Linux-Advocacy Digest #822, Volume #31 Mon, 29 Jan 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Another thing I've noticed. (.)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: Linux headache (Mig)
Re: Linux headache (.)
Re: KDE Hell
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (.)
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
A Linux "Domain Server"? (SBH)
Re: All this Whistler stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Another thing I've noticed.
Date: 29 Jan 2001 19:26:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:05:30 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> It was the Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:41:41 -0600...
>>> ...and Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > > > Tell me how well that runs on 32MB P133.
>>> > >
>>> > > Blackbox without gnome runs just fine on my 75 megahertz powermac with
>>32
>>> > > megs of ram.
>>> >
>>> > I'm sure it does. Win2k using Litestep as the shell and turning off
>>> > services left and right will as well.
>>>
>>> Um, yeah. But why bother? I suppose it's much easier to simply install
>>> some standard Linux distro and use the GUI of your choice than to
>>> butcher Windows to size, which requires third-party software (Litestep
>>> does not ship with the Windows CD, or does it?).
>>
>>I love it. Hacking around in Linux is "configuring", tweaking Windows is
>>"butchering".
> I can rip out my windowmanager and the desktop is still functional.
> You can't say the same for WinDOS. That's one of the most annoying
> things about the like of LiteStep.
> Tweaking WinDOS is "butchering" due to the simple fact that it's
> not constructed with certain "tweaks" in mind and you have to
> work AROUND Windows to achieve them.
Exactly. See the myriad of shell replacements, windowblinds and so forth
for details.
Though winvocates will doubtlessly bring up "tweakui", that scampy little
bit of visual basic that is nearly impossible to find on microsoft's
website. It allows you to do things like clear your document history on
boot. Neato.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:27:06 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:15:45 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 16:02:37 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> where has your reasoning been. I have been listening to Microsoft's
> >speechs
> >> >> since NT was first encarnated, and not once, have they ever achieved
what
> >> >> they wanted, that is, to be the almighty UNIX bashing OS.
> >> >
> >> >Who holds the #1 - #4 spots on the TPC.org TPC-C performance rankings?
> >> >
> >> >Thank you.
> >>
> >> ...by throwing together 100 toy servers together.
> >
> >Which cost significantly less and produced much higher scores than
> >IBM's and Sun's best offerings.
>
> It's still not comparable. Your database design has to be
> specifically altered to handle such a cluster. Those M$
> machines are the DB equivalent of a Beowulf cluster.
>
Hmmm... .spend $10,000,000 on hardware or redesign a _portion_ of your
database layout ...
hmmmm.... OR spend $0 on copies of Linux but $$$$$$$$$ on the training and
administration costs of running 1000s of crappy used computers strung
together in a beowulf cluster and still not get the same performance...
hmmmm....
decisions decisions...
and to think that the people in this newsgroup are smarter than the
collected smarts of IBM, Oracle and Sun - funny none of them thought, gee,
lets smoke that benchmark, lets fire up that linux solution or lets cluster
our servers too... yea that's it. No, instead it's assumed they've said,
lets spend $20,000,000 on testing a solution and not use our best equipment,
software or stragety. yea, that's it... believe that...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:29:42 -0000
On 29 Jan 2001 13:22:10 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > The obvious question is, why isn't Linux on the TPC?
Why bother? If you're going to spend that kind of
money on a server, kludge klone hardware will likely
not be what you're interested in. Ditto for the
after sale support contracts.
[deletia]
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:39:08 -0000
On 29 Jan 2001 13:27:06 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:15:45 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 16:02:37 GMT, Chad Myers
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> where has your reasoning been. I have been listening to Microsoft's
>> >speechs
>> >> >> since NT was first encarnated, and not once, have they ever achieved
>what
>> >> >> they wanted, that is, to be the almighty UNIX bashing OS.
>> >> >
>> >> >Who holds the #1 - #4 spots on the TPC.org TPC-C performance rankings?
