Linux-Advocacy Digest #629, Volume #32 Sun, 4 Mar 01 03:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Tom Wilson")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Shane Phelps)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("B.B.")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Pat McCann)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Perry Pip)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Tim Hanson)
Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum? (Tim Hanson)
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Sean Turner")
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (Perry Pip)
Seattle quake was caused by the GPL. (Tim Hanson)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 05:19:06 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:S7co6.5782$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:31:45 -0500, JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >But your IQ theory only applies to those in the 50 to 120 range. Since
I'm
> > >160 I can see the obvious. There's no possible monopoly when theres
always
> > >been a huge number of OS choices.
> >
>http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
> >
> > We should be clear about what is meant by the term "monopoly". If you
use
> > the definition used by the courts (which would seem appropriate in a
> > discussion on the DOJ case) The fact that it is *possible* to obtain an
> > alternative OS does not mean that MS does not have a monopoly.
> >
> > BTW, how many choices of OS were there on consumer laptops 3 years ago
?
> > You couldn't buy one without paying for a Windows license. Not from
anyone.
> > Is that not a monopoly ?
>
> You couldn't get OS/2 on a laptop?
>
> I seem to recall some vendors offering the ability to ship w/o
> an OS. In fact, about 2 years ago, I ordered a laptop without an OS
> and they lessened the price as a result. It wasn't a main-brand reseller,
> though (Dell, Compaq, et al), but I still bought a laptop without an
> OS.
>
> I don't think that there was ever a time where a resourceful person
> couldn't have bought a laptop w/o an OS.
The last time I saw this was in the very early 1990s.
Zenith and Toshiba would give you such an option.
If there were others, I'm not aware of them.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 16:36:05 +1100
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Shane Phelps wrote:
>
> > Actually, it was an application server comparison.
> > http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409380,00.html
>
> Ah, now that's interesting - the posting I saw had identified
> the leading Unix system only as "a progress system", which
> was pretty useless as far as identifying it.
>
I think you must've come in partway through the thread.
It may have been off on one of the tangents at that stage :-)
> Thanks for posting the original link, now it all makes
That wasn't actually the original link, but it was the
primary source the original link was based on.
> a bit more sense. It looks as though some of the facts
> got garbled in the translation.
>
Check out this thread on deja.com (google, now) to see "garbled" ;-)
It's always *most* interesting to get as close to the primary source
as possible and then follow the re-interpretations.
Isac Asimov wrote a story once where one W. Shakespeare was brought
to the present and he took a University course on The Bard of Avon
.... which he failed miserably :-)
> > What it looked like to me was:
>
> <insightful analysis snipped>
>
> yep.
>
> jjs
------------------------------
From: "B.B." <[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: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:43:59 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@> But the fire-arms of the Cops had almost no effect on the bank-robbers
@> with full body-armour (and AK-47s) in LA a couple of years ago, they had
@> to wait for the SWAT team to kill them. Nor did they do anything to stop
@> that guy with the tank.
@>
@> Lars T.
@
@The tank was an M-60, IIRC. Top speed about 25mph. Today's M-1's top
@speed is a lot higher but probably not more than 40-45mph. Why try to
@stop a tank when the speed is so low and the max range is so short? Keep
@out of the way an wait until they run out of fuel or run into something
@they can't get over. The time to get worried is when there's someone to
@use the guns.
It was driving through a residential neighborhood. No time to
evacuate all those people. A good way to stop a tank is to make it drop
a tread. Toss something big/hard enough into the treads to knock them
off track or lock them up. Of course, something that big would probably
be too heavy to "toss." A bomb would work too.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! [EMAIL PROTECTED] @airmail.net
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Mar 2001 21:51:32 -0800
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JD wrote:
> > Therefore, the GPL takes your freedom away, and the software library
> > that was licensed under the GPL is certainly not free.
>
> So you're saying that using the standard C/C++ libraries as embodied in gcc
> means your software is encumbered. Horse shit.
You said that he's saying something which he isn't saying, so your label
doesn't apply. (To what he said, at least.) The standard C/C++
libraries are not covered by the GPL.
And you shouldn't so sure about what you think he said, either, until
you've studied the LGPL closely and talked to a good lawyer who has
studied it. I've read of corporate lawyers who wouldn't let an LGPL
library in their door (though that viewpoint is becoming less common at
least in regards common LGPL libraries). Some won't even touch a
library in the public domain. Your idea of "encumberance" may not be
shared by all.
