Linux-Advocacy Digest #73, Volume #28 Fri, 28 Jul 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Slipping away into time. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (Marty)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Tim Smith)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
.Net and Linux (James deBoer)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Jul 2000 19:13:28 -0600
John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Oh, but you see we *already* have this. Both Debian and RPM packages
> : can auto-update dependencies (that's basically how RedHat's installer
> : works). [...]
>
> I think 'rpm' is a fine package, but it is really more about managing
> dependancies than about reducing them. I think the interesting thing to
> glean from Component-Oriented studies is how to reduce interactions. If
> an application and its libraries were able to be upgraded independantly,
> 'rpm' would have a much easier job.
They can be upgraded independantly. [see ahead]
> I've been in the situation where I have two (or more) apps referencing the
> same library. I'd like to upgrade one of my apps, which requires a
> library update. If all of my apps have been upgraded to match the new
> library it isn't a problem. I can just upgrade them all at once. If, for
> some reason, an application has not been updated I have three choices:
But SOAP doesn't solve this problem either. Versioned libraries are
well understood; there is no reason why you cannot have both libraries
installed at the same time (ie, the classic libc5/glibc2 fun)
> - I can upgrade force, risking a runtime error in the old app.
Yes, in a perfect world minor updates wouldn't break old apps, and
they usually don't, but that is not the problem that's being addressed
here (if we're talking about the same thing, that is).
> - I can download source (or Source RPM) and try a recompile of the old
> app. Many times that is a low-risk operation. It could be that a
> end-user tool could even attempt a Soruce RPM rebuild in the
> background.
>
> - I can uninstall my old app.
>
> As much as Mr. Jedi sees this as an advocacy game, I'm actually most
> interested in reducing some of the risk and uncertainty in this procedure.
> Protocols like SOAP interest me because they work at the front end,
> improving compatibilities between components. I don't actually think my
> interest is bad for UNIX, or that far afield from Miguel de Icaza's
> keynote at the Ottawa Linux Symposium:
RPM runs at the "front end" as well. (unless I'm misunderstanding
what your point is, of course)
> http://lwn.net/2000/0720/
>
> : Upgrading to GNOME-1.2 is as easy as typing
>
> : lynx -source http://go-gnome.com | sh
>
> This worked on one of my systems, and failed rather spectacularly on a
> second. Given that the second was a new Red Hat 6.2 install, I was less
> than pleased.
It breaks with network problems, just like any other downloads -- it
is a bit stupid in this regard, but that is simply front-end code and
not an architectural problem (which .net is going to address for the
windows folks)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Jul 2000 19:18:10 -0600
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linux is significantly slower than FreeBSD.
1) qualify the statement; it makes no sense
2) try them on SMP boxes some time
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:21:15 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudoIan again):
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > > Don't you know?
> > >
> > > Why do you think I asked, Marty?
> >
> > I prefer not to guess. I've noticed that you haven't answered the
> > question. Interesting.
>
> "I'd prefer not to guess."
Non sequitur, as I have not requested that you make a guess.
> > > > > > > > I wonder how Joe Malloy would react to the news that you've
> > > > > > > > been making allegations about him giving "posting lessons",
> > > > > > > > Eric.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, Slava?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frankly, I don't care
> > > > >
> > > > > I see you didn't answer the question, Marty.
> > > >
> > > > On the contrary, I see you have failed to comprehend my answer.
> > >
> > > What alleged "answer"?
> >
> > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>
> Impossible.
On the contrary, not only possible, but unavoidable in your case.
> > I have not been privy to any information which would lead me to believe
> > that Batman was photocopying a script.
>
> Just because you're not privy to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, Marty.
Irrelevant, as I never claimed that such information does not exist.
Meanwhile, you have failed to prove that Batman does photocopy the script.
> > Meanwhile, I see you have failed to answer the question.
>
> Your question was irrelevant,
Typical pontification.
> given its incorrect basis.
