Linux-Advocacy Digest #940, Volume #29 Mon, 30 Oct 00 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (John Fereira)
Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Linux Experience (Jacques Guy)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Static66)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Static66)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (John Poltorak)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("MH")
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Linux in approximately 5 years: ("Darren Winsper")
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Re: I wouldn't want to be the poor Bastard..... (.)
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Fereira)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:53:23 GMT
In article <rGPK5.116711$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bruce Schuck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Bruce Schuck wrote:
>> >
>> > "Matt Kennel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > :Look at Oracle. You pay for the software by the mhz of the chip you
>run
>> > it
>> > > :on .... as if that was any of their f**king business.
>> > > :
>> > > :Upgrade the processor and pay more money!
>> > > :
>> > > :Talk about extortion.
>> > >
>> > > Why? I see no relation.
>> >
>> > I guess you are blind.
>> >
>> > > The problem with Microsoft's business practices is that they were
>> > intentionally
>> > > designed to thwart agreements between the Microsoft client and some
>other
>> > > third software maker by means other than offering a superior product.
>> >
>> > They were designed to strongly encourage companies that sold hardware to
>> > sell only Microsoft software in the same way GM, Ford, and Chrysler
>strongly
>> > encouraged franchisees to only sell cars made by the company that sold
>them
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> > the franchise.
>>
>>
>> Note the PAST TENSE, as this is *ILLEGAL*.
>>
>> A sizeable portion of auto-dealers, IN AND AROUND DETROIT--RIGHT UNDER
>> THE AUTO-EXEC's NOSES sell cars and trucks from multiple manufacturers...
>
>A sizeable portion? Are you trying to tell me dealers sell both Ford and GM
>and Chrysler cars?
>
>Never seen it.
>
>Or are you talking Ford/VW and GM/Volvo.
>
>That I've seen. And I've seen Auto Malls where multiple separate dealers
>sell cars.
Are you sure they're separate? Out in the south SF bay area there is a
company called the "Lucas Dealership Group". It's one company that owns
mulitple dealerships that include almost all of the major domestic and
foreign models. I've seen the same thing in several other places. Each
dealership might be limited to one or two manufacturers but they're all owned
by the same company.
John Fereira
Ithaca, NY
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:02:38 -0800
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tjc6k$s8v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Les Mikesell wrote:
> > >
> > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > For Charlie Ebert : How do you know that the the Windows and Office
> > > > source was stolen?
> > > >
> > > > I would like to see either of you post something that settles the
> > > > question. Its important to know one way or another based on
something
> > > > other than bald assertions. If the Russian Mafia and Chineese Triads
> do
> > > > have the source, then they have a lot of power.
> > >
> > > Why? Do you think they will fix the bugs and take over the
> > > software monopoly? The only thing you lose by letting others
> > > see your source is the ability to keep selling bad software.
> > >
> > > Les Mikesell
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I don't think they will fix the bugs. I think they will exploit the bugs
> > and hidden backdoors to rob banks and extort money from companies. Being
> > professionals, they will do this in a manner that doesn't bring wide
> > spread attention to themselves. As long as they don't bring attention to
> > the bugs, MS will never fix the bugs.
>
> W2K is going to run Navy *ships*, weapon systems, engines, all sorts of
> things.
> The USA goverment is going to accept all sorts of exploits in W2k without
a
> comment, how briliant from them.
>
> __________________
> 07, may 2001, a crisis between china & taiwan force the USA to send a
> carrier battle group to the taiwan, the following converstion takes place
in
> china military headquarters.
Genral: Comrade, have you got those Nukes we built using information Bill
Clinton and Al Gore gave us access to in exchange for the campaign donation?
Colonelt: Yes, Comrade.
General: Fire away!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:05:12 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> El sáb, 28 oct 2000, Tim Palmer escribió: (té kyero, Tym, *smoooooch*)
> >IE integraits real good with Outlook Express and Ofice. Does KDE intergrait
> with Netscape? No.
> Does wordpad integrate with notepad? Try to keep things consistent.
And with all due respect to Tim's spelling, the question is not "Does
KDE integrate with Netscape" but: "Does Netscape integrate with KDE".
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:03:53 GMT
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:32:59 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 04:59:58 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:24:13 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[Ralph Nader...]
