Linux-Advocacy Digest #526, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Some things are easier in Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (J Sloan)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Benchmark tests - who cares? (Sgt Detritus)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (John Hasler)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (John Hasler)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (J Sloan)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux (J Sloan)
Re: The Linux Show! (J Sloan)
Re: The Linux Show! (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:33:34 -0500
Todd [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> For me, when I subscribed to cable modem, they installed the network card
> and turned on the machine.
>
> I was expecting to have to configure *something*, but Windows 2000
> automatically installed the network card, *and* detected and configured the
> network settings, in this case DHCP.
>
> I didn't have to do anything at all.
>
> Now *that* is easy.
All of which was pioneered in Unix/Linux.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:43:56 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:17:43 GMT, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On 16 Jan 2001 03:17:41 -0600, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> There should ALWAYS be the choice. I'm
> >> >> advocating a smaller, faster, Micky-Mouse Windowish GUI to placate
> >those
> >> >> folks out there who bitch about such things. You'll notice that the
> >desktop
> >> >> area is the only area that Linux isn't soundly trouncing Windows.
> >> >
> >> >Such a GUI would also allow a consumer-oriented desktop OS to hit it
big
> >in
> >> >the consumer market, and further take a bite out of Windows sales.
For
> >> >optimum performance, it'd probably be better to make the entire
> >Windowing+GUI
> >> >system a monolith. This would enable you to build a Windows or
> >MacOS -like
> >> >system, but with Linux running underneath. Plus, you could do other
neat
> >>
> >> There's nothing keeping you from building such a system on top
> >> of X. WinDOS itself is only a shell running on top of a lower
> >> level core CLI system.
> >
> >Its' entirely possible. The simpler window managers certainly have enough
> >speed, even on dated hardware, to support that. I'm just wondering if
> >there's a simple way to selectively disable some of the more arcane,
power
> >user features of X and optimize it for a single, non-virtual desktop
without
> >hobbling it.
>
> The virtual desktop is one of the more useful non-arcane features
> of X actually. Removing that would be a really dumb idea IMO.
> OTOH, there are plenty of people trying to trim down X for use
> in embedded systems.
When newbies acclimate themselves to Linux and are ready to branch out, they
can load up a full blown version of X and see what its' really about.
As far as embedded systems go, there's quite a lot of trimming to do. Most
of the projects I've looked into don't require anything beyond a network
telnet-connection.
I can see the need for it though with dedicated Web Kiosks.
>
> Then again, handheld computers come with more RAM now than some
> X terminals. The "overhead" simply isn't as big of a deal as it
> used to be.
I look for Palm Pilots to run like fully loaded PIII's before too long.
>
> Until there's another "resin fire", the effort simply isn't worth
> the payoff.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >things, like have the windowing system boot up before the kernel
probes
> >> >occur. You'd see all the devices being probed in a special
information
> >> >dialog, for example. Obviously, traditional Linux types would not
like
> >this.
> >>
> >> What would the point be?
> >>
> >> So you would intimidate end users in a really pretty fashion...
> >
> >There's really no need for a newbie-oriented GUI system to display such
> >things.
>
> What happens when things go wrong? How is a novice going to
> effectively interact with the helpdesk when they call in?
>
> That information isn't just useless gibberish.
A debugging command line switch to enable an interactive startup with full
logging was what I was thinking.
>
> >
> >>
> >> You would still be scaring the novices and achieving no other
> >> useful objectives other than what a curses based system would.
> >> Besides, distro vendors have already managed to do this without
> >> gutting X or re-engineering it.
> >
> >No-one has said a single word about gutting X. I've cetainly not, anyway.
>
> You just did actually. You want to toss out virtual desktops.
No, I want to provide a simple desktop environment for newbies. No-one says
they have to stay there when they realize the Linux just isn't that hard!