Does this paragraph of the LGPL mean "unencumbered" to you?
> When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file
> that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a
> derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.
> Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be
> linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library. The
> threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.
In the case of the GNU C/C++ libraries, Stallman's statements may give
you comfort, but others may be less trusting than you and with non-GNU
LGPL libraries, you must rely on unknown courts' views of the matter.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 06:05:59 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Mar 2001 17:46:44
> >On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:40:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Feb 2001 02:33:23
> >>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:58:24 -0700, Dave wrote:
> >
> >>My point is that, from all appearances (and certainly a comparison to
> >>the GNU tools such as you've made), Windows is a piece of crap, so how
> >>much money they spent on it is hardly important, as it is obvious that
> >>the bulk of it was wasted.
> >
> >A subjective judgement (but one I happen to agree with in my own
subjective
> >way)
> >
> >BTW, I remember you were going to install Linux. How did it go ?
>
> Good and bad. The judges are still out; I'm currently dual-booting to
> support the existing games, but most of them don't work (I suspect a
> DirectX bug with my Voodoo II running on an 850MHz Athlon), so I'm
> probably going to be doing more on Linux. But that application barrier
> is mighty high, for someone who's been using Windows for almost a
> decade, and Linux isn't magic that makes up for lack of competition.
> The OEM desktop needs a few million thrown at it; there's plenty of
> polish, but not enough spit, if you know what I mean.
That was almost exactly my opinion when I first started using KDE and
GNOME. The nice thing is that improvements are starting to be made at a
fair clip. A lot of money and talent are being aimed at it and the results
are starting to show. The rough edges are starting to disappear. Both are
becoming excellent products.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: 4 Mar 2001 06:23:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donn,
I'll bet when you were in school you were smarter than other
students. Imagine if you were forced to take a course for the slower,
not as bright students when you should have been in the advanced
class. Is that how you feel when you use Windows?? Dumbed down??
Special education classes for students who aren't very bright are a necessity
for those who need them, as is Windows for those who need it.
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:01:50 -0500,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I start freaking out. There's something I can't stand about Windows,
>but I can't figure it out. I have to have a command line, and when I
>can't have a command line, I can feel my brain cells start to stagnate.
>I suffer from sensory deprivation. Windows just seems devoid of all
>intellectual activities.
>
>When I run Windows, I get this closed-in, claustrophobic feeling. With
>Linux, I feel as if I have more space to roam intellectually. I feel as
>though I am free, frolicking out in a spacious field someplace, using
>the window manager I want to use, the toolkit I want to use. I can run
>top and ps and find out exactly what is running, and where it is
>running. I get an exact number for CPU usage and memory consumption of
>any process or application, and what state each process it is in. But
>most of all, I don't have to hit control+alt+delete, and try to guess
>which instance of a program is hanging. And furthermore, when I kill
>something, it dies right then and there. With Windows, you never know
>if something is going to die or not, and if you've even got the correct
>instance of the app you want to kill.
>
>Unix is an example of an operating system that was designed properly the
>first time. Windows 9x and NT seem amateurish by design. They are
>designs that assume every computer user is an idiot, and that all
>computer users like using something just because a company tells you
>it's good, or because it's popular.
>
>In Windows, I am locked into a stale, closed, but yet comfortable room
>with no windows and no fresh air. With unix, I am frolicking in the
>wide-open field, doing the activities I want to do, not what some idiot
>company feels I should be using.
>
>Windows has gotten better, but its design is indeed amateurish compared
>to unix.
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 06:37:11 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > On 3 Mar 2001 20:29:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 19:38:38 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>says...
> > >
> > >>And if they are let off, won't they start cracking down on Linux?
> >
> > It's already begun. Trial or not, Microsoft just can't afford to let
> > linux get any more of a foothold. I suspect that the recent
> > open-source comment by Allchin was an initial probe to see what they
> > could get away with on the PR front.
>
> IMHO Allchin's comment was determined more by the open-source
> availability of Star Office. An open source multi-platform Office suite
> is in the long run the most frightening danger MS is going to face. One
> of their corporate "innovations" has been to realize that end users
> don't buy an OS. End users by a computer to run applications. The OS is
> something end users just take for granted. MS isn't threatened by Linux.
