Linux-Advocacy Digest #31, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Feb 01 05:13:03 EST
Contents:
Linux undertaking. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Does Code Decay (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I don't understand ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: how come you have to reboot when you change DNS servers in Windows? ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux undertaking.
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 09:18:20 GMT
First of all let me say hello to everyone.
>I know that this is an unusual request but I need
>help from all Linux OS users. Weather you have
>used Linux OS (any variety) one or many times
>your opinion is welcome. Please help me in my
>master's degree by filling out my 12 item
>questionnaire at
>http://www.gonzalo.net/satisfaction.htm
>My aim is to measure user satisfaction in the use
>of Linus OS in the 5 variables of interest. Your
>help is critical to the completion of my degree.
>Assistance will be greatly appreciated. To all those who have filled
out the questionnaire...Thank You!
>Mahalo Nui Loa (Thank you very much in Hawaiian)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:40:34 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:15:11 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >Well, since C# and the CLR are now ECMA standards, this is a possibilty.
> >The real benefit of .NET will be the Java-like cross platform capability
> >(think CE, 32 bit windows, 64 bit windows, MacOS X all from the same EXE,
> >each optimized for their own platforms by the .NET runtime compiler
(which
> >is much more like SmallTalk than Java))
>
> Ok, so why won't this suffer from the same "write once test many times"
> problems that Java (and every other cross-platform language) has?
> Further, what's to stop MS from enhancing the ECMA standard with things
> that only work on Windows, as they attempted to do with Java? What do
> you suppose will happen if they do that? Why _wouldn't_ they do that?
I didn't say it wouldn't. The failure of WORA was not Java's failure, but
rather Sun's refusal to relinquish control enough to allow standardization
and to implement what needed to be implemented and their constant promising
of things they couldn't deliver in a timely fasion. Java might have
succeeded if Sun had been able to put enough resources into it to do even a
fraction of what MS has already done in beta with .NET.
It took sun years to get a decent JIT (HotSpot) and years to develop a
standard native interface, and years to develop component models like Java
Beans... people gave up on the hype because Sun couldn't deliver in a timely
manner, and when they did it usually was a poorer quality product than even
MS ships in a 1.0 release.
Also, Java suffered from the fact that Sun only supported the Java language.
Yes, there are other languages that target the JVM today, but they are not
supported by Sun and discouraged.
> >And, if people write .NET for Linux, as they'll be able to do from the
> >standards, you can run on Linux as well.
>
> Except for the things that don't. Since MS, the promulgator of the
> standard, and you can be real sure that ECMA won't be calling the shots,
> will not itself be providing .NET for Linux (or probably anything except
> Windows), why won't we see the same problems we saw with Java on Linux
> prior to Sun and IBM seeing the light?
MS has already contracted with Corel to port .NET to Linux.
> Your rosy view of .NET assumes that they will be able to overcome all of
> the same problems Java faces, but because they are Microsoft it'll all
> be a cakewalk. That they will play fair and not try to use their
> control of the platform to favor their own interests. Basically, nobody
> but die-hard MS-lovers believes either one of those things any more.
Java's problem was Sun. They killed it with their management.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:43:06 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> However, microsoft doesn't dare use a single box like
> ftp.cdrom.com or ftp.freesoftware.com, each of which
> use a single BSD box.
Both of which are just FTP sites and don't process dynamic.
ftp.microsoft.com runs on one server as well.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 08:46:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Bloody Viking wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> : On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:34:00 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : >Kind of like the nuclear-fission handgrenade, but without the benefits.
>>
>> : ...they actually did make fission artillery shells...
>>
>> And the Russians made briefcase nukes. (actually suitcase sized) Some of these
>> porta-nukes are floating around "missing" from the Russian stash. We Yanks
>> worked on a briefcase nuke but abandoned the idea.
>
>How can you be sure?
>
>I dreamed up the same concept in junior high...simply put the components in
>diplomatic pouches....and slowly build them in country. Or smuggle them to
>an agent living in the country using frogmen doing beach visits.
>
>
>>
>> It would be impossible to build a tactical nuclear weapon grenade unless you
>> could contain _antimatter_ due to the critical mass minimum size constraint.
>> Even if you could build such a grenade, you'd need a fastball pitcher to throw
>> it as it would at least pack the power of a Tim McVeigh bomb.
>
>I'm sure a basketball-sized thing would be sufficient...it's not like you
>have any hope of throwing it past the blast radius anyway.
>
>It only takes a couple of kg's of Pu (about the size of a softball) to
>be critical mass at standard atmospheric temp and pressure. (0 Celsius,
>14.7(?) pounds/square inch).
>
>
>
>
>>
>> And you are correct in that they did build and test some tactical nuke
>> artillery shells.
>>
>> --
>> FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
>> The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
>> The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
Let me just add to this -
Windows put's the fat in your ass, so you'll need a nice
wide track car to drive to and from work in ....
