Linux-Advocacy Digest #43, Volume #29 Sun, 10 Sep 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Larry Ebbitt)
Re: Windows+Linux=True
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451795.83v9t^-.000000000001 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Ville
Niemi")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Damien)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:46:14 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >BTW have you noticed that nobody has responded to by question of "Did
> >Quicken work before they adopted the use of HTML for their user
interface?"
>
> I noticed, but I don't think it means much more than that they actually
> think using a web page as a user interface is not an incredibly
> offensive and foul idea. This is somewhat understandable, given the
> 'developer-centric development' which occurs when you don't have a
> competitive software market. It is 'popular wisdom' which says that
> because of the flexibility *for the developer* of simply writing a web
> page instead of designing an efficient interface, it is a good idea to
> do so. This entirely ignores the limited control mechanisms and data
> representations available using a browser construct. In short, it is an
> incredibly stupid idea. It only makes the *developer's* job easier at
> the expense of making the user's job harder over and over and over
> again. Now how in hell could that be considered a 'superior product',
> unless the only purpose of the market were to make it easy to develop
> hard to use software?
HTML was developed as a text markup format hence the name HyperText Markup
Language and no a page description or page layout format. That means that
it was designed to tag the structural elements, links, etc of documents
without controlling how the document will be rendered. This done this way
to support portability by permitting any reader software to render the
document the best way that the software and the hardware can permit it.
Noone should expect a HTML document to appear the same way on different
platforms, or on the same platform with different viewers or even different
releases of the same soft software.
Now we hear people complaining that Browser 1 does not render the HTML
documents just the same as Browser 2 does. Where did that expectation come
from? As I said above HTML is not a page description format which is what
it would have to be for that kind of control by the person authoring the
documents or the person doing the page layout work. However, that would
restrict the portability of the documents and that is counter to the design
philosophy of HTML. Yet that is what I hear people expecting it to be.
For software like the newer versions of Quicken the "programmers" have
surrendered the control of the appearence, quality, performance, and
behavior of their software to the whims of those who developed the rendering
software AKA browser. This is not the action of rational, experienced,
competent, professional programmers. HTML is useful and valid for its
intended purpose but this is not it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 19:13:58 -0400
From: Larry Ebbitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
sinister-catsup wrote:
> Rambling aside my point is simple, there are potentially good operating system
> alternatives out there, but what got Mr Gates where he is today is not his
> technology, it was his sales force. Think about it.
Right as rain. His sales force and his complete lack of ethics and honesty.
--
Larry Ebbitt - Linux + OS/2 - Atlanta
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:18:54 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:zgQu5.25$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> well...95% of computer owners using a GUI based OS (Mac and Windows)
doesnt
> seem to think that using a mouse is too difficult...did you teach 3rd
grade
> drop-outs?
They ranged in ages from the mid 20's to the late 50's. They we displaced
workers; workforce reductions, demartment eliminations, crippling injuries,
health concerns, corporate failures, etc. Regurardless of their backgrounds
or reasons for being there, they had no experience with computer and other
requirements for modern offices. That is why they were there for retraining
to become able reenter the workforce inspite of their hardships which were
not their fault or of their doing.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:41:03 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Larry Ebbitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> sinister-catsup wrote:
>
> > Rambling aside my point is simple, there are potentially good operating
system
> > alternatives out there, but what got Mr Gates where he is today is not
his
> > technology, it was his sales force. Think about it.
>
> Right as rain. His sales force and his complete lack of ethics and
honesty.
The lack of ethics was apparent right from the beginning. According to
Microsofts own website the first customer of the Bill Gates and Paul Allen
partnership that grew into Microsoft was MITS. Paul Allen was also an
employee of MITS as Director of Software Paul Allen was the read the time
line excerpt below or read it at
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/bio/1975.htm and
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/bio/1976.htm; you will see a clear
conflict of interest that established the foundation of everything that came
after from that company.
Bill Gates and Paul Allen License BASIC to MITS
2/1/75 Bill Gates and Paul Allen complete BASIC and license it to their
first customer, MITS of Albuquerque, New Mexico, the manufacturer of the
Altair 8800 personal computer. This is the first computer language program
written for a personal computer.
