Linux-Advocacy Digest #345, Volume #28 Thu, 10 Aug 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: And the winner is... (Arthur Frain)
Re: Maximum file size question- follow up ("Colin R. Day")
Re: How can screensaver ignore mouse activity? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux as an investment ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Christopher Browne)
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Web Browsers? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: GNOME/KDE issues ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: [Q] Too many distribution? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:42:54 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> >>
> >> >>If you
> >> >> are basing your argument on the Great Northern, then your are missing
> >> >> the fact the I am talking about investing in new technologies, not
> >> >> general economic development. It's when something has never been done
> >> >> before when up front costs are the highest, and when private investors
> >> >> are the most afraid.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I was only claiming that a private firm could have done it.
> >>
> >> Well then why didn't one?
>
> >> How much longer would it have been until
> >> some entrepreneur was willing to take the risk if it weren't for the
> >> five Government projects that overcame the technological obstacles and
> >> proved it would have a pay back?
>
> This second question has not been answered, though I wasn't expecting one:-)
Sorry, but at least by 1893.
>
>
> >
> >Because no private firm could tax people to pay for it.
>
> Actually, the railroads were built mostly via land grants, not tax
> dollars.
OK, no private firm had that much land.
> And my point was a while back was that no private investor
> was willing to make the huge upfront investments and take the risks to
> develop these new technologies. You now seem to be agreeing with that.
>
What new technologies? Private railroads had been running for some time.
And yes, it would have taken longer for continental railroads to have been
built privately, but is this such a bad thing?
>
> >Also, didn't
> >problems with the lack of return on the first trancontinental railroad
> >(and other publicly financed lines) lead to the Crash of 1873?
>
> I can't find any evidence to suggest that, but it may have played a
> role. Instability in the late 19th century U.S. economy was primarily
> due to failures of the banking systems, not weaknesses in one industry
> or another.
>
Failure in the banking system caused by railroads defaulting on loans
that they could not repay because there was insufficient demand for
the use of railroads.
>
> Perry
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:55:14 -0400
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In article <8mse55$9kj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also, there is the interesting question of Solaris, especially
> > Solaris-x86. It's an interesting question how much money Sun
> > directly makes off of Solaris, or whether the main purpose of
> > Solaris is to provide an OS for Sun's real moneymaker, its hardware.
>
> Don't forget the support contracts...
But it could sell support for Linux as well.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:59:19 -0400
Karri Kalpio wrote:
> Pontus Lidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Now that's a funny joke. Emacs needs the keys you find on a
> > typewriter, and also escape and control keys. Nothing
> > else. Specifically, it does not need meta, alt, windows, arrow keys,
>
> <PEDANTIC>
> Actually... Emacs does need meta key but not escape. (This may not
> be obvious because sometimes the keyboards have such a brain-dead
> layout that there is _no_ meta key at all and in those cases it is a
> common practice to use the esc to simulate the meta key.)
> </PEDANTIC>
But one can use the alt key as the meta key if no meta key
is available.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:13:36 GMT
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > Prior to him, Gutenberg's innnovation was used to print the Same Old
> > Shit; illuminated bibles and indulgences. Once you change the context
> > that way, it's hard to see Gutenberg as an "extraordinary innovator".
>
> This is of course complete nonsense and should be treated like it. If
> you honestly think that the "invention of the book", with which you
> probably mean "invention of the literary work" happened after 1500 and
> that beforehand, no literature existed, you really rank among the top
> clueless people I know... :)
My goodness, there sure are a lot of twits in this newsgroup. By "Book"
I do not mean "literary work", I mean "literary work put in the modern
format of a book!" invented by Aldus Minutius (phonetic) 50 years after
Gutenberg was wasting his invention on useless bibles and indulgences!
Gutenberg made a lot of money doing a lot of useless stuff and making
it *possible* for someone to invent the book, something that was cheap
(Gutenberg's bibles were often Illuminated themselves and so were hardly
cheap) and portable. In fact, something specifically tailored to people's
saddlebags so that they could CARRY their books!
