Linux-Advocacy Digest #186, Volume #33 Fri, 30 Mar 01 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (Martigan)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (Warren Bell)
Re: Linux dying (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dying (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dying (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! (T. Max Devlin)
WFW3.11 uptime (and other thoughts on desktop computing) (David Punsalan)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:21:37 GMT
Warren Bell wrote:
> With all the stuff I'm hearing about Windows HP and the PA, that will
> require you to have MS activate your PC after making any hardware
> changes, makes me wish there was something out there to compete with
> Windows. I mean really compete.
So you want people to rent or pay for updates?
>
> Linux is a great OS and is getting better all the time, but the average
> computer user won't want to use it. What I think Linux needs is a
> light, user friendly version that anyone can use. Something that's
> stripped of most of the server functions and is made for a single or
> multi user home system. Something that even the UN-technical user can use
> without too many problems. Here are some things that I think would be
> needed to make this work:
>
Linux is not for the average Computer user, which is why the standard
does not have to bend to the will of the masses.
> - A standard GUI that all Linux distros could use.
> - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
> - All the most used admin (root) functions available from point and
> click.
> - All makers of the lighter distro to follow standards so all the
> distros are similar.
> - Of course, more programs that people need for everyday use.
That sounds like windows to me already! ;-)
>
> I'd like to see Linux come out with somthing that would really compete
> with windows and give people who arn't tech savvy a choice. Any
> thoughts on this? Any distros that are trying to move twards an OS like
> this?
As before if Linux does get standardized as you wish you will run into
some problems:
1. No matter what group is out there ONE of them will write/own the
standard. That means money. Money and Linux don't match.
2. If everybody uses the same standard you have inventive stagnation.
How can your imagination in programming be excited when you HAVE to write
for one standard?
3. As soon as you bring the a standard to lure new "techless" useres
and charge them for a distro you will make the advancement of Linux
depended on the whims and money of the "techless" users. Like Windows.
4. The comunity that owns Linux is a friendly one, will gladly help
"techless" users become proffecient with the OS, just as long as they show
a willingness to advance their knowlege. If they choose not to learn the
OS then they can go crawling back to Windoze.
Linux, for users by users.
Windoze, from Gates to you, and from your pocket to his Phat bank
account.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:24:52 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>I'm talking about the copy you're
> >> >>using. So it is my understanding that the Windows 2000 TCP/IP stack
is
> >> >>based on the BSD TCP/IP code. If some grave bug surfaces in that part
of
> >> >>the code and I would use W2K, I'm still at the mercy of Microsoft
even
> >> >>if the original source code is out in the open.
> >> >You'd be just as at their mercy
> >> >if it were a reimplementation, and it would have more bugs.
> >> The first part is correct but irrelevant, the second part is an
> >> emotional statement without merit.
> >
> >No, the second part is a historical fact.
>
> Tell me, where can I get a copy op W2K with a tcp stack that is not
> based on BSD code so I can compare them too?
Just read the W2K label: 'Based on NT technology' If you want
(for some insane reason) W2K without BSD code, you can
still run NT.
> >>The fact of the matter remains that
> >> the bug is part of the code that was free software once, not part of
the
> >> "value added" code. So even though other versions of the code can be
> >> patched, this one cannot, at least not by me, the user.
> >
> >Yet, also historically, closed-source vendors using the bsd stack
> >have not only fixed bugs before selling their product so their
> >users don't have to deal with them, but they have contributed the
> >fixes back to the open source maintainers.
>
> How is that relevant to my point?
I thought your point was that bugs didn't get fixed in the closed-vendor
branches, or that they didn't get merged back to the open version. If
it wasn't, what point did you want to make about the desirability
of the end user getting buggy code to fix himself?
> >> Tell me, am I *legally* allowed to distribute BSDLed code without
> >> retaining the non-liability clause in the last paragraph of the BSD
> >> license as stated in points 1 and 2 of that same license? If not, is
> >> that a restriction wrt the distribution of the software?
> >>
> >> If you did not answer "No, Yes" respectively, I see no reason to
> >> continue the debate because, lets say, our mindset is too far apart.
> >
> >If you answer 'yes' to the second part, can you support it with an
> >example of how you have been restricted from distributing the
> >software in question?
