort, claiming 70 hours of CompSci,
>never mind 70 hours which happens to include some CompSci, is hardly
>going to win you the "Best Formally Educated Programmer" award. :)
>Hell, I spent more than 70 hours, during a single summer, in a single
>CompSci course. Whoopee. :)
That's the difference between "credit hours" and "hours". Credit hours
are what you do over and over again ;-)
Bernie
--
You have not converted a man, because you have silenced him
John Morley
British Liberal politician, 1838-1923
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:07:22 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Of course it does, but you don't want your console hooked up to a modem.
> Anyone can call in, and hack root access then, since console does not have
> login restrictions.
That is incorrect, the console does have login restrictions.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:12:56 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:43:05 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Evidence?
>
> What evidence?
> You have nothing but an accusation and a log file that could have
> easily been doctored with a find and replace function. You have no
> logs from my ISP and it wouldn't matter if you did because it wasn't
> me. And yet you go screaming all over USENET that I am trying to hack
> you.
>
> I could find and replace your last IP address into one of my logs and
> do exactly the same thing, and it would end up with the same results.
> Nothing.
What makes you think that my logfiles are the only evidence that I have
gathered? What makes you think all the evidence came from only hosts under
my control? The point is that I was willing to let the issue drop based on
your claim of being innocent--inspite of ALL the evidence.
There was no "screaming all over USENET", the thread was limited to COLA
only. Your failure to use a real email address and your use of email
address of real ISP's but for account/mail boxes that are not yours was the
reason that the first message of that thread had to be posted in the first
place.
As you will recall, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and I
only posted some of the evidence at your insistance.
BTW, thanks for confirming that Steve == Simon777 == deadpenguin, by
complaining about the port scan incident.
> Reconsider this:
>
>
http://x74.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=601064605&CONTEXT=964716268.1466
237089&hitnum=71
>
>
> Maybe the Little Green Martian Men were hacking your fire wall because
> they had to tell you something?
>
>
> And people wonder why I don't use my real name?
>
>
> >
> >> As to your lawsuits?
> >
> >I did not say, I was going to sue you, I was just warning you that if you
> >continue making libellous statement like that you could find yourself in
> >court.
>
>
> And a few more post's like your Alien one and the men in the white
> suits and nets just might be coming for you.
Reconsider that? Why? It is interesting that you used that posting as
attempt to discredit me. More so that you make posted the first message of
that thread but your did not make any reference to my final posting in that
thread. By doing so you have taken the message out of context. I am not
embarrased by anything that I posted in that thread. Of course no body
could do a similar search for you many embarrasing posting, your habit of
posting with the X-No-Archive header prevents that.
Below here I have included the total text of both the first and last message
I posted in that thread along with the dejanews URL for it if anyone want to
accuse me of having doctored the reposted copies. In fact I am not taking
the text of those messages from my archives, I am taking it from dejanews.
The thread had the subject line of "I saw it in the sky today". The final
message I posted in that thread was "I sow it in the sky today--The Total
Revelation". The thread was crossposted into alt.alien.visitors,
alt.alien.researth, and alt.paranet.ufo.
Please read the first message in total first and then reguardless of your
opinion, please read the last message in total. Citing the first message
only and commenting on that one alone as you have may build a certain image
that your are trying to present of me. But the last message does change
things and makes your comments invalid.
Your citing of the first message without considering the last message is
either incompetence or dishonesty on your part. Don't bother twisting facts
or bringing in more distorted side issues.
In case you really did killfile me, which I doubt, I have sent you a copy
of this message to your mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
http://x74.deja.com/ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=601064605&CONTEXT=964716268.14662
37089&hitnum=71
========cutline start first message========
I saw it today, you often hear about them, but I saw one today.
It was an imperfect sphere with the height and width of about the same size
and it was longer than the wide. It had no corners or angles that I could
detect all the would be corners appeared
smooth and rounded. The color of the object was grey almost
white. I had the impression that there were some small
appendages on it with the largest appendage on the bottom side.