>
>
>--
>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.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:49:43 -0600
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > (Taken me some serious gutts to post in this emotionally charged
> > > > > > forum. But love every bit of it. Hope Linux survives!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My questions:
> > > > > > 1) I've heard that linux (latest kernel) is 64 bit operating
> > system?
> > > > > > Is this true? How does this compare with Windows 2000 x-bit
(please
> > > > > > don't say 2-bit, though it may be tempting!)?
> > > > >
> > > > > It is rumored that microsoft is doing some work on
> > > > > a future 64-bit version of windows.
> > > >
> > > > It's not rumored, the beta has been available for 3 months publicly.
> > > Why would you need a new version (rather than build) for 64-bits? By
the
> > > time MS Windows came out, it was well known not to make any
assumptions
> > > about sizeof(int).
> >
> > A) It's a new architecture. It's not x86 compatible. It needs a new
HAL
> > at a minimum. Itanium uses 8k pages instead of 4k pages on x86. There
are
> > lots of functions (especially low-level file mapping functions) which
depend
> > on the size of the page to operate correctly.
> >
> > B) It needs 32 bit emulation support for existing binaries.
> >
> > C) It needs wider parameters for kernel functions which require memory.
>
> Alpha isn't x86 compatible, Sparc isn't x86 or Alpha compatible, PowerPC
> isn't any of the others, and yet linux was easily ported to all those.
Can you stick to a single topic? You said:
> > > Why would you need a new version (rather than build) for 64-bits? By
the
> > > time MS Windows came out, it was well known not to make any
assumptions
> > > about sizeof(int).
Clearly you were talking about simply recompiling for a different bitsize,
and were asking why a port would need to be done.
Hell, Linux needed a new version to support Itanium too. The 2.4 kernel.
> Well, it did take Mad Dog about 6 months to get the first Alpha running.
> Linux doesn't need x86 support for existing binaries. Just rebuild the
> application for the target. Sell the new binaries to your existing
> customers who finally get decent computers.
So where are those Itanium versions of Netscape 4.x?
> So why doesn't MS just do a rebuild for the new target? Why can't MS,
> with billions of dollars and thousands of elite programers do with
> Windows what one man did with Linux for zilch in 6 months?
How long did it take them to port Linux to Itanium? Quite some time.
Do you really think they just "rebuilt for a new target" and suddenly
Itanium worked without any code changes?
> Answer : MS doesn't know what is in its messed up code base. They did
> x86 specific hacks instead of good programming (as if 16 bits was the
> end of the world). Thus they can't just change page size to 8k. They
> have to go through millions of lines of code and find everywhere someone
> used 4000 as a page size. I guess "wizards" like magic numbers.
No, for instance the Alpha port of NT and Win2k (until it was canceled) used
8k pages as well. The point I was making is that it's not as simple as
recompiling with a 64 bit compiler.
> Do you realise your answer makes MS look really stupid?
No, it makes you completly incapable of sticking to your own topic, since
you've contradicted yourself twice.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows?
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:53:54 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> gswork wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > It would be fascinating would it not? Some of it is probably pretty
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > You misspelled "laughable"
> > >
> > > [Ever see Microsoft source code??? Most of it, even college sophomores
> > > would be ashamed to sign their name to. No wonder Gates doesn't want
> > > anybody to see it.]
> >
> > I haven't really. If it's that bad I'd like to see it!
>
> They can't manage 20 lines without writing "goto" somewhere.
Since you called me a coward for not responding fast enough to a demand you
made, I'll call you one now.
I'll ask again. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
> > Any [verified] snippets hanging around on the net?
I notice you ignored his request for verification. Again. HOW WOULD YOU
KNOW?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I don't understand
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 04:53:46 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> It seems to be a standard measure among winvocates and some linvocates to
> quote the number of things you can do at once to prove the OS is good.
> Fair enough, *but* why do some people claim thay can play several MP3s at
> once?
>
> Why in hells name would would you want to do that? The din must be awful.
>
Ask Sybil
> Just wondering
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 04:55:37 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:63Pf6.560$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Thanks but no thanks...Windows 2000 Professional is the end of the
> line
> > > > for
> > > > > me. Whistler is totally unnecessary and .NET will NEVER pollute one
> of my
> > > > > machines. It's about as transparent a money vacuum as DIVX was. We
> will
> > > > > neither utilize it nor develop for it - period. It is something to
> be
> > > > > viewed with disdain, not anticipation. Only the severely
> short-sighted
> > > > > would actually welcome such a system.
> > > >
> > > > Spoken just like someone without a clue about what .NET is.
> > > >
> > > > (HINT: The subscription based services are only a tiny part of it,
> and
> > > > something that very few .NET programs will take advantage of. If this
> is
> > > > the only argument you can come up with, you're going to be quite
> surprised).
> > >
> > > OK, Erik The-laughably-named...why don't you tell us *precisely* what
> > > .NET is.....
> >
> > 15 hours, and NO answer from Erik.
> >
> > I wonder why
>
> Some people have lives outside of usenet.
Notice he replies...but DODGES THE QUESTION.
