Linux-Advocacy Digest #798, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Microsoft (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Microsoft's new ".NET" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Saul Goldblatt)
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Saul Goldblatt)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:53:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:24:05 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I think the issue lies in this right here. Copyright infringement
>>involves copying the *intellectual property*. Now, with "normal" IP,
>
>This definition is very sloppy. Copyright does not protect the idea
>or concept it only protects the specific expression of the idea or
>concept. Perhaps patents can come closer to protecting the property
>as you discuss.
Copyright protects intellectual property. That *is* what I said.
Copying intellectual property without the permission of the owner is
illegal. Intellectual property is not an idea; its an idea in a fixed
medium. But you can copy the medium; fair use and 'necessary steps'
exemptions, as well as legal decisions, well document the point that the
intellectual property in a book, for instance, is not the book. Just as
the intellectual property in a movie is not the movie; you can copy the
movie onto your VCR tape when it is broadcast, and you aren't copying
the intellectual property. You are only copying the movie.
All that intellectual property "is" is the legal interests of the
originator of the work how that work (and that work alone, not
necessarily any reproductions created from that work) is "used". That
"use" doesn't include the functional concept of software "use", though;
the only thing you can "use" intellectual property for is to reproduce
the original work (one singular).
In Europe, they have a legal principle, applicable in the same form of
copyright as U.S. Law, though we haven't the same explicit precedent,
that the copyright is only good for "one generation". This is causing
problems for Microsoft in Germany, where they wanted to enforce
licensing (the same as in the states) preventing OEMs from reselling
excess "copies" (CDs w/trade secret "license to use") which they bought
but never used in the manufacture of a PC.
>If an algorithm or functionality is expressed by a program, that
>underlying intellectual property can be freely duplicated as long as
>the particular expression in the program is not copied.
But this literal view fails when compared to the corresponding nature of
literature. One can copy the work of another author without copying his
words. Plagiarism is not quite the same thing as infringement.
[...]
>>How close is the actual source in the non-GPL library to the original
>>library? According to my reasoning, the fgmp library is a derivative
>>work of mp, regardless of the "interface copyright" issue. It does, I
>
>Your reasoning is completely wrong. You don't seem to have any idea of
>what constitutes a derivative work under the law. If this idea were correct,
>all of those gnu clones of ls, cp, tr, and similar utilities would be
>derivative works that couldn't be distributed without the permission
>of the original copyright holder.
I have already pointed out that, taken to its legal extreme, the
conflicted nature of software as both functional and intellectual work
does lead to the inescapable conclusion that all software is derivative
of all previous software. That's one of the problems with treating
software as copyrighted work to begin with. Copyright doesn't work for
functional works of engineering.
>An argument based on a bad definition of derivative works is unlikely to
>be persuasive.
Any argument which confronts the common understanding of something is
unlikely to be persuasive.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:48:54 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:46:46 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:10:13 GMT, MK
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Socialism in any form ALWAYS results in political and bureaucratic barriers.
> >> >It's only a matter of where in particular they are put. Laissez faire
> >> >does not have this problem -- supply follows the demand.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Capitalism has problems of its own. Poverty is one of them.
> >
> >You wanna see poverty, and HUGE disparities between the rich and the
> >poor? Then go to a communist country and look around.
> >
> >After 80 years of Communism, towns a mere 30 miles from major cities
> >are STILL without electricity and running water.
> >
> >This is in a country that has such a variety of natural resources, and
> >in such abundance, that they do not import a single raw material from
> >any other country in the world.
> >
> >Communism is INSTITUTIONALIZED POVERTY.
>
> Communism is potentially the end result of capitalism. It's what
> would happen if Microsoft was allowed to control all markets
> and then take over the state.
Microsoft's business practicess are the complete opposite of capitalism.
>
> Communism is the combination of proprietor and state.
>
> --
> Microsoft Windows. Flaky and built to stay that way.
