Linux-Advocacy Digest #924, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Mar 01 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: so can Windows do this ? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Shades")
Re: Linux is like Pizza (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Here's a load of horse crap (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Craig Oshima")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Stupid error message (Donn Miller)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("WGAF")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? ("Shades")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Craig Oshima")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Tuomo Takkula)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (Ian Pulsford)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: so can Windows do this ?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:15:58 -0600
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Now that you mention it, (Amiga) I had five different independent
> windows running graphics animations. I've never seen MS windows do
> that.
Never used a non-linear editing system, have you?
I've seen an NLE doing 2 320x240 30fps video monitors with a third
"combined" feed that combines both sources in a transation, while doing
motion graphics from a 4th animation source. Granted, that's not 5, but
it's 4.
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:18:21 -0500
> >I believe you but you are probably at a University or an Engineering firm
> >(Ok I am just guessing and I could be wrong).
>
> I'm at a University now (16 years later) and, yes, I was working for a
little
> Engineering firm called Hewlett Packard (at their workstation division)
back
> in 1984. The department that I was working in was responsible for all bug
> fixing and enhancements on three of their proprietary operating systems.
I
> left that department to join the group that was developing the first
> implementation of HPUX. I was actually the second unix systems
administrator
> at that division, but was also developing the HPUX source code product
> (version 1.0), so that customers could build a binary version of HPUX from
> source code.
>
"Little" engineering firm...... :-)
Though I was not saying it was not impossible technically, I think at that
time the average user in a business (secretary, CEO, whatever) would have a
hard time using a multitasking OS without a good GUI (even with a good GUI
they have a hard time today). I have used Sun workstations back in the late
80's and yes it is certainly true that MS was/is behind technically but in
the end I think the cost of the system played a major role.
I also think that many companies such as Sun and HP had a great opportunity
to put Unix on the desktop but didn't focus enough in that business area.
Of course, having a name like IBM helped push it into businesses too. :-)
>
>
>
> John Fereira
> Ithaca, NY
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Linux is like Pizza
Date: 13 Mar 2001 17:17:05 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's a rather tasty analogy:
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2695214,00.html
>
>"Indeed, it takes all kinds. If tomorrow one of the international pizza
>conglomerates were to go out of business, would anyone fret about the
>long-term popularity or viability of the food? Not likely.
>
>"Same with Linux. We can argue about whose recipe is best, or complain
>about the speed and quality of delivery, but underlying all the discussion
>is the quiet confidence that vendors may come and go, but the product will
>always be with us."
>
>
>I'm just waiting for the top ten reasons why Linux is better than Pizza
>:-)
It doesn't make you fat? :-)
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: 19 Mar 2001 15:46:22 +0100
In article <990igu$986$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The register seems to be exagerating.
>Thats not what http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-17.03.01-004/ cites.
>It seems they will not use Microsoft software on key communicationssystems
>since the NSA as access to Microsoft code.
>The same article mentions that EU officials will prefer Open Source systems
>to crypt conmmunications.
One of the answers,
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/forum/go.shtml?read=1&msg=220&g=20010317jk004
notes that the NSA itself is also switching to linux, quoting,
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/index.html
That appears to me to be just a research effort though. But the US
Government is also a bit "unsettled" over the security problems of MS
products; that we already knew here.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Here's a load of horse crap
Date: 19 Mar 2001 15:31:18 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/default.asp
They show him lounging like a lazy sod on his couch while all his serfs
put in unpaid overtime only to be tossed out when they reach the age at
which their "medical insurability" starts to drop.
Do they know what effect that picture has on people viewing it?
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:19:15 -0800
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I been using UNIX for 10 years, 5 of which have been in the Linux arena,
and
> I have seen how the installation process has become easier. Now, you've
> heard the urban myth that Linux/UNIX is hard to install, which is a load
of
> crock.
You've been using Unix *how* long? Is it possible that your experience
might be affecting your opinion of that which is easy vs. hard for normal
people?
> The problem occurs when
> idiots try to install UNIX/Linux under the assumption that it is exactly
> like Microsoft Windows, which is totally incorrect.
Fair enough, except that a great many Windows (and Mac) users are not
"idiots", and it's a natural human characteristic to try to apply previous
experience to new problems.
