Linux-Advocacy Digest #654, Volume #32 Mon, 5 Mar 01 12:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (Ash Bowers)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Hijacking the IP stack (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Sometimes, when i run Windows ("surrender")
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Ian Davey)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad! ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Craig Kelley)
Re: GPL Like patents. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For You" (Brian
Langenberger)
Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad! (Brent R)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:45:25 -0300
Edward Rosten wrote:
>> The GPL creates restrictions for redistribution. The BSDL has no such
>> restrictions, other than giving credit. The restrictions for GPL
>
> BUT it allows for further restrictions ot be introduced.
On copies of the original. No restrictions are imposed on the original. The
original is still unrestricted. Copies can be made that are unrestricted.
Just changing the license gains nothing for anybody.
>> redistribution can be having to give your work away, in the same way
>> that restrictions for commecial redistribution can be to give money
>> away. For commecial purposes, money is equivalent in many ways to
>> work-time or work-product.
>
>> Free software doesn't constrain the freedom of those who redistribute
>> code. It doesnt add conditions or create additional requirements
>> (including payment of money or code.)
>
> Neither does it constrain the freedom of the recipients, but if someone
> gets something under the BSDL and distributes it under the EPL, the
> recipient has restrictions, not freedom.
The recipient still has the freedom to get the same thing under the BSDL
himself. The recipient has more choices. The recipient is still just as
free.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Ash Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 10:48:55 -0500
>>
>> Hell, I miss my old Amiga. :>
>>
I still have my old Amiga....and it still works too!!
Ash Bowers
abowers at email.co.anson.nc.us
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:50:32 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 09:08:42 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> This can be fixed by something called "FeelX" or "XFeel" or some such. I
> >> think I found my copy on microsoft.com someplace.
> >
> >I have never understood why MS refuse to ship basic config tools with
> >their produch.
>
> Me neither.
Because then Microsoft can sell you /another/ CD (the Windows Resource Kit,
also known as the Windows Hacking Kit) and rake in a few more simoleons
to fund their plan, almost complete on the desktop, for world domination.
Thank God for CD-RW!
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:55:04 GMT
Isaac wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:50:25 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ken Arromdee wrote:
> >> > All nice words, but the GPL is incompatible with most other *free* software
> >> > licenses as well as with proprietary ones. Someone who wants to put their
> >> > software under another free license is certainly willing to share, but
> >> > cannot use code from GNU software.
>
> >It's amazing how many greedy bastards there are, who want to take and take,
> >but never give. More incredibly, they view it as their right. Of course,
> >ever since America began, it's been that way... just ask our aborigines.
>
> How do you translate Mr. Arromdee's statement that he is willing to share
> (under a different free license) into a request from a greedy bastard who
> wants to "take and take but never give"?
How do you get that from what I said? I merely made a general statement.
Probably has nothing to do with Mr. A.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:01:33 -0300
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:27:32 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >A criminal record 3 feet long cannot be waivered away.
>> >> >180 convictions, even class D misdemeanors, will be a bar to
>> >> >enlistment...
>> >>
>> >> Is that how many convictions make a three foot long record?
>> >> We may have hit upon your area of expertise, after all!
>> >
>> > It's a simple case of doing the math, shit-for-brains.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheet of letter-sized paper = 60 lines
>> >
>> > 3 feet is approximately 3 sheets of letter-sized paper = 180 lines.
>>
>> I have not seen a US police record, but the ones we have around here
>> don't list them one per line.
>>
>> In fact, one misdemeanor can take about half a page (listing all law
>> instances through which it passed)
>>
>> Also, do things you get indicted for and not declared guilty end in your
>> record?
>
> In the United States, you cannot be held liable for anything other
> than CONVICTIONS.
>
> If you try to punish someone as responsible for a crime for which
> they were acquitted (such as denying a professional license), be
> prepared to have great legal difficulties yourself.
I never mentioned punishment. I just asked if it went into the record.
I think I recall police in movies saying "he got arrested twice, once
indicted, not convicted". I suppose that is in the record.
So, it would add to the record's length. So it *is* possible to have a
three-feet record consisting of 0 convictions, and get in the army
because, as you said, if it ain't convicted, it can't be held against him.
Thanks for making my point.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:05:32 -0300
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> <snip>
>> > > I thought the BSD licence allowed any use, but insisted that you
>> > > don't
>> > > claim you write the code if you nicked it. M$ seem to claim they
> wrote
>> > > it (which is wrong, if indeed they did not)
>> >
>> > The BSD licenses was changed a few years ago to remove the advertising
>> > clause. You no longer have to give them credit if you use their code.
