Linux-Advocacy Digest #859, Volume #29 Wed, 25 Oct 00 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Colin R. Day")
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. (Jim Broughton)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why. ("Weevil")
Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install. (2:1)
Got it working. (Was Thinkpad+Linux) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Astroturfing (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! ("Weevil")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install. ("MH")
Re: Want to learn Linux? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:13:46 -0400
Relax wrote:
> >
> > Printing *.dvi files is also device independent, but dvips will work
> > in console mode.
>
> I don't know what dvi files are. Can you use these as a general purpose
> rendering mechanism for any app, for both screen and paper? Can an app, say
> a word processor, use the very same API calls to display your document on
> screen and print it on paper? While we are at it, is there any standard way
> of doing such things (device independent screen display and printing) on the
> platform you are implicitely refering to?
>
I usually print *.dvi files by Ghostscript, which is a Postscript clone.
>
> I've heard that Display PostScript attempted to provide such true device
> independence but I don't know to what extent it was really
> implemented/deployed/used.
I don't believe that one can view Ghostscript/Postscript files without a GUI,
but one doesn't need the GUI to print.
> All I know is that Next's version was painfully
> slow. Now, maybe with part of it in the kernel, it would have been more
> useable?
I will check GDI vs. Ghostscript on my printer at work to compare speeds.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:17:57 GMT
2:1 wrote:
>
> Before I start this message, please read the following.
>
> If you are a Wintroll, go away. This is not a post about Windows Vs
> Linux, so don't make it one.
>
> Also remember that I have been posting Linux advocacy here for a while
> and only use Linux on my computer.
>
> I also know this doesn't reflect in any way on the Linux Kernel. I am
> specifically refering to the RedHat GNU/Linux distributon.
>
> I decided to do a major upgrade of software on my computer yesterday. I
> finally decided to install glibc2.1 because I have a new versionm of
> Xevil which doesn't crash under glibc2.1.
>
> All of the binary RPMs supplied with RH6.2 are compiled under the newer
> libraries, so I came in to the position of being able to install binary
> RPMS, which is a lot quicker than compiling the source for each one.
>
> I decided to start with xmms.
>
> I didn't have any `nice' package management tools like kpackage or the
> GNOME equivalent, since I neither had KDE or GNOME. All I had was the
> GUI RedHat package manager and the rpm command (I opted for the latter).
>
> The first (minor) problem was with dependencies. When trying to upgrade
> a package, the dependencies were generally listed in terms of which
> libraries (or other files) were needed, not which packages were needed.
> This problem was easily solved by taking a list of the contents of every
> package on the CD, and searching for the relavent librariies.
>
> The main problem with the dependencies was the bizare trail of
> dependencies which was needed to install xmms. According to rpm, after
> following every dependency, I needed a new kernel to install xmms.
> Okay....
> (as it was, I already had the new kernel installd from a source tarball,
> bit rpm didn't know about this)
>
> The problem, I think is that all the dependencies are not as sensible as
> they should be. For instance, XFree 3.3.6-20 needed xfs to go with it.
> This is no problem. The problem lies in xfs needing a new set of
> initscripts. This is plain stupid. Why can't xfs put the relavent script
> in /etc/rc.d/init.d and run chkconfig on it? In hind sight, I should
> have realised this and done more by hand, but what actually happened is
> that I installed a new load of initscripts, which wrecked my
> configurations which I had slowly built up over time.
> On the plus side, all the overwritten files were saved automatically by
> rpm, so it hasn't been too difficult to restore the system so far.
>
> Going further down the tree of dependencies, new newt libraries needed
> to be installed. rpm wouldn't let me upgrade or install the packages
> because existing files depended on the old libraries. What I don't
> understand is why it wouldn't install new libraries, whilst leaving the
> old ones in place (I made it do that after some fiddling).
>
> In conclsion, I now have a nice RH6.2 iso image on my hard disk and
> quite a few new toys installed. The main problems, as far as I can see
> them is that the dependencies in the rpms supplied by redhat are not as
> sensible as they could have been: if i didnt have to install new
> initscripts, I wouldn't have had to worry about newt. I am a competent
> user and willing to try, but it turned out to be quite akward to do a
> custom upgrade (I didn't want to go the whole hog) and it disabled most
> of my custom configurations.
>
> What I will say about the package system is that it wouldn't let me
> break anything in the install process, unless I forced it to.
>
> Just thought I'd share some dissatisfaction about it.
>
> Does anyone have any better ideas how it could be done in Linux. I've
> heard about the deb system, but never seen it in action.