Keep customer expectations low, seeems to be the strategy.
That way, you can roll out a 40-year old methodology, and
sell it as "revolutionary", even though it has been industry
standard since the 1960's.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:51:48 GMT
In article <d0Tb5.316743$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RealCea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <snip everything>
>
> Aren't you posting to the wrong newsgroup?
> I beleive there are Newsgroups for bashing Microsoft.
> This isn't one of them.
There are Newsgroups for bashing Microsoft (alt.destroy.microsoft)
but not everybody gets it. as an alt. group, it is often not made
available to some sites.
> Your post had nothing to do with GNU/Linux whatsoever.
Actually, Microsoft's .NET is yet another attempt by Microsoft to
attempt to clone a feature of UNIX/Linux - the ability for multiple
X11 Users to run multiple X11 applications from Multiple X11 enabled
hosts on their X11 enabled workstation.
You'd think that Microsoft would simply "join the party", create an
X11 server for Windows, have their Applets call GDI calls that converted
to Xlib X11 calls which would generate X11 requests to the X11 servers
on the X11 enabled workstations. This would allow both Windows and
UNIX/Linux users to run both Windows and UNIX/Linux applications, and
would allow a much higher level of capability on all workstations and
a much more reliable server environment.
Instead, Microsoft seems determined to "roll it's own" proprietary
mysterious protocol, api, and environment, complete with more virus
conductors, and attempt to promote these virus factories as a means
of excluding UNIX services from Windows users and excluding Linux
users from Windows applications.
What make it even more interesting is that this also appears to
be an attempt to destroy the VMWare functionality which already
lets Microsoft applications run under an X11 enabled virtual
machine. Bottom line, Microsoft is attempting to protect it's
existing Monopoly from competition and extend it's monopoly into
the server market by using blackmail, fraud, extortion, bribery,
and legal harassment to promote yet another proprietary protocol,
API, and "Operating System Extension" for the purpose of excluding
the Linux/UNIX market from the desktop and driving UNIX/Linux out
of the server market.
It may backfire. More and more users are choosing Linux and are
less tolarant of "Linux Hostile" features such as USB, DVD-ROM,
and Windows 2000. Anti-Linux tactics built into Windows 2000
designed to prevent the implementation of "Dual boot" configurations,
and "Virtual Machine" configurations such as VMWare, Wine, and DOSEmu
have cause many people who are entitled to FREE windows 2000 upgrades
to pause and reconsider their entire commitment to Windows 2000.
With Linux and Windows 95, a user can enjoy the benefits of Windows
while enjoying the reliability, security, stability, functionality,
and flexibility of Linux. By upgrading to exclusively Windows
98/Windows 2000 hardware, users fear that they are losing the
opportunity to choose Linux in the future. Microsoft thinks this
is a good thing - today. Corporate IT managers have been exploring
Linux and they like what they see. Linux/UNIX has grown to nearly 10
million internet servers and growing by about 10%/month. Linux
workstations are proliferating, especially internationally, currently
around 40-50 million workstations (including dual-boot) and growing
at about 10%/month.
With more demand for UNIX administrators, programmers, and developers,
many Windows NT users and administrators are quickly trying to pick up
UNIX skills - primarily by loading up Linux. The initial installation
is a bit traumatic, but most of those who are seriously interested in
learning Linux quickly develop a strong preference for Linux.
By excluding Linux as a function of policy, practice, engineering,
and contract, Microsoft may be slitting it's own throat. They may
have killed the market for Windows 2000 by attempting an "all or
nothing approach". In many ways, Windows 2000 may be to Microsoft
what MVS 4.0 and OS/2 bound to MicroChannel was to IBM.
Most of the largest OEMs, including Gateway, Compaq, HP, Dell, and IBM
have already shown their "back to school specials" - and most of them
are offering Linux in one form or another.
