Linux-Advocacy Digest #513, Volume #29 Sun, 8 Oct 00 02:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: programming languages and design (FM)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Lars Poulsen)
Re: Everything's an object in OOPLs (Andy Newman)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
welcome to the world of objects (Richard)
Re: SE is simply unstable!!! (Jim Richardson)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Jim Richardson)
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:45:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rlbgc$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8rfm9h$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:8rd6gr$26rc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > I'm sorry dude, but sometimes you hear something so silly you
> can't
>> > stop
>> >> >> > from laughing...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I'm sure he'll post the tux results ... it's all they've got...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dont you have something better to do?
>> >>
>> >> > Yup - it's what I do the rest of the time... right now I'm laughing
> at
>> > the
>> >> > sun rep who tried to sell some 10000s to one of my clients...
>> >>
>> >> Oh I remember you, youre the one that thinks (incorrectly) that
> microsoft
>> >> can compete in the heavy-server market. We've all been laughing at you
>> >> for some time.
>>
>> > One name: "w2k data center" - that's all I need say today. It'll speak
> for
>> > itself in months to come.
>>
>> Oh yes. The ghostly, non-existant product whos praises youve been singing
>> for nearly a year now.
>>
>> Where is it again?
> It's released and in use already.
Where?
>>
>> Can I install it on a 64x64 processor G6 mainframe?
> Nope - so?
Ah, so it isnt for the HEAVY server market.
>>
>> I said *heavy* server market, dresden. I didnt say "compaqs idea of a
> webserver"
>> market.
> you need heavy to make up for your OS envy eh? pity you... won't you ever
> learn that paying more for hardware doesn't make it better or faster? won't
> you ever learn that your ancient os and old style hardware approach is dated
> and not keeping up? and I never mentioned web servers nor compaq.
Uhhmmm...dresden, you do know what a 64x64 G6 does, dont you?
> small starting point:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
Ah. Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to touching IBM
in any way, shape or form.
Let me know when they can.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:05:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perhaps you missed the post I was responding to, where it was
>said that these features were kept ONLY because of the motive of
>making it easy for people who knew C to use C++. I was countering
>this, saying that the features were kept because that was the
>easiest way to incorporate the *necessary* functionality they
>provide, not out of some need to make it easy to learn. I would have
>been just as happy with a system that had the same functionality
>through new techniques. In other words it wasn't a major selling
>point that it achived the functionality through the same techniques,
>if there were some other good way, it would have been just as worthy.
>It was chosen to keep the old C interface not for ease of learning,
>but for ease of implementation on the part of the compiler writers.
>That's what I was trying to say.
I don't think that was the major reason either. It wouldn't
have been hard to write a whole new language that is equivalent
in terms of functionality yet is more consistent. I think the
crucial reason was to allow C++ to be able to freely interface
with existing C code-base, while also allowing higher-level
features. And that there were plenty of existing C programmers
probably influenced the decision somewhat. I highly doubt that
implementing C++ is that much easier (if at all) than
implementing a simpler language with equivalent functionality,
but without much of the C-ism.
Dan.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 21:04:54 -0700
From: Lars Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Lew Pitcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Actually, IBM went unannounced to Digital Research (the CP/M and CP/M
> >86 guys), but Gary K. was out of the office (flying his plane, IIRC),
> >and IBM got miffed.
Paul Wallich wrote:
> According to the DR folks I talked to at the time, that wasn't quite
> accurate either. There was also the matter of an old-style IBM NDA
> that Big Blue's lawyers wanted Kildall to sign (along the lines of "you
> agree to an irrevocable option on your firstborn child before we even
> tell you what our names are").
My group once got a visit from IBM to discuss a product under
development, and they pulled out that draft agreement. It was
really gross; it basically boiled down to:
- anything we tell you today, you must treat as our trade secrets.
In particular, any information we disclose about how our
products work, is probably incorrect, but if you use it
in any way we will sue you and bankrupt you.
- anything you tell us, we will NOT hold in confidence; you
should assume we are planning to tell your competitor this
afternoon.
I was rather shocked, but my boss had seen it before and happily
signed it. Later he explained the necessity of it:
IBM is such a large and diverse company, that what ever you are
doing, there's a good chance that someone, somewhere within IBM
is working on the same thing, although the people we are talking
to don't know of it and would have no way to find out. If they
did not make us sign this, we could sue them later if some such
group put out a product that happened to look a lot like ours.
While such a suit would have no merit, it would be costly to
defend, and some screwy jury might even award us a bunch of
money. This way, IBM is protected.
