Linux-Advocacy Digest #726, Volume #29 Wed, 18 Oct 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (mlw)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Harry Lewis)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Harry Lewis)
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? (Navindra Umanee)
Re: What is COLA? im in the dark on this one (.)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Harry Lewis)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Dustin Puryear)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: what defines a paradigm (Donal K. Fellows)
Anybody want to test a widget? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: what defines a paradigm (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:39:54 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:26:40 +0100...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've misunderstood latex. LaTeX allows you to write a document without
> worrying about typesetting. You just say, "this is a new section",
> "emphasize this", etc etc. LaTeX typesets for you. With word, you have
> to do the typesetting yourself, such as 2 spaces after a full stop,
> underlining or emboldening titles, and section numbering by hand.
>
> The point about latex is that it does the typesetting for you, not the
> other way round (although you can force it to do what you want).
Actually, writing LaTeX code is a lot like typing a manuscript with
typesetting directives for submission to an old-fashioned print shop.
The LaTeX macro package is the funny old guy working at the Monotype
keypunch, and TeX is the other guy who does the layout with repro
film, wax paper and a razor. :)
For documents which are basically just a stream of text with
subdivisions, markup and floating elements, LaTeX is much more
advanced and much better suited than any other word processing or DTP
software I know. Documents which are not stream-oriented but instead
take the form of a plane inhabited by linked frames are hard to handle
with LaTeX, that kind of stuff is the job of a DTP program.
Classic word processing is out as it is hardly more than typing with a
huge, overfunctional typewriter. Of course, all the "friendly" LaTeX
front ends we've got are clumsy (don't get me started on LyX, a
valiant effort, but not good enough for someone who's used to using
all of LaTeX's power), which makes classic WPs look better
superficially. But the paradigm that any productive editing action
will immediately insert hard elements into the document which will
remain unchanged up to the printout is obsolete.
You'll notice that modern "word processors" are all moving towards
becoming DTP programs. MS Word, for example, is a monstrosity which is
very hard to qualify.
mawa
--
Wachturmverkäufer!
Weichborstenzahnpfleger!
Weintraubenentkerner!
Witzeaufschreiber!
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:25:55 -0400
MH wrote:
I have dealt with you before ubercat. It has been my experience that
arguing with an idiot is pointless.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Oct 2000 14:31:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>> (Or are you going to claim that it doesn't because we're all happy
>> Smalltalk users who wouldn't ever do something like this!?)
>
> Pretty much.
IOW, you're not a software engineer and have no training or experience
as such. Programmers do bad things that nobody sane would think
possible (the IOCCC is not the most extreme example of this, alas.)
They do them in *every* language they get their hands on. They do it
because they can. Often, the only consequence they're interested in
is "job security" resulting from the fact that nobody else on the
planet can figure out what is going on. Trust me on this if nothing
else...
You're a weenie.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I have to warn you up front that I'm pretty sure you're full of crap, but
it might still be interesting to see your argument.
-- Bill Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Harry Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:48:54 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Harry Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> : If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>
> : If all you have is a typesetting program, everything looks like a
> : typesetting problem.
>
> And if all you have is a word processor, everything looks like a
> page layout problem.
Exactly - what you need is the right tool for the job! (Believe me, I
know, as I was once asked to implement a workflow-like system using Word
and VBA!)
However, a word processor *should* focus on content, with facilities for
outlining, merging documents into complex documents, creating tables of
contents and indexes etc.
> : Problem is, everything isn't a typesetting problem. Typesetting is the
> : business of printers. Word processing is what users do.
>
> Typesetting is TeX's problem. Picking the right fonts and margins
> and page numbers is LaTeX's problem. Generating content is the user's
> problem.
>
> Word processors are nice for quick and ugly disposable documents,
> but don't expect me to write anything of value with one.
The value is in the content - a good word processor should provide you
with facilities for managing content.
Harry
------------------------------
From: Harry Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:51:52 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2:1 wrote:
>
> Harry Lewis wrote:
> >
> > Grant Edwards wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <8seufm$c7d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MH wrote:
> > >
> > > >Latex is fine. But try to give this to an experienced user of Word and it's
> > > >not going to happen in this life time.
