Linux-Advocacy Digest #968, Volume #29 Tue, 31 Oct 00 19:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good! (Tim Smith)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Weevil")
Re: Why Linux is great (George Richard Russell)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (chris ulrich)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Linux is great (Aaron Ginn)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Peter Hayes)
Re: Why Linux is great (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Linux is great. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Walter Hill")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("James E. Freedle II")
Re: Why Linux is great (George Richard Russell)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: history of software engineering (was: Re: Ms employeesbegging for (John
Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good!
Date: 31 Oct 2000 14:29:24 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Laugh all you want. Microsoft have lost the server market. Linux is
>making inroads on the desktop. Now that they have been hacked (and not
The Linux inroads on the desktop are not very big. Linux is a better OS
than any version of Windows, but Microsoft has a much better graphical
shell than anything available for Linux.
Linux graphical shells are improving, but Microsoft has an ace in the
hole. If it ever gets to the point where Linux is a threat on the
desktop, they could, without a lot of trouble, write a driver that loads
as a Linux kernel module and can load and run Windows graphics drivers.
They could then, again without too much effort, get the Windows graphics
system running on Linux. They could then release a version of Win32
that runs on top of that environment. It should be possible to make it
binary compatible with Win32 running on Windows. That ends the Linux
desktop threat...Linux becomes just another way for desktop users to run
Windows.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
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: 31 Oct 2000 16:41:21 -0600
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Relax wrote:
> >
> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Steve Mading wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > : If you have 10,000 users on at once context switch speed becomes
one
> > of
> > > > : the most importent things.
> > > >
> > > > Do you seriously believe those 10,000 users are actually running
> > > > seperate processes on the Windows machine? Having a server process
> > > > do things *for* them by proxy doesn't count as having 10,000 users
> > > > on the machine at once.
> > >
> > > You still need to switc between threads. If they are hardware threads,
> > > then it matters.
> >
> > Hey, a new concept. What is a hardware thread?
>
> You can switch between threads using hardware or software.
I'm not sure I follow you. A thread scheduler will use some low level
resource, such as a timer among other things, to do its job. Switching
threads basically involves saving/restoring the CPU registers (stack pointer
included) and returning to some previously saved address. Pretty lightweight
and quick. Switching processes, however, involve much more work, such as
remapping memory. Also, it doesn't make any sense to have one thread per
connected user too. Usually, you want no more active threads than the number
of CPUs. Windows 2000 provides very good mechanisms (such as IO completion
ports, fully asynchronous IO manager, asynchronous procedure calls and
thread pools) plus a variety of synchronization objects that make it easy to
write very, very scaleable server apps. IIS, Exchange, and SQL Servers are
major examples but nothing prevents you to write your own high-performance
servers.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[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: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:42:38 -0600
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:LFCL5.119519$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 1) Download Caldera's source code
> > 2) Alter the source. Put in a back door.
> > 3) Compile
> > 4) Burn a copy of Caldera's distribution with original source and
altered
> > binaries.
> > 5) Sell cheap copies on EBay or at computer swap meets or at a local
> > computer store you own etc etc. Make sure you use forged Caldera labels.
> >
> > That's quite a bit of trouble to go to, but it is not an impossible
> > scenario.
>
> My guess is that it's happening already.
Who can say? My guess is that it's not very likely since it involves so
much trouble. It would be far beyond a script kiddie's abilities. Truly
original viruses/trojans are relatively rare. The vast majority are
knockoffs of someone else's "work."
Unless you're on some sort of vendetta against Linux or Caldera, who would
go to all that trouble when targetting (and hitting) a Winbox requires
almost no effort.
> Why break-in to so many computers (even though it seesm relatively easy to
> break root in a Linux box) when all you have to do is distribute
compromised
> versions?
>
The ease with which you can break root on a Linux box depends on whether the
Linux user has bothered to shield himself. Just like NT and Win2k. (I'll
leave Win9x out of the discussion, since they are compromised out of the
box.)
Cablemodem is scheduled to arrive in my neighborhood in December. If that
actually happens, I'll have a static IP and a 24/7 presence on the net. You
are welcome to demonstrate whatever security holes you've found by breaking
root on my machine. If you make it, you'll have access to a couple of Win98
boxes on my home LAN as well. Have fun. :)
jwb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:01:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Ginn wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell) writes:
>
>> All hidden behind a backwards UI for 70's teletypes.