> Ms is threatened by applications running on Linux, making it a viable
> alternative. If Linux is free, they may reverse their policy: give away
> Windows and charge applications. But if also applications are free, then
> they're really cornered. It appears that SUN is the first industry which
> has the guts to challenge Microsoft, instead of just mumbling and
> swallowing. Of course, to challenge a monopolist you must use non
> conventional means, but after all being an entrepreneur means to be able
> to work out some ideas, isn't it?
I don't think that is the "threat" he was addressing. His argument was
with taxpayer supported software and the GPL. He was saying, in effect,
"Our company pays taxes to support the creation of software we can't
fold into our products." This refers to, among others, the Beowolf
project, which was developed with the at least in part by NASA, but
which Microsoft can't stea^H^H^H^H use because of the license. He was
saying that since Microsoft dollars fund NASA through taxes, Microsoft
ought to be able to reap the benefits.
> >
> > >Probably. But it will be harder for them to do so. Locking someone out
> > >is easier if they aren't already "in". And they are not going to try
> > >competing with Linux on price any time soon.
> >
> > I can think of ways they could do linux in, that would be in keeping
> > with past Microsoft strategies. How about launching a patent-violation
> > lawsuit and demanding that linux be removed from all computers unless
> > some absurd royalty is paid? The lawsuit wouldn't have to have any
> > real chance of winning so long as it could create the usual FUD among
> > corporations trying to decide whether to switch. Or, any hardware
> > manufacturer cooperating with the linux community on drivers might
> > find themselves left out of future releases of Windows.
> >
> > Personally I hope MS tries something like this. The backlash would be
> > spectacular!
--
For a good time, call (415) 642-9483
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 06:47:18 GMT
Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
>
> In article <iZsh6.339615$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "KLH"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is there a real purpose to this forum?
>
> 1) To advocate ( or dis-advocate ) Linux.
>
> 2) To keep all that crap out of the other forums.
3) Waste time.
4) Procrastinate my weekend chores.
--
For a good time, call (415) 642-9483
------------------------------
From: "Sean Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:46:54 -0800
It is built on the 2000 kernal, so it will be much better than ME, 95, or
98. My 2000 machine can stay up for a month.
--
Sean Turner
"jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I just saw a news piece on Windows XP!
> Microsoft claims that it can run for days
> without crashing! Anyone have any real
> world experience with Windows XP?
> Is it really reliable?
>
> I already have 5 PC's at home all running
> Linux. I don't see why I need a new OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: 4 Mar 2001 06:49:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 17:57:44 -0800,
Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:02:13 -0800,
>> Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ray Chason wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
>> >> >alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to
>do
>> >> >something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
>> >> >sucks", I guess you came to the right place.
>>
>> Why don't you tell us what he should have done and what "help" he
>> would have gotten on alt.os.windows2000 other that being told to
>> reboot. It seems an offending process was eating 95-100% CPU and
>> Windows simply wouldn't let him kill it.
>>
>
>Can't say what help he would have got if he had posted to
>alt.os.windows2000. My crystal ball is in the shop.
In other words you don't have a solution to fix the problem other than
to reboot.
>> >>
>> >> But isn't Windoze supposed to be the OS that doesn't require you to
>RTFM?
>> >
>> >No matter what OS you use, you should read the manual.
>>
>> With Win2K you have to pay extra for decent documention, and you still
>> don't have access to the OS internals. A sad story for an OS already costs
>> more, is less stable, and is at least as difficult to administer.
>>
>
>Perhaps so, but all this is known in advance of the purchase,
How so?? Where does it say on the Windows box that you will need to
purchase additional documention just to ge the system running.
>so why
>complain after the fact ?
Who's complaining? We're just pointing out the many inferiorities of
Windows compared to Linux.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Seattle quake was caused by the GPL.
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 07:36:36 GMT
"This earthquake demonstrates the destabilizing force that Linux and the
Open Source software movement has on the earth. If people continue to
support this type of software then natural disasters such as this
earthquake will continue to occur," said Allchin.
http://bbspot.com/News/2001/03/earthquake.html
--
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your
shoes.
-- Mickey Mouse
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 07:41:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
An alternative viewpoint...
> I start freaking out. There's something I can't stand about Windows,
> but I can't figure it out. I have to have a command line, and when I
> can't have a command line, I can feel my brain cells start to stagnate.