> > >
> > > Wow. Word must be far worse than I had initially thoought if using it
> > > causes so much brain damage that it renders the user incapable of learning
> > > simple tasks with even a lifetime to do so.
> > >
> > > Learning to use LaTeX is certainly no more difficult than learning to use
> > > Word. Provided with a set of LaTeX templates, I've seen people with no
> > > typesetting or programming experience whatsoever producing within a day
> > > documents that looked like they were professionally typeset. You can spend
> > > the rest of your life plus most of the next one futzing with Word and will
> > > never end up with anything that wouldn't make a discerning reader gag.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Grant Edwards grante Yow! My mind is making
> > > at ashtrays in Dayton...
> > > visi.com
> >
> > If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
> >
> > If all you have is a typesetting program, everything looks like a
> > typesetting problem.
> >
> > Problem is, everything isn't a typesetting problem. Typesetting is the
> > business of printers. Word processing is what users do.
> >
> > Harry
>
> You've misunderstood latex. LaTeX allows you to write a document without
> worrying about typesetting. You just say, "this is a new section",
> "emphasize this", etc etc. LaTeX typesets for you. With word, you have
> to do the typesetting yourself, such as 2 spaces after a full stop,
> underlining or emboldening titles, and section numbering by hand.
>
> The point about latex is that it does the typesetting for you, not the
> other way round (although you can force it to do what you want).
>
> I as a user prefer not to have to worry about typesetting, so I use
> LaTeX/TeX. I also prefer the much higher quality output.
>
> So your right, not everything is a typesetting problem, which is why the
> task of seting type (what must be done in order to print the thing in
> any system) is best left to a computer program.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
> binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
> first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
> commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
I agree with what you say, but my point is that, these days, using a
computer for word processing is all about content management. A good
word processor will provide you with better facilities for this than a
program that evolved from a typesetting tool.
Harry
------------------------------
From: Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:52:25 GMT
Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where would you find that email exchange?
*Wrong* question. Move along people, nothing to see here.
-N.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: What is COLA? im in the dark on this one
Date: 18 Oct 2000 14:54:02 GMT
MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> I'll temper my fear with courage by asking this....
>> Who or what is COLA?
> (C)onstipated (O)verzealous (L)inux (A)dvocates
Wow. You sure are clever.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Oct 2000 14:55:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Object Orientation means:
>>> 1) everything's an object (where "object" is the normal sense
>>> of the term and not some bizarre abstract sense like you
>>> have been promoting)
>>
>> The "dictionary definition" meaning? <looks at webster's website>
>
> No. The USUAL sense.
*Which* usual sense? I look up an independent set of definitions (I
could pull some out of my ass, but they would definitely be
disputable) try to pick one that isn't stupidly (and trivially)
non-applicable (e.g. objects in software are definitely not physical
things and are not made out of subatomic particles) and get one that
looks reasonably close and which is very general. You immediately
reject it out of hand. Welcome to the killfile...
> If you want to know what 'object' means formally then ask a
> philosopher. They've only been thinking about the question for two
> millenia.
Why don't *you* go and ask a philosopher? And be prepared for a bit
of a surprise!
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I have to warn you up front that I'm pretty sure you're full of crap, but
it might still be interesting to see your argument.
-- Bill Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Harry Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:03:14 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthias Warkus wrote:
<snip>
> You'll notice that modern "word processors" are all moving towards
> becoming DTP programs. MS Word, for example, is a monstrosity which is
> very hard to qualify.
Yip ... and DTP packages are moving to word processing also! However,
neither does the other's job too well.
BTW To me, the key features of WP packages are outlining, forming books
from documents, and flagging text as either in a TOC or Index. These are
content management features, which (I think) are the key to WP.
Harry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dustin Puryear)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:12:26 GMT
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:17:16 -0600, David Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do you want an RFC, it is a very complicated technology and I am not about
>to start explaining it in a NG where it has at best a vague relevance in an
>already off topic discussion.
Well, ATM really isn't used for "differing types of transmissions." It uses
the same type of "tranmission" everytime. Now, what is transported is
another matter. As far as educational institutions using ATM goes.. well,
they are just part of a pretty big crowd using ATM, including your local
DSL provider.
