Linux-Advocacy Digest #568, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: M$ doing it again! (mlw)
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" ("Flacco")
Re: I will now perform a neat trick ("Flacco")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Steve Mading)
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship (Michael Vester)
Re: why open source software is better (Peter Seebach)
Re: why open source software is better (phil hunt)
Re: Hijacking the IP stack (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship (Brent R)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Steve Mading)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Steve Mading)
Re: can't get login screen.. (Michael Vester)
Re: why open source software is better (John Hasler)
Re: [OT] .sig (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 1 Mar 2001 02:04:36 GMT
In <97k4lr$el5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Kaz Kylheku"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:14:00 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>Can I, or can I not write my own printf() which behaves utterly and
>>>completely differently than the printf() in the standard library?
>>>
>>>a) no B) YES.
>>
>> You cannot define your own printf name with external linkage.
>
>You can if you're not linking against the standard library.
If you're not linking against the standard library you're not using
a conforming implementation, in which case you're automatically off
topic in c.l.c.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:22:48 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Klaus-Georg Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > For instance, sys_geteuid16 is a syscall that's completely undocumented
> > > other than it's uncommented source code.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure this syscall will be documented better in glibc, the
> > user of these syscalls. From the name alone and some context knowledge
> > I can deduce what it does, without ever looking at the source.
> >
> > Linux 2.4 has 32bit uids, while in 2.2 they were 16 bits. This must be
> > the call to provide binary compatibility for old apps, compiled with
> > 16 bits uids. The glue around this is provided by glibc.
> >
> > So duh, it is selfdocumenting.
>
> Self-documenting only works when the programmer knows the context of which
> to look at it in. If I didn't know what an uid was, much less the
> difference between a 16 bit or 32 bit one, how would I know what that
> function does?
>
> Claiming something is self-documenting only works for people that already
> know what the code is for and does.
Ignorance and an antipathy toward learning, does not mean something is not
documented.
--
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: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 02:21:34 GMT
> There is, also "Plug and Play" which I have seen at CompUSA, emblazoned
> on the sides of VCRs, DVD-players, and analog microphones.
How about "Internet Ready!" - I've seen this on *joysticks* for
chrissakes.
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will now perform a neat trick
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 02:26:09 GMT
> If youd bother to read the full thread numb nuts you would have noticed
> it wasnt me who started the thread but Clamchu, so whos the dork now
> huh?
I guess the dork would be anyone who's actually bothered to read the full
thread.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 1 Mar 2001 02:23:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : Gerry wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> > MB is not a measurement of bandwidth, you need a reference to a time
:> :> > period also.
:> :>
:> :> "They don't go very far back, nowaday"
:> :>
:> :> I think that is a reference to a time period.
:> :>
:> :> 35MB of ANYTHING is a lot. But 35 MB of pointless signatures is someone
:> :> who is looking for confrontation.
:>
:> : Wrong. It PREVENTS confrontation by exposing the habitual slanderer's
:> ~~~~~~~~
:> You misspelled "making accusations of". Nobody who doesn't already agree
:> with your assesment of those individuals is going to be swayed just
:> because of your signature. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that
:> people stop arguing with you merely because they get sick of doing it,
: Whatever works.
: But that doesn't explain the near simultaneous cessations of such
: activities by a wide number of people when I first adopted my .sig
You had attributed this to your .sig putting them in their place,
when you have (I assume) no powers of ESP to tell if that's the case.
Given that even people who agree with you on many issues still get
annoyed at your .sig, I think the more likely explanation is that
the .sig makes arguing with you more tiresome than it would otherwise
be, NOT that these people feel you've put them in their place.
Someone who lies repeatedly and won't stop *also* gets to have
the last word in many debates because the opponent just says,
"fuck this" and walks away. The lesson here is that someone else
quitting an argument does not imply that they "lost", or that they
feel they've been put in their place. To assume so is quite
childish.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:08:23 -0700
Robert MacGregor wrote:
>
> I love Linux, I really do, and have used it for years as my li'l home
> web/mail/dhcp/firewall server and have always enjoyed my opportunities
> to administer it (which I always love is practically never).
>
Just set it up and forget about it.
> And I've been going back and forth on switching my desktop to it for
> just as long. Each release of Redhat that I've seen (7.1 is the latest)
> and the strides being made with KDE and all... It gets more and more
> appealing.
>
Improving at a much faster rate than Microsoft could ever
manage. 15 years of dos before 95.