>> >> >
>> >> >Thank you.
>> >>
>> >> ...by throwing together 100 toy servers together.
>> >
>> >Which cost significantly less and produced much higher scores than
>> >IBM's and Sun's best offerings.
>>
>> It's still not comparable. Your database design has to be
>> specifically altered to handle such a cluster. Those M$
>> machines are the DB equivalent of a Beowulf cluster.
>>
>
>Hmmm... .spend $10,000,000 on hardware or redesign a _portion_ of your
>database layout ...
My how disengenious...
>
>hmmmm.... OR spend $0 on copies of Linux but $$$$$$$$$ on the training and
>administration costs of running 1000s of crappy used computers strung
>together in a beowulf cluster and still not get the same performance...
>hmmmm....
I never suggested anything of the sort. I'm not married to
Linux like you are to WinDOS. IOW, I'm not a Lemming. For
a deployment of that kind my first preference would be for
VMS. This is despite the fact that I DON'T like the VMS UI.
>
>decisions decisions...
>
>and to think that the people in this newsgroup are smarter than the
>collected smarts of IBM, Oracle and Sun - funny none of them thought, gee,
>lets smoke that benchmark, lets fire up that linux solution or lets cluster
Perhaps they have better things to do with their time.
>our servers too... yea that's it. No, instead it's assumed they've said,
>lets spend $20,000,000 on testing a solution and not use our best equipment,
>software or stragety. yea, that's it... believe that...
Besides if you actually do more than just superficially glance
at the TPC/C numbers without an MS Reality Disotortion filter,
it is painfully obvious that the other RDBMS vendors 'smoke'
Microsoft already.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux headache
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:35:50 +0100
Lets bite softly
Andy Walker wrote:
> I don't want to start a flame war over this but there is one thing I
> want to get off my chest.
> Linux is an absolute nightmare to learn.
Youre exagerating.. not so hard if you read some litterature about Unix or
are a bit familiar with DOS.
> Now I'm the first to admit that I'm no expert with computers but I'm no
> idiot either.
> I've owed practically every machine from a ZX81 through to modern PC's and
> Mac's but never have I struggled so much in getting to grips with basic
> procedures.
> A classic example of this is RPM packages. How many times have you had a
> failure due to unresolved dependancies and how many times have you finally
> loaded it then have no idea how to actually run the bloody program ( let
> alone find out where its ended up being installed). I've yet to even find
> a program that asks you if you want an option on your tool bar or menu.
Read the output and go to rpmfind.net and acquire the necessary files. I
found it a bit weird first time i got those until i discovered rpmfind.net.
I use Midnight Commander to "surf" the bin directory of the package and
find the programs available and to install and upgrade the packages.
> Then just to confuse issues you decide to install from source as there is
> no pre-compiled version available. Bad idea, all I ever seen to end up
> with is a load of obscure errors again.
Youre probably missing the devel packages and kernel headers. Look in your
distros CD-rom. But if there is no bin package available then its probably
intende for developers of some kind
> A classic example occured today. I spent an hour trying to decompress
> Corel Paint from a CD-ROM and failing miserably until I realized it was
> because the file ended in .GZ instead of .gz . Now alright I know Linux is
> case sensitive but for God's sake does it need to be THAT case sensitive!
Dont use CP but yes it needs to be that case sensitive :-)
> Now I know a lot of you out there will be sitting there saying how
> stupid I am, so save it for someone who cares. As far as I'm concerned,
> I'm just an average user who is sick of Micro$oft and I desparately want
> Linux to succeed in the market place. However if the companies such as
> RedHat, Mandrake etc don't address problems like these, a lot of the
> momentum will be lost. All these companies seem to be spending all their
> time creating different installers for the O.S. but no one seems to be
> doing much about making it more usable. May I be as bold as to suggest
Dont mix OS applications with enduser apps.. in that case the problem is
Corels they made a "bad" installer or rather the packager did.