Once and for all, I don't want to hobble X in any way! Making it easy for
novices doesn't have to mean crippling the OS. Microsoft did that! That's
why most of us prefer Linux.
>
> >That'd be the last thing I'd want to do. I like X.
> >
> >The subject was about a simple and direct layer to provide a fast,
stable,
> >Windows-like GUI with a Windows-like data sharing mechanism between apps
>
> It's already windows like.
Not quite to the same extent. Its' better than it used to be but it could
still use some work. Global trapping of common keyboard sequences such as
ctrl-insert ctrl-delete shift insert, etc...
>
> The only problem is a decent clipboard. Adding one doesn't require
> gutting the 'frivolous' parts of X. Infact, such a system should
> be rather independent of X.
It shouldn't have anything at all to do with it. The application would be
responsible for display. The system should only work as an intellegent
transport.
>
> >that newbies and non-techs would be happy with. I hate to see a superior
OS
> >taking a back seat to Windows all because of ergonomics.
>
> Have you seen technophobes use a GUI?
At one time I had to give nightly classes for iron-workers whose company,
through a deal with the ComputerLand I worked for years ago, sold them PS/1s
at substantial discount. (It would have been more ethical to have shot them
in the kneecaps as they walked in the door.) Surprisingly enough, if you're
patient with them, they realize that they aren't as stupid as they
presupposed. Most took right off.
The folks who had the real difficulty coping with GUIs were the old
mainframe guys.
>
> I'm not sure that a good clipboard wouldn't be wasted on them actually.
>
> Infact, the common Lemming pattern is to merely use a single
> sourced group of applications. Things like OLE and clipboards
> are actually a bit of a waste in such situations.
I'm not discounting any hopeless cases. Ive seen plenty. But, most catch on
quick.
>
> I'm not convinced that a good clipboard will really be an issue
> until we start attracting users away from Macintosh.
>
If OS-X is a hit that won't be an issue.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:46:35 GMT
Todd wrote:
> For me, when I subscribed to cable modem, they installed the network card
> and turned on the machine.
>
> I was expecting to have to configure *something*, but Windows 2000
> automatically installed the network card, *and* detected and configured the
> network settings, in this case DHCP.
Sounds a lot like my Red Hat system -
The difference is I'm not stuck with ms windows...
8-0
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:46:28 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:12:18 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:02:49 GMT, Tom Wilson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:28:04 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:58:09 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:34:39 GMT, Tom Wilson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> >> > > J Sloan wrote:
[deletia]
>> >> Moron. That's how ALL engineering is supposed to be done,
>> >> including computer science.
>> >
>> >Moron...Cute.
>> >
>> >Do you find it at all unusual that a free OS with such an advantage in
>raw
>> >performance, versitility, and stability lags so far behind Windows on the
>> >desktop?
>>
>> I never found that to be the case actually.
>
>Neither have I. We're not the issue. And neither is its' technological edge.
>The umpteen million people who complain about Linux's desktop are the issue.
>You're sold on it as am I. They aren't and they're the ones who'll either
>make or break Linux on the desktop.
It is foolish to base the re-engineering of a major system component
based on dated complaints of some lisp fanatics. The thigns that would
keep "joe six pack" away from linux on the desktop are not the
technical details that GUI power users quibble about.
A little extra overhead from X isn't the problem.
>
>>
>> The real problems are device drivers, proprietary media
>> codecs and general third party applications support. The
>> 'bloated nature of X' is the least of the worries for
>> Linux on the desktop.
>
>Those are problems too. But the situation is improving.
No, those are THE problem.
As StarOffice, PerfectOffice, CivCTP and Quake III demonstrate,
the issue is not one that justifies scraping, re-engineering or
really even tweaking X.
X is irrelevant.
KDE and GNOME are relevant and both teams are working to address
the real issuse. More likely, a quicken replacement will do more
to attract gui users than a better clipboard. (as nice as that
might be)
>
>>
>> >
>> >Is this the result of good engineering?