> basic task") is a cop-out for users who aren't willing to use a bit of
> grey-matter, and learn the new system. Also, users face problems because
> they do check out what they are going to embark into, its a bit like a
> person taking up a sport and not doing any theory on how to play the game,
> how do you expect to play the game when you have no knowledge to allow you
> to do it?
I think most "players", at least the U.S., do exactly that (take up a sport
without doing any theory). They start with only the barest rules, dive in,
and come to understand the game by playing it. "Theory" comes either via
classes (boring) or debates while eating pizza, drinking beer (fill in your
group's shared vice). It's the same with most computer games too: most
users start by learning just the most basic commands, and then they learn by
doing. This is how human learning naturally happens: experimenting,
exploring, and trial and error. (User interface design principles are
intended to make things more natural, not about dumbing things down).
You mention reading and getting up to speed. This is good advice...after
all, serious athletes and gamers do, in fact, spend time studying their
game, learning more sophisticated techniques and so on. Active learning is
a heck of lot better than just passively watching TV. But there's an
important point to remember: Sports and games are intrinsically motivating
for the players...striving to improve is work, but there's a motivating
factor because improving will lead to greater satisfaction. For many
computer engineers (me included), studying the OS has this same motivating
factor. We like to learn how the system works, partly because we find it
interesting, and partly because the knowledge will help us be more effective
in using the system. But for the rest of the world, learning about how the
computer works is additional work to their normal jobs, and it's no fun at
all. Many of these people are intelligent and have great memory...they are
not all "stupid" users. But most people do not have the psychology that
enjoys this kind of stuff, or there would be a lot more computer engineers.
So if the OS is only going to be used by computer engineers (as Unix has
been), there's no problem at all. There's no question that Unix is great
OS. Where I take issue is when people claim that Linux is ready for
end-users who aren't computer engineers, that the UI is better than Windows
or Macintosh. Because the fact is that it's not. Yes, it's improving, but
it's got a long way to go.
--
Craig Oshima
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: 20 Mar 2001 13:42:09 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ed Allen wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Have you ever built NT source code?
>> >
>> To give you an idea of the complexity, Jeff Merkey, who *has*
>> says it takes 35 hours per compile.
>
>
>Figures.
>
>In comparison, Linux takes only that many MINUTES.
Even in the old days with 4MB RAM on a 486 2/40 it took all of 20
minutes.
Maybe a fairer comparison would be to build all of GNU/Linux, which
might be of order 1/2 to 1 hour on modern systems (just a guess).
I can't believe how fast the Fujitsu F95 compiler is, actually. My code
compiles in 1/2 hour on the T3E, about 5 minutes on the Sun Ultra, and
about 2 minutes on the Linux PC.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid error message
Date: 20 Mar 2001 10:18:51 -0600
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The name specified is not recognized as an
> internal or external command, operable program or batch file.
> Is there any other operating system in the world with such a
> stupid and needlessly verbose error message?
I saw where Microsoft was going to re-vamp all their NT error messages to be
more "user-friendly". Read: "More confusing and convoluted." Again, we see
MS at work trying to drill into the masses' heads their definition of the
expression "user-friendly". It's as if the average user understands what a
"batch file" is in the first place. Also, I find "internal or external
command" to be confusing as well. I know they mean "internal" as in
shell-builtin and external as any other command, but I'm not so sure a newbie
would catch on. IMO, it was a wasted effort reworking those error messages,
as they don't look any more clearer, and the user has to spend more time
looking at them because of the verbosity.
====== 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: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:28:13 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:997qdn$k65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> 8<SNIP>8
>
> : None of which excuses being a JACKASS by choosing Mafia$oft LoseDog
platforms.
>
> So, what's your excuse for being a jackass, Aaron?
>
> Inbreeding?
In the trailer down South?
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:37:53 -0500
"Bryant Charleston, MCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t5dn6.1205$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you compose a text document in Star Office 5.2, will it be readable on
a
> Windows platform (as a text or Word doc) ? I can't seem to find any FAQs
> that address this issue. Thanks for any help!
I thought it was supposed to but maybe not. Can you save as an RTF file?