>>
>> I know they don't require a credit, but I beleive they do require you
>> don't claim to have written what you have not. How this works
>> practically however is anyone's guess!
>
> They "require" no such thing.
This is a typical example of BSD style license:
==========
Copyright 1985, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1998 The Open Group
All Rights Reserved.
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
===========
So, you see, "they" do.
In fact, there is no need to ask it, because of the Berne convention.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:07:13 -0300
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 14:49:20 +1300, Adam Warner wrote:
>>Hi Martigan,
>>
>>> I have used both, but for me Gnome seems better, Well haven't tried KDE
>>> 2.1 yet but what does every one else think? Why is one better than the
>>> other? I'm not looking for Windows similarity!
>>
>>GNOME has a superior architecture. KDE is more polished.
>
> How so ? I don't see that much difference between the two architectures,
> besides the implementation language. (the implementation details are also
> very different)
>
> For development, I prefer Qt because the documentation and C++ support
> seems better.
>
> However, I like the way that GNOME modularises their libraries. For
> example, you can use glib, CORBA and libxml without having X installed.
> To get comparable functionality from the KDE stuff, you need X. The
> collection classes, XML library, and CORBA replacement (DCOP) needs X.
Actually, no. you don't :-)
You might need to tweak a bit the building system, but you really don't.
> The other cool feature GNOME has is libglade (dynamically loaded GUIs).
Coming in Qt 3.0.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "surrender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when i run Windows
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:09:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobert Big
Bollocks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote something like:
> It crashes :)
sometimes (yeah 1 or 2 times a year ;) when I run linux, it crashes.
But that's because I have done veeeeery stupid things.
But mostly I can still restore the whole thing from another box with ssh.
--
Greets
surrender
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:16:31 -0600
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:980di7$r112e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> <snip>
> >> > > I thought the BSD licence allowed any use, but insisted that you
> >> > > don't
> >> > > claim you write the code if you nicked it. M$ seem to claim they
> > wrote
> >> > > it (which is wrong, if indeed they did not)
> >> >
> >> > The BSD licenses was changed a few years ago to remove the
advertising
> >> > clause. You no longer have to give them credit if you use their
code.
> >>
> >> I know they don't require a credit, but I beleive they do require you
> >> don't claim to have written what you have not. How this works
> >> practically however is anyone's guess!
> >
> > They "require" no such thing.
>
> This is a typical example of BSD style license:
That only applies to source code. The original BSD license required that
you embed the copyright in the executable, and in many cases actually
display it when the program runs. That requirement was removed about 2
years ago. Many BSD "style" licenses may still contain that, but the actual
BSD license no longer does.
>
> ----------
> Copyright 1985, 1986, 1987, 1991, 1998 The Open Group
>
> All Rights Reserved.
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
> all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> -----------
>
> So, you see, "they" do.
> In fact, there is no need to ask it, because of the Berne convention.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:23:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >The canonical meaning of Aborigines has become the name of the indigenous
>> >peoples of Australia. It is been pretty much that way for a long time. Being
>> >part native american myself, I have never heard the term "Aborigine" applied
> to
>> >the indigenous people of the Americas.
>>
>> I've heard it used to describe the indigenous Brits, i.e. the Picts, though
>> it is most commonly used to describe indigenous Australians. That's no reason
>> to lose the original meaning of the word though, as it's still useful.
>
>Not really. If the purpose of words is to communicate ideas and thoughts, it is
>wise to understand and adjust to the common uses of words. For instance, if I
But in that case how would I describe British aborigines?
>said you were a "gay fellow" there may be some misunderstanding. So we avoid
>the use of "gay" meaning happy, because it has a currently more recognized
>usage, which will muddle the message we mean to convey.
Context is everything and I'd easily understand what you meant, mind you, I do
still read a lot of fiction from the twenties/thirties where it's quite
common. It's not the same though as the Australian Aborigines are aborigines,
it's not changing the meaning of the word to call them that. You just need to
recognise that aborigines aren't limited to Australia. The definition I gave
was the dictionary definition, so it's clearly still used in its original
sense.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:29:24 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The BSD license is anarchy. A person can contribute code to the world.
Someone
> else can build upon this work, and not contribute. This means that someone
is
> gaining an advantage from something they do not own.
