Linux-Advocacy Digest #44, Volume #29 Sun, 10 Sep 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Enemies of MS are Linux Lovers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 19:53:55 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> If software design is software development practices, why isn't it
> called software development practices, but software design, instead?
Not very good at logic are you?
If all apples are fruits, that doesn't mean all fruits are apples.
Software design is a software develoment practice. So is revision control,
configuration management, coding, testing, analyzing, and many other
activities.
> Just because you can't handle the distinction between the two
> abstractions is no reason for me to pretend to be just as simple minded.
You're the one that doesn't seem to be able to handle the distinction.
> My point was (and your insistence on the matter illustrates that point
> rather convincingly, thank you) that software developers who think they
> are the final authority on what 'good software design' is should go back
> to school; that's fine in the academic world, but when talking about the
> commercial world, it is the consumer that determines what is 'good' and
> what is not.
The consumer generally has no idea about the practices used to build a
product. (that includes you).
For instance, a Car might be built entirely by hand, or it might be built
mostly by robotic machinery. The end-user generally doesn't care so long as
the quality is good enough for them. Additionally, the actual mechanism
used might be different for different implementations. A hand-crafted
custom stereo amplifier might have a better end quality than a mass produced
japanese import, but that doesn't mean that the hand-crafted cupboard my
un-skilled (and pretty inept) uncle phil makes in his garage are better than
commercial ones.
> The developer can provide, possibly, many advantages by
> using 'componentized' products. The question is whether that is merely
> the easiest way *for the developer* to provide those advantages, or
> whether those advantages are unavailable to the consumer with any
> alternative design.
Advantages for the developer translate to advantages for the consumer. If I
can build my product faster and provide more features because of my design
practices, then my product will be "better" (and probably less expensive)
than my competitors. A good rule here is to consider this. Look at
software from 1981. It was generally small (less thank 64k) and provided
only a basic set of features, yet often took just as long to write because
it was coded mostly in assembly. Today, Software is multi-megabytes on
average and provides many orders of magnitude more functions and features.
Which is better for the consumer?
> IOW, software which is designed based on what makes good *development
> practices* is good for developers, but not necessarily good for
> implementors and users. In fact, it might be considered an inverse
> relationship in many ways. What determines if software is well
> *designed* are the desires and requirements of the consumer, not the
> producer.
You seem to be saying that it's impossible for something to be good for both
the consumer and designer. I do not agree. Would you rather your mechanic
take 3 days to fix your car at $60/hour or 30 minutes because he has good
tools and information?
> That concept is hard to see and understand, I'll admit, in an industry
> where attempting to monopolize is considered the norm; the excessive
> profits are so attractive that writing software in the easiest way
> possible for the developer and then wrapping it in a trade secret
> becomes much more lucrative than writing *good* software. Hopefully,
> that may change soon.
Every company has the goal of being the only producer of a product. In most
industries that's never going to be a reality, but they can still try.
That's what keeps companies competitive. If a company was not trying to
sell more than it's competitor they would all stop producing new products.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of MS are Linux Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:27:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Make sure you read the truth from both sides, it might be a little
> different than your model of the things that are going on.
>
> (Check the subject line)
>
> You just got to see it whole.
>
> --
> If you ask me, a 4 byte cookie is rather big. But I don't think it
> depends on my modem, it depends on how much I can bite at once... =)
>
> V yvxr ZvpebFbsg! V ubcr lbh qba'g zvaq gur EBG13...
>
> GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
> Http://www.geocities.com/gtsc4/index.html
>
>
I've read it from more sides than two...namely, end-users, programmers,
hackers, developers...and I've come down to this as my own conclusion.
I've decided that whoever uses whatever OS has a certain purpose in
mind.
For instance, Mac users like the fact that they never have to contend
with a command line, like the rest of us MS/*nix users. This has enabled
them to easily run programs with little or no command line arguments
whatsoever. (Yes, there are some programs that use command line
arguments... Quake III Arena for instance.) No surprise their systems
are preferred by graphic artists, writers, and anyone else who has a low
tolerance of modifying systems (not that you can't though). Often, for
the average mac user (IMO) there needs to be no modifications done to
the system, aside for the peripherals. Memory management is superior
compared to the consumer OS's of Microsoft.
As for Microsoft, simply because it's the OS in 97% of PC's doesn't make
it good, bad or otherwise. Again that depends on the user behind the PC.
Some like it because they can play the 3d games they want. Others like
it for the fact that, because it's the standard OS in most PC's, it's
easier to communicate over the Internet and get the latest programs. (Of
course, you all should know the primary OS that runs most Internet
servers world wide. Not Microsoft's OS's.)