>
> -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
One thing that really ticked me about redhat (6.1) was the output configuration
files from linuxconf being so tightly integrated with the system init scripts and
daemon inits. It made it almost impossible to remove linuxconf from the system.
With slackware that problem does not exist. It is straight forward no nonsense
linux and it works well.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 25 Oct 2000 18:20:12 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8t52ve$v5p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> These memory drawing surfaces are not really used for things like device
> independant printing. Printing is generally done via PostScript and for
> non poscript devices the 'driver' is basically a usermode program that
> takes postscript input and generates binary output for the given device.
That's one of the main points here: drawing on screen with X and drawing on
paper with PostScript are two completely separate things on Unix, requiring
separate code, separate libraries and probably more work for the developer.
One of the beauties of Windows it that you can easily do truly device
independent rendering out of the box, no matter what kind of device you are
talking to. You don't even have to know in many cases. Admittedly, some
things just don't work well - such as bitblts on a plotter - but you can
always query *any* device for its capabilities in a standard, uniform
fashion using one single API call, namely GetDeviceCaps(), to handle special
cases gracefully.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:24:49 -0500
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Goldhammer wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have had some very limited exposure to low level VMS, and am an NT
> kernel developer. While reading some of the NT DDK stuff, it had
> occurred to more more than once that, just as MS did before with QDOS,
> they did about the same thing with VMS.
I've also had some exposure to low level VMS. In the mid through late 80s,
my employer sent me to virtually every class DEC offered on the VAX,
including VMS Internals I and II. Reading the article you cited rang bell
after bell with me. I've never even used NT, much less been exposed to its
internals, but after reading that article I suspect that I would find it
very familiar.
A couple of questions occurred to me while reading. One of my favorite
features of VMS was its file versioning concept. Did the VMS guys bring
that to NT? Also, why didn't they use swapping in NT? And does NT use the
huge number of inter-related user and process privileges that VMS did?
Playing with those privileges was crucial to tuning a VMS system.
I have no doubt whatever that NT is in large part based on VMS. One thing
clinched it for me: the 32 priority levels, with the top 16 being
"real-time" and the bottom 16 subject to "boosting." It's a good system,
and clearly not coincidental.
Thanks for pointing to this article. I learned something interesting today.
jwb
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 02:27:15 +0100
<snip>
I'm not sure I believe you, but I'll awnser the question anyway:
> Question #2 How could I have installed to the Laptop via FTP from the
> CDROM mounted on the network CDROM? With a bare harddrive how would I
> go about doing this. Is there some cookbook (I am network challenged)
> procedure somewhere?
>
I don't know about RH6.X, but I've done this on a 486 with no cd...
The standard boot disk that RH5.2 gives you should be enough, but it
might be worth making up all the boot disks in case.
Put in the first disk and boot...
Follow the instructions and eventually it should ask you where you want
to install from. Select network.
One of NFS or FTP requires to other boot disk, but I can't remember
which. It will prompt you, though.
If you enter in the computer network details here (rather than DHCP or
BOOTP), the computer will be set up (and working) with those details.
You may need another disk for PCMCIA cards (I've never done that).
Basically with RH (I only use the text mode installer), you follow the
instructions and it is very obvious.
Good luck
-Ed
> I'd like to get this thing back to him tonight so he can play with
> Linux a bit.
>
> Claire
--
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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Got it working. (Was Thinkpad+Linux)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:45:02 GMT
With the help I received I got the Thinkpad up and running. FWIW my
friend is a school board member in a district where a bond issue will
be coming up shortly to upgrade the computer labs. He has expressed
interest in Linux so I offered to set him up with a Linux distribution
on his laptop to try. Heck even if Linux was only used as a server and
for the proposed satellite uplink etc, they could save a fortune.
Meaning "I" would save a fortune as well.
I pay taxes too :)
Thanks again!
claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:43:52 GMT
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:24:21 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[nothing important]
Oh well, another address, another score file entry...
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:43:45 GMT
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 20:34:25 -0700, Caldera OpenLinux User
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[some stuff]
You can fix that generic name up there with the "chfn" command.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:52:57 -0500
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Z9BJ5.16775$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> But there was still a mention. Why? Why do supposed Linux supporters feel
the
> need to constantly bash MS? Why so much negativity. Even OS/2 users who
should
> have the most hatred, limit their comments to advocacy groups or the
OCCASIONAL
> ranting on OS Opinion. Yet the Linux community seems to base its whole
existence
> on the hell-bent destruction of MS (at which it's miserably failing).
