Linux-Advocacy Digest #150, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 01:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: RHCE Certification..Worth it? ("John Smith")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Bob Germer)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Bob Germer)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Bob Germer)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RHCE Certification..Worth it?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 03:18:36 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>Is RHCE a sought after type of credential?
No
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 17 Sep 2000 03:25:49 GMT
Sorry late to this..
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sam Morris 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.
Wrong, it's called the orbit around the sun and the wobble of the earth.
The periods are around 20k 40k and 100k. The earth doesn't orbit in a
perfect circle nor does it revolve on it's axis in a perfect circle.
>> >
>> > >
>> > >> > > I know that. I was wondering how the eco-nuts would explain it
>> since
>> > >they
>> > >> > > claim that man is responsible for climatic changes, etc. --
For the last 40 years we have been monitoring CO2 levels. If you take a
core of ice from the poles and compare it to the readings they match
perfectly. The ice record goes back about 600K years. It is layered like
a tree, you see the progression of the season in it. At no time in the
600K years it provides us with data over has the the Earth's atmospheric
composition changed so radically. CFC's don't exist until this century.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > They are not exclusive. Just because there are non-human processes
>> > >> > that lead to climatic changes, doesn't necessarily mean that human
>> > >> > processes can't also lead to climatic change.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The big problem with human-induced climatic change is the time scale
>> > >> > involved. If human processes accelerate climatic change, causing a
>> > >> > change that would normally take hundreds or thousands of years to
>> > >> > occur happen in years or decades, the amount of time available to
>> > >> > adjust and survive becomes reduced, making it harder for us to adapt
>> > >> > to it.
>> > >>
>> > >> Name one. Please provide concree, unassailable evidence that
>> > >> can prove (beyond any doubt or controversy) that without human
>> > >> activity, the climatic change would have happened more slowly.
>> > >>
>> > >> Name ..just...one.
CO2 Levels being higher at any point than they have in the last 600K years
for one. The absence of CFC's occuring naturally would be another.
>> > >
>> > >My god, that sounds just like something Edwin would have said.
>> >
>> > Considering that there is no faith amongst society in general
>> > that the weather can be predicted, how can we take seriously
>> > any claims regarding after the fact analysis of why a particular
>> > weather event has occured?
>>
>> Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. We are quite good at
>> predicting climactic change.
>
>
>Then why do you have such irrational fears of it.
Frankly I'm tired of mild winters here but that's cuz I like to ski :-).
I also don't like the fact that I just suffered through the 60th day of 90
and above here and we are going for a record of 61 days tomorrow.
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: "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"
>
>I: 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: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:02:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "letoured" == letoured <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We know that you don't the brains to carry on an intelligent
> > conversation.
>
> I see, and saying "Go away, asshole" somehow nominates you into the
> category of "intelligent conversationalist"?
When responding to 'JS/PL', it is an incisive and intelligent comment.
Maybe not enough to rate the label of 'intelligent conversationalist',
but close enough. After all, 'conversationalist' and "response to
'JS/PL'" aren't in the same category.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:34:47 GMT
On 09/17/2000 at 03:25 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> For the last 40 years we have been monitoring CO2 levels. If you take a
> core of ice from the poles and compare it to the readings they match
> perfectly. The ice record goes back about 600K years. It is layered
> like a tree, you see the progression of the season in it. At no time in
> the 600K years it provides us with data over has the the Earth's
> atmospheric composition changed so radically. CFC's don't exist until
> this century.
The PGA Tour didn't exist until this century. Maybe it's responsible. You
have not proof that CFC's caused the change. No one knows what causes the
changes, and your theory is as full of holes as claiming the PGA tour did
it.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:39:30 GMT
On 09/16/2000 at 01:44 PM,
"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On the other hand, you seem to imply that you would prefer the human
> race and other organisms to all die from failure to adapt to rapid
> climactic change. This attitude reminds me of that of many of the people
> in a David Brin novel called Earth (everyone should read it).