>> >> That is a good one.. He is still just another EnviroNazi the world can
>> >> do with out. I like Browne though. He just makes too much damn sense.
>> >> He has really been railroaded by the media he and nader should have
>> >> recieved equal time.
>> > However, according to "private sector good, public sector bad"
>> >ideology, the news media is doing the Right Thing. And if it is not,
>> >then why hasn't it gone broke?
>
>> You are truely an idot Loren..WTF kind of arguement is that? How can
>> you draw a corelation between not wanting state run schools into it is
>> ok for the press not to give third party canidates equal time?
>
> But if anything goes when running a business, that includes it being
>OK not to give alternative-party candidates equal time.
>
> This "anything goes" position is a common defense of M$'s actions by
>apologists for it, I may add.
>
>> I believe it is against the law for them to give more time to a dem
>> than a repl right? So why not give the green and the lib equal time?
>
> I'm not sure what laws you have in mind. Remember that it is the
>right wing which got rid of the Fairness Doctrine after a long time of
>supporting it as a stick to beat the news media with.
>
>> This should fit into your "making the world fair through socialism"
>> philosphy Loren..
>
> However, your objections to the news media's coverage of politics
>may be interpreted as fundamentally socialistic.
So in your mine fairness is only achieved through socialism ??
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:06:57 GMT
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:19:04 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 03:57:43 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> By the way, do you interpret a desire to increase one's standard
>> >> of living to be something shameful?
>> > So if someone tries to extort money from you, you say "Hooray! Here
>> >is someone who wants to improve his standard of living."?
>> Loren it is you that advocates criminal behavior as an alternative to
>> honest work.
>
> What makes something "criminal"?
Do I really need to explain our judicial process to you??
EXTORTION IS ILLEGAL AND THERFORE CRIMINAL.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:12:17 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>>So I have to burn a CD, reboot, burn another, reboot.
[...]
>CD-R type, version, and driver used.
>Win2k type, version
>Computer details?
>Application that you use?
So you're going to jump right in there and do the classic "MS dance";
reverse engineering your heart out, at least so far as to state with
clear conviction: "well, you can't blame that on Windows."
I will bet you one hundred dollars, at this very moment in time, whoever
you are, that you will not be able to set up:
>CD-R type, version, and driver used.
>Win2k type, version
>Computer details
>Application that you use
and replicate this gripe reliably. If you cannot, then there is truly
no chance whatsoever that the "exercise in ignorance blame-casting" that
passes for troubleshooting amongst the Windows crowd you would seek to
engage in could come up with any accurate, consistent, or practical
correction for the problem.
[...]
>Well, it just proves that you don't know much about win2k.
Nobody does, remember? Its proprietary, bloated, and badly designed.
>Right click my computer > propeties >Advace > StartUp & Recovery, uncehck
>"Automatically Reboot"
Are you trying to tell me that the default setting for W2K is to
"automatically reboot" when you have an OS crash? Boy, I'd
under-estimated how badly it was designed to begin with.
>Write down the BSOD, 99% that you've a driver/hardware failure.
100% that this wonderful distinction might give you a warm and fuzzy,
but it just means the consumer has to spend yet more time and possibly
money making up for a crappy operating system, which cannot provide a
reliable driver/hardware platform.
>Video card type/driver type?
>Why are you blaming win2k for your fault at using beta drivers in the first
>place?
Because its *the operating system*, and even though MS has engineered it
to be the least removable component, it is also the most likely
component you'd want to "remove and replace" in order to troubleshoot
slightly uncharacterizeable and only nominally repeatable failures with
the computer. With non-crapware OSes, the OS itself is not a black box,
and so you can do quite well tracking down the problem AND BEING ABLE TO
CORRECT IT as necessary from your perspective. This "work around" is
what "fixing a computer" means, when you're dealing with software
problems, unless you want to take on responsibility for every
bone-headed glitch that every putatively capable programmer introduced
amongst the hundreds and even thousands of different pieces of software
which aggregate to "your computer". Not everyone needs to be a
programmer, but still wants to be able to control their computer. Step
one to avoiding the necessity to choose between one or the other is
"don't buy crapware like Windows."
[...]