> someone creates a standard interface (or Wizard!) for decompressing then
> building source code, which preferably involves no obscure commands or
> syntax, installs the result and then puts it on the menu bar. Now I know
Thats very easy with source RPM packages.. provided youve installed the
appropriate devel files. But why would you compile the source if youre not
an experienced user?
> I'm not a programmer and I wouldn't know where to start with something
> like this but I know every other O.S. does have simple to install software
> and it's about time Linux did as well.
> Hope I haven't upset too many people but it's in all our interests to see
> Linux succeed.......
> Bye the way, has anyone who isn't a beardy geek (no insult intended)
> actually successfully re-compiled their kernel and got exactly the result
> they were looking for ???
I never compiled the kernel and i am not a geek (not even beardy).. why
would someone do that ?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux headache
Date: 29 Jan 2001 19:42:39 GMT
Andy Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paint from a CD-ROM and failing miserably until I realized it was because
> the file ended in .GZ instead of .gz . Now alright I know Linux is case
> sensitive but for God's sake does it need to be THAT case sensitive!
All unices are case sensitive. There is only one level of case sensitivity.
Either it is case sensitive or it isnt. There is no gradation.
> Now I know a lot of you out there will be sitting there saying how
> stupid I am, so save it for someone who cares. As far as I'm concerned, I'm
> just an average user who is sick of Micro$oft and I desparately want Linux
> to succeed in the market place. However if the companies such as RedHat,
> Mandrake etc don't address problems like these, a lot of the momentum will
> be lost.
Ah. The bi-weekly "look, you fellows better tell redhat to get their act
in gear or linux will never make it anywhere!"
Ive got a couple of bits of news for you:
1. linux already has made it quite a few places.
2. linux is like windows in one very important way: the hype overshadows
the competition's BETTER PRODUCT (see BeOS)
3. honestly, few people care if you are having a hard time with linux or
not. The people that care are Mandrake and redhat (mandrake much more
I suspect). Your gripe isnt with the operating system, its with your
distribution. If you never want to have to worry about dependencies
again, use Debian.
> All these companies seem to be spending all their time creating
> different installers for the O.S. but no one seems to be doing much about
> making it more usable.
Lots of people are, its just not ground down to the lowest common denominator
yet. Dont worry though, it will be soon.
> May I be as bold as to suggest someone creates a
> standard interface (or Wizard!) for decompressing then building source code,
Its been done a few times.
> which preferably involves no obscure commands or syntax,
Like what, specifically? Its not obscure if its in a man page.
> installs the result
> and then puts it on the menu bar.
What menubar? Where? What windowmanager?
> Now I know I'm not a programmer and I
> wouldn't know where to start with something like this but I know every other
> O.S. does have simple to install software and it's about time Linux did as
> well.
You obviously have never run most other OSen.
> Hope I haven't upset too many people but it's in all our interests to see
> Linux succeed.......
Why? Linux was just as useful to me five years ago as it is today, whether
or not people like you use it at all.
> Bye the way, has anyone who isn't a beardy geek (no insult intended)
> actually successfully re-compiled their kernel and got exactly the result
> they were looking for ???
Yes, many times. And I am clean shaven.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:47:14 -0000
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:59:24 -0800, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:08:24 GMT,
> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 27 Jan 2001
>>>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:30:10 GMT,
>>> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> brought forth the following words...:
>>>
>>>>>I wouldn't call capital hill an "upward" one for a Republican. Ashcroft is
>>>>>going to be the next Attourney General. Oh well. I suppose he couldn't
>>>>>possibly be worse than Janet was, I mean, come on. WACO. They wanted to
>>>>>crusify Reno after THAT one, and she was a Democrat!