And for the last entrant...the Unices!
UNIX (and its ilk) have been around forever (since 1969) because as an
OS, its principles, reliability and durability have held true. I could
list the reasons why, but I think you (the reader) can find out yourself
:). Roll your own, preconfigured, commercial, free on the 'Net, run it
on different platforms...what other system has so many choices? Yes,
Virginia, freedom of choice IS a good thing. Besides, Microsoft tried to
copy UNIX and failed...
Just my $0.02.
And yes, written in Linux/X/KDE/Netscape ;).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 20:14:13 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Gee.. sounds like a definition of an integrated product to me, and a
> >definition of what valid integration is.
>
> Only in terms of the consent decree. Anti-trust law has no such
> distinction. You're confabulating the two, as Microsoft defenders
> frequently do. It is, after all, the only way around the fact that the
> over-ruling of the injunction reflects on the issue of anti-trust, which
> it does not.
No. The court specifically stated the rules under which integration was
acceptable.
> In the future, it might be better to look at the actual decision, rather
> than the opinion of a media reporter. The decision in MS II, the
> consent decree case, is found here:
> http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-5343a.txt
I have read it. I just couldn't find it quickly at the time. I was using
the quote from the decision, not the opinion of the reporter (though I did
include that because it was part of the paragraph).
> Some quotes which might clarify the situation:
>
> "Thus a finding of probable violation of the consent decree
> could not support a presumption of irreparable harm even
> under the most extravagant version of the doctrine the gov-
> ernment invokes."
>
> Note that the Appellate Court states that even if the consent decree was
> violated, the injunction would not have been appropriate, based on legal
> technicalities (and without reference to the probability that Microsoft
> did violate the consent decree; a fact which has never been determined
> one way or the other, legally.)
>
> "Appellate courts have, however, on occasion
> allowed a procedurally flawed injunction to remain in place
> pending a proper hearing on remand if the equities support
> such a disposition."
>
> This is where the court started to examine the issues of the decree and
> the injunction itself. Note that this is only addressed *after* the
> court found that Jackson's injunction cannot stand due to
> technicalities. Yet there is the possibility for the Appellate Court to
> correct the deficiencies of the injunction, rather than to simply
> over-rule it. The part CNET and you picked up from the media reports
> was part of this discussion. Therefore, the definition of 'integrated'
> cannot in any way be considered to be a factor in whether the injunction
> was over-ruled.
I didn't say it was. I did say that the court defined the rules for
integration. In effect, they were stating what their decision would have
been had they been required to rule on the subject. This, in effect, told
Judge Jackson to forget about trying to modify the order, since they'd still
overturn it even if he could show irreperable harm.
> "We do not believe that a reviewing court
> must entertain such a request; if the record were so deficient
> as to make effective evaluation of the equities impossible, a
> court might do better simply to vacate the injunction as a
> matter of course--especially where, as here, the injunction
> was sought only rather obliquely. As later sections will show,
> however, the record here is enough for us at least to make a
> reasonable appraisal of the Department's eventual likelihood
> of success on the merits, and this factor proves dispositive.
> Silence at this stage would risk considerable waste of litiga-
> tive resources. "When the district court's estimate of the
> probability of success depends on an incorrect or mistakenly
> applied legal premise, 'the appellate court furthers the inter-
> est of justice by providing a ruling on the merits to the extent
> that the matter is ripe, though technically the case is only at
> the stage of application for preliminary injunction.' "
>
> The above section illustrates the court's intent to 'save time' by
> considering the case before Judge Jackson (at the time), which was the
> consent decree question. Again, this entire decision revolves around
> whether combining IE and Windows *could be* (not is) considered
> 'development of an integrated product', or merely bundling IE with
> Windows (and adding sufficient new 'combined features' to cause the
> bundle to appear to be one, new, product.)
As I said, in effect, telling Judge Jackson he was barking up the wrong
tree.
> "As Armour makes clear, however, an antitrust consent
> decree cannot be read as though its animating spirit were
> solely the antitrust laws."
>
> The Armour case was precedent for interpreting a consent decree which is
> predicated on anti-trust issues. IOW, whether 'integrated' means
> something to the consent decree has no bearing on whether 'integrated'
> means anything to the law.
No, they're saying that you cannot read a consent decree based solely on an
anti-trust context. You must take into account the context of the two
parties who entered into the decree at the time. Microsoft provided an
abundant amount of evidence that they had specifically intended, and sought
permission from the DOJ, to integrate products like they did with IE, and
that the DOJ had accepted this in the decree.
