Linux-Advocacy Digest #963, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (lyttlec)
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Computer and memory (lyttlec)
Re: what's up with Sun? ("Ez-Aton")
Re: How low can they go...? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Computer and memory (lyttlec)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Bob Hauck)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (ZnU)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Eric Bennett)
Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn..... (Jon
BreakWindows)
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:09:10 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >lyttlec wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Wheat production during the latter Roman Empire. That monopoly lasted
> >> about 300 years. It was corrected when the barbarian invaders killed the
> >> monopolist and almost everyone else. Not a desirable means of market
> >> correction.
> >
> >
> >How about in a republic such as the US?
>
> Well, I'd say "du Pont", who has "a monopoly in cellophane", but the
> courts have decreed that that's not a monopoly, just a patent on a
> particularly useful kind of flexible wrapping material.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
>
> -----= 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! =-----
Well, a patent is a monopoly with government intervention. There was a
monopoly in copper briefly during the 70's in the US and world wide.
Standard Oil is the one that started the whole backlash. I mentioned
wheat in Rome because that same monopoly is building now in the US.
Small farmers are being put out of business by "corporate farms". There
will eventually be only one giant corporate farm. When that happens, we
will be in the same position as Rome. Try to break the monopoly, and you
will starve.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 22:00:49 -0400
Christophe Ochal wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Christophe Ochal wrote:
>
> <cut>
>
> > > Why do you think this is, do you know what the people there are payed by
> the
> > > month? And do you know who their biggest customers are? Do you even know
> > > *why* these are "low wages" countries?
> > >
> > > There's no way the UK can compete with these
> >
> > The US has domestic memory-fab facilities. Why not the UK?
> >
> > American wages are within 10% of British wages.
>
> Geological situations, Economical situations, this is a complex matter, but
> if they *could* compete, they *would* compete
>
This is nothing but evasion
> Amon_Re
--
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: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 19:10:16 -0700
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> > Erm... apart from a $140,000 setup fee? Duping DVDs is expensive.
> :>
> :> So was duplicating CD's
> :
> : Duplicating DVDs is still currently expensive, and unlikely to go down
for
> : a number of years, at the very least for DVD9's.
>
> Last I looked into it (a number of months ago), the burners were
> around $5000 and media was about $50 each. Expensive, yes, but a
> far cry from $140,000. As said, it's not far out of line from the
> early costs of CDR.
That's DVD 5 only. Not DVD9.
Simon
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:31:25 GMT
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:48:45 GMT,
> lyttlec, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >>
> >> abraxas wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > Perhaps you should be writing your government then.
> >> > >
> >> > > It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind
> >> > > in technology.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > There goes chad again, talking out of his ass. This actually has nothing
> >> > to do with being 'behind in technology', it has to do with there being no
> >> > one common communications tariff methodology.
> >> >
> >> > To all: Chad actually knows next to nothing about computers, and exactly
> >> > nothing about the way countries other than the united states work. Hes
> >> > probably best ignored.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Britain COULD have just as vibrant a memory-production industry
> >> as the US....IF THEY DESIRED to do so.
> >>
> >> It's not as if beach sand and photo-lithography and molecular beam
> >> epitaxy only work on the US mainland.
> >>
> >> Hell, TAIWAN has a bigger chip-making industry than Britain, and they
> >> didn't have ***ANY*** capacity 15 years ago.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > -----yttrx
> >>
>
> <snipped AK's annoying sig, which should have been done allready :( >
>
> >What is the chip producing capacity of the US? Last I looked it was
> >zero. All had been moved to the Philippines or Taiwan.
>
> Didn't look very hard I suppose. I will assume that you are refering to
> memory chips, not chips in general. (since that is what the thread was
> discussing) and I direct your attention to Micron, a major chip foundry
> with mem-factories all over the world, including the US (Boise Idaho IIRC.)
> On a related note, Micron just opened a fab in Scotland as well.
>
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
The "all over the world" part is revelant. I thought the Boise plant was
not in actual production at the moment. Has that changed? Intel memory
is all outside the US. They do make the microprocessors in Albuquerque,
though. TI has about opted out of memory, concentrating on DSPs.
------------------------------
From: "Ez-Aton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 05:33:24 +0200
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p6h5i$qu1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : On 6 Sep 2000 13:24:42 GMT, Fred Nastos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>In comp.os.linux.misc Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : The general consensus is that you will not see the advantages
> : of SCSI on single user workstation or if you've only got a
> : single storage device. SCSI really starts to shine when you're
> : managing multiple devices and IO operations concurrently.
>
> As in: more than one user logged in, or exporting your FS via NFS.
>
> Peter
Rgarding this, I remeber a friend ofmine who could use his scsi cdr while
playing.
It might look simple today, but one issue can't be ignored: It was a
P166MMX, not the monsterous P3 of these days.
