Linux-Advocacy Digest #380, Volume #31 Thu, 11 Jan 01 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Lewis Miller)
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (hackerbabe)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Lewis Miller)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Lewis Miller)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows (Lewis Miller)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Lewis Miller)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (John Brock)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (hackerbabe)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Lewis Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:43:56 -0500
In <93g8to$kkm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/10/2001
at 12:04 AM, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I usually need the context, because a line like "myfunc(foo);" looks
>pretty much the same whether it's inside an if condition I'm
>interested in or not...
XEDIT also lets you add to the view lines before or after a displayed
line.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:58:43 -0500
In <93isqj$fea$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/10/2001
at 11:56 PM, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>That's a false equivocation fallacy.
Just because you're too stupid too understand the point doesn't mean
that it is equivocation.
>The word "protocol" has
>several seperate meanings, and it should have been obvious from
>context that I was not referring to the type of protocols you are.
No, it's obvious from your message that you don't understand the
various meanings of the word, and lack the native wit or curtesy to
ask which I have in mind. Don't nother now; You can join aaron in my
filters.
*PLONK*
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:12:37 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> mind you, that's without a journaling file system which slows linux down to
> lower than ntfs speed.
It's sounds like a pretty lame assumption that a jourrnalling file
system would slow linux down drastically enough to give it nt
like speeds - I've used reiserfs and found no noticeable slowdown.
> AND, mind you again, it's a non-production benchmark-busting-limited
> funcionality kernel mode httpd.
Nope, it was running in user mode, not kernel mode. Ingo Molnar,
the chief architect, posted a discussion about that in slashdot,
you can probably locate the archive.
> It was tuned to beat benchmarks,
And you don't think EVERYBODY who submits benchmark
results tunes them to "beat benchmarks"?
LOL!
> no one is
> using it in production (show me the netcraft URL of someone who is?) As
> opposed to the off the shelf IIS platform
Again, you get the facts all wrong - it is not an "off the shelf" iis,
but a specially designed and tuned version unavailable outside of
microsoft labs. It is a special "service pack" which make the web
server run as part of the "kernel" - that's how desperate they are
to beat Linux, and they came close.
> which came within 2.7% of the
> "champ"'s performance. If you think 2.7% is a whooping win - I guess we know
> you are satisified with small things.
Would I build my web server with a free Unix that's the world
speed champ, or would I shell out an exorbitant fee for a windows
pc webserver that can't quite match it in performance?
I think the answer is pretty clear.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: 11 Jan 2001 05:17:20 GMT
JM was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
in alt.linux.sux on 07 Jan 2001
>On 7 Jan 2001 04:46:52 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)) wrote:
>
>>Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
>><mbc56.146555$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 04
>><Jan
>>2001
>
>>>Oh, like all the "documented" functionality under Linux.
>>>
>>>Nice try.
>
>>Yeah try typing man. works wonders.
>
>You're forgetting, windows users like bloated wizards to guide them
>through everything, and typing "man" would probably require a restart.
>
Hey now, I'm a windows user, and I hate wizards.. I spent a good part of break
trying to get the Internet Connection Wizard off of lab machines on campus.
Like I need a wizard to point IE at the NIC.. blah.
and everything in Windows requires a restart. :)
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:06:45 GMT
In article <93dbh4$8du4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You mean the simple make makedep make install didn't work properly?
> >
>
> So how do I compile a customised version of windows kernel then arsehole.
>
> Linux comes with pre-built kernels which work for anyone but some users
> want the latest cutting-edge version which is the only time kernel
> recompiles
> are needed. Where can you obtain the latest copy of MS's source to compile
> it then. The only reason windows doesn't have this problem is you are stuck
> with whatever MS chucks in the box and cannot get cutting-edge source.
>
>
Ya know, this is rediculous. I was posting to a LINUX forum, to ask a LINUX
question, and Windoze users decide to come and turn this into a damn abortion
protest. If you are not a LINUX user, here to advocate LINUX, then you are in
the wrong forum, I dunno, maybe IE manipulated the html to make this read
'windows.advocacy' because it doesn't think any other OS exists, but YOU ARE
IN THE WRONG FORUM. Go back to your seg faults and let us discuss Linux here,
in OUR forum. Or, does the M$ philosophy rub off on its users and make them
believe that they own everything? Don't talk about something you know nothing
about. I just makes you look like a dumbass.