>Get the NT Option pack , nice little utility there called Kill.exe
>But 90% of the time you can make do with "net stop" or simply End Task from
>windows task manager
And, yes, it is the fact that the operating system can't even kill a
process reliably, not that MS didn't "helpfully" include a utility which
(putatively) works in an NT Option pack, which the poster was
complaining about.
>Hold power button for 6 seconds, it will turn itself off.
Unless it doesn't, of course. Which, again, is what the poster was
complaining about.
>It was build this was so you wouldn't accidently turn the computer off.
Yay! Unfortunately, it also makes it possible for the crapware OS (or
crapware BIOS, but you can't tell the difference anymore with
proprietary monopoly crapware getting in the way) to make it impossible
to turn the computer off, unless you pull the plug.
[...]
>What game, what version?
>What are you doing running DOS games?
>And why are you yanking the cord anyway?
Why do you believe you have the ability to second-guess other people,
when you can't even double-check the information which is useful for
determining the problem.
What OS, what vendor?
Was the last version any better?
Do you expect the next version to be any better?
Result of investigation: dump the monopoly crapware, if you can manage.
Wait until MS is split up; it will get a lot easier. So easy, in fact,
that you'll have computer manufacturers clambering to give you things so
you can do it.
>> Fucking Windows 2000. None of the myriad of serious design flaws in the
>> previous versions of Windows have been addressed, but at least in this
>version
>> I have animated menus, a fancier taskbar, a new recycle bin icon.
>
>What are those serious design flaws?
Demanding an enumeration is hardly any kind of reasonable argument
against the fact that there are "myriad" design flaws. We could start
with the registry, as that seems related to the majority of problems
which I've seen, but that would hardly provide you with enough
information to handwave the problems. Perhaps you should start with
some arm-waving, or at least shaking a couple of dead chickens. Maybe
that will help.
>> You know, Linux was a bit buggy at first...so was Solaris...but over time they
>> get more and more robust and stable and foolproof...but not Windows. It's the
>> same piece of bug-infested dogshit that it was from day one.
>
>You've never used NT, I understand. Or 98/95, for that matter.
Apparently, he has. I've used both, extensively (am using NT4 as we
speak, so to speak) and I agree entirely with his opinion.
--
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: John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:10:30 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> It never occured to you that the cost of moving from Windows to some other
> OS is just too great?
> Assuming that there are backdoors in Windows, what would be cheaper? Have MS
> make a SP to seal them, or replace every OS in every computer?
> Get REAL!!!
Perhaps you do not realise that a computer does no need to have an OS installed
to be able to boot up...
It is possible to change the OS which 1000 users boot up, in a matter of
minutes.
--
John
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:23:21 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Terje Mathisen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> That would depend on what you consider "ethernet speeds". The correct
>> throughput rate to measure on an Ethernet is comparable to arcnet.
>> Ethernet's CSMA/CD relies on statistical access to the media, and is
>> only really efficient at nominally 10% of the "bandwidth speed".
>
>OK, please do some actual throughput tests and come back:
>
>I'm willing to bet that you'll discover that CSMA/CD is perfectly
>willing to work with 30-60% utilization, and for a simple streaming
>application using maximum size packets (1500+ bytes), you'll get up to
>90-99%.
You are under the impression that throughput tests would involve
measuring the utilization of the Ethernet. That is specifically what I
meant to point out would be of dubious value. I have no interest what
an ethernet can do in isolation or in thought experiments. If you're
going to design a [complex] network which includes Ethernet, you should,
as Robert Metcalfe intended when he designed the thing, consider your
"bandwidth" to be a nominal 10% of the bit rate. Unless you're not
using shared ethernet, and hardly anyone uses shared media these days.
And then they wonder why their shared switches don't make all of their
"network" problems magically disappear, like the sales droid promised.
>> number, as in IP. But with address spaces as large as IPX, who needs
>> them? IP's 32 bits hardly compares to IPX's 16 byte segment number
>> *plus* 16 byte (twelve digits of hexadecimal values is 16 bytes, isnt'
>> it, or is it 8?).
>
>Is this a trolling attempt!
(No, it is not a trolling attempt.)
>An IPX address consists of a 32-bit (= 4 bytes, right) network number,
>and a 48-bit (= 6 bytes, 12 hex digits) MAC address.
>
>The total is 80 bits or 10 bytes, of which 60% is more or less
>determined by the network card.