The object slowley crossed the sky as though it had nothing to fear from be
seen.
I feel that it was trying to communicate with me and others like me. Perhaps
communicate is not the correct term, perhaps it would be more correct to say
it was trying to influence us to do something.... something that we would
otherwise not do. I have seen it or at least others like it all my life.
Most of the time I see them in the day time but I have also seen them at
night, they look real creepy at night with that wierd shimmering glow and in
the distance they appear as nothing more than a pulsating point of light.
In that situation they may look like an simple twinkling start, but, in fact
they are still trying to influence our actions and behaviour.
Nobody can ever tell me they don't exist, I HAVE SEEN THEM! I never seem to
have a camera available when they appear. So I can't provide that kind of
evidence. They do exist and the are trying to influence our behavior.
Has any one else seen these objects? What do do you know about them? Where
do they from and who or what is behind controlling them. Why are they tying
yo control our behavior?
========cutline end first message========
http://x59.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=602838402.1&CONTEXT=964725532.21
38505248&hitnum=29
========cutline start last message========
Hello,
A few days ago I posted the description of the an object
that I sighted in the sky. That fact that I had the "sighting" is correct.
The desciptions I have preseneted of the objects
were 100% true and 100% accurate, even though the precission of
the description was somewhat ambigious.
What the objects are were never a mystery to me, they were and
are dirgibles. In particular the advertising blimps such as
the Goodyear blimp. If you review all the descriptions I
provided for these airships, you will notice that they were
correct. For example: They influnce our behavior by delivering
messages the cause us to do thing thing that we may not otherwise do which
would benefit them and may benefit us somewhat as well. This is a valid
description of advertising.
These groups could be a valuable tools to facilitate discussion, debates,
and research into the subject of these newsgroups. This is not the case
though because of the hostilities presented by
persons with opposing view points to each other viewpoints.
Differing viewpoint are important but the disrespect I have
noticed in these newsgroups are worse than counter
productive. The potiental value of these newsgroups have been
negated almost as badly as though it had been planned.
These news groups are divided between "skeptics/debunkers" and "belivers".
While in truth everyone in these news groups are believers. There are those
who believe in the possibility of
the existance of UFOs and aliens. There are those who believe
the existance of UFOs and aliens are an impossibility. Everyone believes
their own point of view, so everyone IS a believer.
The "skeptics/debunkers" consider the "belivers" as being idiots, kooks, and
fools. The "belivers" consider the "skeptics/debunkers" as being "close
minded".
The other day I saw a dirgible and wondered how would someone who never saw
one and didn't know what they are describe them. Then I wondered how such a
description be interpreted by the readers
of these news groups. Would the "belivers" be critical enough to suspect
what the object is not a real UFO? Would the "skeptics/ debunkers" be open
minded enough realize that the object of my sighting was not just so mouch
swamp gas or the planet Venus?
I descided that this thread could serve as a reality check
an experimental control. I was and am still hoping that once
the truth of the objects is reported, those was are the furthest from the
center could come to realize how their own mindsets could be coloring their
interpretations of reality. Thereby bring
us together enough to be able to work together instead of fighting and
bickering.
So, I placed myself in the position of some one not familiar
with dirgibles, I crossposted the sighting report that started this thread
into alt.alien.research, alt.alien.visitors, alt.paranet.ufo, and
alt.ufo.reports
I have described the "object" so that it could sound like it were a UFO;
however, I was very careful to be 100% acurate and 100%
true in all my statements, within the original posting and all the followup
postings.
I was planning to announce to these newsgroups and to all who
responded to the thread the true identity of the "objects", once someone had
correctly identified the "objects" and had presented valid reasoning for the
identification, or once I considered the thread is dead, or if those
conditions were not met, on a certain date.
I am posting this article at this time because one individual,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], had the combination of intelligence,
analytical thinking, and imagination to determine the true identity of the
objects and the courage and willingness to present his
reasoning when requested. Good work, James.