That book was a typical liberal I know what is best for the world tract of
utter tripe. It was garbage. And anyone who believes otherwise is a total
moron.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:37:47 GMT
On 09/16/2000 at 08:27 PM,
"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have no irrational fears of climactic change. I do have some quite
> rational concerns that how we are affecting the climate will be
> detrimental to ourselves in the long run if we continue.
You have fears. Rational concerns can only develop out of incontrovertable
scientific proof that x is a result of y. There is no universally accepted
scientific proof of your theories.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 17 Sep 2000 00:10:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Now you are changing defintions again. You didn't mention
>> application embedding before. Although even that is of
>> dubious value.
>
>Dubious value? You're kidding. Tell that to AOL who uses the embedded IE
>in their application.
Tell that to AOL, you mean, who is contractually obligated to support
IE, even though they bought Netscape more than a year ago?
>Tell that to Intuit that uses the embedded IE as the
>basis for their entire interface.
They use a browser for their interface; I don't believe its quite 'tied'
to IE. Yet.
>Tell that to Neoplanet, that have made an
>entire commercial product based on IE's rendering engine ebedded into their
>product (and before you say it, yes that includes rendering into a surface
>in the app).
"Surface". I love that shit. You make up new concepts, just to have
new ways of forcing people to use monopolistic crap. Neoplanet provides
skins for IE. They'd probably provide skins for any other browser, too,
if they could. But Microsoft has (illegally) prevented them from having
a wider market.
>Dubious value indeed. There is literally billions of dollars
>being made by companies using IE embedded in their applications.
And more billions to be lost by buying in to monopoly crapware. Face
it; if IE didn't entirely SUCK as a web-browser, they'd hardly have a
reason to try to *force* so many people into using it with these
'tie-in' mechanisms.
>> If one app can't control the windows of another in Win32
>> without some unecessarily low level hack, that sounds
>> more like a Microsoft problem than a Netscape one.
>
>Hack? What are you talking about? IE is provided via COM. COM is not a
>hack, nor is it "low level"
It is both low level and a hack. Although, to be honest, it isn't a
hack, as hacking requires elegance and usefulness, and neither IE nor
COM could be considered useful, outside of the monopoly tie-in.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 17 Sep 2000 00:11:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 05:57:10 GMT,
> Simon Cooke, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >There's no way anyone *can* contradict you with examples, going from the
>>way
>>> >you debate.
>>>
>>> Which is to say you have no counter-examples, I believe. Nor could you;
>>> you cannot defend monopolization by imagining they have a superior
>>> product. If they had a superior product, they wouldn't need to act
>>> anti-competitively to maintain their market share, now would they?
>>
>>If Outlook is such a pile of crap, why are a whole bucketload of people
>>trying to emulate it for Linux?
>>
>>Simon
>
>Maybe it's only crap on the inside? :)
Well said. I wouldn't go along with it, entirely, but you have a good
point.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 17 Sep 2000 04:16:33 GMT
In article <39c442b4$9$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 09/17/2000 at 03:25 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>> For the last 40 years we have been monitoring CO2 levels. If you take a
>> core of ice from the poles and compare it to the readings they match
>> perfectly. The ice record goes back about 600K years. It is layered
>> like a tree, you see the progression of the season in it. At no time in
>> the 600K years it provides us with data over has the the Earth's
>> atmospheric composition changed so radically. CFC's don't exist until
>> this century.
>
>The PGA Tour didn't exist until this century. Maybe it's responsible. You
>have not proof that CFC's caused the change. No one knows what causes the
>changes, and your theory is as full of holes as claiming the PGA tour did
>it.
Well hell you can't provide proof of other claims you make so you drop
those threads so to a new one you go. You know an asshole like yourself
wouldn't know cursorary evidence if it hit you in the face. The pga tour
doesn't produce cfc's, ergo it isn't at fault. The are a by product of
aerosols though and guess what, they have only existed in the last
century. Care to try again? So why do you not like having the truth in
front of you?
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
>MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
>Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 04:33:36 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:14:44 GMT, Richard wrote:
> >when on this very same thread there are posters complaining
> >about Real Lazy users, which apparently includes everyone who
> >isn't willing to spend hundreds of hours finding and learning
> >about features that should by all rights be right in front of
> >them.