--
/ Lars Poulsen - http://www.cmc.com/lars - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
125 South Ontare Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 - +1-805-569-5277
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Everything's an object in OOPLs
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 04:20:21 GMT
One of the best sources of information on Kay's view of programming
is a paper on the history of Smalltalk he presented at SIGPLAN's
2nd History of Programming Languages conference. It is a fascinating
paper. I love...
"I invented the term object-oriented and C++ isn't what I had in mind."
I haven't read the followups yet but I do think Kay wants everything
to do be an object. Afterall what else is there :) (I use a language,
ici, where everything is an object, it's great).
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 00:17:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Well if you look across different languages, yes, the idea
>of an object is ultimately a metaphor, but for any specific
>language, it could be a full abstraction, though the *term*
>"object" remains a metaphor. A language can define the term
>"object" and define what sort of operations can be applied
>to an "object." That's a valid abstraction. In other words,
>the term "object" is a metaphor, but as a linguistic concept,
>it is an abstraction, in the same sense "function," "type,"
>"class," "inheritance," etc are.
I greatly appreciate your response, Dan. Thanks.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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, 08 Oct 2000 00:21:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> Have fun. I don't care what you do on your private news server. You
>> don't seem to be aware of the concept of replication as it regards
>> Usenet.
>
>I'm well aware.
>
>>Nobody cares about your 'right' to delete posts on your server;
>
>See - it wasn't that hard to admit I am right.
You misrepresent the entire conversation when you say that, but I
suppose that is not unusual.
>> merely whether they want a down-stream feed from such an 'edited' forum.
>> You don't seem to want to regard the concept of a *public* forum, but
>> want to take advantage of a *public* system for replicating messages in
>> order to make your silly opinions known. Make up your mind. Or just
>> shut up and go away; a far more effective solution than setting up a
>> news server just so you can delete my posts. <G>
>
>I already did. And your not allowed to post messages there. You and you
>alone will have any and all messages deleted, because I can.
>news://sector51.dynip.com
>It is a public news server, open to everyone on earth (except that I'm
>exersizing my right to discriminate against you only).
And what's your downstream like? None? Oh; sounds like a private news
server to me. We'll still pretend its a 'common carrier', though, as
the statute doesn't say anything about being public, merely being an
'interactive computer service', to keep it consistent with the current
language of law. Your presumption that this also applies to isolated
news servers is purely speculative, BTW.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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, 08 Oct 2000 00:21:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> You've again missed the point. I don't care.
>
>Your typical response to being proven a liar.
My typical response to you, when you pretend to have 'proven me a liar'.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: welcome to the world of objects
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 05:04:07 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> In short (too late, eh?) I think you're mistaken. Valid abstractions
> *should* be "confused with their implementation", and the ability to do
> so reliably is what determines that they are 'valid' abstractions.
> Metaphors, however, should not be 'confused with their implementation',
> as the word in this context would be used to identify an abstraction
> which is not 'complete', requiring knowledge of the implementation in
> order to correctly model the thing.
This is exactly what pure OO languages and systems strive to do;
make the user's mental model of the computer never, *ever* fail.
It doesn't matter how it's faked as long as the user can never
notice it. In particular, this is what Merlin's Alternate Reality
user interface was supposed to do.
But you're completely wrong about the nature of abstractions vs.
metaphor because you assume that all terms have perfect immutable
meanings. You assume that there is a "true" meaning of each word
against which people can compare a new meaning in order to see
whether or not the latter matches the former "perfectly" and
"completely".
By your reasoning, nodes in a tree can never be "true" parents of
other nodes because they don't have human bodies, as human parents
tend to have, surely the original meaning of 'parent' (and thus
the "true" meaning of the word) for all humans everywhere! This,
of course, is complete nonsense and proves that your black and
white distinctions between metaphor and abstraction are bullshit.
In reality, humans encounter many uses of a term and they change
the meaning of the term, the concept it labels, as their "set of
useful concepts" evolves. "parent" changes from "my parents" to
"human parents" to just "parents" during human development but
people are so used to this process that they never pay attention
to it.
On the topic of corporations, there is absolutely no advantage
to be gained from differentiating between human and corporate
psychopathy, unless one is intent on "not holding it against
the corporations" to act in a revolting, reprehensible and
completely intolerable manner.
> Presuming that an object in OO programming acts like an object might
> well be such a 'true abstraction', and thus my original statement might
Even in Smalltalk, there are places where the OO model breaks down.