Paul Allen Joins MITS
3/1/75 Paul Allen joins MITS (Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems)
as Director of Software.
Altair BASIC runs
4/7/75 The MITS Altair newsletter, Computer Notes, declares, "Altair
BASIC -- Up and Running."
BASIC 2.0 Ships
7/1/75 Bill Gates' and Paul Allen's BASIC officially ships as version 2.0 in
both 4K and 8K editions.
Contract with MITS Signed
7/22/75 Paul Allen and Bill Gates sign a licensing agreement with MITS
regarding the BASIC Interpreter. Microsoft is not yet an official
partnership. In fact, the name has not even been chosen.
Micro-soft Name Used
11/29/75 In a letter to Paul Allen, Bill Gates uses the name "Micro-soft" to
refer to their Partnership. This is the earliest known written reference.
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
2/3/76 Bill Gates is one of the first programmers to raise the issue of
software piracy. In his "An Open Letter to Hobbyists," first published in
Computer Notes, Gates accuses hobbyists of stealing software and thus
preventing "...good software from being written." He prophetically concludes
with the line, "...Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten
programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software."
Bill Gates Keynotes WACC
3/27/76 Twenty-year old Bill Gates gives the opening address at the First
Annual World Altair Computer Convention (WACC) held in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
Microsoft Refines BASIC
7/1/76 Microsoft refines and enhances BASIC to sell to other customers
including DTC, General Electric, NCR, and Citibank.
Paul Allen Leaves MITS
11/1/76 Paul Allen resigns from MITS to join Microsoft full time.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 19:06:18 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pfel8$1d5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Yes, you can sell the software and the liscense to someone else. The
> EULA,
> > however, may not be valid after doing so. That doesn't mean you haven't
> > sold it, or that the new owner has not purchased it. It just means the
> EULA
> > does not allow the use of the product after having transferred it to
> someone
> > else (if the EULA is so written).
>
> Are large stores like Electronics Boutique and Babbage's and their
customers
> pirating software when the stores purchase preowned computer games from
the
> public and resell them back to the public again?
Are you listening to what I said? Your comments indicate you didn't even
read what I wrote. It's *NEVER* pirating to sell or buy legitimate media
and liscenses. It's only pirating if you use said software without a valid
liscense.
Having said that, I don't recall ever seeing a game with a non-transferable
liscense. Usually, only OEM versions of software have non-transferable
liscenses.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451795.83v9t^-.000000000001
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:55:15 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
> MOUL wrote:
>> Joe Malloy wrote:
>>> [Wake me, will ya, when Tholen begins to say anything of any importance.]
>> What else is the poor boy to do, semi-employed in Hawaii?
> He should do drugs... preferably prescribed by his psychiatrist
Typical invective.
"Actually what you spout about OS/2 users have very little to do
with reality. Your whole post has no basis on reality. If it
did, it won't be a Jeff Glatt post however.
So what's new?"
--Christopher Robato
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 19:17:22 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Examples of bad user experience due to componentized software please?
>
> Why, so you can quibble about each one and pull the standard 'omniscient
> troubleshooting' hand-waving. No, sorry, the examples are too trivial
> and numerous (and therefore not trivial) to be convincing to one who
> isn't interested in being convinced no matter how compelling the
> evidence. "DLL Hell" is a good way of generally characterizing many of
> them, though.
You're showing your incompetance again Max. COM objects do not suffer from
DLL Hell. They were specifically designed to prevent versioning issues.
The COM components themselves may depend on non-componentized subsystems
that do suffer from DLL Hell, but the components themselves never have any
problems with versioning.
DLL Hell is specifically a problem *BECAUSE* of a lack of versioning in
DLL's.
> Here's another 'experience' which might illustrate my point. I use a
> news reader called Agent. It is reliable, relatively quick, and
> efficient, if not perfect. I use a browser called Netscape, which is
> neither of the first two, but more of the second than the alternatives
> (at least insofar as I already have it and know how to use it.)