IDE cdr at these times would require you to stay still and disable your
screensaver...
SCSI is more expensive, but it's abilities pay well when dealing with
heavily IO loaded systems, and with servers, which, by definition, should
maintain high IO load.
Ez.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:37:16 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p6s3k$oi2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:u5Ct5.10845$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8p6m5o$kck$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > As for the rest -- HTML Help makes great sense.
> > > > Using a browser to navigate the file system -- if it's such a stupid
> > idea,
> > > > why does KDE do it?
> > > Because KDE did not already have another working hypertext help system
> > > already in place like Windows did?
> > Hypertext help to navigate a file system?
> Pardon?
Sorry I forgot the ;-)
If you re-read what you replied to - the question was basically:
if using a browser to look at the file system is a stupid idea why
does KDE do it?
Your answer doesn't make much sense for the question.
Again... I forgot the ;-)
..darcy
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:38:06 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> lyttlec wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Person 7 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:06:58 +0200, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> > > > ("Olivier Borgeaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >2. Memory is actually very cheap
> > > >
> > > > Memory is NOT cheap
> > >
> > > That's strange...every probject that *I* have worked on the last
> > > 5 years was built on the assumption that the performance/price
> > > ratio of memory is significantly higher than nearly any other
> > > aspect of the system.
> > >
> > > In 1980, $500 would get you 16 Kilobytes of 1 micro-second read/write
> > > memory
> > >
> > > Now, $500 will get you about 512 MEGABYTES of 10-nanosecond read/write
> > > memory.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > ICQ # 3056642
> > >
> > And how much does the computer that will accept 512 meg of 10-nanosecond
> > ram cost? I have three systems running here that won't run 10-nanosecond
> > memory as the refresh rate is too slow. Do I need to buy a whole new
> > system to upgrade my OS?
>
> IF YOU CAN AFFORD THE SYSTEM, then the price of memory is trivial.
>
> If you actually *HAVE* 30GB of data to put into a database, then
> 1 to 2 GB of 10-ns read/write memory is trivial.
>
> --
No, its not. I have the money to spend, but the price of memory includes
the cost of the system to host it. In fact, adding another 128meg to my
current setup would cost me about $1200, as I would have to buy a system
capable of housing it. I could find used systems for $100-$200, but they
won't host the current memory chips. I would rather spend the $1200 on
airfare to Europe or Costa Rica, thank you.
> 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] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:43:48 GMT
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 04:30:35 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I wonder how the eco-paranoids can explain the ice ages and tropical
>fossils well north of 40 degrees North latitude which occurred many
>millions of years before the rise of man.
Plate Tectonics. Look it up.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:46:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Rick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Rick wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Joe R." wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But a better thing would be to make the public schools at
> > > > > > > > > least as
> > > > > > > > > good as the private schools. I believe, perhaps naively,
> > > > > > > > > that this
> > > > > > > > > can be done; and even more naively, that it isn't simply
> > > > > > > > > a matter of
> > > > > > > > > money.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's much a matter of money; halving the class sizes
> > > > > > > > requires doubling
> > > > > > > > the number of teachers, for example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you believe that class size is the only thing wrong with
> > > > > > > the schools,
> > > > > > > of course.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is by no means the only thng wrong, but is a large part in
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > areas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please explain why the best universities in the world routinely
> > > > > put their students through classes where the material is taught
> > > > > in lectures where the class size is in the HUNDREDS.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Generally speak, those universities attract better students. Those
> > > > students have learned how to learn.
> > >
> > > BINGO.
> > >
> > > Now, tell me why the public schools currently do everything they
> > > can to PREVENT students from learning how to learn.
> > >
> >
> > ***WE*** do not.
>
> Oh, really. Then why do American high school students' science and math
> scores ABSOLUTELY SUCK compared to the rest of the industrialized world,
> including such backwards places as Russia.
Let's review:
1) American high school students' science and math scores are lower than
average for industrialized nations.
2) Virtually every other industrialized nation has an educational system
significantly more socialistic than ours.
3) BUT! The US educational system is secretly in the control of
Communists!
4) So the only way to improve US education is to privatize it, moving
_away_ from the way more successful countries do things.
Are we supposed to take you seriously?
[snip]
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 22:59:13 -0400
In article <8p5sg4$1bc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 + 2"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Bennett wrote in message ...
> >In article <8p2jue$23d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 + 2"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> III Or Gain New Monopoly Improperly.
> >>
> >> A. Markets/Products are Separate
> >>
> >> 1. No Tech Tying-negates this element since there is no separate
> >> Product/Market
> >>
> >> B. Products are Tied--reduced "hurdle"; monopoly along with separate
> >> markets/products are sufficient; so called per se rule
> >>
> >> C. Prevent Competition--not required; this is the so-called "rule of
> >> reason"
> >>
> >> I see the rule of reason analysis thrown in by the judge in the same
> >> way
> >> that the DoJ/Boies threw in all the extra allegations, like
> >> RealAudio/RealPlayer.