It's quite amazing how defensive people get when someone starts taking
shots at their sacred cows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:16:52 GMT
On 10 Aug 2000 16:27:03 -0700, Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>It appears that the statute's use of "preexisting" might have been
>unnecessary or even erroneous, but it's there. But I don't see that it
>matters much in this discussion. A work is not subject to copyright
>until it is fixed in a tangible medium and at that time all parts
>must be preexistant obviously. If any of those parts is a work in
All parts of what must be preexistant? You don't make clear what these
parts are you are talking about.
>itself, then the whole is derivative work, as I read the USC. (My
>definition would be different, but that's another subject.)
>
A derivative work must be derivative based on something. I don't
see any mention of that something anywhere in your discussion.
What did I miss?
>One shouldn't read those definitions real closely and without
>considering other things, because doing so would lead to
>inconsistencies. (Reading USC17 over-literally would have it imply that
>any joint work is a derivative work, which I'm sure would not be a
>useful (or common) inference even if it's a logical one.)
>
I've read the definition in the statute dozens of times but I can't
get this meaning. Perhaps that is because you introduced the term
joint works without defining it. You seem to be simply substituting
one term for another.
>(I'm not sure USC17 should have even used the concept of "derivative".
>I'd think it good enough to just worry about joint works and
>compilations. I'd think they should be treated the same, though I'm not
>sure if they are. And one can't prepare or distribute a derivative
There are legitimate reasons for treating compilations differently.
The parts of a derivative work are indivisible with the each party
having legal rights. The parts of a compilation are divisible.
Because of this, it was necessary to say some things specifically about
compilations that don't apply to derivative works. At least for this
reason distinct terms were necessary.
>Implications of the above theory:
>
You reach a result I agree with, but you deconstruct the law and
rearrange it to your liking before doing so. I don't really see
why such an argument would be convincing when the question is about
how the law views dynamic libraries.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: And the winner is...
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:02:11 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The funniest part is that a joke has been played on ya'll for over 1.5
> years, and the trap has just been sprung recently. The bait was taken,
> "Hook Line and Sinker" and still, nobody has figured it out.
> Claire
Oh my, Steve. You're so clever.
Let me guess - you're really Scott
Nudds.
Who woulda thought - it figgers.
> On 10 Aug 2000 21:49:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:16:55 +1000, Slava Pestov wrote:
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mikey
> >>Actually, as far as I can tell, Tim Palmer posts from a different IP.
> >>So it's not Steve.
> >Besides, Steve's got a distinctive style of drivel that's visible a mile
> >away. Usually a lot of whings about "fonts, soundcards, printers
> >and winmodems", and something about how you need an "expensive postscript
> >printer" to run Linux.
> >Tim Palmer has his own unique style of sorry drivel.
Steve probably has another dialup acct
or telnets to a shell acct someplace to
post as Tim, but it's definitely the
same level of brain damage, and the
same lack of imagination.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum file size question- follow up
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:25:14 -0400
Jeff Peterson wrote:
> > because it's too large? How do I prevent this from happening? What file
> > and where is the file that I need to change? Thanks.
>
> No, I don't have a space problems on the partitions. My home directory
> has
> about 13GB free. The other partitions also have lots of free space.
>
> No, Netscape did not un-gzipped the file either. Yes, I did do a ls -lt
> on the directory that it was downloaded to, but no file. BTW, I've
> worked
> on UNIX systems for nearly 20 years and am very familiar with how to use
> them. I have been a sys-admin off and on during the last 20 years.
>
> What does one mean by disk quotas? Over the quota? Why was I able to do
> a 'ln' on the file while downloading it and then have that hard link
> still
> there when the original filename is gone?
>
Users (or groups) are only allowed to have so much disk space, no matter
how much the computer has.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How can screensaver ignore mouse activity?