>
> With Agent, I can zip up the program directory (and data subdirectory)
> in a zip file, copy the whole thing to a new computer (or the old one
> after an OS re-install), unzip it, and its ready to go. With Netscape,
> there are DLLs scattered all over the place, and I must re-install the
> software in order to get it to work.
Netscape is not a componentized product. Just because it ships in multiple
pieces doesn't make it componentized. A componentized system is one which
offers discrete components. In non-software terms, this is the difference
between a "modular bookshelf stereo" and "component stereo system". In the
first, the stereo may have multiple pieces, but you must use the pieces with
the stereo it came with, and cannot use them with any other. In the second,
you can mix and match components from one with components with another.
> If componentized software is such good 'design', how come there still
> isn't a system-wide spell checker for any common operating system? If
> componentized design is a good thing, why do fewer applications use the
> 'common dialogs' than not? If componentized design is a good thing, why
> can't I only use the components of Outlook that are useful to me?
Windows has a systemwide spell checker. Any product (and many do, such as
Word, Lotus, etc..) can create spell check compatible engines and plug them
in. Then products like IE, Outlook, and any other program that wishes to
implement it can take advantage of them. To date, however, not that many
programs do take advantage of it. (I know of only Eudora, OE, and Outlook
and of course Word, which provides the Common Spelling API engine).
As for the common dialogs. It's *VERY* rare that I find an app that wasn't
ported from Windows 3.1 or the Mac that doesn't use the common dialogs.
And of course you *CAN* use components of outlook. Look up the Outlook
automation interface.
> Componentized design may sound like the holy grail to developers, but
> from the user's perspective, it sucks, at least as its implemented
> today, and probably as it would always be implemented in a commercial
> software market. Its a ruse, not a software development practice.
> Depending, of course, on what you mean by 'componentized design'.
> Usually it means the 'chromeless browser window' idea, which is rather
> stupid to begin with, just like browser-based help. Its laziness on the
> part of the developers, not efficiency; at least not in the real world.
Well, so far you haven't provided a single valid argument.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 19:38:11 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The point is you buy a copy
> of the IP; the trade secret license you are forced to accept is
> secondary. You aren't 'purchasing a license' in the *copyright* sense,
> because you don't need permission to purchase, own, or use a copy of
> someone else's IP. You only need a copyright license in order to
> produce or distribute copies. The licenses you agree to when you
> 'purchase' software have nothing to do with copyright permissions. It
> is copyright which prevents you from copying software, not the license.
You do in fact need a license to use someone elses IP if they have
specifically restricted use of it. The copyright act of 1976 specifically
allows for license of copyrighted works.
> >The point where my description differs from yours though is that the EULA
> >has nothing to do with the purchasing of the software. The EULA only
covers
> >your right to USE it (which is probably why it's called and "end USER
> >liscense agreement"
>
> No, the EULA only covers your right to *acquire* it; you can't acquire
> it unless you agree not to use it except as dictated by the license.
> The reason this apparently trivial or minuscule difference is important
> is because it includes the recognition that if the license limits you in
> any way greater than copyright law itself, it risks 'overreaching', and
> thereby becoming unenforceable.
This makes no sense. If you were required to agree to a license before
acquiring the software, they couldn't sell shrink-wraped license products.
You would have to sign the agreement before purchasing the software. You
would also not be able to download software that has a click-through
license, because the mere act of downloading it would violate the license.
> This understanding is based on the Lasercomb America v. Reynold's case,
> in 1987. http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html#fn61
Case law must be taken in context. No one piece of case law adequately
describes every situation.
> "{39} On appeal, the Fourth Circuit decided that the non-compete clause
> of the license agreement was anti-competitive and
> contrary to public policy.[68] The court upheld the defendant's
> copyright misuse defense and held that the plaintiff's copyright,
> as well as the license agreement, were unenforceable.[69]"
>
> Note that by attempting to egregiously use the requirement to agree to a
> trade secret license to limit the rights of the owner of a copy of the
> intellectual property, the owner of the IP itself not only invalidated
> the license, but also their copyright!
