Linux-Advocacy Digest #888, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Mar 01 13:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: User Friendly?? (Chad Everett)
Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux (Chad Everett)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Rex Ballard)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL software being
free ("JD")
Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid. ("JD")
How is FreeBSD faster than Linux? ("Dark, Shadowy Hypnagogic Hallucination")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:26:38 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 19 Mar 2001 12:37:13
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:06:25 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>How about gas, for example ? Have prices gone down in the last several
>>>years ?
>>
>>Get a brain, and get back to me.
>
>This is an honest and reasonable question.
It may be honest, but its a dumb question, Donovan. It means you
haven't even begun to consider the issues, but apparently think that
you're trivial and random 'example' contravenes the entire subject of
economics.
>I am trying to work out
>what you mean by "all prices go down". This statement is obviously
>untrue, and needs to be refined.
Like I said: get a brain and get back to me. It isn't a hard issue, if
you'd stop pretending it isn't there.
>The fact that you aren't capable of expressing yourself coherently
>doesn't make me stupid at all, it makes you a tad inarticulate at
>times.
I expressed myself very coherently, although I was a bit taciturn,
perhaps. Still waiting for you to stop posturing, though.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:31:51 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 18 Mar 2001
16:17:15 -0600;
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > You've never heard of a disassembler? It's not uncommon for people to
>> > disassemble huge parts of OS's to prove such things. The license
>agreement
>> > isn't valid if it's used to cover up illegal behavior, so the
>no-disassembly
>> > clause would not be an issue.
>>
>> So, your trying to tell me that the German Army should disassemble various
>> American closed source software to validate that there are no back-doors?
>
>No, I'm saying they should disassemble *ANY* software they use, regardless
>of where it comes from, even their own programmers. That is, if they're
>really THAT paranoid. If not, they have to put trust somewhere, and hope
>they don't get screwed.
I think the rest of the world is under the impression that is precisely
what they have done in stating they will not use any Microsoft software.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: User Friendly??
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:33:32 GMT
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:16:55 GMT, Martigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>I think user friendly is: The ability to change everything about the OS to
>fit your needs, with out multiple reboots.
I disagree. I think user friendly is providing interfaces that do what
the user expects. www.gnome.org had a link to a pretty an article that
some guy named Joel wrote that I thought was pretty good:
http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$51
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:36:35 GMT
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:48:26 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gary Hallock wrote:
>>
>> Actually, it is more likely that those students will be hired, in part,
>> because of their knowledge of Linux and Unix. That is exactly what is
>> happening where I work.
>>
>> Gary
>
>Same here.
>
>I'm still a few credit hours short of my degree, and I've got a
>6-figure income (dollars alone).
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
Aaron...you're not supposed to count the figures to the right of the
decimal point.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:38:23 GMT
Said Craig Kelley in alt.destroy.microsoft on 18 Mar 2001 14:26:49
-0700;
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> What's there to gloat about? This means they won't use Linux either, since
>> they claim they won't use *ANY* software developed in America, and much of
>> Linux is developed in American by Americans.
>>
>> Sure, they could examine the source themselves, but it doesn't sound like
>> they're making informed decisions based on actual evidence, so I doubt they
>> would disect Linux to prove to themselves that there aren't back doors.
>
>Just curious: Why do you always go into Super Microsoft Defense Mode
>every time something silly like this happens? If the NSA registry key
>had nothing to do with the NSA, then Microsoft did a very poor job of
>communicating it to the public and misunderstandings like this are
>inevitable (if it is a misunderstanding).
>
>Not only do you go into defense mode, but you must sneak in attacks on
>Linux. Why? What does code verification of software on Linux have to
>do with being unable to do the same under Windows? What is an
>"informed decision" in your mind? Using Microsoft software
>exclusivly?
Now you know why we call them "sock puppets".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:44:08 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 18 Mar 2001
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Just curious: Why do you always go into Super Microsoft Defense Mode
>> every time something silly like this happens? If the NSA registry key
>> had nothing to do with the NSA, then Microsoft did a very poor job of
>> communicating it to the public and misunderstandings like this are
>> inevitable (if it is a misunderstanding).
>
>I'm not in any kind of defense mode. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in
>the logic.
That's what you call your "defense mode".
>First, it wasn't a registry key. If you knew anything about the issue,
>you'd know that. So stop pretending you do know something about it while
>parroting things you think you've heard elsewhere.