One of the reasons IBM wasn't actually punished for it's monopoly
was because it literally lost control of the market in the middle
of the proceedings. By the time the DOJ and the courts were ready
to take action, the marketplace had corrected itself. IBM suddenly
found itself competing with UNIX machine offered on everything from
68010 processors with just a few meg and a 100 megabyte drive to
arrays of RISC chips such as the MIPS R4000, SPArC, PARISC, and
Intel 80386 and 80486 chips. Not only did IBM lose control of the
market, they lost it so quickly that their stock price dropped from
about $120 a share to $60 a share in less than 60 days.
Very quickly, IBM's new CEO shifted the entire corporate strategy
from telling the customer what they had to buy to stay in business,
to finding out what the customer wanted and needed, and focusing the
company strategy around that. Today, IBM is one of many competitors
in a number of very competitive markets. Even where it does have
the advantage of being able to provide a "floor-to-ceiling" solution,
it usually works very had to comply with public standards such as
TCP/IP, POSIX level 3, and UNIX in the server and Workstation market,
and Windows in the PC world.
> Best Regards,
> Kevin Holmes
> "extrasolar"
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: 20 Jul 2000 03:00:45 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:35:53 -0700, Pan wrote:
>When you write a Perl script, you simply call the classes you need via
>modules using a very c++ like method.
Almost . Actually, in perl, it's somewhat worse than C++.
(1) You don't have any private methods or data. This means that you
need to know the implementation details of a base class to
write a derived class.
Yeah, you can use closures, ( see man perltoot ) but having to use
accessor methods *from inside the class* is pretty silly.
(2) You need to use self references much more often than you need to
anywhere else. This is largely because OO is "tacked onto" perl,
and not "designed into" it.
(3) You need to use a reference ( analagous to a C++ pointer )
just to use a class.
> Using this approach, perl has a
>simple, consistent method for building applications.
Yes, it does. But perl's "OO" is not really "OO". It is more like "modular
programming". You have a bunch of "modules" that are like black boxes that
have everything tucked away under their own name spaces. And you can just
use the module without caring about its implementation. And it works
just fine until you want to do real OO with it.
> It (and unix) have
>powerful methods for forking processes from within the script. It is
I think you're getting confused here. fork() is a UNIX system call and
has nothing to do with the perl language ( besides the fact that it does
a decent job at providing hooks into the UNIX API ).
Practically any language on UNIX worth looking at should have a hook into
fork()
>the most rapid development language I have ever used
That would depend on what you are developing. If you are doing text
processing or network apps, that may be true. If you are prototyping
a heavily object oriented C++ application, it's probably downright false.
It's probably also false if you are doing GUI development.
> and it is supported
>by every major os and database vendor.
This is bass-ackwards. Perl supports them, not the other way around.
> If you know perl, you can work
>in an IBM or Solaris or NT or BSD environment. Period.
The same's true for python and tcl
>The only reason that perl ever looks different is because hackers like
>me often need a quick and dirty script to grab data from some file,
>write it and fork a process to output it.
And this is precisely the kind of thing that perl does nicely. I mean,
why bother using awk, sed, bourne shell, and grep, when you can just
use perl isntead and have it behave the same way on every system ?
>using perl's classes. Frankly, I have no interest in working with a
>language that tells your script what to do based on the position of the
>statement on a page.
from this I gather that you haven't written more than a few lines of
python, because the whitespace-whiners are nearly always people who
haven't given python a go -- because those who do try it almost always
end up liking it. I suggest you be more open minded. Becoming overly
attached to a certain way of doing things can stifle ones development.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:01:36 -0400
"." wrote:
> Linux = Yet Another Unix. I think that every one of these Linux cult
> members should be sentenced to one year of having to perform tech support
> for end-users of that OS.
I have done my own tech support for over two years, does that count?
> Then they could explain to the average user why
> Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware, such a S3-based
> graphics.
Because the vendors haven't published the specs or mad binary drivers?
> Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
> SVGA kernel.