Even more pontification, with an incorrect basis no less. How ironic!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: 28 Jul 2000 18:11:34 -0700
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The most important quotation in this link is from the official report:
>
>"The Yorktown lost control of its propulsion system because its computers
>were unable to divide by the number zero ... The Yorktown's Standard
>Monitoring Control System administrator entered zero into the data field for
>the Remote Data Base Manager program. That caused the database to overflow
>and crash all LAN consoles and miniature remote terminal units. The program
>administrators are trained to bypass a bad data field and change the value
>if such a problem occurs again."
[bunch of other quotes that all say basically the same thing deleted]
The exact same thing happens on NT and Linux when an application divides
by zero. The application stops. Other badly written applications that
assume that the first application will never stop then fail. Yawn.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:00:17 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Let me answer the question you ask in your subject line.
The concept of "ease of use" as you use it is a disliked by so many
established members of the Linux community because it is a empty phrase with
no real meaning. However when used in relation to Linux, it has come to be
used by the readers of yellow, orange, and green books to mean that the
current Linux community has to accept changes to Linux, at the user
application level and the systems level as well as at the kernel level and
modify features that are usefu to the current Linux that would be difficult
or confusing for the majority of people.
That would mean that what has been built by past and current users for the
benefits to the needs of the users altered and possibly damaged to seek
acceptance by the great majority of people. That also implies that the
desires of the great majority of people who are ignorant to the benifits of
Linux as it is, is more important that the needs and traditions of the
current user base. As has been said, To win a war at the cost of losing an
empire is no victory.
If those changes were forced on the current users and devlopers many of them
will leave Linux for something else. Perhaps enough of them will abandon
Linux that it will no longer be the vital and growing operating system that
it is today.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:51:19 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1$Worth <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snippy]> >
> > > I can type faster and remember (most) of the important stuff, yet if I
> > > were moving say 20 different files from one location to the next it
> > > would be faster using GUI (assuming these 20 files have different
> > > names+extentions and there is no logical pattern which may be
applied).
> >
> > What about MC the Midnight Commander? A character mode program that
will
> > perform the file copy or move from your example as fast or even faster
that
> > a GUI file manager. It has a smaller foot print, and it can operate on
just
> > about any terminal. A local console, telnet, rlogin, etc, a dialup
shell
> > account, a hard wire serial link, all no problem. It can take advantage
of
> > a mouse or work without one.
>
> Yes I've used MC and found it to be quite good. Still feel I could do it
> quicker with the mouse, but my point is that there should be choice! You
> may prefer MC, and I kfm, but the key thing is that we get something
> easy for the novice user. We may still use whatever configurations we
> are used to: just "ease of use" is not something to be against, but to
> be encouraged.
>
> Do you see where I'm coming from? I say "ease of use" is not a dirty
> concept, yet sometimes the attitude is "well x and y may achieve the
> same result". My point is not that x and y are not perfectly good, but
> they require "more" learning and are frightening for the novice user. If
> we ant to encourage people to use Linux (for example I would like to use
> it as a general desktop), then we should consider user-friendlyness as
> an important part of the package.
Yes, I do see where you are coming from, I did from the start. I am sure we
all do. We ,at least I, do understand what I think you are trying to say,
but you don't say it very well. You are also using too many empty buzz
phrases that have been used by companies too many time as reasons dumb down
their products. Often leaving those product useless to their original
customer base.
You fail to see some important point.
First "easy to use" and "ease of use"? That has no valid meaning and is an
empty buzz phrase. Since as you have accepted, what is easy for one person
hard for another, and the reverse is also true.
Second, you seem to equate "Easy to use" with GUI. They are not the same
thing. Often the GUI way is the harder way.
Third while I see where you are coming from, you fail to notice some
refutations of what appears to be your basic assumptions. For example, you
seem to assume that "easy to use" requires a graphical user interface. You
seem to use the terms as synonyms. I have questioned you on that already in
other parts of this thread in other ways. The message your are quoting from
above also calls for the same answer but you have missed that point. So,
left me ask you straight out:
Why do say that only graphical user interfaces are easy to use? What you
can do with "point an click" on a graphical display can often be done just
the same with point and click on a text display. There are libraries that
can make a text mode program react like the way you would expect a
graphicial user interface program to react.
You also claimed, "... we (linux community) should accept some changes to
accommodate this for the benefit of the majority of people.", that is were
you are wrong. The assumption and mindset that appears to be behind that
statement is what so many find offensive.