Notice the inability to resist a chance to call unilateral victory
whenever detecting a trivial error.
>Second, MS did the only job they could do on the issue. They released their
>official view, and paranoia mongers went flying off the wall with various
>made up theories. There is little they could have done other than
>publishing their source code, and even then the paranoid would have claimed
>it was doctored code.
No, "could" have claimed it was doctored code, because it could have
been doctored code. You either have logic, or you don't, Erik. And you
don't.
>Whether it was good enough or not is irrelevant.
Why? And what does "good enough" mean?
>Experts agree that there
>is no need to put secret backdoors into the mechanism being used, there are
>much easier and simpler ways to compromise security.
And we'll note, once again, that Erik has reduced his position, as
always, to an argument from ignorance. There is nothing about being
easier or simpler which causes these 'other ways' of compromising
security to make backdoors impossible or even unlikely.
>> Not only do you go into defense mode, but you must sneak in attacks on
>> Linux. Why? What does code verification of software on Linux have to
>> do with being unable to do the same under Windows? What is an
>> "informed decision" in your mind? Using Microsoft software
>> exclusivly?
>
>Of course not. My argument is simply that if the german military is so
>paranoid that they're not going to trust the largest producer of software in
>the world, why should they trust companies much smaller, with a lot less to
>lose if intentional back doors are discovered?
Open source. No back doors to begin with, intentional or otherwise.
Doh!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:48:10 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============46492A44AB6DF5E3416B7DC2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Feb 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
> >> [...]
> >> >Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail to NT
> >> >all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible news
> >> >site with "unnamed" sources.
Actually Erik, there were several separate reports from Drestin Black,
each with
great enthusiasm for Microsoft, that claimed that Microsoft was going to
convert
hotmail. Each attempt was identified - Drestin cited the use of NT
servers on
the site. The NT 4.0 attempt failes, as did NT 5.0 and the up-times on
Windows 2000
aren't looking that great.
There were attempts under a pilot project to convert the back-end
sendmail/pop UNIX
servers to Exchange, but these attempts were killed in the Proof of
Concept stage
on all three platforms.
Microsoft has managed to create a respectable cluster of proxy servers
that provide
the "front-end" interfaces to Hotmail. They do very little work, and
clusters are
routed using CISCO (UNIX) routers.
With a fair amount of help from UNIX, Windows 2000 can appear to be a
somewhat
stable platform. In 2K clusters, they recommend SAN servers (UNIX
powered) which
are shared between multiple hosts.
It works, but if you actually have to pay for the software and licenses,
it's not
really a competitive solution. The Data Center edition licenses cost
$20k/CPU (MSRP),
and the reccomended configuration is pairs of 4-way SMP processors. The
Win2K solution
is still quite labor intensive as well. Microsoft did come out with
improved scripting
support for Windows 2000, but does not provide a functional scripting
language (you can
download Active-PERL if you wish). Microsoft has also deleted PERL from
the Windows 2000
Workstation Resource kit.
> >> There was only one occurrence, so it is not surprising that all
> >> references are based on the same story of this occurrence.
I would refer you to drestin's postings (searchable on Google).
Microsoft has announced several times that they were going to convert
hotmail,
but never announced the official results of the project. Furthermore,
none of
the official publications will carry stories of the failures since
Microsoft does
have the right to restrict disclosures.
Recently, Microsoft chartered a benchmark in which the lab was supposed
to discover
that SQL Server 7 was much faster on Windows 2000 than on NT 4.0. When
the tests
showed that NT 4.0 was about 20% faster than Windows 2000, Microsoft not
only canceled
the test, but demanded that the results, which had been posted on a web
site (as scheduled),
be removed. The results were removed, but the president of the lab did
discuss Microsoft's
use of NDAs to prevent further disclosure of the results.
SQL Server 2000 does run faster on Windows 2000, but Microsoft was
trying to make the case
for a 2-step migration to companies who didn't want to be hit with the
expense and risk
of upgrading both SQL Server and Windows 2000.
There are rumors that the FTC is investigating Microsoft for fraud based
on their use
of nondisclosure agreements for the purpose of misinforming the public.
ECMA and Japan
have both sanctioned Microsoft for just this activity. It seems that in
the U.S.A.,
where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are so highly touted,
Microsoft has
the strongest ability to censor the press and to silennce employees of
customers and
partners.