> My biggest reservations are that I have such an attachment to my windows
> apps.. I've seen some nice apps on Linux, but with all the various
> opensource things out there, a lot of what I have seen has been less
> than impressive to me, a GUI-spoiled brat (hey, I admit it.. and I grew
> up with Macs... but the GUI thing is just as important to me as the
> engineering under the hood.)
>
The apps are coming. Try an early version of Pagemaker on
windos 3.1. It was crude.
> I have a list of my most dear apps and I humbly beseech anyone to
> comment on best-match equivalents, if any, on Linux:
>
> * MS Outlook
Use it at work and I don't like it. I have good success with
Netscape. And I am invulnerable to virii. No anti-virus
software, just a well thought out operating system.
> * Internet Explorer (i sooo hate Netscape these days.. it just sucks,
> compared to IE!!!!! <not trying to troll!!! please don't hit me!!>
As I stated before, I am quite content with Netscape. I leave
it running 24/7 with no problems.
> * Dreamweaver Ultradev
Emacs. Dreamweaver has the fewest faults of the bunch. Most
of my html code comes out of a Perl or PHP script so an html
coder is useless to me.
> * ERWin (a top notch database modeling tool.. i'm a web app developer)
Pencil and paper then straight to the database. All the data
modeling tools I have worked with are more trouble than they
are worth.
> * TOAD (a tool for oracle application developers)
As before.
> * Rational Rose
??? never heard of it but there are plenty of free high
quality databases for Linux. And if you want to spend some
serious money, Oracle and DB2.
>
> But then there's ones like Flash and QuarkXpress which I know aren't
> available for Linux and I need them both desperately!
Can't help you there, I don't do any graphics work.
> Thanks for any suggestions..
>
> BTW.. I know Quake III is available for linux.. will it take full
> advantage of the 3D processing of my GeForce 256?
>
Check the FAQ. My solution to playing games is a Nintendo 64.
It plays way better than a $3000 pc. My next game machine
will be the P2. Pc's are general purpose computers, they
aren't optimized for games. A Nintendo will set you back less
than $100. A computing bargain.
> Thanks,
> -Robert
As a web developer on the server side, I find Linux to be a
rich and robust environment for building high quality
applications.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 01 Mar 2001 02:31:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For example, if OpenOffice drives out MS Office, it will be because
>> users consider that it better suits their needs. This IMO would be a
>> good thing; computer users don't benefit from upgrade treadmills and
>> other MS tactics.
>You obviously have a loathing for M$ (who doesn't ;-), but that colors
>your statement above.
You can safely expect any thread crossposted to a .advocacy group to have
a bit of coloration.
>What if it was OpenQuicken and Intuit Quicken?
I would be full of joy. Intuit has spammed me a few times. They have
"helpful" little pop-up windows in Quicken which remind me that my life
can't be complete unless I buy TurboTax from them - and you *CAN'T TURN
THIS OFF*. They won't stop advertising at me. I would use a stable
alternative in the blink of an eye; all I want is something that can import
my existing data, reconciles okay, and doesn't corrupt data. (The last
clause rules out Quicken 2001 for Mac, which apparently occasionally corrupts
a file such that all you can do is go to an older copy and hope it's not bad
too.)
>Or Linux and Sun Solaris? Or Emacs and Wordstar (well...)?
Same deal. If Sun can keep Solaris valuable, more power to them. If they
can't, I think the resources will end up better allocated elsewhere.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:51:28 +0000
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:37:11 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:07:52 +1100, Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >The most successful Linux company Redhat is derided by most hardcore
>> >Unix guys as a heap of crap. The AOLer of Linuxes. It is the most
>> >successful and is still an economic basket case.
>>
>> Red Hat recently bought out another company for $47,000,000 in RH stock.
>>
>Over 6,000,000 shares of stock, compare with 350,000 share when they were
>near their high.-
>
>> It could do this because the market values RH high enough for the
>> stock to be valuable. Note, the opinion of people *putting their
>> money where their mouth is* is that RH is a valuable company.
>>
>Red Hat valuable? High of 136 and now valued at 6.50 at 2:00pm ET.
OK, it used to be more valuable. IMO it was way overpriced.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 02:38:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Peter da Silva wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Thanks. There is an article in this, and it won't be very kind to M$.
>>
>> The BSD networking stack development was funded by the US Government to provide
>> a reference implementation of the networking protocols. With few exceptions,
>> every TCP/IP stack out there that I'm aware of uses this code at its base.
>>
>> Microsoft is to be commended on making use of the best available implementation
>> for a change.
>The problem(it seems to me) is the implication M$ wrote code that they
>didn't.
>--
>http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
You know! I'm thankful that there's one more person on this planet
who's realized this.