Best regards, Dustin
>
>"Dustin Puryear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:36:46 -0600, David Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >I stand corrected then "many people" as opposed to some.
>> >
>> >Btw, the other ATM stands for Asynchronous Transfer Mode and is a
>networking
>> >technology that allows for differing types of transmissions. There are
>some
>> >educational institutions that use it for phone, video, and Internet, all
>on
>> >one line.
>>
>> Not the best definition of ATM that I've ever heard..
>>
>> --
>> Dustin Puryear <$email = "dpuryear"."@usa.net";>
>> Integrate Linux Solutions into Your Windows Network
>> - http://www.prima-tech.com/integrate-linux
>>
>
>
--
Dustin Puryear <$email = "dpuryear"."@usa.net";>
Integrate Linux Solutions into Your Windows Network
- http://www.prima-tech.com/integrate-linux
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Oct 2000 15:04:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look how you are completely unable to argue rationally and look at a
> mirror and then see how your sentence fits. It's quite hilarious to
> see someone so emotionally disturbed about his logic and knowledge
> being questioned that he becomes completely unable to address
> logically any of the points made against him, simply resorts to
> ignoring all the points and arguing against his imagination, and
> then shares his own state of mind by accusing others of his own
> problems.
Just *plonk* the twit, Dan. His "personal OO paradigm" doesn't seem
to include self-introspection or much of a catalogue of experience...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I have to warn you up front that I'm pretty sure you're full of crap, but
it might still be interesting to see your argument.
-- Bill Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: what defines a paradigm
Date: 18 Oct 2000 15:14:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The OO paradigm is concerned with updateable state and data
>
> No, imperative programming does. OO as an extension to the
> imperative paradigm does concern itself with updateable state, but
> if you were to see OO as orthogonal to the imperative-functional
> dichotomy, (which some do, and some don't, though if you don't,
> there's absolutely no sense in incorporating OO into FP) you can't
> possibly see OO as concerned with updateable state.
I've used functional OO languages. They have the interesting property
of being comparatively easy to parallelize, but they've never really
taken off in any significant way though; too many people are overly
fixated upon imperative programming, especially in the single shared
memory model variant. :^(
>> Runtime polymorphism hardly qualifies as a paradigm. Even if it
>> did, it would be a piss-poor one and hardly worth the massive
>> vomit-inducing hype it has generated among the hordes of C++
>> losers. Hey, even Stroustrup has admitted that much.
>
> Point out where I said runtime polymorphism is a paradigm. It of
> course isn't a paradigm, but given a decent type system, it's about
> the only thing you need to program OO.
You also need aggregation, but virtually everything supports that.
References are a nice bonus that make life easier, but are not
strictly necessary.
> You should definitely start distinguishing between paradigms and
> mechanisms that support a certain paradigm.
[I kept this bit in since it is sage advice indeed.]
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I have to warn you up front that I'm pretty sure you're full of crap, but
it might still be interesting to see your argument.
-- Bill Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Anybody want to test a widget?
Date: 18 Oct 2000 15:28:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2*(3+4) becomes 3 4 + 2 *
ITYM "2 3 4 + *"
Inline to RPN conversion is trivial since you just perform a walk of
the parsed syntax tree, inserting node labels after processing the
children of each node. Parsing 101 if you ask me...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I have to warn you up front that I'm pretty sure you're full of crap, but
it might still be interesting to see your argument.
-- Bill Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: what defines a paradigm
Date: 18 Oct 2000 15:20:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyhow, being accused of lacking imagination by someone who claims
> the existence of absolute standards for beauty is an amusing
> experience.
That sentence amused me. It was the thought of an absolute standard
for beauty that did it, since it made me wonder what its ISO number
was! :^)
Horned Toad (n) - ISO-standard beautiful princess.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I have to warn you up front that I'm pretty sure you're full of crap, but
it might still be interesting to see your argument.