> Really the question is: Do we want more people to enjoy Linux by not
> dumbing it down, but simply making it easier?
Linux does not have to be made easier, it is just fine that way it is. If
enough changes are made to Linux to help more people enjoy it, it won't be
Linux any more except in name only.
What you should be asking instead is "Do we want a user environment
available for Linux that the functionaly computer illiterate members of
society can feel comfortable with and they can enjoy until their conputer
skills mature and they become functionaly computer literate? To that is say
YES! YES! a thousand time YES! So long as it does not cause problems for
the kernel or other existing software. This effort is already under way,
the right way, so you whole position in this thread is moot.
You see? Unlike Windows that has the lost much of the distiction between
the operating system and the user environment, it still exists with Linux.
You questions were phrased as though the Linux internals are as fouled up as
those of Windows.
> I feel that there are great strides in the right direction, but I think
> that the negative attitude towards ease of use by some users will not
> promote Linux.
So? Do you expect everyone in the Linux community to march in lock step and
embrace a empty buzz phrase? We are not an army of Lindroids The Linux
community is a community of individuals, individuals have individual
opinions.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:19:59 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1$Worth <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> What I might have an issue with is the fact that maybe some aspects
> should be "updated" (I should choose my words carefully here to avoid
> flames). Again I give the printing sub-system as a rather old example
> that was fine 20 years ago but no longer provides the functionality that
> we need in a consistent way. I am sure that you will suggest that this
> is the role of user-land apps and you'd be right. I would just like to
> see some consistency so that when I want to program code to control a
> printer I don't have to re-invent the wheel each time to get the most
> out of its feature set. Of course from the end-users perspective this is
> pretty neat. Get rid of our current filtering script etc.? Maybe not -
> I'm not too sure.
> p.s. I'm aware that there are effort to solve the printer issue, but
> this illustrates the point quite well where sometimes the system (not
> just kernel) needs some consistency.
First which printing system are you talking about? lp, lpr, lprNG?
How does it not work as you would like it?
BTW The printer filters must remain.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:12:40 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1$Worth <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
>
> > Why do they have to be graphical user interface tools to be easy to use?
>
> They don't. But cater for what people are "used" to and Linux will
> become more popular.
Oh, how soon they forget!
> Yes all true. This is still unfamiliar to most people. In fact the
> concept of switching views (any "view") is very confusing for the novice
> (yes I know that to us it seems as easy as anything - but I am talking
> about a different audience).
Ah now we are getting to the core of the issue! You are not considering the
great multitude of our society. You are not concerned with computer
neophytes. You are just concerned with users of Windows and many Macs. An
only the less computer literate of them at that! Well for them the effort
is already under way. But that effort only extends to their environment for
reasons I have already gone into.
Any computer neophyte I have ever trained or those who were not neophytes
but had not encounterd windows have always text mode easier to handle
flipping from one VC to another or the equivelents that the other OS's had
for them was much more easy for the neophyte to grasp that handling multiple
windows and all the little controls much more hard to graps. For the
thinker skulled neophyte all you had to have them log into two terminals or
workstation at once and have them perform tasks on both at the same time.
Then you show them the console switching procedure an tell them that by
using that procedure it was like using two, three or however many the
platform supported.
Nothing was ever that easy teaching someone who never encounter a GUI how to
work under one. Then there are those who have phisical problems using a
mouse. Every time they try to click they happen to wiggle the mouse and hit
the wrong target, or the system would interpret a double click as two single
clicks.
> > The real problem with configurations tools as they exist is that they
impose
> > their restrictions on to the configuration of the host. Of those that I
> > have encountered they don't generate very readable configuration files.
If
> > the sysadmin make ANY manual changes to the configuration files, they
are
> > lost the next time the easy to use configuration tool is used.
>
> Yes. Like I said in answer to others who have put this point: don't
> shoot the concept of EOU just because a program does not work well. If
> we judged EOU by the standards of windows then we'd be setting our
> sights rather low I'd suggest.
Well... If the program does not work well, how does that promote ease of
use? Who said anything about Windows here? I was talking about the
attempts I have encounterd to provide easy to use configuration tools in
Linux and other unix operating systems.