Microsoft STOLE the code for the stack from BSD.
Thank you!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 1 Mar 2001 02:31:29 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:97jp4h$ice$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> NO. Running code is NOT a program. Running code is a process.
:> The word "program" refers to the image in its static form, either
:> as an executable file (and the associated execution library files),
:> or as a loaded bunch of code in RAM. It doesn't become a "process"
:> until it is running. Here's an analogy: Program is to screenplay
:> as process is to movie.
: Well then, I fail to understand your refusal to clasify running DOS code as
: a process then.
I fail to see why you think that's what I've been saying, King Strawman.
Running DOS code IS a process, I even SAID that DOS is a single
process that never dies, right in this very thread. The pertinent
point, that you keep missing, is that it is ONE, count them, ONE process.
Inter-process requires that there be actual processes (plural) to
talk to each other. One process talking to itself using a temp
file is not "interprocess" by any stretch of the imagination.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 02:44:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Clamchu wrote:
I agree with everything you said sir.
FreeBSD is dynamite.
I was wondering if you would answer a simple question for me.
I'm appearently too stupid to answer it.
When your installing FreeBSD 4.2, how can I get XF86Setup?
Where is it on the menu's?
Did they just resign themselves to a hand typed config
from the regular text setup?
Why do they force you to setup /dev/sysmouse first?
Not picking here. But would like to know.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 02:45:43 GMT
Robert MacGregor wrote:
>
> I love Linux, I really do, and have used it for years as my li'l home
> web/mail/dhcp/firewall server and have always enjoyed my opportunities
> to administer it (which I always love is practically never).
>
> And I've been going back and forth on switching my desktop to it for
> just as long. Each release of Redhat that I've seen (7.1 is the latest)
> and the strides being made with KDE and all... It gets more and more
> appealing.
>
> My biggest reservations are that I have such an attachment to my windows
> apps.. I've seen some nice apps on Linux, but with all the various
> opensource things out there, a lot of what I have seen has been less
> than impressive to me, a GUI-spoiled brat (hey, I admit it.. and I grew
> up with Macs... but the GUI thing is just as important to me as the
> engineering under the hood.)
Of course. Who the hell wants to look at plain text all day? Especially
if you're peering through code or something. That gets hard on the eyes.
I also just like not having to refer to a list of commands for each new
piece of software I own. Having a gui, unsteepens (is that a word?) the
learning curve.
> I have a list of my most dear apps and I humbly beseech anyone to
> comment on best-match equivalents, if any, on Linux:
>
> * MS Outlook
Blech. I never figured out how to turn .vbs scripts off, I switched to
the Netscape mailreader first. It's stupid and simple but at least it
won't make you look like a moron when all your friends and family get a
copy of the little VB baby (c/o Bill Gates) that you just opened.
> * Internet Explorer (i sooo hate Netscape these days.. it just sucks,
> compared to IE!!!!! <not trying to troll!!! please don't hit me!!>
IE is the best browser available, you're right. I heard that you can get
the Solaris port of IE to work on Linux, I gave it a half-assed try but
wasn't successful. But yes, all the browsers available for Linux are
flawed. Opera doesn't support printing yet (!), Mozilla is too buggy for
me, and Netscape is... Netscape. A bunch of people seem to like BrowSex
and Konqueror (if you like KDE), but I haven't tried them.
As a result when I want to browse, play games, or read C.O.L.A :-) I use
the lightweight blue-screening virus known as Windows 98. When I want
productivity, I use the heavy-duty Linux. Bottom line, I just can't
trust Windows to not BSOD on me when I'm in the middle of something
important. Windows is the American car of OS's, Linux is the Japanese
one! :-)
> * Dreamweaver Ultradev
> * ERWin (a top notch database modeling tool.. i'm a web app developer)
> * TOAD (a tool for oracle application developers)
> * Rational Rose
Never heard of those. They sound like IDE's though. No, Linux does not
have much in the way of IDE's, although I like Xgdb (which is more of a
graphical programmer's tool). Most of the IDE's I've seen available are
really just code fragments that have a very limited role, unlike
MSVStudios, which is a much more complete IDE set (although more
complicated IMO).
> But then there's ones like Flash and QuarkXpress which I know aren't
> available for Linux and I need them both desperately!
Flash? Ugh...
> Thanks for any suggestions..
>
> BTW.. I know Quake III is available for linux.. will it take full
> advantage of the 3D processing of my GeForce 256?