Soooooo, I'll ask AGAIN:
How about you TELL US ***PRECISELY*** WHAT .NET IS.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:11:12 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:95mgsg$hr5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux
> >
> > I don't hate Linux. I just don't agree that it's the best thing since
> > sliced bread on the desktop, and I don't agree that it's the crash-proof
> > masterpiece that most Linux zealots proclaim it to be.
>
> Stop putting words in peoples mouths - Linux users rightly
> claim that, as a Unix variant, Linux is more reliable than
> the microsoft family of products.
I don't have to put words in anyones mouths. Charlie Ebert and others state
quite matter of factly that Linux NEVER crashes, and have said so numerous
times.
> > That's why I switched to FreeBSD. Almost no problems since then. The
> > FreeBSD port system is a breeze, and I compiling your kernel is quite a
> > simple task. Why compile the kernel? To optimize it for the processor
of
> > course, along with all the utilities. Linux is optimized for a 386,
though
> > there are some kernels compiled with various other options available,
and
> > compiling your own kernel is quite a task.
>
> There is no basis in fact for this statement - in fact, it's a lot
> more likely that it's optimized for xeon, or dec alpha.
Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386. That
means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps install
a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
still be a generic one.
> > Having said that, I like Linux. I just wish it was a little less flaky
when
> > trying to modify it. Examples:
> >
> > Upgrading RPM 3 to 4 caused the package database to need to be
converted,
> > however no matter what I tried, even following the directions it gave,
it
> > never could convert the database. This left me in a state where I could
no
> > longer install any new software unless i did it from tarball, not even
from
> > the CD. I couldn't even reinstall RPM 3.
>
> Better to start with an rpm 4 distro, you apparently made quite
> a mess of things -
Mandrade 7.2 is still RPM 3 based.
> > This is what led me to wipe the
> > disk and install FreeBSD.
>
> You can find Linux distros that don't use rpm as well.
With far fewer packages available for them.
> > I had serious problems with my video adapter using XFree86 4.0.1, and
it's a
> > supported card. Yet 4.0.1 worked fine under FreeBSD.
>
> Haven't ever seen a problem like that here
I posted about it quite often a few months ago.
> > I had problems with using two identical PCI network cards (3c905b's) in
the
> > same box. Turns out, you need to specially configure the network driver
for
> > this scenario, since it can't figure out how to autoconfigure identical
> > cards together.
>
> That's funny, I was running 2 ne2000s, then 2 realtek 8139s.
> Now I'm running 2 eepro100s - I'm not sure why you found it
> so difficult.
Really? Then explain this:
http://www.coastnet.com/~pramsey/linux/homenet.html
Pay close attention to section 3.1 and the "Two Identical Network Cards"
section.
> > Linux didn't enable DMA mode for the hard drives by default. It took a
lot
> > of dinking around to figure out how to enable it, and what settings to
use.
>
> hmm, most folks just use the hdparm command, a 3 second deal.
"Most folks" don't even know hdparm exists. It took me 3 months to figure
out that DMA wasn't on, and then many hours to figure out the settings for
it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:12:31 -0600
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Linux didn't enable DMA mode for the hard drives by default. It took a
lot
> > of dinking around to figure out how to enable it, and what settings to
use.
>
> Quite right. I especially love the feature that's in FreeBSD 4.2 where
> the highest level of DMA is automatically probed at boot time. But,
> this can also be bad, since there have been drives/controllers that
> don't work very well with their advertised level of DMA, and in fact
> causes crashes. For example, people have had to drop down to UDMA33,
> because UDMA66 wasn't supported like it was advertised on the box. But
> there's probably only a few drive/controller combos that have this
> problem.
It's much easier for the few people having trouble to drop down than to
force everyone to enable it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:13:39 -0600
"Nigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:1l0g6.472$ig2.10221@news1-hme0...
> > And yes, they have that web site prediction, posted by Adam,
> > which states we will all turn to methane gas in just 6 months.
>
> If linux dies then MS's websites will go too as witjout MS's linux based
> DNS servers nobody could find ther website. Amusing that MS is
continuously
> claiming linux is going to die when they continue to find more uses for it
> in their own company. If windows is not even able to run a reliable DNS
> server then how can it compete at anything else.
Perhaps you should look before you speak. MS's primary DNS servers run on
Win2k. Theri backup DNS servers are hosted by Akamai who run Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how come you have to reboot when you change DNS servers in Windows?
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:15:56 -0600
"Nigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:tN%f6.427$ig2.9945@news1-hme0...
> > They've been trying to create UNIX since day 1.
>
> Why is it that when MS screw up when trying to copy others they always
> think the ones being copied are the ones who got it wrong - remember
xenix,
> the MS version of unix, when this turned out to be not completely unix
> compatible they decided it was unix's fault and forced AT&T to licence ms
> code to put into the real unix to make it more xenix compatible.
Gezus man... Get your facts straight before posting.
Xenix was a 100% licensed AT&T Unix. When MS sold Xenix to SCO, they also
built into the contract the license for their code. AT&T never licensed
anything from MS for Unix.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