No, the court found that the license was not legal, and therefore was not
enforceable. There's a difference between this and a legally enforceable
license (and shrink-wrap licenses have been enforced in court. Example:
Microsoft vs. Stac. Stac was found guilty of violating MS's no-reverse
engineering license.
Further, the court found that because they were misusing their copyright,
they forfeited the copyright.
> The point is an EULA does *NOT* confer the 'right' to use the software.
> You already HAVE that right, as the legal owner of the copy. What the
> EULA does is *restrict* YOUR RIGHT to use the software, by requiring
> that you agree to a trade secret license, unrelated to copyright
> protection, in order to *acquire* the software.
The caselaw you cited said no such thing.
------------------------------
From: "Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:25:14 GMT
> You're being pedantic, I'm afraid. You're also slightly misrepresenting
> what was actually asked, which was, "How you can monopolize without
> being a monopoly?" You are the one who went post-modern and confused
> whether you call someone a monopoly with whether they are a monopoly.
Yes on being pedantic. And I'm not mispresenting what I (as in me) was
trying to say. I did not confuse anything, except you it seems. What I did
was to be pedantic in an irritating, bad joke fashion. In this I was
successful.
What is this with post-modern? Don't you like post-modern literature? Or
post-modern philosophy? Or the word or the concept? If you have a button to
push please tell me, I love irritating people. Besides, we seem to have so
many similar views that your opinions are of interest to me in general.
> Well put. What you may be missing is that I've been on something of a
> little crusade for the past few months to discourage people from calling
> a company that is not monopolizing "a monopoly", simply because they
> have a large market share. European anti-trust laws are essentially
> similar to American ones (though I'd love to see some examples, to be
> honest; do you have anything like the Sherman Act?) so while common
> usage of the term may vary due to socio-political factors, the point is
> that a monopoly is a company that monopolizes, regardless and
> independent of whether they have exclusive or predominant market share.
Well, okay, I suppose having a different concept of monopoly causes a
different concept of monopolizing. Makes sense actually. Or is it the other
way, different ways of monopolizing causing a different way of being a
monopoly?
As for the legislation bit, I don't know. Historically, monopolies have been
state owned or controlled, or had so good political connections they might
as well be. Now with the union and integration superceding national
legislation (in theory, at least) and creating at the same time a bigger
pond for the sharks to swim in the question of what to do with private
monopolies has been pretty academical.
All I know is that monopolizing is a big no no. I think, from observing
actual cases on the press, that the directives allow the authorities to
simply order the company to stop monopolizing and allow competition equal
access to the infrastructure that would give an unfair market advantage.
Also bundling one service or product with another can be simply forbidden if
the authorities think its unfair marketing, and I'm typing this on a
material example of this so I know.
Anyway, the idea seems to be to prevent anyone from gaining a dominating
market position in the first place, and if they have one to force them to
let competition enter the market. In fact on this general idea I'm pretty
certain since Finland just joined (´95 or maybe '92, irrelevant detail) the
union, and we had several state owned monopolies and anti-competitive market
practices that are being dismantled with transition periods.
Did Netscape complain to the Union? If they could convince the authorities
that operating systems and browsers are separate markets, and if Washington
wouldn't stand up to protect an American company from foreign protectionism,
they propably could force Microsoft to stop bundling a functional browser
with the operating system. Of course, since most European ISPs seem to
bundle IE on their installation disks, it would be a moral victory only,
especially since the Union can't order Microsoft to stop monopolizing in its
software engineering process without FORCING uncle Sam to protect rights
your constitution guarantees.
I'm writing this and suddenly realizing that I am actually answering your
anti-trust law question by deduction after I confessed publically my
ignorance on the subject. If I understand the concept of a trust correctly
(using your market share on one market to make it impossible to compete in
another, usually by bundling products either straight out or by giving a
sizeable discount, right?), I actually KNOW from actual cases that it is a
market violation. The computer I'm using to write this came bundled with an
internet connection, EXCEPT I am only getting the use of computer (necessary
for internet), the computer itself belongs to the ISP... The point is that
originally you did get the computer for yourself, (the ISP doesn't need
obsolete computer), but the competition complained about a market violation,
and the ISP had to rewrote the deal so that the computer is no longer
bundled in. Also the phone company I'm using had to completely restructure
their financial structure. And of course in the few years of union many
mergers have been stopped (they need approval here) because it was felt they
would give a dominating market position. At the moment they are arguing
about the schedule for opening the postal service to free competition.