>>
>> Shame that.
>>
>> George Russell
>
>You haven't used KDE2 yet, have you?
Yup.
Its got a nice *terminal emulator* included.
Even supports colour console applications.
Comes with a mini cli panel applet and handle cli short cuts
for man , info , web, help, smb, nfs urls etc.
Has a terminal that embeds in the file manager
Yet it's still Unix commands that you type.
Wow.
For the retro look, choose the Green on Black console schema.
KDE, however nice, is limited in scope, and no Unix desktop
will ever shed its cli roots
George Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (chris ulrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 31 Oct 2000 23:10:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I'm afraid that's a somewhat dubious value. An "ethernet" can run at
>100% utilization, or 99%, but the question is how much of that
>utilization is 'collisions', and even "resends" due to higher layer
>connectivity issues. A non-switched, shared media ethernet with a
>nominal 20 transceivers (potentially including both a router and a
>server, to characterize the logical and software topologies) would be
>hard pressed to maintain the "rule of thumb" 30% utilization *and do so
>while providing sufficient throughput*. This presumes, of course, we
>don't take the easy way out by defining that 18 of those transceivers
>will rarely transmit anything at all.
>T. Max Devlin
At UCR in the Department of Mathematics, they had (until about 8
months ago) a several hundred station network using every manner of
shared ethernet media invented over the past several decades. They
had several servers connected to each other via 10bT, connecting
to several other hubs that would connect to either 10b2 or 10b5
coax, sometimes connecting to stations at the remote ends of the
network via multiport transceivers. The network spanned several
buildings and had no bridges or switches anywhere at all.
This environment had several labs of X terminals, lots of PCs,
and 4 servers each cross mounting file systems for home directories
and applications. (I didn't design it, I just took care of it as
best I could).
Your statement that the overhead of ethernet costs 70% of the
bandwidth (ie the collisions and backing off from collisions and
such) is simply not what I observed on this network day in and
day out for years. I observed that ethernet shared the network
quite efficiently; moving files between servers while while
backing up other servers granted the transfer 400-500k/sec while
the backup got 400-500k/sec, all the while people were using
their X terminals, using pop servers and connecting to servers
via telnet, and printing files and such without complaint. Even
in the middle of the day with everyone doing stuff, I was often
able to get 950k/sec ftp transfers between stations or between
stations and servers.
Mostly, I'd have to conclude that either you are correct and
the network I was using was powered by alien technology, or that
I was imagining the whole thing, or that you are simply incorrect.
chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:28:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:05:03 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The burdon of explanation is on you: explain how it is _more_ cryptic.
>> > That was your assertion.
>>
>> I see, so you believe 'ls' is obvious? More obvious than 'dir'?
>
>It is up to you to demonstrate how ls is more cryptic than dir. That was
>your assertion. I think they're equally cryptic (since dir makes sense
>with 2 entirely different functions).
It's fairly obvious that 'ls' is more cryptic, for 'dir' is short
for 'directory', whereas 'ls' stands for .... what? List Something?
List of Strings? List of directory entrieS? LiSt?
However, this may be an advantage, at least for those of us who
use multiple operating systems (more of a problem in the past,
when we had VMS, RSX-11M, Unix, Apollo DOMAIN Aegis, Daisy DNIX (yuck),
and DOS -- quick what were the options of "ERASE", again? Did VMS
have DIR or ld? How *does* one show a directory in RSX-11M?).
There's also the issue of "finger memory". Once one learns "ls",
it's not hard to type it. :-) I might also surmise that "ls" won't
have overloading problems, either -- "DEL" could be either an
alias for ERASE in DOS, or the designation of a certain key on the
standard PC keyboard, or an abbreviation for "DELete", which could
be anything at all (including a command to delete rows of a relation
in a SQL-compliant database)! So linguistically, "ls" is somewhat
preferable, as it is a "foreign" word. IMO, anyway. Certainly,
there's no reason to confuse it with anything else.
An aside: Apollo DOMAIN/Aegis, while otherwise a good operating
system, had the unfortunate tendency to rename its commands so as
to be more intuitive; one particularly problematic rename is
using the command 'ld' as List Directory; Unix (and Linux) use
it as the final link step (it's usually called from the compiler).
It's rare, but I have found myself typing in 'ld' when I meant 'ls'.