>
> I have never had the need to violate the BSDL. But let's suppose that
> you have released some piece of software BSD licensed. Now if I would
> replace your license file with a readme stating "Hi, this software is
> copyrighted by some other dewd but he released it as free software, so
> use and distribute to your hearts content", thus not retaining your
> non-liability clause, would I or would I not violate your BSD license?
I don't understand the circumstances where this would be necessary
to provide needed or desirable functionality in the program. Please
contrive such a scenario if you want to make a serious argument that
the BSDL prevents useful programs from being distributed in the same
way that the GPL does.
> >> If you say that such restriction is within the scope of copyright law,
I
> >> hereby challenge you to show me the section of US Code Title 17 where
> >> such is written.
> >Licenses and copyright law are opposites. The point of the license is
> >that it gives you rights that copyright law would otherwise remove.
>
> License *restrictions* and copyright law are not opposites.
They have no relationship to each other at all, except for the need to
agree to the license terms to obtain the rights mentioned above.
> >> If you say that such restriction is reasonable and has
> >> nothing to do with the code, I'd agree wholeheartly with you, but I
> >> would conclude that since you allow legal distribution restrictions on
> >> free code, that you quantify the allowable restrictions for the code to
> >> be called free and such quantification is subjective. My subjective
> >> measures might differ from yours.
> >
> >Code distribution isn't a subjective matter. Give examples of how
> >the BSDL has prevented a user from obtaining a working program.
>
> Where have I ever stated that it is? BTW, I view BDSLed software as
> free. Can *you* give examples of how the GPL has ever prevented a user
> from using a program the way he pleases?
Yes, and I've mentioned it here before. It is a bit outdated now, but back
in the DOS days I put together a program consisting of a GNUtar patched
for 16-bit use, the wattcp library to provide an rsh-compatible interface
and an aspi library for scsi tape access. The parts were freely available
in source separately, but did not provide a backup solution. Combined
in a working program, the GPL prevented giving it away to all the
other users who might have had DOS machines on a network.
> >> I don't recall ever to quantify the "freeness" of the software. I don't
> >> think you can objectively compare the GPL and BSDL in their being
either
> >> more or less free.
> >Of course you can. Count the real examples where the respective licenses
> >have prevented actual programs from being distributed and used.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Rehashed topic. You can freely distribute BSDLed software but not freely
> use every instantiation of the software. You can freely use every
> instantiation of GPLed software but not freely distribute it.
If something can't be distributed to you, how do you manage to use it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Warren Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:35:38 -0800
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Ok, I hear your call, and I will answer:
>
> <snype>
>
> > - A standard GUI that all Linux distros could use.
>
> There are two defacto standard GUI's, KDE and GNOME. Having both of them
> allows the user to decide what GUI they want to use rather than getting the
> standard Windows GUI rammed down their throat. Most newbies I have helped
> think it is awsome they can choose what their GUI looks and feels like.
>
> >
> > - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
>
> Well, as long as you have the latest version (Xfree 4.03) installed, both
> GUI's are very light. The first version of KDE was mega bloated, slow, and
> used a tonne of memory, however, it has gradually matured into a pretty
> good desktop. Also, depending upon what distro you choose,
> KDE/GNOME intergration may range from absolutely shit, to out of this
> world. For example, SuSE is heavily intergrated into the KDE environment,
> compared to Redhat, which tilts more to GNOME, has better intergration in
> GNOME, than what SuSE has in GNOME. Hence, the beauty of different
> distro's, you get to select the one that suites you, rather than getting
> told what you should get used to.
>
> >
> > - All the most used admin (root) functions available from point and
> > click.
>
> Again, that depends which distro you use. Redhat uses LinuxConf, where as
> SuSE uses a inhouse written program called YaST (Yet another setup tool).
> Yet another benefit of have distro's, each company competes on
> GUI intergration, setup and configuration tools, compared to what Windows
> has, which is one set, which doesn't always fullfill all the jobs.
>
> >
> > - All makers of the lighter distro to follow standards so all the
> > distros are similar.