> > A problem with such a tool is that it would be "obsolete" as soon as any
of
> > the packages that require any those configuration files is updated and
adds
> > a single new feature to its configuration file or has a internal
behavorial
> > modification that the configuration tool's view of the package does not
take
> > into account. Then again each time some new software has been
developed,
> > the configuration tool is obsolete until it is updated to know of that
new
> > package.
>
> If the package is updated then the config tool should be at the same
> time rendering this point invalid. It's all in the packaging: RPM it (or
> deb-it).
There you go again...imposing your vision by inflicting resource cosuming
overhead on everyone in the Linux community to support you single target
group. Are you familiar with the camel's nose?
> > Not everyone will be running the same versions of the software packages
> > either, which can also cause other problems for the easy to use
> > configuration tools. If the configuration tool assumes that a system
has a
> > certain version of a certain software package, but in truth another
version
> > is actually installed it could generate invalid configuration files for
that
> > package.
>
> Yes true. BUT, most novice users we may assume to be using a
> distribution and it is this that can provide the conformity needed to
> introduce coherent usage policies. If our config files are respected as
> per your previous point, then we are free to use/abuse things as we wish
> and are not effected or "dumbed down".
Assumptions like that are the kind that come back to bite you right in the
assumption.
> > In whatever case, the easy to use configuration tool become the
> > configuration and maintenance problem that will become the focus and
excuse
> > to avoid Linux.
>
> No way! This doomsday will not come to pass. Come on, lets get positive.
> It seems as if people are too scared of the Corels in this world to make
> the tentative steps to make things easier to use.
The step ARE being taken. Since you are a programmer and you believe there
is such a need, what have you done to help the process.
> the user - not just the functionality. Linus once said that a real man
> writes his own drivers. I'd suggest that the modern man thinks about the
> end user (without excluding driver writing of course).
It is always better to keep your current user/customer/client base happy
first and then attract new user/customer/client. I have seen too many firms
fail because they forget that. They are so busy chasing after new customers
that they end up alienating their existing customers and endup with so few
that the firm is no longer a going concern.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James deBoer)
Subject: .Net and Linux
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:41:14 GMT
Wake up, and smell yesterday's stale coffee... Microsoft's .Net is coming. What
are we going to do about?
Microsoft wants to take the Internet, the entire world, in a completely
different direction. ...Or maybe not.
Let's think about it. .Net will be remote apps with a XML frontend allowing
people to access them from anywhere. Now, all this is doing is taking Outlook
away from everybody, and giving them Hotmail.
.Net is simply a media stunt, the fact is that everything that .Net will be
already exists, almost. Microsoft is going to make these things easier to
access over wireless and other devices.
So, basically what Microsoft is doing to providing a spec to those wireless
device manufacturers. They are providing the easy way out for those companies.
All the companies have to do is build their devices to those specs, and MS
will provide everything else.
That is one of the major flaws in the Linux philosphy. We look around for things
to be done, we spend hours copying others programs, because they are useful.
Everything we do has a direct benifit to ourselves immediately. There is no
planning, no leadership.
If we can provide a backbone that those wireless devices can build upon we can
defeat Microsoft. We can act much swifter then MS, it is possible.
James deBoer
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 28 Jul 2000 21:44:06 -0400
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>Conversely, Capitalism, in both theory and in practice, makes no
>distinction between the small investor and the large investor.
>Stockholder elections are the ultimate means by which workers can
>have a DIRECT say about the conditions under which they work.
>
>This is "Capitalism in the extreme" and in fact, it works VERY
>WELL. Ask any employee of a a corporation in which
>
>A) a controlling interest in the company is owned by employees, AND
>B) blue-collar and white-collar employees own enough a large
> enough share to block being "steam rolled" by management.
>
>This is in direct contrast to the "limited capitalism" which we
>have had through most of our history (that is, the majority of
>the workforce owns little or no stock, and the overwhelming majority
>of stock securities are owned by a very small percentage of the
>population.
Since money is required to buy stock, those who enter the capitalist
economy with the most money will NATURALLY have a disproportionate
share of the stock, while those who enter the economy through the
workforce will only own a little stock. Getting steam-rolled by
management is a natural part of capitalism, and that's not going
to change.