I suspect some others do on occasion, too. Fortunately, Linux's
linker complains when there are no arguments.
And we still have three operating systems: Unix/Linux [*],
Windows NT/Win2k, and Windows 9x/DOS.
[.sigsnip]
[*] One could be pedantic here and stipulate 4 systems, as Linux is
not Unix (it's never been qualified AFAIK, nor does it have
AT&T SV5r4 source code). However, Linux and Unix are extremely
similar at the low-level utility command level; the main issues,
if any, are with options.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: 31 Oct 2000 16:11:57 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Ginn wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell) writes:
> >
> >> All hidden behind a backwards UI for 70's teletypes.
> >>
> >> Shame that.
> >>
> >> George Russell
> >
> >You haven't used KDE2 yet, have you?
>
> Yup.
>
> Its got a nice *terminal emulator* included.
So does Mac OS X. You don't have to use it if you don't want to.
> Even supports colour console applications.
>
> Comes with a mini cli panel applet and handle cli short cuts
> for man , info , web, help, smb, nfs urls etc.
>
> Has a terminal that embeds in the file manager
>
> Yet it's still Unix commands that you type.
>
> Wow.
>
> For the retro look, choose the Green on Black console schema.
>
> KDE, however nice, is limited in scope, and no Unix desktop
> will ever shed its cli roots
Nor should it have to. Contrary to popular belief, the CLI is still
alive and well, and a better choice than a GUI in many cases.
Win9x still hasn't shed its DOS roots by the same argument.
REGEDIT?
MSCONFIG?
Aaron
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[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: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:39:32 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:37:50 -0800, "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8tn7mu$ekm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chris Wenham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <snip a really long talk about options that the OSS gives you which CSS
> > doesn't>
> >
> > Agreed.
> > Now all we've to do is convince MS that they could still make profit
> giving
> > their code away.
>
> How little a profit?
>
> Which Linux company actually makes a profit?
>
> How much?
>
> RadHat lost 39 million last fiscal year.
>
> Microsoft made 9 billion dollars last fiscal year.
After Microsoft's latest fiasco I can see these figures changing places
soon.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:36:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:59:27 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Where else can you find a system, which can be downloaded for free, or
>any price for that matter, that has:
>
>Object Relation SQL database.
>C/C++ compiler
>Programming editors
>Office Packages
>Debuggers
>Network file servers
>Printer Servers
>Entire Internet service package
>remote administration tools
>e-mail servers/clients
>Choice of desktops
>Various programming languages besides C/C++
>Calendar programs
>CDR tools
>
>The list continues, 100s of utilities and tools, most (if not all) of
>what anyone would want to do with a computer.
>
>There is no reason to buy Windows or NT!
>
>--
>http://www.mohawksoft.com
The only widely-known one that might compare is FreeBSD, and I for one
haven't used it. There are presumably also other more esoteric offerings
such as HURD, Amoeba, or perhaps OS/9; one advantage of open source is
that, once the kernel and a development environment is available, porting
can proceed -- although the code will most likely mutate (has anyone
else looked at the openpty() code in xterm? It's getting messy :-) ).
Of course Windows NT and Windows 9x aren't downloadable.... :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:29:11 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I hate when the seeming majority of messages are either defending Linux
> >against some idiotic press release, or a dialog initiated by a troll.
> >
> >Lets talk about why Linux is great, and a pleasure to use.
>
> 1. It comes with VI and EMACS!
> 2. 'ls' beets the hell out of Explorer
> 3. KDE is realy slow.
> 5. X is realy just for running xterm's.
Clue for the clueless:
Monty Python is funny
You're not
Hope the helps.
--
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: "Walter Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:53:29 -0000
Roger Lindsj| wrote in message <8tmlfc$att$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <UEpL5.25589$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Roger Lindsj|" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:8tk19l$42h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> What applications do you need?
>>
>>Real ones, not cheap knock-offs.
>
>What a great answer. Looked at several sites selling software, and
>none of them sells "Real ones". They do however sell editors, word
>processors, layout programs, CAD programs, compilers etc.
>
>So I aska again, what applications do you need?
Thing is - Chads not a real user....
>
>Roger Lindsjö
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:53:09 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Windows 2000 does have small problems, but mostly on my machine it runs
> > without a hitch. Of course it just could be a bad install. But I am no
> > expert.
>
> You're damn straight it's a bad install.