> >>
> >> It's material that is not actual needed, but paints the accused in a
> >> bad
> >> light with the hopes that this will help turn the tide on the relevant
> >> issue, ie tech tying.
> >
> >But didn't Jackson say the markets are separate?
>
> Yes.
>
> >As long as that holds,
> >to give Microsoft the benefit of a rule of reason analysis could be seen
> >as overly generous given existing per se precedents.
>
> Exactly. And that's my point.
>
> And I think all the discussion here about the rule of reason is just a
> way
> to slip around the problem of establishing that Microsoft has a monopoly.
> I
> think this will be found.
>
> However, I'm not one of those who say Microsoft, re the desktop PC
> market,
> is "dogmeat," "finished," etc., since I think it is an open question.
>
> I definitely think the non-networked desktop is uncompetitive, and when
> it
> is networked, middleware may afford competition.
>
> If the breakup is done, and Microsoft divests Windows OSes. And then,
> Microsoft's .NET platform takes over the old desktop AND server, in that
> case, the desktop is finished.
>
> More likely, the .NET platform and/or the Java platform will be available
> on
> a wide range of sytems, both client and servers, which will become
> largely
> indistinguishable.
>
> Those future outcomes will give evidence on the separate product issue.
>
> Maybe those who say Microsoft is "finished" are afraid of its
> implications,
> ie that Microsoft cannot control competition (via middleware, devices,
> the
> flavor of the day). So they want to focus of the "predatory" behavior or
> anticompetitive business practices.
>
> The result: a lot of talk about the rule of reason requirements, ie that
> anticompetitive behavior is involved, when actually the whole rule of
> reason
> was used against antitrust basically.
>
> So the whole case is about your "as long as that holds."
>
> I set these proposed elements of proof out to see if there is agreement
> on
> the basic legal structure.
>
> >And where tying is concerned, you don't even have to have a market
> >presence that rises to the level of monopoly for the per se rule to
> >apply you. See Fortner Enterprises v. U.S. Steel:
> >
> >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=394&invol=495
>
>
> Then why did Jackson bother to cite Grinnell?
He also cited Fortner. From Jackson's Conclusions of Law:
=====
Proceeding in line with the Supreme Court cases, which are indisputably
controlling, this Court first concludes that Microsoft possessed
łappreciable economic power in the tying market,˛ Eastman Kodak, 504
U.S. at 464, which in this case is the market for Intel-compatible PC
operating systems.
See Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 14 (defining market power as ability
to force purchaser to do something that he would not do in competitive
market);
see also Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 394
U.S. 495, 504 (1969) (ability to raise prices or to impose tie-ins on
any appreciable number of buyers within the tying product market is
sufficient).
=====
Jackson might use a higher standard than is necessary because in this
case he can use the higher standard and still nail Microsoft, and in
doing so he may pick up some extra votes at the Supreme Court in support
of his arguments.
Remember, Scalia said in the Kodak case that he would like to apply the
rule of reason to some questions of tying. Jackson's decision, in fact,
cites Scalia's dissent in Kodak. The implication being that even if
you're a real antitrust skeptic (as Scalia is), you've still got to
condemn Microsoft because they went way over the line.
I don't find it a coincidence that Jackson took the opinion of the
Supreme Court justice most likely to be sympathetic to Microsoft's
cause, and used that opinion to condemn Microsoft.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
http://play.rbn.com/?url=swave/abc/g2demand/000904bush.rm&proto=rtsp
------------------------------
From: Jon BreakWindows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:48:37 GMT
http://www.breakwindows.com/winvlin.html
a small, but relevant contradiction to your "points".
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:06:44 GMT
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Is my anger apparent yet? Being an American, and seeing
> other Americans try to say that 'we are superior' is
> enough to make me want to slit my wrists. But I would
> settle for them shutting up (which I know also won't
> happen).
Who was saying "we are superior"?
Not I.
Geez, all you guys really know how to make something out
of nothing and completely miss the point and then somehow
end up making me the one to blame for it.
It's this simple:
<Whiny Brits complaining that American's are too used to their
fast Internet>
<Chad suggesting that, rather than complaining all the time, they
should encourage their government to do something about it and
join the rest of us>
<Whiny calling Chad arrogant, ignorant, "stupid American",
"American attitude">
<Chad gets pissed. Reminds Whiny Brits that it's not America's fault
they have crappy internet access, and blaming Microsoft et al for
large downloads really isn't addressing the hart of the problem>
<Whiny Brits continue to avoid the point and label and insult Chad>
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