It is the Windows users who come into the Linux advocacy group and spend
morning and night bashing Linux. Do Linux users do that in Windows advocacy
groups? Yes, this thread is cross-posted to windows groups. Ignore
everything that's cross-posted. Do this instead: check out all the message
threads in COLA that are not cross=posted to other groups. Now check out
all the message threads in windows advocacy groups that are not cross-posted
anywhere else.
If you find that a bunch of Linux users are in windows groups posting
anti-MS articles, then you're right. However, you *know* that you are in a
linux advocacy group right now posting anti-Linux propaganda, and you *know*
that you, claire, Drestin, Byrns, and half a dozen other Windows nuts spend
hours every day bashing Linux in the Linux advocacy group.
Do Linux fans do that in windows groups? Why don't you gather some data,
Chad, and report back to us. We'd all like to know.
jwb
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:02:47 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El lun, 23 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >RTTI?
>
> Yes, RTTI.
>
> >Why don't you ask Donovan or someone else who knows C++ whether or not
> >classes exist at runtime in C++ or whether they're a pure compiler construct.
>
> You know what RTTI is, right?
I haven't the faintest clue.
> >Almost no programmer ever needs to manipulate successful messages (eg, to
> >redefine what happens during message sends). Something that isn't seen by
> >anyone has no impact. OTOH, since C++ claim to OO is having class constructs
> >and those constructs are used by EVERY programmer ALL the time, the fact
> >that they are not objects matters.
>
> So, only what you decide matters, matters. How convenient.
So when I'm providing reasons for something, that's just unsupported claims.
And when you're making unsupported claims, those are reasons?
> So, not really forbidden. So, not really "false", but "in bad taste"? How
> crappy your logic.
How about forbidden by human rights since they are so fucking repulsive as
to make any sane person shrink away in horror and vomit until they dry heave?
Just how the hell do you parse "forbidden" if it's NOT by "good taste"?
What exactly did you expect?
> >In that case, in systems with class constructs, it is NECESSARY for every
> >object to be associated with some class in order to consider that object
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >an object. Otherwise, you have first-class objects and second-class "fake"
^^^^^^^^^
> >"objects".
>
> So, is this again something about taste? Are you saying that the existence of
> classes turns what were perfectly nice objects into non-objects? So your
> definition of objects varies according to the language you use? How crappy.
*IF* they were prototypes then they remain objects. If they weren't prototypes
then they remain non-objects while other entities that become associated with
these new class constructs become objects.
> So, since it is a statement that is true in some cases and false in others, and
> even seems to be a defining feauture of "objectness according to Richard", it
> was hardly nonsense. How crappy your logic.
You just don't seem to get it, do you? Every one of my statements is written,
and should be interpreted, within the context of OO. If I say that something
is forbidden then it is forbidden by OO, by good taste, by common sense, by
sanity, by elegence and decency. You seem to have this fixation with "proving"
that I believe C++ does not exist since *obviously* what C++ does is wildly
forbidden by my criteria and I therefore MUST be implying that C++ does not
exist. You are a fucking moron.
Using the trappings of logic to support such an idiotic opinion only proves
that you understand nothing of logic.
> >> >Why do you believe that being arrogant, aggressive and belligerent /on a
> >> >newsgroup/ (especially one such as this) says something about being (or not
> >> >being) a good human being?
> >>
> >> Statistical correlation, and a hunch.
> >
> >That's so utterly pathetic Roberto. Did you perform the study yourself?
>
> Yup.
I see. And what was your methodology? What criteria did you use for "good
human being"? Did you base them on social rationality, social approval or
psychological fitness? Just how wide was your sample of people you've seen
on USENET and also seen in RL? What steps did you take to eliminate your
own bias?
> > Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal?
>
> Nope. Never claimed it was a formal study.
I see.
> > And of course, your hunches are trustworthy because they have been honed by
> > years of practice in the field of clinical psychology, right?
>
> Only psychologists are allowed to have hunches? Perhaps they should all go to
> Vegas and make a killing!
Only psychologists have reliably good hunches about human nature. If they don't
then there is a problem, isn't there?
> What a crappy person you seem to be. Perhaps it's because of that child abuse
> you suffered.
Or perhaps it's just that I have to deal with idiots and I have no compunction
with rendering unto Ceasar his due.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:03:25 -0400
Agh! This moron got by my filter by going to yahoo. A more apropos domain
name there could not be for this case of cultural failure though. Nice thing
about this cheapo MS newsreader. When you add one of these abrasive
irritants to the blocked senders list, the program asks you nicely if you'd
like to remove any messages from the turd-laden-lout post haste. Ahh...peace
again!