For example, classes are objects. And that's actually a problem since
classes don't exist in the physical world and humans have no experience
dealing with objects and classes of objects that simultaneously exist
as objects. This isn't a problem since Smalltalk programmers are seldom
in a position to have to deal with classes and objects at the same time,
and in those cases where someone has to deal with classes constantly,
treating them as objects is the only sane solution. But the existence
of classes breaks OO since state and behaviour are segregated into
completely different objects (the instance and class objects). Never
mind that inheritance is a second-class property defined only on classes.
Smalltalkers never notice that they're not dealing with objects because
they are used to it (nobody expects to see methods listed in an object
inspector) but try to teach someone that classes are objects and that
the class of a class an instance of Metaclass ond it all comes back to
haunt you.
The solution used in Self is to not have classes at all and for objects
to have 'slots' that can contain data or methods, and to change inhe-
ritance into a first-class property (one which all objects may have).
I keep finding places where the OO model breaks down in Smalltalk and then
I have to deal with losers who claim that C++ is OO ??? <hysterical laugh>
> be incorrect. But I still suspect that modern OO systems are merely the
> implementation of an object oriented capability to what is, ultimately,
> something which is defined in text: software. Software, not being real,
> would only achieve the status of true 'virtual object' if it can
There again you prove that you believe in "true X" where the X is some
completely arbitrary instance of the abstraction.
> literally be treated as an object by everybody. Since what is an
> 'object' seems restricted to either imagination (Richard's "high level
> design") or a specific implementation (language), OO programming does
> not achieve the level of reality necessary to be considered a practical
Man, you have no fucking idea. What the fuck do you expect? To be able
to teleport software objects out from inside the computer ???
> abstraction, and still remains at least partially a metaphor. In the
> same way, frame relay PVCs cannot be treated as if they were
> connections, like a 56K can, so even calling them 'virtual connections'
> is somewhat problematic. Again, they are a metaphor, while the TDM is
> an abstraction.
No, they're not. VCs are "true" circuits (an INSTANCE of the circuit
abstraction) if you accept the abstraction referred to by the label
'circuit' to allow for information loss and time-variable capacitance.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 22:22:58 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 00:16:55 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>It is a full system and identical to the full version in every way
>except one. Only requirement is that you own a previous version of
>Win98. As long as that is satisfied, you can do a scratch install if
>you want.
>
>claire
>
>
>On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:13:32 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:12:48 GMT,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>Windows ME upgrade (upgrades Win98 to Me) $49.95 in Sundays NY Times.
>>>
>>>Claire
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:02:36 +1000, Chris Sherlock
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ummm... I don't know if you've compared the prices of Windows ME against
>>>>Mandrake Linux yet, but the prices are *very* different.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>How about comparing a full system, not an upgrade.
>
The point being that the price is predicated on the ownership of a previous
release. Whereas the Linux price, wasn't. So how much is the price for WinME
with no prior license?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 22:30:50 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 00:35:04 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>> the 1,000s of GNU applications being/have developed,
>
>Like 3,652 compilers, 9,522 text editors, 4,517 shells and many
>other duplicated applications which don't really amount to much.
>
>Unless you're developing C programs for Unix or Linux itself, there
>is very little, if any productivity from Linux as a desktop.
I do program, (not much in C, but still...) and I use linux daily as
a desktop, as does my wife. She's a writer, (lit, not code) and uses a
variety of progs for that, also the std internet stuff, irc, email, browsing,
etc. I use that too, and also gnumeric, moodss and a bunch of stuff that is
either unavailable for windows, or not worth putting up with windows' quirks
and annoyances.
>
>> and games
>> for Linux, Simcity 3000, Quake, Doom and other verious titles.
>
>Quake and Doom! Great! If I want 3+ year old games, I'll go get a
>Super Nintendo for a couple bucks off Ebay.
Don't forget MythII, CivCTP both a lot of fun. But frankly, if I want a game
platform, I'll buy a console.
>> I think that > the old wives tale that there is not enough apps or games for
>> linux has run its course!
>
>There are many apps, just none of them worth while. There is no
>"killer app" on Linux.
none of them worthwhile to you perhaps. Others disagree. It's okay though, you
keep to your proprietary upgrade mill, I'll stick to Linux.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
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, 08 Oct 2000 05:25:57 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> [...]
> >> >Oh, come on Erik, it's much more entertaining to get Max so exasperated by
> >> >constantly requesting he prove his outlandish claims so that he killfiles
> >> >you :).
