Linux-Advocacy Digest #543, Volume #32 Tue, 27 Feb 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: "mcse" in small letters! ;) ("Bryant Charleston, MCSE")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Keldon Warlord 2000")
Jackson Incompetence (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... ("2 + 2")
Hijacking the IP stack (Tim Hanson)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] .sig (Michael Vester)
Re: Linux--First Impressions from a semi-newbie ("Weevil")
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? (mlw)
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Ok i admit it, I am an arsehole (Tim Hanson)
Re: Common Sense lesson #1. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: //////////////|||||||||| Evidence Eliminator (Brent R)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bryant Charleston, MCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,alt.unix.alt.unix.geeks,comp.unix.sys5,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.solaris,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.aix,csu.unix.aix,comp.unix.sco,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: "mcse" in small letters! ;)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:02:01 GMT
>
> First step to freedom is to put the mcse in small letters ;)
One of these days, I will! ;-)
But for now I need that MCSE go get me into a mixed Unix/NT networking
environment. I see that there are apparently a LOT of those around these
days, which is good for me. Once I'm in, and well-versed in either Linux or
FreeBSD, I can use the knowledge that I've gained to earn the respect of the
Unix guys and continue moving in the Unix direction.
One thing that's REALLY starting to get on my nerves (since I'm already
perparing for the Windows 2000 MCSE conversion, which I MUST complete by
this year) is the idea of having to re-certify myself as an MCSE every few
years. I don't mind staying up on technology... but to HAVE to go out and do
this over and over again is going to get old real quick. I know others
who've taken MCSE classes (I studied and then took the exams on my own and
saved between $5000-$8000, depending on where you go). These folks did all
their NT studies, paid their $5000+, then got discouraged when they found
that they'd have to re-certify to W2K by the end of this year (or, worse
yet, NEVER finished taking the exams to begin with).
I definitely want that Windows 2000 MCSE, but I'm not interested in
"Whistler" and whatever else is coming after it -- at least not at THIS
time. That's another reason why I'm looking into getting a Unix background.
I want to get to the point to where my EXPERIENCE gets me the job, rather
than my certifications.
Thanks a mil for the advice!
>
> --
> The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
> The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
> consistency.
> -- Albert Einstein
> ------------------------
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Keldon Warlord 2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:11:03 -0800
"Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:40:54 -0800, "Keldon Warlord 2000"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:01:49 GMT, "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Get a crip Erik, these components have reached rock bottom prices.
> >Software
> >> >has not.
> >>
> >> It has for linux users. <g>
> >
> >...depending on which idiot is stupid enough to give it away for free.
>
> Wonder who's stupider - the idiots who give all that great stuff away
> for free, or the idiots who pay for windows crap when they could get
> linux and linux apps for free?
>
the linsux people, of course.
--
"One by one the Penguins steal my sanity." (found printed on a T-shirt)
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Jackson Incompetence (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:09:54 -0500
Not only was Jackson biased, he was so incompetent that he gave the appeals
court all the rope in the world if they want to hang him.
Take any particular incident. That trial had 2 witnesses where, say, 10 were
needed. The rest was made up by hearsay.
The judge let the kitchen sink into evidence, since the parties could not
call the witnesses they wanted, due to the overall limit on the number of
witnesses.
The witness limit was done for speed. Yet then the judge recessed the case
for over a month in the middle to hear some garden variety drug case.
It strikes me that a core finding that Microsoft has a monopoly in the
desktop OS might stand.
But the allegation that might not hold up is the one that it prevented the
competing "middleware" from "exposing APIs" to challege its monopoly.
The strongest case has always been the Netscape browser. Since the browser
is the web middleware client, it is obvious that it is a candidate for
integration.
The appeals judge correctly said that Netscape never had the ambition to
create a middleware OS.
Indeed, THAT area was carved out by Sun with the Java platform among the ABM
cabal, trying to prevent server world competition from the low priced spread
(of the time, now that's Linux :) ).
Obviously in the innards of any platform's framework, there is not going to
be any clear separation of client functionality in the class libraries.
So the DoJ made a strategic mistake in focusing on removing all the
middleware out of the desktop OS in the remedy and pushing the browser as
just another app.