>
> There is currently a draft standard that is endorsed by SuSE, called the
> LSB, aka, Linux Standard Base, that outlines where config files should be,
> what method should be used for the startup files and numorous other
> guidelines to stardardise Linux, thus allowing cleaner compatibility
> between distro's, and as a result (hopefully), groups such as Ximian will
> not need to compile x number of different versions, instead, all they will
> need to do is compile once, and it will work on any distro.
>
> >
> > - Of course, more programs that people need for everyday use.
>
> Most users use their computer to write letters; StarOffice can do this,
> even with all the slagging, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and
> best part, its free, Surf the net; Although Netscape may get a slagging,
> I have no problems with it, even if you don't like it, there is always
> konquorer (included with kde), which is a very good browser, apart from
> some Javascript issues, it works pretty good, and still in beta, but very
> stable, there is Opera 5 for Linux, which I am currently downloading, all
> of them are good, its up to the user to decide which one he/she wants to
> use. In terms of games, hop over to LokiGames.com, they have a pretty good
> selection of games. I have played Civilisation for Linux, and it is pretty
> darn good.
>
> >
> >
> > I'd like to see Linux come out with somthing that would really compete
> > with windows and give people who arn't tech savvy a choice. Any
> > thoughts on this? Any distros that are trying to move twards an OS like
> > this?
>
> Yes, maybe a couple of years ago, there was an excuse for users to avoid
> Linux, however, over the last 4 years I have seen Linux go from strength to
> strength. From the archaic text based installation to the easy-peasy
> GUI based installation and hard detection of today. When I started using
> linux, all there was, was Netscape, Realplayer and a couple of other piddly
> applications, now there is Wordperfect, Vistasource Office, Civilisation,
> Simcity 3000 Unlimited and lots more. Many of these titles I never thought
> that they would be ported to linux. Right now, Linux is growing into a
> mature, stable, and fully functional OS, that, generally can achieve all
> what Windows can do and more. The only thing left is to rebuke the
> constant myths that get spread around about Linux and its so-called
> "short-falls".
>
> Matthew Gardiner
I've been using Linux for about three years and currently run Mandrake
7.2. Althought it installed fairly easy (for me anyway, I've been
installing since RH 4) there's still A LOT of manually editing text
files because linuxconf or drakconf didn't work right, typing in a term
window to do things as root, and general tinkering that the untechnical
user could not do. So Linux the way it is now is not ready for the
average person, and not ready to REALLY compete with windows.
Now I know there's KDE and Gnome. I was saying, and still think, there
should be a standerd UI that is common. If the user want's to
experiment with different UI's they can but there would be a standard
that would make Linux seem more grounded or established.
Now don't get me wrong, I love Linux and would like to see it used right
up there with windows. I would love to see people start switching to
Linux over Windows and give MS some real comp. I hope it happens. With
MS screwing it's customers with every new release somthing needs to
knock them down a notch.
Warren Bell
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:32:54 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:27:07
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Just in time for the next millenium I figure, right before the
>> Hotmail.com conversion.
>
>Hotmail has already been converted. But you don't care about the
>facts do you? Of course not.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! LOL! Guffaw!
>This makes the rest of your statements
>probably false as well, especially considering they came from the
>Register which is about as close to the definition of F.U.D. as you
>can get.
No, Ed Allen can get a lot closer than that, I'll bet. Put his
anti-Register FUD to bed; I'm anxious to see the spanking I know you can
give and we all know he deserves.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:32:55 GMT
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:01:04
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:47:08
>>>Where is this framework?
>>
>>Unix.
>>
>>>There is none. MS .NET, Sun One, and IBM's WebServices are all in development
>>>and MS has the head start.
>>
>>I think the real question is, "Is being brain-dead the same thing as
>>having no imagination?"
>>
> No, but it is the functional equivalent.
>
> Chad is the proof.
That was my suspicion, but I'm sure you'll admit its a dubious proof, as
Chad is certainly a dubious person. So we're left with my question, and
because I'd actually like it answered, I'll rephrase it.
Am I the only one that doesn't "get" why no claims whatsoever about what
.NET "can" or even "will" do are rational? I presume that I am
brain-dead, and so can be sure of no claim (nor counter claim; this is
Socratic ignorance). I presume that I have no imagination, that what I
believe will occur in the future is what will occur; my inability to be
sure of the present turns my speculation about the future into
knowledge. Knowledge which is tinged with Socratic ignorance: as far as
I can know, any logic which underlies my predictions of the future have
the same weight and value (none, but that is beside the point) as the
logic of the knowledge I have about the present.