>
> If you're referring to me, well you are just wrong. I am not an
> "elite" programmer, and unlike the whining brats in this thread,
> I have actually contributed something to the community to make life
> easier for users, instead of hurling abuse and divisive class-warfare
> rhetoric against an imaginary enemy.
Please don't get too defensive; it's not good for anyone's sanity.
I was referring to Jedi and Nigel's discussion of the category of
"Real Lazy" users. But I also had a problem with your claim;
=The only users who are "lacking control" are the ones too lazy or
=stupid to learn how to use the features provided.
An interface is a language with its own peculiar idioms that users
must memorize. This is a lot of work and I can't blame users when
I know for myself that the interface is arbitrary, overly complex
and doesn't make any sense; some languages are a LOT easier to learn
than others.
> I understand perfectly well if users don't want their computer systems
> to be difficult to learn and use. In fact if users want to be lazy, I
> don't even have a problem with that.
>
> What I have a problem with is users that want to be lazy *and* abusive
> and rude. If you want to start bashing people, you had better have a good
> argument, because if you don't , there are people who will shoot you down
> in flames without thinking twice.
>
> If you want to go on the attack, that's fine, but don't expect everyone
> to take your insults lying down.
> What, do you suppose that someone writes software and gives it away actually
> hates the users ? If they hate the users, then why do they give
> the software away in the first place ? Or is the software simply a sinister
> tool designed to make life difficult for users ?
Free software usually works on the credit or peer models. Programmers
give away software to get credit for it from users, or to help their
fellow programmers. The computer illiterate user who just uses their
computer to run MS Word and can't navigate through the file hierarchy
is usually held in derision and contempt.
> The reason why is that the programmers, like the users, are often lazy.
> Writing an application that does *not* act "like an asshole" and does
> not* force the user to jump through hoops, is hard. There's no evil
> conspiracy. Only laziness.
The key difference is that it is programmers' *jobs* to write good
software and it *isn't* users' jobs to put up with bad software.
> If you want to design and implement the perfect OS, well that's certainly
> a reasonable thing to want to do, but it's not going to get done
> as a result of someone saying nasty things about developers in
> .advocacy.
That's what I'm doing. Saying nasty things about programmers is
procrastination. :-)
> Your idea regarding a command shell is certainly interesting. I can't
> say that I'd use it, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's interesting to
> me .
>
> Part of the reason it's interesting is that I haven
> 't seen anyone come up with anything like it.
> You might find that surprising, but though the idea seems obvious to
> you, I haven't seen it before. ( Maybe you should go get a patent ;-)
Thank you. I didn't even think of how the shell would interface with
the user until this discussion brought it up.
> FYI, GNOME and KDE have session management. Again,m this is
> somewhat superficial compared to what you are describing. Is there
> an OS that actually implements this kind of thing ? ( I mean at a
> kernel level ).
Grasshopper did, and quite a few OSes implement Orthogonal Persistence.
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/bridges/oses.html
> I don't think anyone "wants to maintain the status quo". The reason that
> compatibility tends to win over design has a lot to do with the fact that there
> are a lot of software systems and applications that need to be rewritten
> when you create a "new thing".
People are incredibly defensive about their contributions. If you tell
them that here is this project that, once finished, will prove just how
worthless the last decade of programming they engaged in was, they're
not going to like it. Nor are most Linuxers going to admit that your
prototypical Luser has legitimate grievances with your software, even
if he can't verbalize them.
> Personally, I have no problem with someone writing a wonderfully designed OS,
> but I don't expect to be shouted at for not writing one -- I neither have
> the technical skills, the time, or the interest to do so.
> >Unix maintains a sharp divide between users and programmers (so does
> >every other OS I know of but that's not the point) and one of the
> >consequences of that divide is that the GPL is pretty meaningless
>
> I disagree with this. I am personally not clear on whether I am a "user" or
> a "programmer", I mean, really I am both. I am a Qt and libstdc++ user,
> and I'm a "dumb user" for that matter -- I am not capable of writing these
> things I'm using myself.i
>
> I write code, but I also write documentation for users, and
> since I usually write just after
> I've learned to do it, it tends to be from a user-perspective.