This allows the counterattack that tech tying is involved as it clearly is.
The industry is hardly going to end up with two "screens" based on some
fluff about what is a browser client and what is a desktop client.
And the DoJ did not need to shoot itself in the foot with this. It could
have easily focused on the marketing of any browser product. In marketing
terms, during this "dumb terminal" era of the internet, the browser is
limited as a device-like user interface.
Obviously, it won't be in the future. It's just the legacy of Netscape's
incompetence as a tech company, being based on some U. of Illinois grad
students along with one University employee who wrote most of it, when
Netscape stole the Mosaic browser (for which they paid a settlement--after
all it was being licensed at the time :) ).
In other words, it's just another failure of that supreme mud-slinger,
Boies, who is good a casting aspersions, and then losing on the substance.
The case had repeated areas where no challenge was made by the DoJ to
important tech areas, such as DoJ expert Felton's definition of a browser or
Intuit CEO's testimony on the benefits of integration.
A loosely coupled legal model would have stood up to scrunity better.
The problem now is that the appeals court has to believe that products that
were market leaders on "monopoly" platform were prevented from competing,
notwithstanding the tech tying loophole.
And that multimedia middleware like Real Audio/Player represented material
competition, even though they are still the market leader and have not
TRANSMUTATED into a competing OS.
Now missing all these subtleties was the brain dead Jackson, which the type
of judge for those for whom the "cause" bias trumps everything.
Within its own orbit, the Windows OS has always had the most competition,
since it is where the action is. Of course, the web network OS shatters that
now small world.
2 + 2
Pete Goodwin wrote in message ...
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> http://dailynews.netscape.com/mynsnews
>> /story.tmpl?table=n&cat=50300&id=200102261557000226907
>>
>>
>>
>> The Department of Justice and 19 states argue
>> the findings of District Court Judge Thomas Penfield
>> Jackson should stand, citing evidence presented during 78
>> days of trial.
>
>And yet:
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4954339.html
>
>WASHINGTON--The appellate judges overseeing the latest phase of the
>Microsoft antitrust case are divided over the findings of fact from U.S.
>District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, an indication that the court may
>revisit some issues in the case in a hearing Tuesday.
>
>--
>Pete
>All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:12:51 GMT
I have seen it here that Microsoft used a lot of BSD code in its
networking. Specifically, someone here said that much of the IP stack
in NT and Windows 2000 is really "borrowed" BSD code. There is a writer
who is interested but is asking me for some concrete evidence of BSD
code specifically in Microsoft networking code, particularly in their
implementation of TCP/IP.
Can anyone point me to an authoritative reference?
--
Bombeck's Rule of Medicine:
Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 28 Feb 2001 03:19:11 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:12:09 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>On 27 Feb 2001 17:57:26 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If their profits are 50% though, they certainly don't do 1x the work
>> for 2x the sales, right?
>
>I don't see how that follows. You'd have to break out what they are
>spending their money on. Maybe (to be extreme) they are spending it all
>on buying new customers for MSN.
OTOH, claims that they're doing 1x the work for 2x the sales are somewhat
conjectural.
>> BTW, I don't find 50% margins that excessive for a wildly succesful
>> software company.
>
>If software is a mature business, the sale price should tend toward the
>cost of production. That's what happens in other businesses.
In other businesses, the market leader does not make their prices cheaper
just because they can afford to. They price their products in such a way
that the prices are reasonably competitive (eg: $50- for an OEM license)
If they can price competitively *and* make a profit, they will.
>> I wonder what id software's profits are as a percentage of their
>> revenue -- which raises another question -- why aren't id software's
>> games cheaper?
>
>I don't buy games and so don't know what they cost. However, I would
More than Windows OEM (-;
>expect that they follow economics similar to music CD's and videos.
>They sell for a short period and then fade, in contrast to something
>like Windows that sells year after year.
A given game does, yes. However, id license their game engines, so they
effectively "sell" the sam codebase several times over.
What "percentage" profit would they make in a good year ? Their operating
costs should be relatively low, so their profits could be enormous.
> Therefore, game makers need to
>continually come up with new games, as opposed to incremental
>improvements to old games.
Not true with id at all. THey license the same engine several times over.