It was merely yet another sign of my lack of facility with numbers, and
my ignorance. Either way, it is much larger than a single thirty two
bit number, for both network and host, which is what IP makes do with.
I use calc.exe when I need to convert hex or binary to decimal. I don't
even want to bother trying to deal with numbers in my head any more;
I've finally convinced myself that I'm just plain not very good at it.
Thanks for double-checking me.
Sure, the use of "arbitrary" logical addressing is nice, but the IPX
method of simply using the MAC address plus a network number doesn't
require *any* client-side configuration, and makes it much easier to
identify which transceiver is associated with which host. You can
always use LLA, if you want, but that's a hassle which doesn't provide
any real operational functionality.
--
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: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:34:53 -0500
> Either the patches give you a 98 as you claimed in the first statement
> or they don't as you claimed in the second. It is impossible for both to
> be true. you have lied or you do not know what you are talking about.
> What is it? is it lies of lack of knowage? I don't really care. It is
> clear to me that you will say anything true or false. I simply do not
> believe any thing you say at this point.
CAREFUL! Calling him a liar...someone might sue you!!
BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: 30 Oct 2000 17:46:56 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>> The opposite case exists in Solaris... the bus error bug appears "from
>> time to time" whereupon it crashes :-)
>>
>> It never takes out the OS, though, and so you simply restart. Just a
>> nuisance factor, that one.
>>
>
>That it is. I hate it when I have a bunch of Netscape windows open,
>including email, a couple of message replies working, a couple of
>websites on different desktops, etc. Close one window, and it all
>disappears. That's just when they plugged the memory leaks enough so I
>can leave it running for a few days at a time.
I don't understand these memory leaks. Is the cause of this known?
>Better alternatives are coming.
On Solaris? [I know they are on Linux]
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in approximately 5 years:
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:57:15 -0000
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tjtai$gup$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I hope they include all the spy-ware that is included in the windows
> versions out now.
Just use Mozilla instead then.
> "Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8tjifr$cne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Netscape 6 is closer than you think.
--
If a floppy contains the only copy of a critical document, it will fail
instantaneously. It might even burst into flames for good measure.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 30 Oct 2000 16:46:52 GMT
[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>You are under the impression that throughput tests would involve
>measuring the utilization of the Ethernet. That is specifically what I
>meant to point out would be of dubious value. I have no interest what
>an ethernet can do in isolation or in thought experiments. If you're
>going to design a [complex] network which includes Ethernet, you should,
>as Robert Metcalfe intended when he designed the thing, consider your
>"bandwidth" to be a nominal 10% of the bit rate. Unless you're not
>using shared ethernet, and hardly anyone uses shared media these days.
>And then they wonder why their shared switches don't make all of their
>"network" problems magically disappear, like the sales droid promised.
The 10% (I thought 30?) maximal nominal use is a malicious
misinterpretation of one of the more interesting papers on ethernet.
It's about the worst case, many station, tiny gram situation which doesn't
exist in any practice.
>Sure, the use of "arbitrary" logical addressing is nice, but the IPX
>method of simply using the MAC address plus a network number doesn't
>require *any* client-side configuration, and makes it much easier to
>identify which transceiver is associated with which host. You can
>always use LLA, if you want, but that's a hassle which doesn't provide
>any real operational functionality.
Like IPv6?
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: I wouldn't want to be the poor Bastard.....
Date: 30 Oct 2000 17:05:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> who executed the attachment that contained the QAZ trojan. He's
> probably cleaning every bathroom in MS University with his toothbrush
> right now.
Why? Its microsoft's fault in the first place that such attacks
even work at all.
And it is definitely possible that the virus-protection software
that MS spent zillions of dollars on didnt detect it at all.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: 30 Oct 2000 17:07:56 GMT
Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose if I were going to write something this stupid I wouldn't want my
> name to appear either...
Stupid? How, exactly?
Redhat is shipping a broken GCC, AGAIN.
Mandrake is not linux; they completely redid the kernel headers and
broke massive amounts of legacy software as a result. Thats why
there are "rpm-mdk"s, brainiac.
Do you have problems with SuSe, Debian or Slackware?
And if you had three or four braincells, you could find out exactly
who I am very easily. I'm far from anonymous.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