> "The parties offer us little help in picking the correct
> analogy. Both propose readings of s IV(E)(i) that fail to
> reconcile its language with the facts of the Novell complaint
> and the later permissible release of Windows 95."
>
> Here the court notes, essentially, that the consent decree itself is
> conflicted and potentially meaningless. This was based on the
> observation that the 'integrated product' which Microsoft cited as a
> stipulated exemption from bundling restrictions, Chicago, turned out to
> be not an 'integrated product' at all, but a bundle of DOS with the new
> version of Windows: Win95. This is not at all the type of 'integration'
> that Microsoft had been claiming would result from Chicago:
You're confusing two different issues here. You're confusing the Caldera
(not Novell) complaint about DR-DOS and Windows 95, and the Novell complaint
of MS bundling Windows 3.1 and DOS together.
In the Novell complaint, Windows and Dos were two seperate products that
were being bundled together with no integration.
> "The failure to produce the right
> result when applied to Windows 95, one of the situations
> clearly resolved by the decree, is a fatal flaw."
>
> After exploring that consideration, that the botched job of the 1995 DoJ
> in formulating the consent decree makes enforcement of it almost
> impossible, the court said:
They're saying that the DOJ clearly allowed for the integration of IE into
Windows 95 in the consent decree, and that the DOJ couldn't just summarily
change it's mind about what it had intended the result to be.
> "We think it quite possible, however, to find a construction
> of s IV(E)(i) that is consistent with the antitrust laws and
> accomplishes the parties' evident desires on entering the
> decree. The Department and DG IV were concerned with
> the alleged anticompetitive effects of tie-ins. Microsoft's goal
> was to preserve its freedom to design products that consum-
> ers would like. Antitrust scholars have long recognized the
> undesirability of having courts oversee product design, and
> any dampening of technological innovation would be at cross-
> purposes with antitrust law. Thus, a simple way to harmon-
> ize the parties' desires is to read the integration proviso of
> s IV(E)(i) as permitting any genuine technological inte-
> gration, regardless of whether elements of the integrated
> package are marketed separately.
>
> This reading requires us, of course, to give substantive
> content to the concept of integration. We think that an
> "integrated product" is most reasonably understood as a
> product that combines functionalities (which may also be
> marketed separately and operated together) in a way that
> offers advantages unavailable if the functionalities are bought
> separately and combined by the purchaser."
>
> Note that the decision does not define integrated products in general,
> nor does it define what 'integrated' means by law, as the CNET quote
> indicated, but merely what the court *thinks* (as obiter dicta) is 'most
> reasonably understood' in terms of the consent decree language itself,
> and nothing more.
What the court thinks is how the court would rule if the matter were in fact
brought before them. It's as good as law, since it would be law if it were
tested.
> Use the source, Erik. Media representations of legal issues only lead
> to the dark side.
You haven't provided any real insight here and have grossly misinterpreted
entire sections of it.
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:10:49 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Keith T. Williams in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> You stated that his claiming that he did something was proof it was
> done; I pointed out that it was merely a claim, not proof he had done it
> to any degree that anyone else would be happy with, or that it provided
> any benefit other than his being able to claim to have done it.
>
> If I took people's word for whether they had 'successfully' implemented
> Microsoft crapware, I'd be a very ignorant and naive technologist.
> People have been claiming that for fifteen years, based solely on the
> fact that there is no alternative which would allow for comparison; in
> those few cases where such an opportunity exists, Microsoft software has
> routinely been shown to be crap.
>
Yes Max, he did just "claim" to have done it. Just as you "claim" to be a
technologist and an educator. And that was a very neat little wander you
did from you
not taking peoples word for something to microsoft's software being shown
to be crap. I really don't care how big Microsoft's pre-load monopoly is.
If
M$'s software as big a peice of crap as you claim, so that people couldn't
do what they need to do, in other words, they couldn't implement what they
need to run their businesses, then we wouldn't be having this conversation,
we would be in alt.destroy.oracle or alt.destroy.somethingelse. The fact is
that whatever else you may think, there are a lot of people using M$
software
to support their business, and they are implementing solutions that work for
them. And if it didn't do what they wanted it too they would dump M$ in a
second for Unix, for AS/400s or Tandem or whatever did the job.
Keith.
------------------------------
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 20:33:08 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Obviously you don't care. Otherwise you would take the time to
understand
> >the market.