>>>>
>>>>I would MUCH rather have a militant Attorney General who fire-bombs
>>>>fundamentalist extremists who think they're God and are stockpiling
>>>>weapons than one who believes that the US is a Christian Nation and will
>>>>be a puppet for the Pope and the New Right*. The threat to liberty is
>>>>becoming rather frightening. America may be entering a very dark time.
>>>
>>>The BD's were not stockpiling weapons, they had fewer arms per person than the
>>>average Texas home (2 I think.)
>>
>>Counting the children, no doubt. When someone has a crate of assault
Children are quite capable of using firearms as well. My own
weapons/hunting training started at ~ 8 years. That includes
family hunting trips as well as Scouting.
>>weapons, grenades, and maybe the odd rocket launcher, they're
>>'stockpiling', as far as I am concerned, no matter what the per capita
>>weapon count happens to be.
>
>Except that there were no grenades, no rocket launchers, and the only "assault
>weapons" were the ones the feds brought to town.
From what I've seen of the aftermath pictures, there were primarily
AR-15's/M-16s. This is a rifile often paraded out by the media to
impress the ignorant. It looks frightening but it's essentially a
scary looking deer rifle with a magazine.
Even the military version of this weapon is semi-automatic and
intended to be used as a lowend sniping weapon being fired a
round at a time, thoughtfully.
It's not a Tommy Gun.
>
>>
>>>>* It is VITALLY important to recognize that Reno did *NOT* firebomb the
>>>>Davidians, but Ashcroft (and Bush, and the entire Republican party, in
>>>>fact) *are* politically influenced heavily by the Christian Coalition.
>>>
>>>Reno (via the various fed three letter agencies at the time) fired incendiary
>>>rounds into a wooden structure, used CS gas with a flammable propellant,
>>>refused to allow fireengines access to the church, and in general, lied and
>>>missrepresented the situation from day one.
>>
>>Yea, right.
Actually, Dateline did a report on this right after the incident.
The showed a close up of the cannister and you could read the
flammability warning clear as day. Of course the report itself did
not bring this up.
A couple years prior to the Branch Davidian incident, Israel was
getting reamed by the US press for doing the exact same sort of
thing to Palestinian civilians. Apparently, this sort of practice
is against some sort of civilized warfare covention.
>
>Truth is truth, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not is irrelevent. The
>feds lied about a drug lab (they later admitted it was a lie) about child abuse
>(which is not even in the federal jurisdiction in the first place.) and about
>the actions they took. There wasn't a single day of the siege that went by,
>without the feds lieing about something.
[deletia]
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 29 Jan 2001 19:48:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > The obvious question is, why isn't Linux on the TPC?
>>
>> Because no distributions have shipped with the 2.4 kernel yet?
> You place a lot on this unproven new release... we'll see... but then
> there'll be Whistler...
Unproven? Moron, 2.4 has been in very intense testing for almost a
year. But you wouldnt know that, seeing as how you wouldnt know linux
itself if it was sucking on your bollocks.
>> Excellent point - If that's the case, it's just a matter of time.
> Yea, we'll see...
Wheres that version of datacenter that can handle 64 processors again
exactly? Can I create a folder called "con" on ITS desktop?
>> > Likewise, there's no high-caliber database for Linux.
>>
>> Oracle, DB2, Sybase, Informix, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.
>>
>> IOW, every database that matters, has a Linux version.
> MySQL? PostgreSQL? ahahahahahahahhhhhaaaa
You arent running DB2 under W2K.
>>
>> > There's
>> > Oracle, but from what I've heard, it doesn't perform anywhere
>> > near the way it does on Win2K and Solaris.
>>
>> Well, you've heard wrong then.
> No, he's got it right, Oracle themselves do NOT advise using linux for
> anything but the SOHO.
They also advise not using NT. In fact, my Oracle rep swears by using
it under solaris and solaris only, preferably a patched 2.7 install.
>>
>>
>> > What about a transaction processor? Is there any enterprise-class
>> > transaction processor for Linux?