> >> The fact is
> >> that you would go to your grave swearing that it never happened, and
> >> using as your only proof a series of arguments from ignorance, and the
> >> fact that unless the attempt was successful, it can be disqualified by
> >> your rules for not being 'complete' enough.
> >
> >I'm not using an argument from ignorance.
Read Soviet history books printed in 1945, 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985, and
1995.
Each book gives a radically different account of history. In some,
Stalin was
a hero and Trotski was a demon, in others, Stalin was a villain.
> Yes, you are, Erik; you do it all the time, and apparently you don't
> recognize it, even after I've pointed it out a couple dozen times.
>
> >MS has stated quite clearly that
> >no conversion was attempted, much less a failed one.
>
> Shocker.
>
> >It's an anonymous
> >source in a less than credible news site versus the actual people that would
> >know. You choose to believe the anonymous sources because you want to.
>
> As incredible as it may seem, when it comes down to an anonymous report
> (which is otherwise uncontradicted) versus Microsoft bullshit, the smart
> money is obviously on the anonymous report. That must really drive you
> nuts, I guess, but its true.
>
> >> >Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion was ever
> >> >attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT within
> >> >weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just to
> >> >familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin such a task, let
> >> >alone complete and fail within weeks.
> >>
> >> How do you complete something that failed? You moron. As if we give a
> >> rat's ass what Microsoft "themselves" claim.
> >
> >Hint: Look up the word complete. You can either successfully, or
> >unsuccessfully complete something.
>
> And what on god's green earth is an "unsuccessful completion" but a
> failure to complete successfully the plan? Christ, Erik, it must be
> painfully obvious even to you that you have your head up your ass on
> this point, but I suppose it takes dedication as well as purposeful
> ignorance to be a sock puppet.
>
> [...]
> >> And unrefuted.
> >
> >What exactly do you call the MS official statement that the rumors are
> >false, if not a refutation?
>
> The MS official statement. What more needs to be said? I think its
> just you that doesn't know that means "bullshit", to anyone with more
> than two brain cells.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============46492A44AB6DF5E3416B7DC2
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============46492A44AB6DF5E3416B7DC2==
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL software
being free
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:00:46 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > So, in order
> > to SUPPORT the freeness of a piece of software, it should be required that the
>copyright
> > and license (wherever they are) be maintained and modified only as allowed.
>
> That logic sounds awfully familiar to me.
>
> Encumber the software in order to keep it free, eh?
>
If you accept ownership of software (anyone who has supported GPL accepts that,
unless they are liars), then I am for freeing the software as much as possible.
Copyright law (by default) encumbers the software, so I am supporting the acceptance
of title to the software, but essentially undoing almost all (really all) of the
restrictions
imposed by the copyright law (the internationally agreed convention.)
So, rather than ADDING to the copyright encumberances, like the GPL does, I am
proposing that it is better to REMOVE the copyright encumberances. My position
supports free redistribution, use and modification. The GPL doesn't support free
redistribution, use and modification.
If you are a GPL supporter, then you must accept the notion of software title and
ownership. In EVERY way, my position is the morally superior one, esp regarding
the notion of 'sharing with a friend.'
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid.
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:03:23 -0500
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <maYs6.394$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Unforutnately, there have been numerous attempts to 'beat me down.' I
> > don't know the best response to nonsense claims, especially when a new
> > person comes in and re-asserts disproven statements.
> >
> > This thing will die down, but until it does, if this irritates you I
> > STRONGLY suggest putting me and/or these threads into a filter. I have
> > already filtered a few people, and it can be quite useful.
> >
> > The best solution to the problem is for the misrepresentations about the
> > GPL to cease, and the docs online to be corrected.
> >
> > Your claim about the GPL being around or not has merit, but doesn't
> > really have ANYTHING to do with these discussions... The mistake that
> > YOU have made is you again make the assumption that I am anti-GPL...
> > The fact is that I am ANTI-LIE.
> >
> > If you criticize, please criticize me based upon my position, but don't
> > criticize me for a position that I don't take :-).
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> Ok John,
>
> What is your constant harping on the non-freedom of the GPL, crossposted
> to a linux group no less (where you can expect people to be pro-GPL),
> anything else but an attempt on your side to beat down our opinion?