> >>
> >> That won't get you killfiled.
> >
> >Because you fit the definition of insanity: doing the same thing, time after
> >time, expecting a different result.
>
> Because _I_ fit the definition of insanity, what...? My getting
> exasperated with trolls demanding proof of minuscule and trivial points
> of fact in order to reduce the discussion to ankle-biting and
> kill-filling them (which I've done three times in ten years) makes me
> insane? Boy, are you confused!
You said "That won't get you killfiled." Instead of killfiling you choose to do the
same thing time after time expecting different results. Maybe you are not expecting
different results but that means that you like doing the same thing over and over
again just to see the same thing happen. Autistic people and retarded people do
that. So which is it?
> >Max, you are a sociopath. You will defend
> >a losing position time after time no matter how many times you are proven
> >wrong.
>
> I'm a sociopath, because I've been able to continue to present what I
> see as an accurate,
I've seen dozens of inacuracies from you.
> consistent,
Max, you _define_ waffling.
> and practical
Practically non-existant.
> position for so long,
Retardation or insanity, which is it?
>
> despite many trolls insisting they've 'proven me wrong' in some
> miscellaneous regard? Boy, are you confused!
I've seen you proven wrong quite a few times Max. It's you that seems not to be
able to let it go.
> >You are irrational and inflamatory. The only other poster here that is
> >in your league is Kulkis and perhaps Drestin.
>
> Kulkis' posts in all-caps on a regular basis, and is a blatant John
> Birch right-wing radical,
And you are plain irrational. When shown to be wrong you cannot admit it.
> Drestin Black is a fiction of an inept
> entrepreneur who considers himself an expert programmer because he
> cobbles together Virtual Basic scripts
What do you code? I agree that you all tend to be irrational.
> and you say this puts me in their
> league of irrational and inflammatory participation? Boy, are you
> confused!
You are irrational and inflammatory. Votes on this from COMNA? Cmon folks who
thinks Max is irrational and inflammatory?
> >You folks seem to live to read
> >what you have written for it's own sake. I take a few days break in here now
> >and again because I realize that COMNA is just an idle passtime and the
> >cathartic for me as I'm confronted with other like you that lack firm grounding
> >in reality when in comes to commodity operating systems. I wonder what you,
> >like they will do when Microsoft is absolved.
>
> Find something else to explore through intellectual discussion,
So you are going to "find something else to explore through intellectual
discussion". I'm glad you've given it so much thought! Perhaps yopu should give
some thought to reassessing your definition of "intellectual discussion" first.
> while
> you go back to jerking off
You are irrational and inflammatory. Votes on this from COMNA? Cmon folks who
thinks Max is irrational and inflammatory?
> and congratulating yourself for knowing the
> most trivial and unimportant parts of technology.
Nah. Others congratulate me for knowing the most weighty and important aspects.
They include the dozens of Windows users I help each day on mailing lists for free
and the folks that choose to employ my services in a professional context. I'm
happy to help. I guess I do "congratulate myself for knowing the most trivial and
unimportant parts of technology", don't I? I like many kinds of trivia. In my
business I've found that those seemingly useless bits of trivia come in quite handy
from time to time. Often when no one else can come up with a solution I find one of
them that bails us all out...
>
> You actually expect anyone on these groups to consider W2K a 'commodity
> operating system'?
Go to K-Mart. Buy it. Commodity.
> The fucking thing is being sold as NT on every new
> workstation, desktop, and server that Microsoft can
And Walmart, and Best Buy and about anywhere else that sells commodity software.
> continue their
> illegal monopoly on, up to the very day that they are prevented from
> acting criminally,
I'm so glad you'd planned for the day when the DoJs case is dismissed. I'd hate for
a obsessive passive agressive personality like you to have no focus for your rage
and hate.
> and costs several hundred dollars, possibly, per
> license.
http://www.9software.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?page=1
For the 90% of folks that have a Microsoft OS it's $94 -- under $100 with shipping.
For those folks that *dont* have a Microsoft OS you get get their bundle that
includes Windows 95 OSR2.1 for about a greenback more. Contrary to all detractors
you can install an upgrade version of Windows 2000 on a bare HDD. Just produce that
Windows 95 CD when prompted and all is week. Licenses, for more computers in your
household are about the same price.
> Not to mention which, Microsoft has recently implemented even
> more predatory new demands (twice in the last two years) which doubled
> the price of using the software for large corporate accounts.
Now their software costs about a tenth what Oracle's does :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
