Linux-Advocacy Digest #141, Volume #31 Sat, 30 Dec 00 15:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux lacks (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Peter Hayes)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Andy Newman)
Re: Why Advocacy? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: ~~~Search for computer help (within text) Free!!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Advocacy? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Conclusion ("Chad Myers")
Re: Conclusion ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:56 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 \
>"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:92idqb$1qs5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > It's been shown numerous times.
>> >
>> > The OS cannot be determined accurately. Period.
>> >
>> > Cases in point: Several sites (listed in another thread on this topic
>> several
>> > weeks ago) show that they web server is IIS 4.0 running on Linux or BSD.
>>
>> Then please point me to that post. I have been asking for such data for
>> weeks.
>
>cnbc.com is one, OS is listed as netware, server as IIS 4
>Several other examples has been posted.
And is the uptime listed for the Netware, or the IIS? Without this
crucial bit of information, you're still just assuming the numbers are
no good because you don't like the results. As long as the uptime
reported is for the Netware box, we don't really care whether its a web
site or a fire wall, because it doesn't matter.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:39:01 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:07:34
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >PS: I'm fully aware of DBIV's relationship with the Application Generator,
>> >thank you.
>>
>> Yea, but you still considered it to be a reason that development was
>> difficult, when it had nothing to do with it. You stated that since it
>> was there, the internals were buggy, because had the programmers not
>> worked on it, they would have fixed the bugs. I think this illustrates
>> your lack of logical reasoning, to be honest.
>
>I rather think it illustrates the product and company's eventual failure in
>the marketplace.
And I know for a fact that this is merely hindsight bias.
[...]
>> >I call them simply as I see them.
>>
>> I recommend calling them as you know them to be, or not calling them at
>> all. Our eyes can deceive was, quite easily.
>
>I did. They weren't. Evidence: Where's Ashton Tate?
Where's Waldo? That's about the same level of "evidence". Supporting a
conjecture with an assumption isn't quite what I had in mind. You
aren't "observing" that Ashton Tate is not around; you're assuming
knowledge of why they aren't around.
[...]
>> A valid point. I honestly can't see the comparison, though. On one
>> hand, we have someone trying something innovative, while still
>> supporting their installed base, and on the other we have a monopolist
>> entirely unconcerned with the quality of their product, because they're
>> dependent on lock-in, rather than value.
>
>The comparison was made where flash and innovation was concentrated on to
>the detriment of core reliability. Both, indeed, are guilty of it. I'm all
>for innovation so long as it actually IS innovation and not a marketing
>gimmick. Smoke and mirrors don't impress me.
I presume you make an exception for the smoke and mirrors you provide
yourself, like noticing a company isn't in business any more, pointing
to something you didn't like about their product, and saying "see, this
is why." Think harder.
[...]
>> He's a thief and a thug; a monopolist. He's never been a businessman,
>> honestly.
>
>Those are the things, unfortunately, that make a businessman spectacularly
>successful.
I would laugh if that were as funny as it was incorrect. I'm afraid
you're being soft-headed again. Its a herd mentality that's very
wide-spread these days; people repeat in many blatant and subtle ways
that its OK to be dishonest in business, and sooner or later everyone
who doesn't think hard enough is taking it for granted, when it was
never even true to begin with. Being a thief and a thug might bring in
a lot of money, but it is not related in any way to being a businessman.
>>
>> [...]
>> >> This is software; there's room for an almost unlimited number of
>> >> alternatives for anything. This 'natural software monopoly' thing is
>> >> just a short-cut assumption to avoid having to think too hard. I'm not
>> >> trying to insult you by pointing that out, I'm just trying to say that
>> >> it is very common, and isn't accurate, consistent, or practical.
>> >
>> >In an ideal world your case would be true. This, however, isn't an ideal
>> >world.
>>
>> Software is, though. Again, you seem to have problems with
>> abstractions.
>
>You're saying that the software market exists in an ideal world with rules
>all its' own? You seem to have problems with realities.
Every market exists with rules of its own; it doesn't have to exist in
an ideal world for this to be the case. Software itself *only* exists
in an ideal world; it is an abstraction. Sure, you can point to
something somewhere and say "that's the software" in the physical world.
But you can't be pointing to "the software" itself, since there is no
different physical characteristics between what is and what is not
considered software.
[...]
>> This might be true, but its a point against capitalism. Because the
>> natural tendency in a free market is towards competition, and free
>> markets are incompatible with monopoly. Period. They're also against
>> the law.