Why?
> Expain what a modeline is...Need a parallel port ZIP drive?
> Say the magic words and type the completely cryptic commands and no
> problem!! Right?? Red Hat vs. Mandrake vs. SuSE vs. whatever....standing
> in MicroCenter and seeing the puzzled looks as normal people try to decide
> WHICH Linux is better.
Yes, who wants to make choices? Why can't people just use what
Microsoft wants them to use?
> Just bought Code Warrior? Doesn't work with your
> X-Server because you have an S3 Trio 3D video card and have to use frame
> buffering? Oh well....explain THAT one. Just purchased Accelerated X and
> it also does not function, even though there is not a HINT on the box of
> unsupported hardware? Oh well....
>
> Linux will NEVER succeed in the common marketplace until it can LOSE THE
> HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY LIST!! PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT HCLs!!! THEY JUST
> WANT IT TO WORK!! MICROSOFT WORKS!! GET IT YET????
>
So buy from a Linux VAR, such as VA Linux.
>
> Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the computer
> world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists rather than
> business people.
>
And what revolutions has Microsoft made?
>
> What a JOKE!!
>
> --
> Identity is of no importance
> or relevance. Get over it.
But what would relevance or importance be if identity were irrelevant
or unimportant? Your metaphysics is as bad as your OS advocacy.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft's new ".NET"
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:59:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The .Net concept has not even been copied well..This fact is evident
from the way
>
> MS is loading up the term with all sorts of words to describe it and
makes sure
> nobody gets the
> point. I have read Ballmers note on M$ site and hope he understands
what he means
> out of it.
> Its a extended Napster concept with proprietary (open source!!)
protocols with
> tons of embedded
> ActiveX controls to make sure no one in the world understands whats
going on and
> M$ hopes to
> make a fortune out of it..
>
> RealCea wrote:
>
> > Might as well put Microsoft on your right hand or forehead.
> >
> > I cannot believe those guys. Did you know that Microsoft's ".NET"
project is
> > nearly identical to a Netscape project in 1995 that was never
finished
> > (probably due to Microsoft) called Costellation. Back then they were
just
> > developing Windows 98. They are just a bunch of "has beens". Shove
everyone in
> > the market around and steal other peoples ideas. Isn't that the
worst type of
> > monopoly this country has ever seen? Innovation my ASS!! Whats up
with the
> > crappy BIOs/IRQ architecture? You'd think they would develop
something beyond
> > 1970 technology there. All I see is a lucky man who got his OS
(MS-DOS) on all
> > of IBM's PC's. And that was not even developed by him!!!
> >
> > P.S. Internet Explorer was originally developed by Spry, Inc.
>
If the ICANN would only create a new TLD called ".FUD", then we could
put all the MSFT product announcements in one place. Yeah, yeah, I
know, they wouldn't be alone in there. Most everything that is now a
".COM" would probably end up in ".FUD" eventually.
Would be sorta neat if there was a voting or certification system like
Advogato's where everybody could pick and choose the TLD for some of
these jokers. Like if some corporation pissed off the vast majority of
the internet, they'd get voted out of the ".COM" realm into the ".NUL"
domain and they'd simply disappear.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Saul Goldblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:11:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Saul Goldblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >There aren't any end users running Linux, at least none that are
> >officially supported by the corporate policy. There are however,plenty of
> >idiots that take it upon themselves to wipe out the corporate pre-load of
> >Windows and "TRY" and use Linux. When they hose up their entire system,
> >not to mention flood the network with packets, they call me.
>
> The fallacy in this claim is counting the hits and forgetting the misses.
> Did it ever occur to you that you'd never hear from someone who successfully
> installed Linux? Who RTFMed and *repartitioned the drive* or used UMSDOS
> (Slackware) or a loopback file (Mandrake) instead of wiping Windoze? Or
> for that matter just RTFMed and got the installation right!