If so Word will work with this also.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:36:12 -0800
"Alex Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > crock. My very first copy of Linux was Redhat Linux 5.2, and as long as
> you
> > follow the instructions on the screen and documentation, your
installation
> > experience should be relitively straight forward. The problem occurs
when
> > idiots try to install UNIX/Linux under the assumption that it is exactly
> > like Microsoft Windows, which is totally incorrect. People have problems
> > when they think they know more than what they really do. A while back,
in
>
> I absolutely agree with this. I have been a Windows user for nearly 6
years
> and now am switching into Linux. The only reason (which I found out after
> consulting the installation guides and FAQs) why I reinstalled Mandrake
> 4 times is because I assumed that it was going to be like windows.
Of course, given the huge installed base of Windows users, it might make
sense to think about how to smooth this transition. If, that is, Linux is
interested in converting these users. If there is a hurdle for a majority
of potential users, and the Linux community collectively thinks "Well, screw
them. They should take the time to learn how to do it our way", I think we
have an example of collective user-UNfriendliness. I'm not saying Linux
should be more like Windows, but if those are the users you want to appeal
to, helping them with the transition is the decent thing to do.
> IMHO, "user friendlyness" should not take into account the installation
> process.
> For example, on any business workstation, all installation and setup are
> done
> by the IT department, while the employees only have to "use" it.
In general, I disagree. In your example, you are correct to suppose that
installation is not an end-user task, and so it doesn't impact their
perception of usability. But my guess is that you'd want people to have the
same OS both at home and at work. The home user (and frankly, many business
users as well) must do their own install and configuration, and for these
cases, installation isn't just a part of the user experience, it's a
critical "first impressions" part of that experience. If installation is
difficult, obscure, or unforgiving, many users will never get past this
step. (Again, I'm talking about the untrained, non-Unix-admin user
population that are implied by the arguments that Linux has a better UI than
Windows or Macintosh.)
--
Craig Oshima
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tuomo Takkula <[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!>
Date: 20 Mar 2001 17:46:26 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Schneier makes the point that the NSA doesn't need a key for its
> > specific backdoor. That doesn't mean that backdoors don't exist. The
> > NSAKEY did exist and it was a backdoor deliberately put in by MS.
> > Whether it had anything to do with No Such Agency or not is another
> > matter. According to MS, it was just a spare in case they forgot their
> > original key, according to NSA ""
>
> It's not a back door in any traditional sense. All it does is allow MS to
> replace crypto modules if the primary key becomes lost or corrupted.
> replacing the module doesn't cause you to suddenly be able to decrypt stuff
> that was encrypted with the earlier module, it just changes the algorithm.
>
> It doesn't give you access to run programs or download data or whatever.
>
Ähhh ----- what? The capability to replace the encryption module
without the user knowing does not look suspicous to you? Are you
saying that it is ok for you that someone can decide at some moment to
read whatever you encrypt, without you noticing? How exactly would you
define spying???
Cheers Tuomo
------------------------------
From: [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!>
Date: 21 Mar 2001 02:57:12 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Two...wanna really screw them up... take a stream of random-data...
>> change the seed at frequent, random intervals. Send it out.
>Its an old trick and they know about it, and its easy for them.
Well, you can always do the old
* create n blocks of length m of truely random data each day.
* each day, send all those blocks to someone you might want to
communicate with
* Enumerate all the blocks sent so far
* If you want to send a message of length m, pick any of that
days blocks. Call it x. Replace x by (message XOR a1 XOR a2....XOR ai)
with a1...ai being previously sent blocks. The block will appear just
as random as all the previously sent blocks; Even partial knowledge of
some of the a's won't change that.
Then transmit the indices of x and a1...ai through an open channel in
a format that you have previously agreed upon in verbal, face-2-face
communication in a secure spot. A good place to put them would be the
message-ID of Usenet posts :) Who ever looks at the
1B70C91BB7B6950D.52586E05CD2367FF.D5825BE73B45291B part? Lotsa cheap
spare bits there.
Of course, if someone takes the rubber hose to the receiver, security goes
down the drain. And you also need to use a sufficient number of a's, and
a sufficient range, to avoid brute force attacks. But the most appealing
aspect is that most of the time, the data sent *would* be truely random,
and there is no way of telling which one actually contains a message.
Of course, a really good compression program's output will also look
truely random (if you leave off headers)....
Bernie
--
Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means
government by the badly educated
G.K. Chesterton
New York Times, 1 February 1931
------------------------------
From: [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!>
Date: 21 Mar 2001 03:14:37 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>You can't violate it if you don't agree to it. For instance, you could
>disassemble the code directly off the CD without ever installing it. In any
>event, as I said, the no-dissasembly clause is invalid if it's used to hide
>illegal activitiy.