>>
>> Lesse... you can replace Xfree with 3 competitors.
>>
>> You can replace Motif with 4+ competitors.
>>
>> You can replace the KDE or GNOME desktop with 20+ competitors.
>>
>> You can replace Mesa with 3 competitors.
>
>
>Excellent engineering. Very powerful, versatile and high tech. The reasons
>I, too, like it.
>
>Newbies and non-techs complain about the GUI's lack of intuitiveness and the
>sometimes marked difference between the way one application interfaces to
>the user as opposed to another.
There's no getting away from that, even on WinDOS.
Winamp is my favorite wipping boy for that. The UI hall of shame
has others. Meanwhile, the KDE and GNOME teams are BUSY ADDRESSING
THE PROBLEM.
>
>Engineering also includes ergonomics and different windowing systems sitting
>on X could use a bit of work there.
>
>You also have to have sufficient flash and chic factor to go with it along
>with some damned good PR.
>(You think Microsoft is winning because its' better?)
Various Linux desktop enviroments have more frills than you
can shake a stick at. Infact, Win32 power users are starting
to clone them.
HEAR THAT: Windows power users are emulating US. (X users)
>> >Instead of creative editing and childish insults, you might try to
>actually
>> >discuss something.
>>
>> I did.
>
>And I appreciate that.
>
>>
>> I definitively demonstrated the value of open layering.
>
>Was already aware of that but it certainly beats the insults. The major rap
>against X are those things that we like. It's a bit complicated for those
So? Such comments are bogus and completely miss the point of
the last 20 years of computing history. Technical "quality"
isn't really what counts in the end.
>who know nothing but Windows. The house of cards I speak of has to do with
>all of those sometimes differing standards mixed together. You and I and
There's no good reason that competing standards can't cohabitate
peacefully. The notion that they can't is merely Microsoftism.
>most of the people on this conference have no problems with it. Joe Windows
>does. Joe Windows, and not this bunch is going to determine if Linux makes
>it big on home and business desktops.
>
>I also was investigating the possibilites of having a single, non-virtual,
>non-remote, fully optimized, no-frills GUI sitting on top of a fast and
>stable kernel. The performance possibilities are astounding.
I really wasn't that impressed with BeOS (the system that
is supposed to be what you're after). It's not impressing
that many other people either.
Quite frankly, achieving the BeOS niftiness isn't going to
buy anyone much of anything. SDL is going to get more
mileage and achieve more than all of the spinning cubes
with mpegs on their faces.
>
>
>>
>> What do you do when the GUI in your WinDOS machine gets
>> you down? Say you want to toss that kernel level video
>> driver from your NT server?
>
>I generally bring the system up in Linux and hack on my secondary work
>project. As soon as I find the time to build a new system, I'm slapping
>VMWare on it and keeping Linux up for good. I may be forced to finish up
>this Windows project, but I'll to do it on my terms.
>
>>
>> Too bad, you're out of luck. You can't.
>>
>> OTOH, I can tune my Linux to the level of frills and featuritus
>> that I want. This is either awkward or impossible to do with Windows.
>
>You're preaching to the choir.
Except anyone is free to do the same thing, make it simple
enough to get runnign for the Walmart crowd and then slap
some shrinkwrap on it.
HELL, it's easy enough to switch wm's with kdm or gdm that
you could tell joe sixpack how to do it if you're the local
guru and let him get more mileage out of a machine he has
no money to upgrade.
>
>>
>> Thus, in 5 years of running Linux on the desktop I have had no
>> great urge to run back to Windows. This is even despite the
>> fact that I usually have been running my Linux desktops on
>> hardware vastly inferior to the Windows machines I am forced to
>> put up with during working hours.
>
>We're in the same boat. The only reason I'm running Win2K Professional right
>now is the need for Visual Studio 6.
>
>>
>> I only bothered to get a pentium class machine to get PCI slots.