Now for my general observations of the behavior of the members
of the two major camps within this thread.
First for the group that is commonly known as the belivers.
They were polite and respectful, while at first accepting that
my "sighting" was a valid UFO sighting, they grew suspicious of my reports.
Even though suspicious, they remained polite.
Their suspicions proves that while they do view reports with
the bias of their personal beliefs--as does everyone, they are
willing to accept other possibilities.
I wish I could say as much for the other side of the spectrum.
In general the skeptics/debunkers have been rude opinionated
and unreasoning. In most cases they failed to present any of the reasoning
they used to develop their opinions. While the
"skeptics/debunkers" consider the believers to be kook, idiots, and fools,
their behavior, and their inability to detect reality, within this thread
seems to indicate the the skeptics/debunkers
tend to be the real kook, idiots, and fools.
Lets look at a compression of some of the claims that skeptics/debunkers.
have made in this thread:
+++++++++++++++++
ice crystals
a rain cloud
Get an umbrella knucklehead! You're standing in the rain!
YOU SHOULD GO TO A INSTITUTION
NUTSSSSSSS
all you people are nuts
what kind of weed do you people are smokeing
this all really makes me larf!
do u want to be in a syco ward
a "child's balloon
a hot air balloon
Until you can bring a living alien to my home, or part of
his "spaceship" then I will believe you. Until then,
you're a fool.
+++++++++++++++++
There were also wierd replies that defy classification other
than being wierd like the the the guy from Venus. I also got a
number of emails following my original posting that were down
right mean spirited, which I won't go into other than than simpily saying
that I got them.
On a scale from 0 to 100 I feel that the belivers scored 50 and
the skeptic/debunker scored 10, only James got a score of 100.
To be sure that everyone who participated in this thread get this
information I have sent an email carbon copy to each one.
I hope this thread will help the situation in these news
groups.
Thank you for your participation in this thread.
========cutline end last message========
>
>
> You're wasting my time...
>
>
> ******PLONK****************
>
> Welcome to Agent's somewhat limited, but effective killefile.
> You won't have anyone to talk to though because you are the only one
> in it.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:21:55 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> There isn't a 'standard' way of /using/ an application either.
Not yet. At the moment we have application-by-application user
interfaces. Meaning that each program you use has a different UI.
Now sometimes this is unavoidable - a spreadsheet is not going to
have the same fundamental UI as a word processor. The user will have
to learn the idea of rows and columns and how they're managed
differently than words and paragraphs.
And sometimes this /is/ arbitrarily changable - both have menus,
"icon bars", scroll bars and so-on that function the same way. We
could change these to command lines and percentage signs, or voice
interpreters and shades of intensity, or whatever.
So what if we could move to user-by-user interfaces? Each user has
his own interface that's imposed by each program. A spreadsheet still
has a different fundamental UI than a word processor, but their
common functions will still be controlled in exactly the same way -
just like both programs tend to have a menu bar that behaves the same
way, might I not be able to replace that (and the icon bar) with a
command line? Both programs would respond to the typed command "save
and print" the same way they would If I'd moved my mouse to their
respective menus, clicked on save, then clicked on print.
But this means that next door might be a co-worker who doesn't like
command lines and chooses some cycle-wasting 3D user interface, where
he uses gloved hands and a HUD to "put the document in the printer".
This guy might actually be demented enough to /like it/, but at least
he will have the ability to choose that!
Underneath would be the same programs, using the same algorithms to
do the same basic functions. They print the same, they calculate
formulas the same, they apply the same Gaussian Blur, the same
watermark, kerning, embedded Minesweeper game, whatever.
This would not be like the company that came up with a really cool
voice-interpretation gadget, but tied it into a really crappy
personal information manager. You could do stuff that was really
nifty, like say "call my brother, steve" into a microphone, but the
address book it was inseperably tied to was so retarded that it
refused to save a record unless it included both a last name and a
company name (sometimes I only know a person's first name).