But that's a bit of a gamble, isn't it? It's like swinging a baseball bat
at someone who is sprinting down the sidewalk. *If* that person is indeed
at the time fleeing arrest, you only assisted the lawful arrest, and are in
the clear. *If* however it turns out that the guy was Ben Johnson training
for another comeback, you are in big big trouble.....
*If* there are indeed no backdoors in MS products, of if they are at least
well enough hidden to escape your notice, you are left with having broken
a perfectly valid EULA, which AFAIK means you have forfeited any right to
use the software in question.
What this means is that the only way to use the software is to believe
assurances. If you look and find backdoors, you'd be crazy to use it.
If you look and don't find backdoors, you have forfeited your right to use
it. "Funny, the only way to win is not to play at all" kinda thing :)
Bernie
--
The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve
change amid order
Alfred North Whitehead
------------------------------
From: [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!>
Date: 21 Mar 2001 03:27:52 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) writes:
>And the military should use the commercial grade locks that you use to
>protect it's deepest secrets?? Even worse, a lock made by foriegners
>who may want to steal those secrets??
Now this is the point where someone mentions the excellent "Surely you
are joking, Mr. Feynman", and its account of security (or lack thereof)
at Los Alamos :)
Bernie
--
Human blunders, however, usually do more to shape history
than human wickedness
A.J.P. Taylor
British historian, 1906-90
------------------------------
From: [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!>
Date: 21 Mar 2001 03:33:11 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Now THERE is a close anology to open/close source and data security.
>What would you rather own - a lock made up of parts that EVERYONE knows the
>secrets to - or one that no one has seen the specs for and doesn't know
>what's inside or how to crack it?
The analogy is lacking. Not only are we talking about keeping someone with
complete access to all the details out (remember, the possibility of
MS and NSA being in collusion is what causes security headaches), but we
are *also* talking about products that are sold in the millions, for a
pittance of money (compared to the value of the secrets that need protecting).
Would you rather have a safe door that the bad guys have been looking at in
great detail for as long as they want, while the good guys only ever get
to say "wow, lovely colour" --- or one that both bad guys and good guys have
the construction plans for, and all the good guys agree that there is nothing
the bad guys can do to break in?
Bernie
--
If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens,
how incapable must Man be of learning from experience
George Bernard Shaw
Irish playwright, 1856-1950
------------------------------
From: [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!>
Date: 21 Mar 2001 03:37:49 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Jan Johanson wrote:
>> New analysis of a security hole refutes a report that a Microsoft employee
>> put a "back door" in a module installed by Microsoft Corp.'s Web server
>> software, an expert says.
>Naw, it's just a BUG.
And why is it always "an expert" or "a spokesperson", or "a Defence Ministry
Official"? Why don't these people ever have names?
Bernie
--
Nothing is illegal if one hundred well-place business men decide to
do it
Andrew Young
American Democratic politician, 1932--
------------------------------
From: [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!>
Date: 21 Mar 2001 03:43:31 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>If you can't compile it FROM THE SOURCE THEY GIVE YOU, then it's worthless.
And you want to be rather careful about your compiler, too. "Reflections
on trusting trust", indeed.
Bernie
P.S.: http://eden.dei.uc.pt/majordomo/forum-cs/msg00212.html
--
The chief distinction of a diplomat is that he can say no in such
a way that it sounds like yes
Lester Pearson
Canadian Prime Minister 1963-68
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:58:59 +1000
Shades wrote:
>
> > Please don't confuse Unix and Linux advocates. Read comp.unix.advocacy
> > for a much more saner advocacy group (except for the C.O.L.A.
> > crosspostings).
>
> Yeah I went there. The largest subject by far is titled: "KULKIS IS A
> MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT". What an advocacy group :-)
Like I said above: "except for the C.O.L.A crosspostings". C.O.L.A =
comp.os.linux.advocacy, ie this group. "KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF
SHIT" was crossposted to several newsgroups including C.O.L.A. Actually
comp.unix.advocacy seems to get very little traffic of its own, mostly
crosspostings and spam. Perhaps that's because real Unix advocates have
more interesting things to do than hate windoze.
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