>
> It is because I understand the market that I don't care. More
> specifically, it is because I understand *free* markets that I don't
> care. And I won't care until the monopoly is removed so that we have a
> free market again. What you consider 'the market' is not a free market.
> Thus, the really crappy design choices which developers are making are
> not obvious as such, because competition is not what determines the
> success of a product; it is how closely it ties to the monopoly (as
> clearly evidenced by Quicken's stupid idea to replace a functional user
> interface with a web page) which determines what gets built and sold.
If you understood the market, you would know that Quicken is not "in bed"
with Microsoft. In fact, they are stiff competitors. MS has it's own
"Money" product which they have been trying to get people to use for years.
Quicken always beats MS and stays one step ahead of them.
> >Spoken as someone that's never used Quicken 2000 or 2001. It's a *VERY*
> >slick interface that works extremely well. Much better than their
previous
> >interface.
>
> Spoken as someone who has no idea what makes an interface acceptable in
> the real world.
I know lots of users of Quicken that are not software developers, but rather
blue collar or other white collar workers that are almost technophobes, but
find Quicken very easy to use (My father for instance).
> About three years ago, the world of network management software tried to
> move the same way. "Wouldn't it be easier if all these different
> interfaces were all accessed through a web browser?" To be perfectly
> honest, the logic of it entirely escapes me. Still, in network
> management, ease of development and modification is quite a bit more
> important than typical desktop software, so I 'went along for the ride'
> and evaluated a number of such products. Some were entirely new, some
> were radical redesigns of the old interface, and some were simple
> 'ports' which used various HTML and browser features to mimic the
> existing interface.
Just because you've seen some poor implementations does not mean that all
implementations are poor. This, combined with your comments on software
practices leads me to believe that you are unable to differentiate between
what is part of something, and what is the whole of something. You seem
incapable of understanding the basic logic of if a is a b, b is not
necessarily an a.
> Regardless of the approach or methods used, everyone of them had one
> thing in common, not just in my opinion but in the opinion of the
> market. They all SUCK. Even apart from the greatest difficulties of
> supporting a 'web server' paradigm for distributing the interfaces (one
> of the most prevalent justifications for doing this) the interfaces
> themselves are truly pathetic, without exception.
This is usually because such products endeavor to be browser neutral, which
causes them to only use features which are a common denominator between
them. This severely limits their ability to create decent products since
they are not allowed to use the browser interface to it's full potential.
> I've seen people use NetID's (Nortel Network's IP management software)
> browser-based interface (a java applet, actually, as these things
> typically are in most cases) for an hour or so, and they, like you, will
> marvel at how 'slick' and easy it is. That doesn't last long, though.
> Within a day or two of trying to use the software routinely, they hate
> the blasted thing. It tries to be something its not, and it fails
> miserably at being either. All of the other 'HTML interfaces' are
> generally used more sporadically (just about every piece of network
> management software these days has 'web accessible' on the check-list;
> they all fail horribly at providing operational functionality of this
> nature), so the effect is not as noticeable, though it is no less
> debilitating.
You are still making claims about Quicken without having ever used it. Use
it for a month, then come back and tell me the same thing and I might find
your statements more credible.
> >Fact: You cannot judge the quality of a product you've never used.
Fact:
> >You cannot judge the quality of an inteface based something you don't
> >understand.
>
> Fact: I can, and do, accurately, consistently, and practically judge the
> quality of products I've never used all the time. Anyone who ever
> bought a piece of software they don't already have has done the same.
There is a difference between being lucky, and "accurately judging"
something. If you buy something without ever having used it, and it turns
out to be a good product is luck, unless you rely on the judgement of others
you trust who have used the product.
> The difficulty of deriving the right answer for the latter group is what
> makes my own skills at doing this rather valuable. Based on knowledge,
> experience, reason, and *facts*, I can, without any great fear of
> contradiction (aside from naked insistence, contrary to *fact*) tell you
> that Quicken 2000's HTML interface SUCKs.
And you would be wrong.
> Now, usually, I will admit that I'd want to at least see the interface.
> Possibly I might need documentation and some active demonstration of the
> interface mechanisms, as well. On rare occasions, I must use the
> software personally for some goodly portion of time, in order to provide
> any reliable prediction concerning whether the interface sucks, for me
> or anyone else attempting to use it. But the fact is, lack of
> competition has made bad software and bad interfaces so prevalent in the
> industry, that the job gets easier and easier all the time.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
> In this case, for instance, you have a typical and popular desktop
> product which has long been successful because of the efficient
> interface paradigm they have used. The construct of their controls and
> their data representations are very effectively and efficiently suited
> to the task at hand; personal finances. I first started using Quicken
> in 1990, and was quite impressed, in fact. Having experienced several
> personal finance packages on a couple of different platforms previously,
> I immediately recognized a great deal of power and ease of use in
> Quicken's design. (The back-end for such a programming is not difficult
> at all, and since a tremendous amount of efficiency in entering data is
> the greatest bottleneck in such a program, both diverse and similar
> examples are available for comparison.) In 1997, I purchased the
> Windows version, and was not disappointed too badly. Most of the
> efficiencies were augmented, in fact, with inclusion of GUI mechanisms.