>> Why don't these unwritten rules about pricing also apply to id ?
>
>I thought we were discussing economics, not "unwritten rules". The
Unsubstantiated whining that something is "too expensive" is not worthy
of the word "economics".
>original poster was arguing that MS pricing does not follow the normal
>trends because they have a monopoly. I happen to belive that MS _is_
>charging somewhat more than they would be charging if they had effective
>direct competitition in their core markets.
I find it hard to see how -- their prices are already reasonably
competitive. Most of their sales of Windows are of the OEM edition,
and that goes for $50-.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:44:22 -0700
It is appropriate for an advocacy group. If offended, feel
free not to come into this group. Bandwidth whining is
nonsense. A single porno jpg eats more bandwidth than a week
of Aaron posting. Aaron is much more interesting than
Microsoft endorsed product speak from Chad Myers. My only
complaint is that the sig should be more current.
Looks like the "losedos" advocates are really losing. Can't
attack Linux on a technical level (Linux is superior in every
way), then attack the more obvious Linux advocates. An act of
desperation.
Come on you "losedos" advocates. Try explaining what .NET is.
Tell us how wonderful the future will be with a Microsoft only
world. Explain how a subscription based OS will benefit
humanity.
And where is Flatfish++++. I miss her.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux--First Impressions from a semi-newbie
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:21:34 GMT
Scott Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >BTW, if you supplied an external RAID device driver under kernel-2.2,
then
> >you should be able, in most cases, to either supply the same driver to
the
> >2.4.2 kernel, or get an updated driver for the 2.4.x kernel. What
> >confuses me is that I have never found under RedHat's installation where
> >you supply a driver for a device not already included with the
> >kernels/distribution...all you do is just supply device parameters to the
> >already included parameter.
>
> When you first start the installation of RH 7.0, and you're at the
> "boot:" prompt, if you type "expert text", and follow the directions,
> you'll be asked if you have any driver disks you want installed. I
> told it "yes", and inserted the driver disk I downloaded from
> Promise's web site, and chose my RAID card from a list. Then the
> installation continued as normal. That was the last time I needed the
> driver disk. The functionality for the RAID card had been added to
> the system, and the RAID array just showed up as /dev/sda. I have
> found no method for incorporating driver disks when compiling the
> 2.4.2 kernel, so when I'm done, I can boot off of the 2.4.2 kernel
> with no problems, but it no longer recognizes the RAID controller
> card. When I try to mount sda1, I get an error message that the
> device has an incorrect major or minor number. Not surprising that it
> wouldn't recognize the RAID array under 2.4.2, because if it doesnt'
> recognize the RAID card under the new kernel, it wouldn't recognize
> the array connected to the card.
> Promise may or may not be working on a driver for the 2.4.2
> kernel, but I still wouldn't know how to incorporate it into a
> compilation of the 2.4.2 kernel. If you are compiling a kernel and
> not doing a fresh install of RH, how do you include the device driver
> when you compile the kernel?
>
> Scott Gardner
>
Pardon me if I'm misreading your problems, but it seems to me that you need
to learn about module support in Linux. Your kernel does not have to
support a piece of hardware if it (your kernel) was compiled with module
support. You just compile the device driver as a loadable module for the
new kernel, then load the module with "insmod" or "modprobe" or something.
Look into it if you haven't already.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:32:36 -0500
Joel Barnett wrote:
>
> "Johannes Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >Why ?
> > Because you can prove to the world that Windows is the "superior" OS
> > thus increasing the number of people who buy it thus increasing the
> > money MS earns thus increasing the support Windows will get by
> > Microsoft. "Make a better world"
>
> I have no interest in promoting Windows, nor do I believe it is superior to
> Linux. I need the functionality that W2k terminal server offers and I know
> of no equal or better alternative.
This must be some really strange set of requirements. I can't think of a single
application for which terminal server would be appropriate, which another
alternative isn't a better choice. Please enlighten me, why do you need
terminal server?
>
> >
> > >I don't need to visit a website to know how well our W2k terminal server
> is
> > >working.
> > But maybe you'd need one to show you the clear facts: For every one
> > Windows-server that runs stable (high uptime) there are dozens (if not
> > hundreds) of Linux-servers (well, Linux, Unix, BSD, etc.) that run
> > stable. Point proven?