Back in the Bozo bin you go Clueless....
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > IBM Thinkpad 765L with 3 gig blank un partitioned hard disk.
> > Sigma Data 24x CDROM (says IBM certified on label) in Ultrabay.
> > USR PCMCIA 56K modem.
> > Linksys Cardbus PCMCIA Ethernet card.
> > 64 Meg memory.
> >
> > And one friend who asked me to install Linux, no particular
> > distribution in mind. Just something "nice" so he can try Linux.
>
> Bullshit.....
>
> Large blob of bullshit below...
>
> >
> > I try Mandrake 7.x as my first choice and slap the CD in only to
> > discover this particular machine will not boot from the CD no matter
> > what I do in the BIOS. Ok so I follow the somewhat screwed up
> > directions and make a boot diskette. Still the CDROM doesn't get
> > recognized despite trying every *.img file on the CD. Ok so now I
> > figure maybe Mandrake is screwy so I try RedHat 6.2 and get similar
> > results. At this point I start to think maybe the CDROM drive is
> > defective so I make a startup diskette on one of my Windows 98se
> > machines, which has obviously completely different hardware, and try
> > it. Bingo it recognizes the CDROM and also the fact that the hardisk
> > is not partitioned. Going one step farther, I partition the drive and
> > put the Windows 98 SE CDROM in and start an install. Works like a
> > champ. This is with a startup diskette from a completely different
> > system with completely different hardware, and yet it seems to install
> > some generic Oak Cdrom driver to make it work until Windows can
> > install the proper driver.
> > Not to be daunted, I wipe the drive and try SuSE 6.4 via the boot
> > diskette method and FINALLY the CD is recognized and I am able to
> > install Linux. All hardware except sound is working fine.
> > I took the "Install almost Everything" option and it took about 2.5
> > hours to complete with 1.7 gig of drive space used. Granted this is
> > not the fastest of machines (although the CD is 24x) at P166mhz.
> >
> > Now comes the fun part. Getting this beast to talk to the other
> > machines on the network. I've tried it on my network and I can ping
> > the ICS machine (running Win 2k) but when I bring up Netscape on the
> > Linux machine it won't connect. What magic incantation do I need to
> > know in order to do this. On the other Win machines it just worked
> > from the start when I checked the "Share the Connection" tab.
> >
> > Question #2 How could I have installed to the Laptop via FTP from the
> > CDROM mounted on the network CDROM? With a bare harddrive how would I
> > go about doing this. Is there some cookbook (I am network challenged)
> > procedure somewhere?
> >
> > I'd like to get this thing back to him tonight so he can play with
> > Linux a bit.
> >
> > Claire
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
>
>
> 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
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> 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 (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Want to learn Linux?
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:04:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gardiner Family
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:46:33 +1300
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>have you seen the manual included with SuSE linux 7.0 Pro, 3 manuals,
>one of them (the main one) covers everything from configuring linux to
>recompiling the kernel.
Nope, can't say that I have, as I'm not a SuSE user. However,
that does sound heartening, even if said manual is essentially payware
(unless one can print it out from their Website).
The RedHat 4.2 manual (or maybe it was 5.1?) was basically a
"How-To-Install-It" and not a heck of a lot else. But it did have
a pretty blue cover. :-)
>
>matt
>
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:36:12 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >http://lfs.sourceforge.net/download/book.php
>> >
>> >
>> >Read this.
>>
>> Is this The F manual? I've always been advised to RTFM.... ;-)
>> What happened to A-E?
>>
>> That said...this looks like a good manual for building one's own
>> version of Linux, which may not suit everyone, but shows that
>> it can be done, and without too much difficulty apparently, as well.
>>
>> I'm not sure I'd recommend this to a raw novice, admittedly, but
>> it might be good for a mid-level -- say, me :-) -- person who knows
>> the basics of Unix and is willing to get their hands dirty.
>> A mid-bandwidth connection (cable, DSL, etc.) wouldn't hurt either.
>>
>> >
>> >Charlie
>> >
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:06:32 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
> > Here we go again with another wininformant article.
> >
> > What good is it to post articles from an agency which has
> > been proven to be 100% anti-Linux?
>
> Yet your posts from Linuxtoday (proven to be 100% anti-MS)
> are ok?
>
> -Chad
It's a good point.
There isn't any common ground anymore.
Not even with WEB sites.
The issue has polarized the world.
So I guess all we can do is watch who's growing and who's not.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