>
I STRONGLY suggest that those who added Linux to the postings should be
contacted. I didn't, and so I respectfully request that criticism be directed
towards the correct parties. I don't know who is interested, and assumed that
those who added the group had a reason to do so.
So, please research the issue, and contact the correct individual...
>
> Think on this before you start criticizing other people, otherwise your
> argument is lacking internal consistency.
>
Pot, Kettle, Black... Except, your position is entirely wrong, please look for the
fool who added Linux to the postings...
Thank You
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:00:22 -0500
From: "Dark, Shadowy Hypnagogic Hallucination" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How is FreeBSD faster than Linux?
Hey bastards, how the hell do you come up with this ridiculous assertion
that FreeBSD is faster than Linux? I mean, what kind of benchmark tests
are you guys performing to determine this? A long time ago, when I
dual-booted between FreeBSD and Linux, I noticed that Linux's glibc-2
was quite a bit bigger than FreeBSD's libc.so. Maybe that could account
for a little bit of a slowdown, but it shouldn't matter that much.
Also, the last time I compiled a Linux kernel, it was using -m486
optimizations. Why? Surely, this slows things down on a Pentium,
because the word alignments are different, aren't they? Also, I can't
understand why something as important as the kernel needs to be compiled
with -O2. I think -O is sufficient for most kernels.
Anyways, what the fuck are you guys running that makes Linux slower than
FreeBSD? Slackware and FreeBSD ran at nearly identical speeds for me.
If you want a fast Linux, then dammit, run something like Slackware or
Debian, because their kernels are able to be streamlined a lot more than
RedHat's or Mandrakes. (Or am I wrong?)
Also, I sensed some jealousy in here when the results were posted from
Netcraft that showed FreeBSD having a 1100-day uptime. Hey, what the
hell, it's better than seeing Windows NT or 2000 with an uptime like
that. (Like the day would ever come that we'd see that.)
Dark Shadowy Hypnagogic hallucination
====== 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: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:06:54 -0500
"Austin Ziegler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >>> I think this line of questioning is very important, as it shows the
> >>> abstract nature of the underlying arguments. First, there is a
> >>> technical difference, it seems, between public domain and something
> >>> "without a copyright".
> >> No, there isn't. The two mean exactly the same thing.
> > No, not exactly. They *can* mean the same thing, of course, since one
> > is a description ("without a copyright") and the other a characteristic
> > ("public domain"). But something which is "without a copyright" is
> > impossible, according to current laws, while public domain, obviously,
> > is covered (in fact, defined) by those laws.
>
> Do you ever have anything worthwhile to say, Max? Something in the
> public domain does not have a copyright on it. It is "without a
> copyright". Your distinction is, like everything else you manage to
> spew about this matter, false and completely without an erg of rational
> thought behind it.
>
I seldom bother reading Max's opinions... Perhaps he says something that
makes sense in one out of 100 times, but anyone who really believes what
he says all of the time is long, long gone from sanity.
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:14:44 -0500
"Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> >
> > "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > JD wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:54:19 -0500;
> > > > > >Jumping in:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll estimate that the number of people who don't understand the
> > > > > > side-effect of GPL are similar (within a few percent, highly correlated)
> > > > > > to those who think that the GPL is a license of free software.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'd estimate that the number of people who claim GPL isn't "free
> > > > > software" are similar to those who want to charge money for licenses of
> > > > > work based on free software.
> > > > >
> > > > That is strictly not true, because most people who really don't like the GPL,
> > >
> > > Oh they don't, do they? Specifically what class of people did you count
> > > in your "most" qualifier? What methodology did you use in counting
> > > them, and where is your research published and peer reviewed? You _do_
> > > have some basis for this statement, beyond your own previous rhetoric,
> > > don't you?
> > >
> > Okay, your right... People just don't like the GPL because it is a bad license
>then? :-).
>
> We haven't figured out that people don't like the GPL yet, beyond your
> repeated insistance that they don't. Which people, specifically?
>
All you have to do is look and listen. The information is freely available, and
probably not under the GPL.
I can enumerate names, but it is your problem that your circle of friends is so
very small. I happen to have friends that both like the GPL and don't like the
GPL. Guess what? The number who really embrace the GPL are a similar proportion
to the trekkers (very small, usually misfits.) There are some indiivuals who would use
the GPL in appropriate circumstances (for a non-trekker, I mean GPLer -- seldom), but
they certainly don't 'live' the GPL, like most GPLers do.
John
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