>
>Capitolism is little more than a game of "King of the Hill". Companies in
>the free market compete and out-hussle one another to get farther up the
>hill. When they get to the top, they want to stay there and keep the others
>from scurrying after them. They become monopolistic. Eventually they get
>shoved off though.
Actually, they don't. A free market does not support a monopoly, and
has no way of removing it once its in place.
I'm afraid your thinking is far too prosaic and mistaken to make it very
entertaining for me to go over all this again. Check
alt.destroy.microsoft on Deja; these mistaken ideas you have about
business being an anarchy and all companies being driven to monopolize
have already been dealt with and proven false, and I don't have any
desire to go through it just for you. I understand that a causal
observation of business probably re-enforces your assumptions, but any
real rational examination shows that it is not a desire to monopolize,
but a desire to profit on production, which drives both free markets
*and* capitalism. Not that there aren't a very large number of
unethical people who would prefer to make money dishonestly, but
commercial competition itself is enough to stop the "start up"
anti-competitive approach you imagine.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:39:03 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 24 Dec 2000
>> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Memory: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
>> >> First accounted by himem.sys (a DOS driver, try removing it!)
>> >
>> >However, Schulman proves through the version numbers returned by the memory
>> >managers that Windows replaces himem.sys.
>>
>> Then whatever they replaced it with is part of DOS, isn't it, since
>> himem.sys is part of DOS?
>
>No. Your statement is akin to calling Linux "part of DOS" . . . simply
>because you can boot into Linux from DOS, and Linux replaces DOS, does not
>make Linux "part of DOS".
But it doesn't replace it with something which does the same thing as
what its replacing. I'm afraid there is a distinction between a simple
boot-load activity, the way you describe for Linux, and replacing
himem.sys with some code which provides the same functions, but somewhat
enhanced, and labeling it "Windows" for marketing purposes.
>> Isn't that why they call it a "DOS Extender"?
>
>himem.sys is not a "DOS Extender".
No? It seems to extend the functionality of DOS to allow it to work
with extended memory. Why wouldn't it be a DOS Extender?
>> Which explains why Windows programs don't need help accessing DOS
>> filesystems,
>
>Windows programs do need help accessing DOS filesystems . . . no
>Windows program directly accesses a disk drive, it always goes
>through a file system.
You seem to have switched between "disk drive" and "file system" in a
way which indicates that, although you recognize the distinction, you
don't really understand it. Or how it relates to determining what an
operating system does or does not do.
>> since DOS is the OS to begin with,
>
>Wrong. DOS is not the "OS to begin with".
Oh, well, thanks for clearing that up. Guffaw.
>> and the Win32 middleware
>> just acts as a redirector.
>
>Win32 is not "middleware". Win32 is the interface specification.
And what about middleware makes it not an "interface specification"?
>> The "Windows 386 executive" runs on DOS.
>
>Wrong.
>Do you have any technical training?
>In anything?
Wow, I am *so* impressed with your imposing intonation.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:42:13 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 08:02:28 -0700, Greg S Trouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LOL, forgive me if I chuckle a bit at the absurdity of someone trying to
> do this. But what's the point? The source code is available on a
> Redhat CD distro, so what's the point? :-)
There was a satire alert warning at the end of the piece for the humour
challenged.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:58:13 GMT
John Rudd wrote:
>The only decent Unix GUI that was ever released was Nextstep/Openstep (it
>remains to be seen whether or not Mac OS X will ruin this with Macisms).
>It wasn't just pretty with a few services, it provided an overall
>integrated platform upon which to build applications that interacted with
>eachother in a complete and well designed platform. Compared to that, KDE
>and Gnome are tinkertoys.
You left out the bit about NeXTSTEP being wonderfully consistent (from both
user and programmer's PoV) and providing a very useful environment at the
same time. I really miss NeXTSTEP's Services. I miss the NeXT. Best damm
"PC" ever built.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:00:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 19:42:35 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Form@C" wrote:
>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> > There is a tremendous amount of legacy within a Unix system.
>> >>
>> >> like the "C:>" prompt on a windows 2000 pee cee?
>> >
>> >the _CP-M_ C:> prompt in LoseDOS 2000
>> >
>>
>> or the [Linux]: prompt on a certain other OS,
>
>What is a "[Linux]:" prompt? In 7 years of sys admin and
>consulting I've never seen a shell prompt like the above -
Neither have I, but it's easy to set in sh or bash:
PS1='[Linux]: '
(Why anyone would do so is not clear to me, but people are people
and we have our idiosyncracies. :-) )
>
>> which doesn't even tell you
>> which drive you are looking at
>
>Drive letters are a microsoft pee cee feature,
>there are no "drive letters" in Unix - LOL!