C Pungent
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:09:08 GMT
> Bottom line:
>
> When you're doing it with someone else's money, it's not altruism..it's THEFT.
So when politicians push things like welfare on hard-working Americans, they
are actually pushing the idea that it is right to force people to give what
is unearned, "legal theft."
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: 11 Jan 2001 05:22:57 GMT
Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
<TR266.5892$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 07 Jan
2001
>Ah "bloat".
>
>The refuge of the Linux nut.
>
>I'm sorry to say, but 800 megabytes of OS that do NOTHING for most users
>is bloat, whereas 640 megabytes of solid platform WITH popular
>application support go a hell of a lot farther in any work environment
>then the prior.
800 meg for an OS that does nothing? really? I could have swore I just set
up a DNS server, and I even put extra crap on there like X and Gnome that I
didn't need. and The install was what, 300 maybe 400. And hey I've seen
functional linux kernals that fit on 2 floppies, and ran.
Does nothing? I think not. I buy a Digital Cam and then install the
software on Windows to pull the images off. But wait, on my Gnome install
I've already got a program that does that, I just tell it what kind of Cam
I have, off of a nice big list.
As for App support. What you want MS Office? Cause Lotus, runs on Linux,
and Notes/Domino/cc: kill Exchange/IIS/etc.. oh and, I can use VM ware and
run Windows inside a shell in Linux, or I can emulate a windows
environment.
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:27:19 GMT
A crude example.
How about the massive collection of shitty apps that can be readily found at
Linux.tucows.com, with each and every program riddled with installation
problems and pathetic functionality.
Linux is jam packed with such software (only it's somehow been installed and
packed in) which is redundant, unnecessary and featureless.
"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93jfvh$d5d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
> <TR266.5892$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 07 Jan
> 2001
>
> >Ah "bloat".
> >
> >The refuge of the Linux nut.
> >
> >I'm sorry to say, but 800 megabytes of OS that do NOTHING for most users
> >is bloat, whereas 640 megabytes of solid platform WITH popular
> >application support go a hell of a lot farther in any work environment
> >then the prior.
>
> 800 meg for an OS that does nothing? really? I could have swore I just set
> up a DNS server, and I even put extra crap on there like X and Gnome that
I
> didn't need. and The install was what, 300 maybe 400. And hey I've seen
> functional linux kernals that fit on 2 floppies, and ran.
>
> Does nothing? I think not. I buy a Digital Cam and then install the
> software on Windows to pull the images off. But wait, on my Gnome install
> I've already got a program that does that, I just tell it what kind of Cam
> I have, off of a nice big list.
>
> As for App support. What you want MS Office? Cause Lotus, runs on Linux,
> and Notes/Domino/cc: kill Exchange/IIS/etc.. oh and, I can use VM ware and
> run Windows inside a shell in Linux, or I can emulate a windows
> environment.
>
> a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
> a.k.a. MrBobaFett
>
>
> "Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
> they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
> -- Eric Draven, The Crow
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 11 Jan 2001 05:35:31 GMT
Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
<EfR66.26887$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 09 Jan
2001
>"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> The weakness of Linux is that you have to fool with it.
>> The strength of Linux is that you *can* fool with it.
>
>Really? *Can* implies there is an alternative. You admit this in the
>prvious sentance, but can implies alternative, of which THERE IS NONE.
No, the idea being that you can't fool with Windoze much.
>don't like minutia. I have enough garbage in my life not to need a
>technical reference book every time I want to dial into an ISP, or
>reconfigure my modem (or ADD a modem for that matter.)
Neither do I. That's why I learn it once. Besides, hey if you don't want to
do the work, You don't have to dial into an ISP at all. I'm quite certain
the internet will go on without you. And what do you need it for? Oh yeah
BTW ever run into Kudzu? When I switched video cards, on my linux box and
brought it up, before it hit runlevel 4 it told me I had removed a card,
and added a new one, and if I wanted to remove all the old configs, and it
installed my new one. :) Holy shit Linux CAN plug and play also. BUT I can
turn it off also.
>> Oh, and I don't much appreciate your use of "normal" as if those of
>> us who actually know how our computers work are "abnormal."
>
>I like to come home, and enjoy the simple bliss of "it just works, NEATO!"
>on my home PC. I don't want to tinker the hell out of it to get some
>idillic, whatever working, I really just do want to use it.
:) Yes well ignorance is bliss.
>Linux requires tinkering, 24/7. I hate that.