> It's all 'programming' to some degree in the end, even VBA.
When I change my Window Manager I don't think of it as programming so
much as customization. I don't have to know how a loop or a recursive
function works to do that. Nor should I need to know that in any
future customizable user interface - although experienced users would
appreciate it if the UI could /also/ be customized even further
through programming.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:29:24 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Local sockets didn't have *much* more overhead, and some of that
> > overhead was reduced through shared memory segments.
>
> You're also forgetting that the X protocol is much more involved as well,
> passing a *LOT* more data.
In this context, that is nearly meaningless. As has been shown in tests
of "Low Bandwidth X" over local connections. . . low bandwidth X is a
good idea over very slow (modem) links, though, because your point re:
the X protocol is valid.
> > Wrong. Kernel's weren't recompiled to add device drivers . . . they
> > were basically relinked.
>
> You need to add a references to the drivers, or linking them in doesn't do
> any good. Unreferenced code doesn't do anything.
Yes. This consists of compiling a single file, not the whole kernel.
The operation is basically a relink, as what gets compiled isn't code:
just a pre-initialized data file.
> > But after relinking, you did have to reboot.
>
> Which is the point.
No, it wasn't. The point wasn't: "Unix never has to be rebooted", the
point was "Relative to Unix, NT needs a lot more rebooting, and for much
more trivial reasons".
> > Since Unix is more modular, however, the addition of new devices and new
> > device drivers is a relatively rare thing, compared to "configuration
> > changes".
>
> I consider adding or removing a device a change to your configuration.
It's not, not within the context of this discussion (which was, as
you'll remember, changing the configuration of existing and and already
installed hardware/driver combinations).
> > The only thing I can think of that would require "single user mode" is
> > performing a by-hand repair of a root file system. . . in which case, if
> > that is your definition of "full", then no OS will ever have "full
> > remote administration capability", because you will *always" have to
> > have the administrator within arms length of the system to fix hardware
> > problems.
>
> "full" would mean "complete". "complete" would mean every possible
> operation.
In which case, full remote administration is impossible, as *SOMEBODY*
has to be there to do hardware administration.
However, as used in this context, "full" meant "every conceivable type
of OS/software configuration", it did not refer to hardware
configuration.
> > By any realistic definition of "full remote administration", Unix has
> > it, and even now, has more of it than NT does (NT needs more up and
> > functioning systems to support remote administration).
>
> What is that supposed to mean? Explain a task you can do on Unix but not NT
> remotely.
Relink the kernel, reboot it to try it, then if it fails, reboot using
the previous kernel.
How do you enter "Safe Mode" remotely, when booting an NT box?
> Really, so applying the latest kernel security patch is something only
> developers do?
Applying patches does not require a kernel recompile, just a relink.
See above re: kernel recompiling vs. relinking (which was why, in the
old days, the documentation discussed the "link kit", not the kernel
"source").
For applying a patch, not a patch+, then even the data file compilation
isn't neccessary, though to keep things simple, it is probably done
anyway.
And, of course, there are patches that do not even relink the kernel,
and in fact, do not require a reboot.
> > 'Course, you cannot do that with PC's, as they lack the intelligent
> > firmware to support this capability.
>
> Unix runs on PC's, does it not?
Yes. So Unix, running on PC's that lack intelligent firmware, cannot do
this without using specialized loaders . . . which can do this, and do
do this, so long as the loader blocks are not mangled (a low probability
error, one I've never seen, but one that is theoretically possible).
Does NT run on any systems that incorporate intelligent firmware? Or
hardware that supports either high or low priority machine checks?
Hardware meta-information querying (besides that supported by PCI, of
course)?
If so, does the OS have builtin support for these capabilities?
> > No, you don't need to be in front of the console to panic or hang a
> > machine.
>
> To recover the machine.
Not neccesarily.