>
>I did when a compile took over two hours...
Who cares about slow batch jobs. That's what batch queues are
for. You start it off and peek at it week to week to see if it's
finished.
[deletia]
--
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:49:22 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:03:22 GMT, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:uU296.179774$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> > Oh for the love of God (not Bill Gates), don't do that!!!
> >>
> >> Instead of "Om... om... om..." do you think "Bill Gatessss... Bill
> >> Gatessss..." will work?
> >>
> >> Hey, if I pray to ol' Bill, do you think I'll be a millionaire
overnight?
> >>
> >> > If you insist on MS, at least install NT or 2K...
> >> > WinME is a TOY!
> >>
> >> NT or 2K on 32MBytes of RAM. Be serious, please!
> >
> >Ewwww, I missed that part...
>
>
> Xfree runs fine on 32M, even with a DnD desktop and a nice
> WindowManager running... <snicker>
It runs great on mine too but I have 64MB and a 16MB Voodoo 3. (Mostly to
counter-balance the slow P166 driving it all)
One of the older 32MB P150 dev systems at work did great with KDE.
------------------------------
From: Sgt Detritus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:42:29 GMT
In article <9435d4$mnk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip some good stuff>
> Well, Windows 2000 is winning against Linux in the benchmarks.
*Audited*
> benchmarks, that is. Not biased benchmarks from MS or the Linux
community.
>
> I think it is funny that Windows 2000 is winning a lot of benchmarks,
but
> Linux users keep on saying to me that Linux runs so much faster blah
blah
> blah.
>
> Benchmarks are the only way to actually prove allegations like
these...
>
> The really funny thing is - which most people don't seem to grasp -
is that
> people don't really state their *need* **up front**.
>
> In other words, they don't say "well, I gotta have my web serve able
to
> handle x amount of requests a second"... but instead, they bring up
some
> benchmark that states their OS is 5-10% faster than another OS.
This is what happens when you bring marketing drones in the picture and
let the subsequent drivel end up in the hands of clueless managers.
> Who cares? As long as the *entire* system handles your workload, it
doesn't
> matter. *Even if* Windows 2000 was 10% slower than Linux (which we
all know
> is not), I'd just throw some tuning or some extra memory at it.
Maybe a
> processor upgrade on the machine. Whatever.
>
> So now my system is as fast as Linux. For what?
>
> No one is gonna change OSes because their OS is slightly slower or
faster th
> an the other guys. The OS in question would have to be a *lot*
slower or
> *very* inefficient in order to conduce somebody to make a decision
*based*
> on performance.
Benchmarks also seem to ignore the reliability factor. I've seen a 486
running linux have several weeks of uninterrupted uptime sit next to a
PII 400 running Win98 that had to be rebooted daily. Obviously the
windows machine was faster, but the linux machine was more useful in
the long run(for the purposes of the owner). Of course benchmarks have
to use the same hardware, but machine *speed* means little when the OS
goes south and the whole project/site/whatever comes grinding to a halt.
> According to almost all benchmarks, Linux, 2000, and others, score
fairly
> closely to each other when push comes to shove. I've seen benchmarks
both
> ways. The *only* audited benchmarks I've seen, however, indicate
2000 is
> significantly faster than Linux especially when it comes to SMP
systems.
>
> Yet, is the marginal performance advantage of 2000 able to make Linux
users
> switch? No, of course not.
>
> The same would be true if the benchmarks indicated the *opposite*
results.
>
> A hardware upgrade would benefit more than an OS upgrade - which
would be a
> hell of a lot more expensive when you figure in labor retraining
costs, etc.
> etc. etc.
>
> Windows 2000 would have to become very unstable or slow for me to
consider
> switching OSes -- especially considering that the software available
for
> Win32 platforms is vastly superior and more numerous - including the
games
> that I like to play.