-- Bill Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:50:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>It occurs to me that Richard is simply the victim of hyper-evolution,
>>cognitive-style. His sophomoric insults and vehement profanity is not
>>necessarily intended to 'weed out' reasonable responses, but it does end
>>up providing that result. This would fit in well with his real purpose,
>>which is to yell at people for being idiots, in comparison to his own
>>ego-inspired awesome intellect.
>
>Sophomoric! You definitely got the right word there.
Yes, I was quite satisfied with it. ;-)
>As
>for your analysis, I'd like to add another observation:
>why does he never show up in other comp.* newsgroups,
>that have the readership of considerable expertise in
>these issues? I've never seen him post in comp.object,
>comp.lang.functional, comp.programming, or even
>comp.lang.misc. Or any other OS newsgroups for that
>matter.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:02:11 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only object-oriented alternative to classes (in fact, the *more*
> OO
> > alternative to classes) is prototypes. If a language has objects
> without
> > any class, is it possible to create more of these objects by asking
> them
> > to copy themselves?
>
> Sure. Not at runtime, though.
IOW, no you can't.
> > Is it possible to mutate the type of these objects
> > by, say, adding instance variables and methods to them?
>
> Sure, not at runtime, though.
IOW, no you can't. You can do this in ALL prototypical
languages, even Omega which is statically typed.
> > Is it possible to
> > override the + operator of one instance of the 'int' primitive type
> and
> > not another?
>
> No, because int is not a class, not an object (in C++, at least).
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
In classless OO languages (ie, prototypical languages) every object
keeps track of its own methods and you can add/change/delete its
methods at will.
> Indeed I do. I didn't think I should need to spell it to you, though.
>
> In this imaginary language, a class could be a object that doesn't
> belong to a class, while other objects belong to that specific class.
>
> In that way, "what class is X supposed to belong to?" is an illogical
> question if you are trying to prove X is or not an object (since all
> answers can be true of things that are objects)
Wrong. An object can either belong to a class or it can be a prototype.
Either way, its methods have to be changeable at will. *At runtime*.
Claiming that a class is an object and that it belongs to no class
doesn't make it so.
You still haven't proved any kind of contradiction, nor even that you
know what the word means.
> Therefore, your quip about classes doesn't lead anywhere in your
> argument about classes not being objects.
Classes are not objects in C++. Neither are primitive types. And
you are confusing a whole bunch of stuff, probably because you don't
understand what's being said.
> > > I did provide the quotes. You deleted them. Too bad.
> >
> > Here you go:
>
> Actually, you reversed them.
I copied them off your article.
> > "1) primitive types are not objects. What the class are they supposed
> to be
> > of anyways?" and,
> >
> > "I don't believe classes should exist in the system at all. New
> objects should
> > be created by copying prototypes."
> >
> >
> > Now please provide the logical transformations you used to arrive at
> your
> > nonsense starting from these two statements.
>
> It's a pleasure. Or rather, would be if you had not deleted the quote
> you want me to reach. I can't recall it exactly anymore.
Man, you are a lazy asshole. Here:
"So, in short: having a class is not a necessary characteristic of an object.
So, not belonging to classes doesn't prove classes are not objects." -- Roberto
> > >If a language has a class construct at all (and there is no reason
> > >why it should) then people should be able to access and manipulate
> > >this construct as easily as any other construct in the language.
>
> You are saying that languages SHOULD be introspective. My mistake.
Having classes be objects is no more introspective than having conditionals
be implemented in the library. I don't see how it qualifies as introspection
at all.
> > And perhaps being arrogant, aggressive and belligerent on a newsgroup
> > (especially one such as this) says absolutely nothing about being a
> > good human being.
>
> I believe it does.
How so?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:07:24 -0000
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:39:44 -0400, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Funny that you should call me a "ms junkie"
>I use Linux on a daily basis and enjoy doing so.
>
>I don't, however, enjoy anything related to the internet experience provided
>by Linux.
>MS's offerings are far superior in my opinion, and for that reason and that
Unfortunately, those are completely empty statements.
[deletia]
So they are of no real value to anyone except perhaps as pro-MS FUD.
--
In Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor.
"His great aim was to escape from civilization, and, as soon as he had
money, he went to Southern California."
It is far better to be deceived than to be undeceived by those we love.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