If so set, even very corrupted file systems will not ask for hand-repair
. . . an automated attempt to repair them, then reboot, will be
performed. Some HA machines can even be set to do "split, try and
retrieve". Of course, NT is *NOT* suitable for environments where such
capabilities are neccessary, so my response may be unfair . . .
> > Now, what do you define as "basic GUI functionality"?
>
> You know, windows, graphical routines, draing routines, the thing which
> provides the canvas which window managers and toolkits use to create pretty
> pictures.
In that case, X supplies "basic GUI functionality".
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (YAWN)
Subject: Does VB and SQL work under linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:36:19 GMT
hi all:
i am thinking of putting Linux on my laptop (32MB RAM, P200, 2.0GB),
and i am wondering if i can run Visual Basics and SQL in Linux. the
reason being that i have classes in school that require the usage of
these softwares. i am aware of that i can run VMWare, but i don't
think my hardware can handle it.
please direct answers to my email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TIA
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:42:30 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > First GUI 1984 1990
> > >
> > > Windows 1.0 was in 1985.
> >
> > I thought Windows 1.0 was character based, not a GUI . . . ?
>
> It was Graphical, it didn't have overlapping windows and most interfaces
> used characters, but it was not a character mode interface. See:
> http://www.microsoft.com/MSCorp/Museum/exhibits/pastpresent/technology/1985.
> asp
Hmm . . . interesting. Ugly, but interesting. I stand corrected.
>
> > > > Full networking support 1984 1995
> > >
> > > Windows for Workgroups was released in 93.
> >
> > Considering that the term was "full", I suspect that your use of WfWG is
> > still debatable.
>
> How so?
Did WfWG have:
telnetd,
inetd,
DNS,
or any other network services?
Not that I am aware of . . . but as per Windows 1.0, I could be
mistaken.
> > > Really? Modify your kernel and see changes get updated without
> rebooting.
> >
> > That's ambiguos . . . Ok, I modified my kernel, and didn't have to
> > reboot.
> >
> > They're called: modules.
>
> Modules do not modify your kernel image.
They do, however, modify my kernel, as per your challenge above.
Oh, and note: I can modify my kernel *image* without rebooting, too.
> > The phrase was "full remote administration", and no, NT has not always
> > had full remote administration . . . or even partial remote
> > administration.
>
> I can't think of anything you can't do from a command line in NT, and you've
> always been able to telnet in if you install a telnet server.
"If you install a telnet server" . . .
And "I can't think of anything you can't do from a command line in NT",
sorta say it all, really.
> > Wrong. X is not a GUI. It is a network transparent graphical windowing
> > system.
>
> Also known as a GUI. What exactly are windows if not User Interfaces?
Here's another computer science term that you seem to have a mistaken
defintion for. A Window is not a User Interface, it is simply a
sub-section or "piece" (almost *ALWAYS* rectangular) of a "screen".
Your problem here seems to stem from using the term "Window", as per the
definition implied by the use of the term "Windows" and "Window" in
their operating systems of the same name.
> > Yes it is.
>
> No, it's not. If you're going to call that a GUI, then Windows has an
> infinite number of them when using programs like Window Shades.
Sorry, but Window Shades does not modify the GUI in the same way, to the
same extent, as a Window Manager does. No comparison there, at all.
> > It's graphical, it's a user interface, it's a Graphical User Interface.
>
> It USES the GUI.
Nope. It *IS* a "graphical user interface". WM 101: the
minimize/maximize/close buttons, and the WM menu attached to each menu,
are supplied by the WM, not the application. The ability to *MOVE*
windows about the screen by dragging them: also supplied by the WM. The
ability to iconize/de-iconize a window. . . again, functionality
supplied by the WM. And other stuff, too.
A WM is a GUI, unless you insist on debate-by-definition, where in you
define: "GUI - means what I say it means for the purposes of winning an
advocacy discussion."
If you want to discuss missing GUI *FEATURES*, that is another kettle of
fish.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