Unless someone does /a, /b, /c, /d, /e, /f, etc. as I do -- and
even then, they're just one-letter directory names, done for convenience.
Other people might prefer /c:, /d:, etc., (I personally wouldn't
recommend it as that syntax would screw up PATH, but the kernel doesn't
particularly care), /dosc, /dosd, etc., /dos/c-drive, or even
/albert, /ben, /charles, /doug, /ernie, and /fred,
or, if one prefers, /alice, /beth, /christine, /dawn, /elizabeth,
and /fifi.
("Linux. The OS that lets you name your drives to give it that
extra-special personal touch." :-) )
This is what I like about Unix, a uniform, stable namespace.
It's uniform because everything uses the same delimiter: '/',
and stable because the only ways to change it are through mount/umount
and /etc/fstab. NT's disk drive assignments are also relatively
stable (one can only change it by doing a "drive map" or "unmap"), but
not all that uniform as far as parsing pathnames are concerned;
one has to look for that colon and do some other gunk.
It gets messier when one has to look for the double backslash as well
(on Linux, NFS pathnames are treated the same as other pathnames;
'mount' and 'umount' might need to know, but no one else does, really).
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 92 days, 5:33, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:13:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Les Mikesell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:21:25 GMT
<FEb36.52616$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Jl836.38788$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > I don't understand why people think Windows is intuitive. It isn't. I
>> > find it much easier when I want to run an app to type the name of the
>> > app and hit return.
>>
>> Let's see, that was xf86config, right? Hmm... nope. Xf86config?
>> Xf86Config? XF86Config? XF86CONFIG? Dammit...
>
>That's not something you execute.
Actually, it is. xf86config is an executable.
XF86Config is the text file.
/usr/X11R6/bin/xf86config
/etc/X11/XF86Config or /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/XF86Config
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- it's still not as confusing as Daisy-DNIX, though;
we'll have to work on that
up 92 days, 5:58, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: ~~~Search for computer help (within text) Free!!!
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:30:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 19:23:46 GMT
<6x536.523$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Search this group within text at:
>
>www.callowco.com/helpdesk.asp
>
>Note; You must use internet explorer to view the page correctly
>Thank you for trying it. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eerrrrrrrum....you've posted this into a Linux advocacy group.
Hello? Anybody at home? Linux doesn't run Explorer, unless
one has Wine -- http://www.winehq.com -- but I for one wouldn't
expect newbies to know that without a little research.
No file in /usr/doc (including subdirectories) seems to mention Wine at all.
It's pretty alpha, anyway -- although it's quite usable for
simple stuff, and even runs Unreal and Wordpad. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 92 days, 6:04, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:39:49 +0000
Joseph T. Adams wrote:
> In spite of the difficulty inherent in anything other than NT reading
> or writing NTFS, I would never even consider running NT on FAT32.
Well, you can't actually run NT on FAT32, only Windows 2000.
The only reason why I can see you wouldn't recommend Win2k on FAT32 is due
to file access and security - but even then net access should take care of
that.
> Actually, I no longer encourage or recommend the continued use of NT
> in *any* role. I've never recommended it as a server to begin with,
> because it isn't sufficiently reliable or cost-effective. But I did
> once recommend it as an acceptable desktop platform, back in the days
> when free software did not yet offer comparable functionality. Now
> that Netscape, Konqueror, StarOffice, etc. are both available and
> free, I don't believe there is any reason for most organizations to
> continue to purchase NT or W2K licenses, or not to phase out the use
> of all proprietary software.
Konqueror is pretty poor as a web browser and only a little better as a
file browser.
StarOffice can't really compete with MS Word et al.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:23:56 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92l0dc$nbd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This was all detailed in another thread (titled "Uptimes", I believe).
> > Looking back through that should provide you numerous examples.
>
> Uptimes is actually the same thread as this one (I know, I started it).
> There is only 1 example in the entire thread and that is yours. I've read
> every single post. Someone did bring up amazon.com, but it was referring to
> something else.
I said, "I believe", so obviously I was mistaken. I remember a thread where
Eric F. (IIRC) listed a few sites, including Sauder.com which he knew that
Netcraft was reporting mistakenly.
A good search on deja should turn something up.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:25:03 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92l0ju$ndv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > cnbc.com is one, OS is listed as netware, server as IIS 4
> > Several other examples has been posted.