>
> Remove it and install it again until it fucks up like it does for
> everyone else =)
Can't install Linux on a partition, it does not support all of my hardware,
besides, I have reinstalled it twice, and the last time I wanted to rename
the folder where Windows was installed. It should have given me that option
like it used to.
>
>
> (Actually, I haven't had 2k majorly fuck up more than twice... most of
> the problems I have with it are speed or control-related)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:57:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Ginn wrote:
>> Its got a nice *terminal emulator* included.
>So does Mac OS X. You don't have to use it if you don't want to.
That may be true for Macos X, but its not, and likely never will
be, true for Linux.
Try and setup Linux and use it without going to a console.
>> For the retro look, choose the Green on Black console schema.
>>
>> KDE, however nice, is limited in scope, and no Unix desktop
>> will ever shed its cli roots
>
>Nor should it have to. Contrary to popular belief, the CLI is still
>alive and well, and a better choice than a GUI in many cases.
Every few years, Unix gets another GUI. Its a shame the cli isn't
replaced / improved as often.
>Win9x still hasn't shed its DOS roots by the same argument.
>
>REGEDIT?
>MSCONFIG?
Two commands that appear in no version of DOS, your point is?
FWIW, they were *new* in Windows 95 - based on DOS - but your
point in no way shows this.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:08:09 -0600
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tncqa$itk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Weevil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> : When Win95 was launched, most people had never even heard of the
internet,
> : and the WWW was in its infancy.
>
> Infancy? I don't think so. Maybe from Microsoft's Johnny-come-lately
> point of view.
>
I guess it depends on how you define "infancy". I was surprised to be
challenged on this point, so I decided to do a quick bit of checking.
Here's a timeline on the major developments in the WWW.
http://www.w3.org/History.html
I actually thought that the WWW had been invented in '92 or so, but it was
actually 1990. By the end of 1992, there were already 26 "reliable
servers," though "browsers" were still line-mode. In Feb 1993, the first
alpha version of Mosaic (Mosaic for X) was released. By September of '93,
WWW traffic accounted for 1% of overall NSF backbone traffic and there were
Mosaic browsers for Windows and Macintosh as well.
In March of 94, several developers left NCSA to form what became Netscape.
In May of 94, the First International WWW Conference was held in Geneva.
In March of 95, CERN held a 2-day seminar for the European media to
demonstrate the WWW. 250 reporters attended, and some students from the
local International High School helped them "surf the web."
In 1995, reporters had to be shown how to "surf the web." Today, it's hard
to find anyone who doesn't know how.
This is pretty close to how I remembered it. Maybe I should have said,
"Public awareness of the WWW was still in its infancy," but the truth is,
the WWW was itself in its earliest stages. In 1995, Yahoo could index every
word on every page on every server in the world. Today, search engines
aren't even aware of all the *servers* in the world.
To me, the WWW was still in its infancy, or at best, barely into its
childhood. Still pre-adolescent, at any rate.
And if you disagree, I'll be forced to taunt you cruelly.
jwb
------------------------------
From: John Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: history of software engineering (was: Re: Ms employeesbegging for
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:08:45 -0800
Randall Hyde wrote:
>
> Certainly what we call "Software Engineering" has existed since the 60's.
> However, I would like to know when the term was first coined. Does anyone
> have a reference on that? (BTW, I don't have my copy handy, does TMMM
> actually use the term "software engineering"?)
> Randy Hyde
from:
http://www.princeton.edu/~mike/articles/sweroots/sweroots.htm
> As part of a history of the development of the computer industry from 1950 to 1970
>focusing on the origins of the
> "software crisis", I am currently trying to determine what people had in mind when
>they first began to talk about
> "software engineering". Although one writer has suggested that the term originated
>in 1965,[2] it first came into common
> currency in 1967 when the Study Group on Computer Science of the NATO Science
>Committee called for an international
> conference on the subject. As Brian Randell and Peter Naur point out in the
>introduction to their edition of the
> proceedings, "The phrase 'software engineering' was deliberately chosen as being
>provocative, in implying the need for
> software manufacture to be [based] on the types of theoretical foundations and
>practical disciplines[,] that are
> traditional in the established branches of engineering."[3]
>
John Ahlstrom
--
Tie me to the mast; don't fill my
ears with cotton; just tie me to the mast.
Kaekel's Command
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