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:27:52 -0400
Holger Bauer wrote:
> Mikey wrote:
>
> > Thus Sprake Holger Bauer:
> >
> > > How can I prevent a screen saver from reacting on mouse movements
> > > (shaking desk ...)
> > > and only allow to react on keyboard presses?
> >
> > Duct-tape your mouse down. No. Unplug your mouse. :)
> >
> > --
> > Since-beer-leekz,
> > Mikey
> > Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
> > possit materiari?
>
> Well, unplugging will stop Linux from working (at least last time I've
> tried) :-)
Then hit CTRL-ALT-F(some number, usually from 1 to 8) to get out of
X windows, kill X windows, plug in the mouse and restart X windows.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux as an investment
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:16:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"R. Spinks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm thinking that Linuz will be a good financial investment in the
long
> term. Microsoft has proved very profitable for many, why not Linux?
Does
> anyone have suggestions as who is likely to be profitable as an
> investment in Linux? I've heard Red Hat is public, but I don't know
much
> more than that. Suggestions?
>
Las Vegas. Better odds.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:40:57 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John Sanders would say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > What UNIX for the home market was this and what date was it available?
>> > By home market, I'm assuming the 8088. That was the first PC when UNIX
>> > was already in existance. If no one did UNIX for the 8088, then when
>> > for the '286?
>> > If not the '286, then when for the '386? And this was from who?
>>
>> Xenix, for one it came from Microsoft at the time. It was available for the
>> Z-80 maybe the 8080 as well this all predated the IBM PC be several years.
>> Xenix was then ported to the 8086 and 8088 before the existance of the IBM
>> PC.
>>
>> There were other unix or unix like OS for the 8080/Z-80, 6800, and 6502.
>> Even today we still have Minux that can run on an 8086/8088.
>>
>> The problem was that those unix and unix like OS's were very costly. The
>> typical cost of a unix for a 8-bit microcomputers adjusted to present day
>> dollars was about $3,000-$7,000.
>
>
> Now I'm waiting for someone to say that Xenix is not UNIX.
Heh, heh...
It's not a Unix97 (tm), to be sure.
More importantly, it was never seriously marketed at the "home
market." _THAT_ is the critical point.
An OS that was priced at $500, which was a _HUGE_ proportion of
typical pricing of _home_ computers, was just not going to fly.
Even if it was technically feasible (which I agree that it likely
_was_), if it was vastly too expensive, then it was not _economically_
feasible. And I'd say that was the case.
By the way, the contentions of Xenix availability for Z-80 do not
agree with my recollections; the machines with Z-80s on which Xenix
got heavily deployed were the TRS-80 Model 16's and Tandy 6000's,
which used the Z-80 to control the "terminal," but then used a 68000
to run Xenix.
<http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/3938/z80os.htm> suggests
there could have been a XENIX for Z80, but has no link...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@" "hex.net")
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/unix.html>
The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to
apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:42:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reason # 3,467 for dumping Windows on my systems: I got sick of the
*you
> suck if you don't buy everything we put out the first day it's
> available* cram it down your throat and tell you you like it bullshit.
I can think of 63,000 reasons not to let Redmond's latest near my box.
On the other hand, a magazine article on preparing your system for Linux
2.4.0-test6 wouldn't exactly fill a lotta column inches, or sell a
buncha your advertiser's new hardware goodies, would it?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Web Browsers?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:45:42 GMT
Although Opera for Linux isn't yet a polished product, it is one of the
fastest and most capable browsers. HardcoreLinux reviews many available
Linux browsers: http://www.hardcorelinux.com/linux-browsers.htm
> I'm a linux newbie, and am looking for a good browser for my linux
laptop.
> I have tried mozilla, but it really take a lot of memory, and is
always
> crashing, as does netscape 4.x and 6.x. I would really appreciate it
if
> someone could give me some suggestions to try.
> Chris
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:15:22 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> I have a feeling that Mr. Kulkis does not really want that to
> >> happen, because large numbers of people manifesting Unix sysadmin skills
> >> would produce a lot of competition for him, and his much-idolized law of
> >> supply and demand would force down his income.