Frankly, considering how hard it is to monopolize in Europe, private
European monopolies seem at the moment pretty ephemeral. If monopolizing is
strictly forbidden, the market would propably kill any monopolies without
direct intervention, making separate anti-monopoly laws would seem
redundant. It doesn't mean there aren't any, just that finding an example
would be difficult.
It does seem that the administrative approach we (you) mentioned earlier,
does make a great difference in the actual implementations of laws or
directives that have the same goals and principles. It's propably because in
the US the free market is a basic right people take for granted, while in
the EU we are having to actually work if we want to gain it. I expect the
people who wrote those free market directives spent some time studying 'the
American Way' and then tried to improve on the implementation part in order
to solve the uniquely European problems your legislation doesn't need to
worry about.
> I'm sorry for being an ogre. The reason I seem so adamant about what
> many consider a trivial point is that they don't teach it in any
> business courses, as far as I know. The immediate cause for my ranting,
> which began weeks ago, was getting frustrated at the frequent posting of
> the statement "its not illegal to have a monopoly, its only illegal to
> use one to gain another". This is prompted by obvious causes, notably
> the Microsoft verdict. One of the strong proofs I use to show that
> "having a monopoly", which is to say 'monopolizing', or, at best,
> 'having a large market share and monopolizing' (in contrast to merely
> having a large market share), is in and of itself illegal.
Ogre? You think big of yourself, don't you?
Many people seem to confuse 'breaking the law' with actually getting caught
and convicted. One of the side-effects of political correctness and having
to call known criminals suspects, I suppose. Since its difficult to get
convicted for having a monopoly, many people WILL think monopolizing is
legal. Its bit like red lights (or old greens), you rarely get caught so you
think its okay to do.
I read some years ago a book about the development of moral sense, I don't
have it for reference, but the main point was that as people mature the way
they view right and wrong changes from 'mama will get angry' thru 'it's
illegal' to actually understanding the issues. Some people get stuck at
'mama will get angry' level. Most people never gain real understanding of
the actual ethics behind the laws. I found this quite interesting, which is
why I still remember it. It would seem to explain lots of things that seem
incomprehensible. Like why your ranting has so little effect.
> Section 2 of the Sherman Act outlaws monopolizing and attempting to
> monopolize. Its not common knowledge, but Microsoft was convicted on
> _two_ counts against section 2: one for *having a monopoly* in PC OSes,
> and one for attempting to monopolize the market in web browsers. In
> *addition*, they were convicted of one count of 'restraint of trade', a
> section 1 offense, for tying the browser to the OS. They were acquitted
> on a single count, of restraining trade by 'exclusive contracts'
> intended to prevent Netscape from finding any distribution channels for
> their browser.
>
> When I want to sound really extremist, I define the crime of
> monopolization as 'paying any attention whatsoever to your market
> share'.
Would 'Letting your market share determine any part of company policy' sound
okay to you? I could build a case for that, propably...
> [BTW; is there something you can do about your newsreader? Like, get a
> real one? Outlook Express is doing nasty things to the subject lines,
> and regularly appears to botch threading, as well. Thanks.]
Propably, but as long as it doesn't corrupt the content I just chalk it up
as one more reason to dislike Microsoft. I am going for a little trip but
when I return I'll try to fix the subject line. What is it doing to
threading?
Ville
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 Sep 2000 00:29:37 GMT
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:19:47 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| David Sidlinger wrote:
|
| > Unix can be broken just as easily as Windows. It's just
| > that a lot of unskilled developers write apps for Windows that don't behave.
| > I can crash a Unix machine with C++ just as easily as I can crash Windows.
| >
|
| Really? Please explain how a C++ app can crash Unix.
Two rules. It can't run as root, and it has to run under reasonable ulimits.
Also, I expect you to include the source code so I can run it on a few
of the machines I have access to.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