I know someone who plays Q2 on Linux a lot. He says that it runs a bit
slower, but it doesn't freeze up as much. They had benchmarks a few
months ago somewhere that showed that Q2 performed much better on
Windows at low resolutions, but that the gap steadily decreased as the
resolutions got higher and higher.
> Thanks,
> -Robert
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 02:49:40 GMT
In article <JDgn6.663$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>FreeBSD and OpenBSD are quite a bit more secure than Linux due to many
>process they adoped quite a while ago. Buffer overruns are a rarity, and
>almost always in a port rather than the core OS.
>
>FreeBSD also has what is considered to be the most robust and efficient
>TCP/IP stack implementation as well.
>
Ha, and stolen as Microsoft is now using it.
>FreeBSD has a bit poorer SMP support than Linux, especially with 2.4, but
>they're concentrating on that for FreeBSD 5. They'll also have kernel
>threads as well then.
>
>If they're using a 4MB kernel, then they're doing something wrong. Even
>FreeBSD's generic kernel is only 3MB. If you take out the unrelevant
>drivers for hardware you're not using, you can get it down to about 1.4MB
>easily.
>
>make world may take a great deal of time, but it's one command to issue, and
>everything is then optimized for your system. apt-get isn't bad either, but
>these tend to retrieve generic files optimized for 386's, which isn't always
>what you want.
>
This issue is narrowing with the next release of Debian.
>FreeBSD is consistent, and easy to use. Linux is splintered into several
>types of distributsions: those derived from Debian, those derived from Red
>Hat, those derived from other sources... etc.. and each has different ways
>of maintaining them, even between distros derived from the same sources.
>
>
Unlike your ususal Windows debates, I can't say there's much to
claim wrong here.
As long as we're going to read this, what does FreeBSD 5.0 bring
us in the future. That's supposed to be out in the fall sometime
with 4.3 being released at the end of next month.
What do we have to look forward to with the 5.0 series of FreeBSD?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 1 Mar 2001 02:46:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dan Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The syntax of a function declarator requires at least one parameter before
: the ", ..." thing.
Oops. Right.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 1 Mar 2001 02:49:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Kaz Kylheku"
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:14:00 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:> wrote:
:>>Can I, or can I not write my own printf() which behaves utterly and
:>>completely differently than the printf() in the standard library?
:>>
:>>a) no B) YES.
:>
:> You cannot define your own printf name with external linkage.
: You can if you're not linking against the standard library.
How? A compiler that hardcodes that you must be linking
to libc is technically compliant, therefore you might
not have the option to not link libc.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: can't get login screen..
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:20:39 -0700
Rajendra Jadhav wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am having a problem with Linux, today when I rebooted the system, I could
> not get the login screen which normally appears after starting the gnome
> session. I have not made any changes in the system. Can I get some help in
> restoring the things.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rajendra.
Try comp.os.linux.help This is an advocacy group. We shout,
scream, call each other names, lie, swear and exagerate here.
The Microsoft advocates are desperate and they might give you
misleading information to sour your Linux experience. Bill
does not want you to succeed.
The help newsgroup will be a much better group to get some
useful help. They will want more details than what you
provided like distribution brand and version. A quicky summary
of your hardware might be helpful.
Good luck and I am quite confident that someone at
comp.os.linux.help can help you. They helped me back when I
was a Linux newbie.
--
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: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:56:36 GMT
David Masterson writes:
> What he said is that a government employee who releases software
> developed with government monies must release it to the public domain.
But that isn't true. Instead, the fact is that works of government
employees effectively _are_ in the public domain, released or not. Ever
wonder why the government doesn't sue for copyright infringement when
newspapers publish the full text of leaked government documents?
> In his last statement, I think he meant that a government created piece
> of software could not be released with a GPL copyright on it.
I think that the government can release its works under any license it
chooses. It just can't sue those who ignore the terms of the license for
copyright infringement.
In any case, what he wrote was:
> Any government employee who contributes to a GPL'd project is technicly
> violating the law.
This implies that it would be illegal for a government employee to write a
patch for Gnucash on company time and have it incorporated into Gnucash.
This not true. His patch, being a work of the US government, is
effectively in the public domain and can be incorporated into Gnucash (or
Quicken, or Microsoft Money...) with complete impunity.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 1 Mar 2001 02:51:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The fact that you feel that being a veteran earns you the right to act
: like a jackass on the internet has earned you a spot in my plonkfile.
: You have some admirable traits, but overall you're more trouble than
: you're worth. Sorry. I'm enacting it as we speak so don't bother
: replying.
Note, Aaron: This is an example of someone quitting without
being 'shamed' by your .sig file. Please take note.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