>
> Projects like KDE and GNOME actively seek input from users and non-programmers
> ( for example, they have artists, translators, documentation writers,
> and simply "users" all of who contribute )
I'm not sure. I would have put you in the category of programmer
regardless of your technical knowledge. The user/programmer divide
is technical /and/ psychological. You're a technical user but I
don't think that your attitude is "I don't care how it works, I
just want to get my job done." In that sense, I might be more of
a user than you are because after I got over my "look at the shiny
new toy" phase with Linux, I decided that I just didn't give a
damn about what I can do with Linux, as long as I could use it to
do what I wanted. Despite working on my own OS, I'm a (l)user even
with regards to OSes.
But in any case, what I meant by my statement was purely technical.
Everything in Unix is disconnected and non-uniform. It may make
sense to a C programmer (naaahhhh) but it makes no sense to a user,
and there is no way for a user to learn about it progressively
or through exploration. You can't ls /ram and find /ram/pageable,
/ram/non-pageable, and take a look through to learn which is which.
You can't go to /ram/pageable/process1 and use cp to fork process1.
You can't go to /ram/pageable/network-stack and see what's there.
The list of things you can do is dwarfed by the list of things
you *can't* do (and should be able to).
> >to users. Well, I'm interested in winning this class war for the
> >users and if the other side gets hurt in the process, I don't care.
>
> There are no two sides and you are charging head first at a windmill.
But then, who'll be my Sancho?
> Well, I've done UNIX programming, and I can tell you that the
> nastiest thing about programming UNIX is that it's saddled with a lot of
> legacy stuff. The problem has more to do with the need for compatibilty
> than anything else. For example, you want to write nice OO code.
> Java isn't in a very good state yet. So you use C++. But all the
> APIs you need to use are in C. So you need to saddle your code with these
> messy "C-isms".
If you want to write OO code, use an OO language like Smalltalk or Self.
Java has all the complexity of C++ and all the speed of Smalltalk, why
bother? (Of course, I don't know Java o/ C/C++ beyond the fact that
they are hugely complex, don't make any sense, and I want to stay the
hell away from them.)
> Toolkits that don't come saddled with C-isms ( such as QT and KDE ) are
> a pleasure to use.
>
> So I'd say that the need for compatibility is what makes life a pain.
> It's not because programmers are "nasty".
If your job is to help, nurture and protect someone, then merely not
giving a damn about them is tantamount to being nasty.
> THis raises the compatibility vs design issues. If you don't care about
> compatibility, "good design" is easier, but the uisers will not appreciate
> the lack of compatibility much more than they appreciate bad design.
I'm not so sure. There are lots of OS projects aimed at reliability or
programming freedom, or "media", or all kinds of stuff that users never
get to see. I have yet to find a single OS project aimed at enabling the
structured exploration of the world, for lack of a better description.
At this point in time, I honestly believe that I am doing something that
nobody has ever attempted before. The closest thing that comes to it is
Smalltalk, not exactly encouraging but I'll be happy if a thousand people
use my OS in ten years time.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 17 Sep 2000 00:38:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>That's one way to fix it. :-) I've never been able to understand why the same folks
>are so quick to
>format an NT disk are loathe to format and reinstall UNIX.
Perhaps that's because we never have to 'format and reinstall UNIX'.
:-)
> Maybe because UNIX takes so much manual
>configuration? That's just a guess.
I'd say it would have to be, as anyone familiar with Unix would know
you're full of shit; the configuration isn't wiped because of a random
bug in some crapware.
>Either way the point is moot now. I always make a habit of
>reinstalling the latest tested service pack after any production software install on
>NT. You never
>know who's going to overwrite what. I don't do that anymore for the servers we've
>migrated to 2000
>though -- System File Protection is a Godsend. Now if only we could "migrate" all
>the AIX around
>here to 2000 :-)
You make a habit of spending a lot of time trying to make up for
crapware, is what you do.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