> Now, if all of the sudden Windows 2000 started sucking, well, by
golly, I'd
> get me a power mac with OS X. (Did you see Steve Jobs do the preview?
> Incredible)
I don't know about superior (IMHO) but certainly more numerous. As for
the games, well, I have a win partition on my machine for that. I
guess what it really boils down to is "using the right tool for the
job" (as previously stated) With something as complex as a computer,
that has to include a comfort and familiarity factor, as well as a nod
towards philosophical differences. I'm learning Linux because I like
the whole open source concept. I don't like MS overmuch because of
previous business practices, but at least their current batch of
products isn't the pig slop that came out with the title windows 9X.
> Anyway, enough ranting - gotta go to work!
>
> Have fun compiling your kernels.
I'm sure we will.
BTW, this thread has been full of well reasoned arguments rather than
drivel posted by Zealots from both camps. Thanks all for a good read.
Paul
--
Any man agitated enough to lift a 300lb. ape
without noticing is a man with way too much on
his mind.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:12:38 GMT
Charlie Ebert writes:
> How would you know what Microsoft has already copyrighted under their own
> from BSD?
The phrase "copyrighted under their own from BSD" is meaningless. As to
how much BSD licensed code Microsoft has included in its products, I
neither know nor particularly care. I don't use any Microsoft products.
> The license clearly allows that now that they've dropped the disclaimer
> that Berkley get's credit for the work.
a) The license clearly allows the inclusion of code licensed under it into
proprietary derivatives without attribution. Therefor Microsoft is not
infringing the copyright on such code by doing so. They are doing what
the authors of the the code _wanted_ them to do.
b) Microsoft does not thusly acquire a copyright on the included code.
They own only the part they wrote themselves.
c) They would not be "stealing" in any case: copyright infringement is not
theft.
> If you build on GPL'ed code you MUST release under GPL license
> or you can't use the code.
> So GPL'ed software requires you contribute back to the system
> or NOT USE THE CODE.
Incorrect.
a) I can build on GPL'd code and never distribute the resulting derivative
at all.
b) If I do distribute a work built on someone else's GPL'd code, I am only
required to provide source to my customers. I am not required to
contribute anything back to "the system". Either I or my customers may
choose to contribute back to the base code, but nothing requires it.
Please read the GPL. You have a copy on your Linux system.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:20:01 GMT
Charlie Ebert writes:
> No but they don't have to contribute back to the code base. Your effort
> was wasted.
What effort might that be? My free software is under the GPL.
> The BSD license allows for you to copyright code built from BSD based
> code and copyright it again.
This statement makes no sense.
> True but it provides no benefit either.
The authors of BSD-licensed code see it differently. And it's their code.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:52:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here is a webpage for beginners that describes it as well as a lot of
> other things that are so easy to do under Win2k, but are nightmares
> under Linsux.
No, claire/fish/whatever, no nightmares - just crash free computing.
Say, you mispelled Linux again -
You really ought to work on that...
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:56:52 GMT
Adam Warner wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I know these stories have been popping up often, but it's hard to get too
> blasé about 2 Teraflops of computing power.
>
> http://lwn.net/daily/ibm-ncsa.php3
Cool!
IBM really gets it, they have grasped what it's about.
> (No crosspost to nt.advocacy because that would just be mean :-)
Don't worry, the most obnoxious wintrolls on the planet
seem to spend all day every day right here in C.O.L.A.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:02:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I apologize for the error, especially to the original poster jjs.
>
I am truly humbled by your generosity and humanity.
Thank you for making the gesture -
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:09:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What "IS" more amusing is catching one of the more virulent Linux
> supporters in a lie when he claimed to have viewed the clips running
> Xmms or Netscape under Linux.
Interesting - who would that be?
Could you provide a snippet from his posting to help
us identify this alleged liar?
> I'm going to see the movie later this week because it looks like a
> good movie to me.
It was a blast - I'm going to see it again.
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