--
SPELL.DLL carrup't. Yoosing PALMER.DLL instedd.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:42:14 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:01:06 -0700,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l22th$94$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8l1un0$dob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Payed" is much more logical than "paid". Just try to *logically*
> >> explain why "shure" is a misspelling.
> >
> >To understand the root for the illogical spelling rules of the english
> >language we have to consider the source of the language as well as the
> >traditions and culture that surrounded it. Logic was never a part of the
> >development of the spelling rules of the english language.
> >
> >English is a large and rich and evolving language with multiple ways to
say
> >the same thing--all with equal validity. The English language has an
> >inheritance from the Picts, Celts, Vikings, Romans, Normans, Angelo,
Saxons,
> >Jutes, Francs, and many other peoples. These sources provides us a large
> >pallete of words, phrases, and idioms to select from. Many meanings have
> >multiple ways of being stated and many words also have multiple
> >meanings--all valid.
> >
> >We may never know what the first language of Britian was. So let us
start
> >with the proto gaelic of the Picts and Celts. Then came the Romans to
> >Britonium (sp?) and their introduction of Latin. It was the Roman
presence
> >in Britian that created the sepperate identities of England and Scotland.
> >Latin was then the proper language of Britian and the prior language was
> >used amoung the lower classes and for daily conversation. Over time
other
> >languages were introduced into Britian by the various barbarian contacts
> >such as through invasions by the Jutes, Angelo, Saxons, and other
contacts
> >like those with the Francs, Goths, and Vandals. In the end the Saxons
> >becase supreme over the area that is now known as England. Then came the
> >Vikings conquest of most of Britian and their language.
>
>
> Well, close anyway. P and Q Celtic (Brythonic and Goedelic) were spoken in
all
> of what the Romans called "Lesser Gaul". The Romans brought latin in, and
by
> the end of Roman-Britain (410.C.E. when the last Roman legion the XX, Vale
> Victix IIRC, was ordered to return to Rome.) Latin was a common trade
languange
> and was used by the Roman influenced Towns and Colonae, but was not used
by
> the bulk of the populace living outside of the Roman towns and colonae.
> Starting in the early 7th century, the Saxons, Jutes, Angles and other
> germanic tribes began migrating into the lowlands due to pressure from
tribes
> like the Huns further east on the steppes. They brought their germanic
> languages, and gave us place names like Wessex (west Saxons) Essex (east
> Saxons), Norfolk (north folk), and the village I grew up in in East
Anglia,
> called hockWold, which meant High wood. Germanic structure underlies
modern
> english due to the spread of the germanic tribes. Little of either strain
of
> Gaelic remains although there are remenents. The Danes brought with them
many
> word constructs and words, especially when they conquered what became
known as
> the "DaneGeld". Later, the normans came and buggered up the language with
a
> bunch of french words and grammar. Beef is from Boef, a Norman-French
word,
> but Cow is old english. There's a really good book on the subject called
> "Mother Tongue, the story of English and how it got that way." very much
> worth the read if you are interestend in the linguistic history of
English.
>
> >It was as a result of that person's working style that has given: us
three
> >spelling for the sound of "2", which are "two", "too", and "to", as well
as
> >"book" and "cook" instead of "bwk" and "cwk"; why "sure" is correct and
> >"shure" is incorrect. It is by violating his own spelling rules that has
> >established "paid" for the past tense of "pay" instead of "payed"
>
> Payed is a germanic ending (past tense.) the id is latinate, either from
the
> latin itself, or more likely, from the french. All the en endings like
> stolen are germanic.
>
> >I could, but I don't like to use that kind of language in any language.
> >However, I will close with mixed language statement:
> >
> >( ( 2 * b ) || !( 2 * b ) ) tolerant is the question.
> >
>
> hehe, cute :)
>
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
Thanks for the details. That was off the top of my head and I knew I should
have looked up the details. ;-)
By the way I have seen P and Q Celtic (Brythonic and Goedelic) called proto
gaelic in some of the texts dating from the late 1800's. I tought there
was a better chance to spell it correctly than either Brythonic or Goedelic.
;-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