>
> I am not denying the validity of the information you are referring to.
>
> You asked why someone would run a Windows server OS. I have told you why I
> do. If there is a better alternative for me, I would like to know.
What is your criteria, and let us have a whack at it.
> If there
> isn't, then you have a good reason why someone would use Windows as a server
> OS.
I would honestly like to know why terminal server is a win for you. I have
looked at it, and aside from the novelty, I can't think of a single practical
use.
>
> jbarntt
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: 28 Feb 2001 03:28:39 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:46:25 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>The desktop monopoly may be a thing of the past.
>
>However, to the extent, that it is still a monopoly, the DoJ/Jackson remedy
>leaves the OS monopoly intact.
The fact that they have a monopoly is not the problem. The fact that they
are alleged to be an abusive monopoly is. The remedy makes it harder for
them to leverage their monopoly.
I don't see any way to get rid of their monopoly, and I don't think they
should even try to do so.
>Per processor licensing was banned.
Until very recently, it was nearly impossible to buy a laptop with paying
the Microsoft hardware tax. The laptop manfucaturer would preload it, so
the vendors were stuck with it.
>>Microsoft is attempting to corner the internet with .NET!
>>If you don't run .NET your not going to use the internet!
>
>A web developer is more likely to be trapped into using the Java Platform.
>.NET is in beta.
>
>Without the .NET Platform, there is no competition to the Java Platform.
Depends on how you define "competition". If you define "virtual machines"
as a market, then that's probably true.
>Sounds like the Java Platform, except you are stuck with using the language.
Not exactly. You can run python on java, for example.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ok i admit it, I am an arsehole
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:30:36 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Ok i admit it, I am an arsehole
You'd better go out and hang yourself right now, or at least eat a worm
or something. Make a public apology to Usenet Steering Committee.
--
Bombeck's Rule of Medicine:
Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Common Sense lesson #1.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:31:50 GMT
In article <97hlaj$92p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>The Bell Companies became Companies when they cornered the market.
>>There was no other phone company to use.
>>
>>Microsoft has done so much the same thing.
>
>The desktop monopoly may be a thing of the past.
>
Why is it you end up buying the latest version of Word and VB everytime
they come out with a new Windows?
Show me the Windows program which sucessfully installs time and again
on a MAC, Solaris, BSD or even Linux? Hell! Show me a Windows program
which will sucessfully install in 3 version of Windows without problems?
>However, to the extent, that it is still a monopoly, the DoJ/Jackson remedy
>leaves the OS monopoly intact.
>
No it doesn't. It creates competion.
Splitting a company in two peices has never left a monopoly intact.
>
>>
>>Your paying for Windows on that New PC even if you didn't intend to
>>use it. Your paying for Windows on that new hard drive for your PC,
>>even if you didn't want it.
>
>Per processor licensing was banned.
>
Show me the PC you can buy where this is true.
Microsoft has overseas agreements which are outside of U.S. Jurisdiction
which tag the price of Windows along with every Hard Drive made abroad.
This is fact. That's why they stopped persuing this issue.
>>
>>The advent of the WIN products such as Win printers, Win Modems, Win
>>eithernet interfaces, WIN scanners! Unless you run Windows you
>>can't buy the product and use it!
>>
>>Microsoft is attempting to corner the internet with .NET!
>>If you don't run .NET your not going to use the internet!
>
>A web developer is more likely to be trapped into using the Java Platform.
>.NET is in beta.
>
>Without the .NET Platform, there is no competition to the Java Platform.
>
Unlike what Microsoft does with it's proprietary protocals for
Office products, Java was released to the world. Everybody has
the specs and everybody has their own Java. Even Microsoft.
Your statement is totally without reason.
.NET will be proprietary and nobody else will be allowed to
compete. Just like everything else they do.
>>
>>That's another @WW highjack of your freedoms and your rights to
>>competitive marketplace!
>>
>>What were OTHER vendors of word processors told when Microsoft
>>came up with their OWN proprietary format for storing Word and
>>Excel documents! They were told they couldn't have the secret
>>to reading the file! Again! If you've invested heavily in
>>one product such as Office for you company's infrastructure your
>>STUCK THERE. They find it too expensive to move off.