This happens all the time in the world of science. A scientist is under no
requirement to publish their derived works, though quite often they do for
the various reasons. Quite often, they try to keep their findings secret
though.
> In the GPL world, a person can share code with the world. Anyone can come
along
> and use and improve this code. To do so, however, they must agree to share
in
> the same spirit as the authors who created the code they wish to use. If
you
> ask me, this is not unreasonable, nor does it infringe on any freedoms.
One
> need not use GNU software at all. if you want to keep it to yourself, you
are
> 100% free not to use something with a GPL license.
It's certainly not unreasonable, however, claiming that this is somehow
"free" is. You, like many others, are confusing "freedom" with "extortion".
Extortion is when you assert pressure, either legal or otherwise, to make
people do things against their will. The GPL not only causes this in many
circumstances, but actually encourages it (read Stallman's encouraging
programmers to incorporate GPL'd code into their employers code base to
"force" them to GPL their code)..
I would have few problems with the GPL if it weren't for Stallmans
encouragement of extortion in the name of "freedom". This is the #1 reason
so many lawyers encourage their companies to disallow the use of any free
software, this specifically prevents an employee from saying "I didn't
know...".
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:23:52 +0000
al wrote:
> http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20143
What a remarkably unprofessional looking site.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- If I teach this course thoroughly enough, none of you will attempt the exam
questions on this topic, and I shall consider this to be a complete success.
-- Arthur Norman
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:29:54 +0000
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> I would sooner die than use IE.
There are worse things than IE. Give me a few hours and I'll even manage
to think of a few...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- If I teach this course thoroughly enough, none of you will attempt the exam
questions on this topic, and I shall consider this to be a complete success.
-- Arthur Norman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:32:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Hanson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 04 Mar 2001 08:37:22 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Is this walkin' the walk? Or what?
>
>http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/linux/passport.swf
>--
>"Never underestimate the power of a small tactical nuclear weapon."
I like its presentation simplicity; my only complaint is the very
slight gewgawgery of the "cursor printing" on the left side of the ad,
which evokes memories of an old CLI terminal, the Matrix, and
computerdom in general -- but that's extremely minor.
The changing of colors is also minor -- it's not clear whether they're
trying to show anything, or simply keeping the user awake (the
colors are red, black, and white -- but they shift around; this
might confuse the user slightly with respect to the text scroller
in the lower right corner).
The content of the ad is excellent. If IBM backs up the ad
with real money (e.g., equipment donations to the FSF), it
could be a distinct technological advantage for them, as well
as erasing any lingering doubts about mainframe monopolization
back during the 80's? 70's?
In any event, I'd say that Linux advocacy has now got a brand
new partner. :-) (Or perhaps a reaffirmation of an old partner,
as IBM has been selling laptops with Linux for a few months now.)
(Disclaimer: My dad used to work for IBM, so I might own to a slight
bias. :-) )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but this is comp.os.linux.advocacy, not
comp.os.impartiality.judge.judge.judge :-)
EAC code #191 28d:13h:58m actually running Linux.
Use the source, Luke.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 05 Mar 2001 09:46:14 -0700
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Encourage development by protecting the results of investment.
> Make public inventions so that industry can prosper.
How about providing for free code so that *anyone* can prosper? The
GPL doesn't allow that because it is predjudiced against certain
classes of developers (intentionally).
In short: How has the BSD team(s) been hurt because Microsoft used
thier code in Windows? I can't find anything other than benefits for
everyone in that situation:
o Microsoft can now use publicly-funded code that they helped pay for
via taxes.
o We get standardized tools and not Microsoftized versions of them.
o The mindshare of free software and free code is extended to more
people.
o Microsoft can focus on other problems instead of wasting time
re-implementing what already works.
o The BSD folk attain a good reputation, perhaps even getting patches
back from engineers at Microsoft.
> GPL is a great mechanism for providing the original spirit of patents, which I
> think was a great idea. Someone can implement a GPL program. You are free to
> use it. If you want to build upon it, you have a choice: you can contribute
> back to GPL or pay the authors.
>
> GPL provides a mechanism to properly compensate the community for the product
> of the community, i.e. contribute your modifications.
Once a GPL project gets large enough it becomes impossible to pay the
developers and/or get their consent because you can't find them and/or
they are unwilling. The GPL is pretty much only used to enfoce the
community payback of free code. This has the effect of DRIVING AWAY a
certain class of developer, which has the opposite effect that you are
claiming above. There are fewer people sharing code.