>>
>> OK, Chad, since you are the acknowledged expert here,
>> please explain for us newbies what a transaction processor
>> does, and why you think Linux could not run such an app.
> He didn't say it couldn't run such an app - merely that there are no such
> apps for Linux. And considering what it takes/costs to develop one, I doubt
> we'll see one unless IBM ponies up the money for it.
With the money that IBM is spending on linux (billions) compared with the
money that theyre spending on windows (zero), we'll see about that.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:52:34 -0000
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:08:04 -0600, Chris Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chris Clement wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > Linux fits the bill right now for 95% of what users need.
>> >
>> > Not it certainly does not. Can I install Quicken, Starcraft, and other
>> > popular software? Not without tweaking Wine. Not something 95% of
>> > consumers want to deal with.
>>
>> 95% of users do not run starcraft, quicken, etc.
>>
>> The majority simply need email and web browsing,
>> maybe a quick editor to bang out a recipe or a letter
>> to grandma.
>>
>> Paying the windows tax for this makes little sense.
>>
>> I use Linux as my primary work environment, and
>> have for some years. I enjoy the advantages of no
>> bluescreens, no virii, none of the black magic or
>> irritating limitations of windows.
>>
>> Is Linux perfect? not yet, but it gives me far less
>> grief than windows. Are there windows programs
>> that I'd like to see ported to Linux? of course.
>>
>> However, until they are ported, I find alternatives.
>>
>> There are more than enough instances of each type of
>> application to fully enable me both to work and to play,
>> in a 100% Linux environment.
>
>
>No, I disagree. Most consumers are indeed going to want to buy additional
>software and they are going to want to install it without having to learn
>what about tar or rpm. Bottom line: Can you walk into any software store
>with the confidence that they will have software for your system?
So? This is the same argument that created the damn monopoly
in the first place. As long as software is available, it's not
a real problem.
>Unfortunately, the answer is no with Linux. The average consumer is going
>to say forget the alternatives and pay the additional money for Windows.
Except your 'argument' ignores the same problems that Windows
users have when it comes to "zip",or just the whole idea of
downloading things. You arrogantly assume that all WinDOS users
are at least as adept as you and not burdened by the Windows UI.
Your rant also conveniently ignores the fact that what shrinkwrap
is out there for Linux does infact come with the shiny happy
installers.
>They will find more value in paying those extra few dollars than they would
>getting Linux for free.
...except, they will still require a Linux user to come over
and set it up for them. At that point, they could just as easily
could use ANY OS.
>
>Certainly everyone has had problems with Windows. But the same is true with
>Linux. All one need do is look around the newsgroups for Linux problems to
>see that. There is NO OS that does not have problems.
Who you gonna call?
...A linux user most likely.
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SBH)
Subject: A Linux "Domain Server"?
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:53:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Is there software out there can configure Linux as a domain controller
for a Windows NT domain? I'm thinking about running Samba on a Linux
file server and when a user log in (from any NT machine in the domain)
the user is autheticated throgh this Linux server and can access
his/her files on the server. I know HP and Sun have proprietery
technology for their Unix servers. Is this available for Linux.
Thanks in advance.
SBH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: All this Whistler stuff.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:09:39 -0000
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:10:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Which question, I see multiple?
>
>"SR" (in contrast to "SP") means a Service Release with new features.
>Who doesn't want new features as time passes? (Oops, I forgot this is a
>forum for essentially a 30 year old technology that doesn't keep up well
>with new innovations.)
...as opposed to a johny-come lately sandbagger that is trying
to play catchup with that 30 year old technology.
>
>Even if "SP" was intended, are you really suggesting that Linux goes
>more than 4 months without a single bug fix?
Mind you, Unix isn't even really the "30 year old tech" to beat.
Unix is just the "good enough" variant to match DOS and microsoft
in toy computing. With Cutler around, one would think that MS
could do remarkably better and have done it 5 or 7 years ago.
[deletia]
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