>
> cnbc.com is a bad example. They obviously detected the OS of a firewall
> (probably BorderManager), but couldn't get any uptime from it (as they
> shouldn't be able to from a good firewall). So therefore the accuracy of
> uptime numbers remains intact. I'm looking for an example of a site that
> shows the OS of the webserver and the uptime of the firewall (or vice
> versa).
>
> Where are these several other examples? People keep telling me about them
> but no one has pointed me to them.
How would we really ever know for sure? That's the problem with Netcraft,
there's no science to it, and there's no way of verifying their numbers
without contacting each site directly and asking them.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:27:47 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:00:24
> [...]
> >What assinine behavior did the Republicans demonstrate?
>
> Posting drivel to Usenet.
Ah yes. And here ends the argument. When faced with FACTS, Democrats
always back down and result to personal attacks and such.
Just admit your wrong, Max, and move on. Beware, though, admitting
your wrong and accepting the truth automatically makes you a
conservative.
> >Standing
> >up for the laws? The Constitution? Trying to prevent the Democrats
> >from doing what they always do: piss on the laws and the Constitution
> >for their own ends?
>
> What a maroon.
But you do not deny it. You admit then, that this is exactly what
was going on (You can't honestly deny it, really, because it's
plainly obvious that's what they were doing).
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:32:13 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:55:01
> [...]
> >The most important law, which you missed, and which proved T. Max Devlin
> >to be speaking from other orrifices again, was the one that the legislature
> >had set forth as a period of election, counting/recounting, contest, and
> >finality.
>
> Oh, for heaven's sake. If you consider this the "most important law",
Perhaps I should've said, "most relevent to the situation as it was in Florida".
> then apparently you don't care what the law says, as long as its
> followed, because you prefer the most arbitrary law, like a deadline, to
> any that provides for *law*.
arbitrary law? This was the THE law governing the post election procedure
as REQUIRED by the U.S. Constitution for handling election certification
and contest. There's no arbitrary about it. Each of the 50 states have
laws very similar with deadlines almost exactly the same.
Florida wasn't anything special, the Democrats, like always, hated the
laws because they prevented them from doing their usual trickery, so
they resulted in destroying Katherine Harris for, of all things, doing
her legal duty and fullfilling her responsibilities as set forth by
the law the Legislature wrote.
> >The election was to occur on Nov 7, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution.
> >The counting was to go on until Nov 14 (one week). Recounts can be request
> >at any time between Nov 7 and Nov 14, but all must end on Nov 14 at which
> >point the Secretary of State must certify the results as official.
> >At this time, the loser can contest the election and proceed through the
> >contest framework also laid forth by the legislature.
>
> Apparently, not.
not what? Gore had his contest and lost. It was all fair and legal like.
>
> >This is what the law said, this is what the Republicans wanted (because it's
> >the law).
>
> Its soft headed lack of thinking like this that makes Republicans
> dangerous.
How so? Throughout the whole process, the Republicans stood up, and
fought for the law which the Democrats were trampling.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "The Rule of Law"? It's more
important than even the people themselves. Perhaps you should take
a civics or a law class.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:35:59 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > The U.S. Supreme Court is hardly Republican. It would've been a unanimous
> > and obvious decision if it weren't for the hard-line left-wing
ultra-liberals
> > who desented (Ginsberg, Kennedy) and who issued wacko and off-beat dissents
> > that legal scholars are still scratching their heads at.
>
> Which legal scholars? I thought the Supreme Court justices all qualify
> as legal scholars.
But every order, writ, judgement, and statement they issue is subject
to intense scrutiny, review and study from every legal scholar, law student,
government official, and the like. Ginsberg and Kennedy's dissents were
way out of line and almost illogical. Even liberal lawyers and legal scholars
had a hard time defending the Justices' positions.
> > The truth is, the Democrats bended the laws far beyond reasonable tolerance
>
> No, no, you and your ilk are /not/ reasonable.
Um... please, stick to the facts, Chris and law off the ad homonyms.
The Democrats (namely the FL Supreme Court) overstepped their Constitutional
bounds TWICE. And TWICE the U.S. Supreme Court smacked them down. The Dems
bended and even broke the laws, it's a proven fact. There's no arguing about
it. Open your eyes.
> > Please Max, stop the lying. It only serves to embarass you.
> >
>
> Please stop saying people are lying. You sound like a second-grader.
I proved he was lying on several occasions. If you wish to debate like
adults, please stop lying and personally attacking people.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