Again.. really? My DNS server is linux, and it's been running without a
reboot or tweak for 3 weeks, the one before that, oh I think it was about a
year. And hey the only reason my other linux boxes get tweaked everyday, is
the same reason my Windows box gets tweaked every day.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: 11 Jan 2001 05:38:13 GMT
Richard Wright was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
alt.linux.sux on 07 Jan 2001
>When I install Linux its as easy to do as Windows. The only hard parts
>being the X configuration (there ought to be a new tool for this by now)
>and the partitioning - which has to be done for Windows as well.
>Everything else then falls into place for a great desktop operating
>system.
X configurators I've seen, can usually probe. But hey I also like being
able to just enter the setting for my monitor and that be it, and it works.
Unless I can find a friggin driver for my SGI monitor windows keeps telling
me it can't handle the frequencys it says right in the specs that it can.
Linux I just tell it what it can handle and it takes it. :) AH control. I
like it.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: 11 Jan 2001 05:46:42 GMT
was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
alt.linux.sux on 08 Jan 2001
>On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:28:48 +0000, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>> I've finally finished upgrading my Linux box to Mandrake7.2!
>>
>>How long did that take you?
>
>>> Good one Mandrake, worth every penny, and once again showing Linux
>>> *has* the EDGE!
>>
>>What edge? I can't see anything on Linux running faster than on
>>Windows. Response on X seems sluggish at times.
>
>
>It has the edge compared to Win95A the last version of Windows that
>Porter has run, by his own admission.
>
>I find X to be very sluggish at times even with a Matrox G200 or G400
>and 8 meg running 1024x768 and 32bpp.
>
>I also don't see anything running faster than the equivalent
>application does on Windows 2k on the same machine.
>Just bringing up any one of the file managers for example.
>
>Starting StarOffice? Go get a cup of coffee.
>MusicMatch Jukebox? Same thing. Sugar and milk please.
>I use Wordperfect Office 2k under Win2k and it is up and running in 3
>seconds. StarOffice is still churning away 15 seconds later.
I dunno, X runs ok for me. at 1024X768 on a Pentium 200, with a 4 meg STB
card. and like 128 meg of ram. And most of the time I'm running x through
VNC, so it also has to broadcast it. But both run fine.
>>Applications are the usual hotch potch of half-beta-test and broken
>>bits and pieces (for those of you out there about to lynch me forf
>>saying this - this is HYPERBOLE. Apparently some of you can't recognise
>>it).
>
>They call this "streamlined" or "not bloated" but what it amounts to
>is featureless and crude.
features? wait I thought that was what Microsoft called a bug. Eh, anyways,
I like some programs to be light on features. Have you seen Word recently?
When did it stop being a word processor? WordPerfect 5.1 plus. that's
about the best word processor out there. cause when you start adding
graphics, and fancy formating. THAT is publishing. you use puiblishing
software for that. That's what Pagemaker or Quark is for. I want my word
processor, to have spell check, gramtik, tabs, Bold, Underline and Italics.
and maybe mail merge option. Pretty simple really.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 11 Jan 2001 00:47:52 -0500
In article <3a5d399b$1$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <93gl7q$1dh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/09/2001
> at 10:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) said:
>>Kedit *does* run macros, just not prefix macros.
>I never said otherwise. But that doesn't help me to port my prefix.
What you actually said was:
The fact that you don't use an XEDIT feature doesn't mean that it's
not part of XEDIT. If it doesn't run XEDIT macros then it's not an
XEDIT clone, regardless of whatever else it does.
Admittedly I probably should have cut you a little slack here, but
you *did* say "XEDIT macros", not "XEDIT prefix macros".
>>And then it turns out that
>>of all the vast functionality of Xedit all that is missing is a
>>specialized form of macro and a few SET options!
>Another false assumption; that's not all that is missing. And that
>"specialized form of macro" is heavily used.
The only missing functionality that has been pointed out to me so
far is prefix macros and four SET options. This just isn't that
much by itself, and while there may very well be more so far nothing
has come up. The prefix macro always struck me as one of the more
obscure aspects of XEDIT anyway. I worked on a VM/CMS system for
years, and wrote many regular macros, but I don't remember that I
or any of my coworkers ever felt the need to write a prefix macro,
although we were well aware it could be done.
>>IMHO a product that implements 99% (or even 97%)
>Irrelevant; it doesn't implement 97% of the functionality of XEDIT.