> I suffer from sensory deprivation. Windows just seems devoid of all
> intellectual activities.
You're a throwback. You like to stay with the command line and stagnate.
> When I run Windows, I get this closed-in, claustrophobic feeling.
When I run Linux, I get the closed-in, claustrophobic feeling...
> With
> Linux, I feel as if I have more space to roam intellectually.
With Windows, I feel as if I have more space to roam intellectually, oh
b*****r, the damn thing just crashed!
> I feel as
> though I am free, frolicking out in a spacious field someplace, using
> the window manager I want to use, the toolkit I want to use.
With Linux I can feel the restraints of too many toolkits and the
ugliness of multiple window managers all straining to get their fingers
on me.
> I can run
> top and ps and find out exactly what is running, and where it is
> running.
On Windows, I couldn't care less what is running.
> I get an exact number for CPU usage and memory consumption of
> any process or application, and what state each process it is in.
On Windows, CPU usage and memory consumption are just not interesting.
Except when I run Windows 2000 then I can see.
> But
> most of all, I don't have to hit control+alt+delete, and try to guess
> which instance of a program is hanging. And furthermore, when I kill
> something, it dies right then and there.
Even on Linux, I bet you can get a process that won't die.
> With Windows, you never know
> if something is going to die or not, and if you've even got the correct
> instance of the app you want to kill.
On Windows I can keep on killing a process until either it dies or I take
out the whole shebang!
> Unix is an example of an operating system that was designed properly the
> first time. Windows 9x and NT seem amateurish by design. They are
> designs that assume every computer user is an idiot, and that all
> computer users like using something just because a company tells you
> it's good, or because it's popular.
UNIX is an example of a system that was designed too long ago, and got
many things wrong. Every piece is a hotpotch affair, all pulling in
different directions.
Windows 9x is a botched design, a quick hack to keep the punters happy.
Windows NT is where we should be, and maybe with Whistler, if they don't
impose this silly key system on us.
> In Windows, I am locked into a stale, closed, but yet comfortable room
> with no windows and no fresh air. With unix, I am frolicking in the
> wide-open field, doing the activities I want to do, not what some idiot
> company feels I should be using.
In Windows there is so much to choose from, so much innovation and fresh
air; in Linux everything is old and crumbling and reeks of yesterday.
> Windows has gotten better, but its design is indeed amateurish compared
> to unix.
Windows gets better every release and has long run away from the plodding
lumbering juggernaut that is UNIX.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 07:42:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Once they've bought Windows, of course. Microsoft gets compensated nicely
> that way. :-)
You can still buy a blank PC.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 07:43:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > There's absolutely NOTHING stopping people from buying Linux or BeOS
> > seperately.
>
> Yes, there is. If someone gets an OS automatically loaded on the
> system, the impulse is to look no further for another OS.
That's not actually STOPPING them, that's just laziness.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 07:45:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> It doesn't _require_ them, it _allows_ them.
> You get to _choose_.
> That is a _good_ thing.
> Unless you are a _dumb_ user.
> In which case: do _not_ use this O/S.
Allowing the choice is just as dumb.
> Yes, I am happy with that.
> Because I know how to use the feature to my advantage.
> If you don't, stay away from it.
I see.
> BTW, could you enlighten us as to how you came to the conclusion that
> "every other OS" doesn't allow for per-application printer drivers? I'm
> interested, because I'm quite sure you're dead wrong.
I'm talking about drivers in general, not just printer drivers. What
happens if you allow one application to drive the graphics and another to
pick a different driver?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 07:46:59 GMT
In article <97s48o$50u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> WHY THE HELL ARE YOU SO DAMN THICK THAT YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND THE SIMPLEST
> THING I SAY?
Calm down, no need to shout.
> APPLICATION DRIVERS ARE NOT PART OF THE BLOODY OS!!!!!
That they exist at all, doesn't that sound even the slightest bit WRONG
to you?
> HOW CAN I DRILL THIS IN TO YOUR HEAD?
You tell me, you're the one NOT LISTENING!!!!
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 07:48:19 GMT
In article <97s4ec$5hp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > The Gimp does!
>
> has != needs.
And guess which drivers it used by default? Was it the OS ones? NO! It
was its own! No wonder I got postscript printed as text!
--
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