> >Not really. Actually, a flood of Unix admins would create an
> >even greater demand for people like me (guys who understand
> >the kernal intimately).
>
> Dream on. Think of your beloved law of supply and demand.
Higher availability of Unix Admins makes more Unix-based projects
possible, bootstrapping more demand for Unix admins...
You would do well to graduated from the obsolete STATIC analysis
methods favored by the Democratic Party and other leftists.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:15:22 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> I have a feeling that Mr. Kulkis does not really want that to
> >> happen, because large numbers of people manifesting Unix sysadmin skills
> >> would produce a lot of competition for him, and his much-idolized law of
> >> supply and demand would force down his income.
> >Not really. Actually, a flood of Unix admins would create an
> >even greater demand for people like me (guys who understand
> >the kernal intimately).
>
> Dream on. Think of your beloved law of supply and demand.
Higher availability of Unix Admins makes more Unix-based projects
possible, bootstrapping more demand for Unix admins...
You would do well to graduated from the obsolete STATIC analysis
methods favored by the Democratic Party and other leftists.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: 11 Aug 2000 02:31:53 GMT
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:37:31 +0100, Robert Moir wrote:
>> It is competitive. MS isn't. They squash everyone they can...
>
>Isn't that competition? The idea is to *beat* your opponent after all,
>doesn't matter if its to the sale, the launch date, the football...
Sure, you have to beat them. But there are rules that you have to play
by. If you break them, the umpire will blow the
whistle on you. Guess what ? The whistle has been blown on Microsoft.
And now they're in court, and they are certainly not "beating" anyone there.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues
Date: 11 Aug 2000 02:43:50 GMT
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Well, you don't have a @kde.org email address, or you would have heard.
: I still get DAILY about 5 emails insulting me for being a vocal KDE
: advocate. Ever got that kind of thing from KDE users/developers?
: I have been getting that for 3 fucking years already.
I use both KDE and Gnome, like both, consider each to have both
strengths and weaknesses compared to the other, patronize companies
that support both, would like to see both continue, and am very
appreciative of the hackers in BOTH camps.
The only thing I wish were different is the apparent animosity that
seems to exist between some members of each camp against the other.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: 10 Aug 2000 21:49:22 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> In article <FgCi5.20344$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >All of which tells us that, since Unix was here first, that it lacked
>> >something that made it viable in the home market.
>>
>> Price. Unix was about $1,000 a box back then, sometimes with
>> an extra charge for tcp, X, and a compiler. It wasn't in
>> tune with the single-user box concept. I think windows came
>> in at under $100.
> What UNIX for the home market was this and what date was it available?
>By home market, I'm assuming the 8088. That was the first PC when UNIX
>was already in existance. If no one did UNIX for the 8088, then when
>for the '286?
>If not the '286, then when for the '386? And this was from who?
The first popular unix based box would have been the
Radio Shack Model 6000 which was a combination Z80
and 68000 CPU running Xenix. Then there were a few
attempts at 286 versions, including a generic Xenix and
AT&T's own, but they really didn't quite work. AT&T
did SysVr4 for the 386/486 and several other versions
came out later. Dell did their own variation for a while,
tuned for their more generic hardware and sold it
pre-installed. Not surprisingly, this stopped at just
about the precise time those famous per-cpu contracts
for Win95 came around...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Q] Too many distribution?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 02:47:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JongAm Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<some really good stuff I snipped>
For four or five years now we've had no choice on the desktop; now we're
overwhelmed with choice. Guess which I like better?
In the U.S., there are almost 200 different makes of automobiles and
trucks to choose from, and each of those has a dizzying array of options
available to the consumer that they must pick and choose. And the
breadth of choice doesn't seem to be a problem; in fact there are more
than 2500 companies in the U.S. that make aftermarket accessories that
you can add onto your car or truck to make it different from everybody
else's. This is seen as a Good Thing(tm); Americans like to be unique.
Why should it be any different for computers and software?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