This may be the case, but so far it's just an unsupported assertion
on your part. My main problem however is still with your original
comment about KEDIT: "A fine product, but by no stretch of the
imagination is it an XEDIT clone". You really made it sound like
the two were *quite* different, and this just seemed wrong to me;
it directly contradicted my own experience as a user of both XEDIT
and KEDIT. In my experience KEDIT is indeed an XEDIT clone, and
a rather close one, if not perfect. Nothing I have heard so far
comes close to making a case otherwise.
--
John Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:38:54 GMT
> Person A is free to be as altruistic as he pleases WITH HIS OWN
> RESOURCES.
You're using a different definition of altruism than what Ayn Rand did.
Actually, if you are talking about someone willingly giving something away
for his own pleasure, that's Objectivism's definition of selfishness.
Before I proceed, I want to let you know that this is not an attempt to
"convert" you to Objectivism. I don't consider myself an Objectivist. But I
do think that it is important to understand what an Objectivist is truly
arguing for or against.
Anyway, a comparison selfishness vs. altruism (self-sacrifice), according to
Objectivism:
First, an example of selfishness:
"Let us consider an extreme example of an action, which, in fact, is selfish,
but which conventionally might be called self-sacrificial: a man's
willingness to die to save the live of the woman he loves. In what way would
such a man be a beneficiary of his action?... If a man loves a woman so much
that he does not wish to survive her death, if life can have nothing more to
offer him at that price, than dying for her is not a sacrifice."
In contrast, an example of altruism (aka self-sacrifice):
"Suppose, for example, that a son chooses the career he wants by rational
standards, but then renounces it in order to please his mother who prefers
that he pursue a different career, one that will have more prestige in the
eyes of the neighbors. The boy accedes to his mother's wish because he has
accepted as such is his moral duty: he believes that his duty as a son
consists of placing his mother's happiness above his own, even if he knows
that is mother's wish is irrational and even if he knows that he is
sentencing himself to a life of duty and frustration... The boy "wants" to
renounce his career only because he has accepted the ethics of altruism: he
believes it is immoral to act for his self-interest." -Nathaniel Brandon,
"Isn't Everyone Selfish?", _The Virtue of Selfishness_
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: 11 Jan 2001 06:04:41 GMT
Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
<Xub76.38263$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 10 Jan
2001
>A crude example.
Which? Lotus Notes? is that crude?
>How about the massive collection of shitty apps that can be readily
>found at Linux.tucows.com, with each and every program riddled with
>installation problems and pathetic functionality.
how about freshmeat.net, I find plenty of functional software there.
FUNCTIONAL not pretty. thanks yes if I want a spread sheet program that has
a hidden flight simulator in it I'll go to MS. but I want something that
just does it's job.
>Linux is jam packed with such software (only it's somehow been installed
>and packed in) which is redundant, unnecessary and featureless.
What? Linux is just an OS, it doesn't install any software I don't want. If
I want just the kernal, and a shell. I can have that. If I want the kernal,
some daemons, shells, xserver. with no Apps, I can have that. I can pick
and choose every little component. I love this.
>"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93jfvh$d5d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
>> <TR266.5892$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 07
>> <Jan
>> 2001
>>
>> >Ah "bloat".
>> >
>> >The refuge of the Linux nut.
>> >
>> >I'm sorry to say, but 800 megabytes of OS that do NOTHING for most
>> >users is bloat, whereas 640 megabytes of solid platform WITH popular
>> >application support go a hell of a lot farther in any work
>> >environment then the prior.
>>
>> 800 meg for an OS that does nothing? really? I could have swore I just
>> set up a DNS server, and I even put extra crap on there like X and
>> Gnome that
>I
>> didn't need. and The install was what, 300 maybe 400. And hey I've
>> seen functional linux kernals that fit on 2 floppies, and ran.
>>
>> Does nothing? I think not. I buy a Digital Cam and then install the
>> software on Windows to pull the images off. But wait, on my Gnome
>> install I've already got a program that does that, I just tell it what
>> kind of Cam I have, off of a nice big list.
>>
>> As for App support. What you want MS Office? Cause Lotus, runs on
>> Linux, and Notes/Domino/cc: kill Exchange/IIS/etc.. oh and, I can use
>> VM ware and run Windows inside a shell in Linux, or I can emulate a
>> windows environment.
>>
>> a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
>> a.k.a. MrBobaFett
>>
>>
>> "Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
>> they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
>> -- Eric Draven, The Crow
>>
>
>
>
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