> The added functionality of the newer software, however, evidenced a good
> deal of inefficiency and confusion. In 1998 or 99, I believe, I
> experienced the 'new version' of Quicken, and within twenty seconds of
> observing a typical user's interaction (and one somewhat familiar with
> the program, in fact), I identified no less than five different
> 'glitches' that were introduced in making the interface a bit more
> 'slick', and only one thing that any reasonable person might objectively
> consider an 'improvement'. (I kept no records, as this wasn't a formal
> study, so I'm afraid I can't tell you what the improvement or glitches
> were.)
Yes, Quicken 98 and 99 were not real great products. Especially when
running on underpowered systems or Windows 3.1. I know this because I
introduced my father (a technophobe) to a computer in in 1999, and had
Windows 3.1 on it (it was a 386 with 2 megs of memory) and used Quicken 98.
He was often confused by it, and almost never used it. About a year later,
I upgraded him to Windows 98 with Quicken 2000 and found that he could
easily figure out Quicken now with the new interface.
> Now you tell me that the new version is 'all HTML'. Since there is no
> way to make an HTML representation of a GUI any *more* efficient than
> the GUI itself, but its not only common but almost guaranteed (due to
> the limited control mechanisms available within a browser or a web page,
> and the sloppy design which generally characterizes such attempts) that
> it is not an improvement at all (as evidenced and supported by
> experience and while fully aware of the potential benefits of such a
> move), and I had already recognized that Quicken, like all Windows
> software, does not get better with each version, but simply more
> featureful, and generally at the cost of operational functionality, then
> I can think of no logical dispute, save a penchant for whatever is new
> and 'slick', to the judgement that Quicken 2000 and 2001, at least in
> their use of HTML as an interface mechanism, SUCK.
Again. *USE* Quicken 2000 or 2001 for a month. Then come back and tell me
the same thing.
> >Your opinion on this matter is irrelvant because you don't have enough
> >knowledge to make an informed decision on the subject.
>
> You honestly haven't a clue, Erik, just how far and wide my knowledge
> and information are on this or any other technical subject.
I do in fact have a clue as to how much knowledge you have about the new
version of Quicken. You *ONLY* know that it's HTML based. And that's it.
This is not enough information. You are only jumping to conclusions which
are very far from reality.
> >If you care to prove me wrong by providing valid reasons for your opinion
> >then I'll gladly admit i'm wrong. But I doubt you are capable.
>
> You're starting to get rather offensive, Erik. If you don't have a
> point without being rude, you don't have a point. Make your case, or
> shut your trap. Arguments from ignorance are hardly an acceptable
> excuse for presuming you know anything at all.
I didn't say you didn't know anything at all. I said you have not shown any
reason or knowledge of the subjects about which you are arguing.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:35:13 -0500
Hint: Re-read the last sentace.
"Slip Gun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm not going to flame you. I'm just going to say "I don't believe you".
> Cheers,
> Ed
>
> Tim Hanson wrote:
> >
> > I hafta tell ya...
> >
> > I've had my Windows 98SE up and running without a reboot for almost a
> > year now with no problems. I just wish I could see something besides
> > that blue screen.
> >
> > Anthony Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > After using Linux for many months now, I have recently had to use
W*ndoze
> > > for a couple of days. These are just a few things that made me realize
why I
> > > started to use Linux in the first place
> > >
> > > 1. I have had to reboot many more times in one day of W*ndoze use (4)
than
> > > many months of Linux use (0)
> > > 2. Linux does not crash when you attempt to browse your OWN hard
drive - let
> > > alone a network one
> > > 3.Linux does not kill itself when you try to run an old console app,
unlike
> > > w*ndoze with DOS
> > > 4. Linux dialup connections do not mysteriously stop working whilst in
use.
> > > 5. Linux does not suffer massive disk fragmentation in basic non
demanding
> > > use
> > >
> > > need I say any more...
> > >
> > > Anthony Wilson (happy Linux user)
> >
> > --
> > A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