Oh I hear from them every day. They are ones that are trying to run Lotus
Notes under Wine and it fucks up every time. My phone lights up every
morning with these yo-yo's trying to run Linux.
> And "flooding the entire network with packets" requires the user to go out
> of his/her/its way to screw up.
No it doesn't. All it requires is for them to install Linux with default
values.
> [Remaining bullshit sent to /dev/null where bullshit belongs. GoAT.]
You should know.....
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: 20 Jul 2000 03:11:51 GMT
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:27:37 GMT, Joseph Wong wrote:
>Microsoft Foundation Classes is the official standard in toolkits.
Can you point us to the RFC ? Last I checked, it was a proprietary MS
toolkit.
>There is already an MFC port to Linux. It makes everything else look like
>amateurish hacker gobbledegook.
Explain to us why MFC's unreadable macro-mish-mash is superior to
QT's type-safe signal/slot mechanism.
In fact can you briefly describe *any* design that is superior to the
signal/slot based mechanism used by QT/GTK and give reasons why this
design is better ? And no, "It's from Microsoft" is not sufficient.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Saul Goldblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:13:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:24:48 GMT, Saul Goldblatt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I am a manager of a technical support help center
>
> No you aren't. You're the troll with many names, "Steve".
??????????????
What are you talking about?
>
> >The average user is ignoring Linux completely.
>
> Well, which is it? Are they ignoring it or are they using it to screw
> up your network?
Linux does a great job of screwing things up all by itself.
Believe me, it doesn't need any help.
Saul
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Jul 2000 04:09:59 +1000
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >There are vendors selling W2K solutions with 99.999% uptime - just
>> >like the other *nix vendors.
>>
>> Really? Who? Got a few URLs?
>Start here: http://www.stratus.com/
Tried to, it hung up my modem line ;-). Well, the modem line *did* hang
up just when I tried to go there, I don't think there is anything causal
about it....
Anyway, I'll have a look next time I am online.
>> And the big question always is: What will they do for you when
>> their hardware fails to achieve those levels? I remember the first
>> time someone put out a 99.99% (or was it 99.9%) uptime guarantee
>> for NT. If you had more downtime, they would take some percentage
>> off the cost of the next regular service visit. Oh great!
>Tell me - how does ANYONE guarantee 99.999% uptime for any OS? Do they grant
>you their first born? And you phrased your question correctly "when their
>hardware fails" - not the OS.
When you get to 99.99% or so (that's one hour in 10,000, or roughly 53 minutes
per year), you need both a very very stable OS and very very stable hardware.
And for the customer, it doesn't really matter which part fails, as long
as the server goes down.
As to what they *could* guarantee? Well, for one thing, they could promise
to have someone with a complete mirror of your hardware out at your site
in less than 1 hour; Someone who actually knows enough to transfer all
data in a quick and safe way and get that new server up and running. Or they
could insure you against any loss of income and/or data caused by the
excessive downtime --- hopefully themselves being insured against resulting
claims through someone as big as Lloyd's of London, i.e. someone who won't
go under the first time a company loses a few dozend million to a new
variant of the Ping of Death.
I don't know what the UNIX places promise, but it sure has to be more
than a partial reduction in the cost of a scheduled service. In fact,
I always wondered why a server, once set up, would require scheduled
servicing?!?
>> >I tried to trigger it so I could get a number and stopped just
>> >past 1 million. Yep, it was FRIGGIN' slow to close the app (felt
>> >like it had crashed) but, nope, no blue screen here...
>>
>> >Gee, a bug, you found a bug. Wow, amazing! And they've fixed it in their
>> >very first service pack. Your complaint?
>>
>> So you say you don't have SP1 installed, either?
>Um... I do.
So *if* it is fixed in SP1, and *if* you have SP1 installed, then how
do you expect to be able to trigger the bug?
Bernie
--
The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve
change amid order
Alfred North Whitehead
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