>
>Sounds like the Java Platform, except you are stuck with using the language.
>
>Everyone wants to be the next Microsoft.
>
Again! Everybody has JAVA. It's not a top secret like some
shitty Microsoft specification.
To read these two sentences proves to us all you've never written
a program in your life and you don't know what your talking about.
>
>You are definitely at the cutting edge. Except I don't know exactly what
>cutting edge it is. :)
Smoking kills people. Every state in the union is taking steps to
stop smoking. This is well known....
The Republicans don't want to.
But despite this effort, people are still smoking.
Republicans think Corporations are people. That corporations actually
HAVE RIGHTS. It says so in the bill of rights!
Republicans are full of shit. People, individuals, have rights.
Corporations don't have rights. When's the last time you saw a corporation
vote?
Republicans are telling me that the government has no right to interfere
in Microsoft's business. That it's unconstitutional and against their
rights. Microsoft is a fucking corporation. They don't seem to understand
this basic concept which seperates people from entities.
This is exactly why Republicans fought the idea of purging the lobbiests
of all pacs. They felt PACS were people also.
In the Republican's bible, christ was nailed to a cross as he was
against the entity which served him.
This is the line of crap the idiots are preaching in the hallways.
The REPUBLICAN RAY is just like the REDMOND WAVE.
It has a strange effect on the weak minded.
Microsoft is not a fucking person! IT DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS!
IT CAN NOT VOTE! IT WILL NOT COLLECT SSN AT 65!
And here's another good lesson for Republicans.
The Governments function in the United States of America is to SERVE
the PEOPLE! Not SERVER THE MICROSOFT CORPORATION, but rather SERVE
THE PEOPLE!
The Government is not a SHITTY PLATFORM TO MAKE MONEY FROM FOR CORPORATIONS!
The Government is to serve it's citizens and look after THEIR BEST INTERESTS,
NOT MICROSOFT THE IT'S INTERESTS!!!!!
I'm shocked that I have to teach this lesson but the fucking moron's don't
seem to get it out in those hallways. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!
DO YOU UNDERSTAND LANEBRAINS!!!!
We had a war over slavery over a hundred years ago where we felt it
was wrong to allow the Southern States to suceed but later it developed
into a war against slavery in general. We felt the blackman should
be treated like the whiteman.
When will we ever learn that corporations are NOT MEN!
Further!
Another good lesson for Republicans is this.
If your going to be PRO-SMOKING and PRO-GUN then why are you anti
FREE SPEACH by thinking about imposing a tax stamp on all software?
Or even entertaining the notions of EVIL EMPIRE MICROSOFTS wishes
to pass legislation to BAN HOME WRITTEN GPL'D SOFTWARE?????
It's not serious I realize but to even talk about this?????
Have you fucking people lost your god dam minds?
How many idiot Republican Politicians will I have face to face chat's
with in my life who still want to bring back prayer in schools?
They think they can just pass legislation and overturn the Supreme Court?
Why waste the money! It's about as stupid a platform as mating a mouse
with an elephant!
Tactically it sounds wonderful! Draws in the stupid masses!
And finally, what of President Bush!
What have we heard from the man during the election. Dam little!
The ONLY thing which sticks out was he was going to throw support
for Microsoft in the appeal. That was all that was important.
And now we have talk of a tax break. If it passed it would be a miracle.
It would be the first one in over a decade!
So you should have even more money to allow Microsoft to steal away from
your kids and wife.
When Microsoft needed help from the Government they went to the
BOOB MAGNET for help. Just like when they sole Windows to the
community they went to the BOOB MAGNET again!
Bill Gates knows his BOOBS.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: //////////////|||||||||| Evidence Eliminator
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:36:13 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > I think I'm capable of fixing my own computers, thankyouverymuch.
> >
> > : When you access the Internet, your computer keeps permanent hidden
> > : records of your activities!
> >
> > I'm wondering where this magical "hidden records" drive is mounted...
>
> /mnt/.hidden_records
>
> That'll teach you for not doing an ls -f
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> | u98ejr
> | @
> Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
Dammit!! Bill Gates put that there, didn't he?!
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