Look at Apple/Darwin. Don't you think they would have used Linux if
not for the GPL? Too bad for us.
> People argue that this is a form or communism, I think it is the strongest form
> of capitalism. GPL code represents a capital investment. (either time and/or
> money) If you wish to use GPL code, you MUST compensate the copyright owner. By
> releasing something GPL, the copyright owner has agreed that adequate
> compensation can consist sharing changes, OR (and this is the important part)
> you can negotiate another licensing scheme with the copyright owner.
>
> You are free not to use GPL if you don't want too.
> You are free not to use GPL software if you don't want too.
>
> However:
>
> Don't expect any sympathy if you want to use GPL software, for free, and then
> charge for your changes. Why should you be able to capitalize on the work of
> others without sharing in the cost? Anything less WOULD be communism.
Personally, I would take it as a compliment.
I like the GPL and can understand why some would use it, but I will
never release my own original works under it. I'll send patches to
GPL projects because I respect the original author's intent. It's not
they holy war that some make it out to be.
I view many cases of commercial software as much worse than the GPL
(like the SMB code in Windows, for instance). I'd rather have an open
reference that I could use than their closed market-share-ware.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:47:25 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But you do care if you release GPL'd code. You are insisting that any
> > code that is used in combination with yours in a way that might be
> > considered a derived work (and the FSF considers linking a library
> > to make all the linked code a derived work) must also be licensed
> > according to your choice, not the author(s) of the other compnents.
>
> Yes I do. If the people who wish to create a "derived work" and want to
use my
> code in a way I do not wish them too, then use someone else's code.
Absolutely,
> you have the freedom not to use it.
So, if I write 10 million lines of code, and use 1 function from your code,
you have the right to dictate what I do with 9,999,900 other lines of code
that never even touch your code or could be considered a derived work of
your code?
I think it's entirely reasonable to say that if you derive some code from
someone elses, that you publish your derived code. I think it's entirely
unreasonable to demand that they also publish non-derived code simply
because they are linked together in the same program.
And don't go on about the LGPL, this is officially discouraged by Stallman
and the FSF, and only considered a necessary evil to further the cause of
the FSF, it goes against the official policy of the FSF.
> You misunderstand again. This has nothing to do with competition, it has
to do
> with compensation and rights. Freedom is all about rights, you do
understand
> that without rights there is no freedom.
The GPL essentially states: Introducing one iota of GPL'd code into the
general code pool, makes all of that code GPL'd.
You are saying "If you want to enter my home, you must live by my rules".
Or even better. "If you want to live in my country, you must declare me as
supreme dictator with complete power over your life. If you don't like
that, move to some other country".
It strikes me as completely hypocritical that GPL advocates find nothing
wrong with the GPL, saying that if you don't agree with it, go elsewhere.
Yet when discussing MS's licenses, the same argument doesn't hold.
Suddenly, their monopoly prohibits you from using any other software. Well,
I hate to break this to you, if the FSF and Stallman get their way, and all
code becomes GPL'd, you won't have a choice either.
Something to think about, if the GPL becomes "the monopoly", what choice
will there be?
> When I create something, I can release it GPL. People have the freedom to
use
> the code or not. All I ask in return for my code, is that if it is
modified
> that I receive the improvements and if you want to sell my code, which
belongs
> to me, you must make sure I agree, because the license by which you came
across
> my code does not allow to do so.
That's not what you're asking if you slap the GPL on your code. You're not
only asking for what you claim, but you're also asking that any code that
isn't based on your code also be given to you, simply because it exists in
the same code base.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For You"
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:59:54 +0000 (UTC)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip!>
: Does it harm Linux? And if not WHY TELL US!
Hell, it doesn't even harm Windows. There is no such article on cnn.com,
nor has there ever been. It's a hoax.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 17:06:10 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > I would sooner die than use IE.
>
> There are worse things than IE. Give me a few hours and I'll even manage
> to think of a few...
>
> Donal.
> --
> Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- If I teach this course thoroughly enough, none of you will attempt the exam
> questions on this topic, and I shall consider this to be a complete success.
> -- Arthur Norman
Exactly why is IE so bad? I find it much nicer to use than NS, hell even
the Linux version of NS sucks (I love how it opens downloadable binaries
as web pages).
If we're talking OE, then I would have to agree with you. But I feel
perfectly safe using IE, the only problem with it is the OS I'm using.
:^)
--
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
******************************