Chad Myers is a notorious troll. His bogosity rating is literally off
the scale; he'd be completely insane if he weren't so bogus that he is
technically insane. To be a troll may certainly involve being
brain-dead, but it certainly does involve imagination. So it is
necessary to say that Chad Myers does not lack imagination.
So my question is, if I am both brain-dead and lack imagination, so that
I am quite sure I know what the future will bring, and in that future
.NET will be disfunctional, if it exists at all (or radically redefined
so as to be a different entity with that label), and Chad is not at
least both brain-dead and entirely lacking in imagination, and he
believes that .NET will be useful at least enough to support the claims
he's made about its putative benefits and necessary functionality, which
we'll presume is more than I'd allow, does that mean one can be
brain-dead, but not lack imagination?
--
tmax
that's what you get for letting me read Descartes --
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:32:56 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 29 Mar
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, WesTralia
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:59:50 -0600
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Chad Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> > Will .NET benefit users: no.
>>>
>>> Let's see, getting real time flight information, being able to notify
>>> my loved ones 30 minutes before I land so that they can come pick me up,
>>> being instant messaged when I'm outbid on an auction, getting real-time
>>> customer support chat with an American Express customer support
>>> representative...
>>> nah, that doesn't benefit the consumers at all!
>>>
>>
>>
>>Psssssssst... Mr Myers... all that technology is already in place and
>>available, today!
>
><Windows_advocate>
>
>Exactly, because .NET is being deployed even as we speak. :-)
>
></Windows_advocate>
>
>
>>
>>Sheesh... next you'll be jumping up and down with excitement over the
>>combustion engine.
>
>That's going to run .NET, too. It'll have to; the credit card company
>will undoubtedly want to know what kinds of fuel are compatible with
>it so that the gas pump will automatically select the correct one,
>a form of just-in-time fuel refinement. If the credit is low,
>one won't get gas. :-)
>
>The police will also be interested, should the car be reported stolen.
>The .NET server on the engine will immediately disable the vehicle and
>the built-in GPS system will of course report the car's location for
>rescue and/or apprehension.
>
>.NET will be useful in a lot of other places, as well. For example,
>Nielsen will want to know what TV shows are being watched, for proper
>compensation of advertisers. Or perhaps advertisers can be immediately
>notified that person A is watching TV show B, and target their pitches
>automatically. .NET-aware cameras can be fed into automatic computers
>which can detect whether a person is authorized to perform a certain
>action, such as entering a building or a vehicle. (Yes, people will
>be wearing .NET-aware cell phones.)
>
>.NET. Building Tomorrow's Big Brother Today.
>
>[.sigsnip]
Awe. Admiration, and awe.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:32:57 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:32:18
>"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> As long as the definitions are clear and well written (which is entirely
>> the case in terms of the FSF's "free software") it does not take a law
>> degree to understand them, nor should anyone be confused simply because
>> they are unwilling to take a few minutes to read what the definitions
>> are in a given context.
>
>There is nothing at all clear in the GPL regarding the relationship
>of shared libraries to each other and the linking program, or the
>case where a kit is provided containing all parts except the
>GPL'd code which the user obtains for himself.
Not in relation to your understanding of copyright, perhaps. To a
reasonable person's understanding of software, however, it is clear, and
the contrary issues you raise about shared libraries and linked programs
are what is unclear. Exactly how do you rely on another author's work
for yours to be valuable without deriving your work from his?
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:32:57 GMT
Said Dave Martel in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:51:25
>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:22:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I haven't any hard
>>facts on the subject, which is why I was hoping you'd do some research.
>
>FWIW there's a web page out there on the whole thing. Afraid I no
>longer have the URL, though.
Boy, we're a vigilante couple of activists, aren't we? :-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: David Punsalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: WFW3.11 uptime (and other thoughts on desktop computing)
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:25:03 -0600
Reply-To: David Punsalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hey all you fanatics,
I've got nothing against linux, but I thought I'd just share an
anecdotal story in response to a thread I read some time ago about
uptimes and windows.
In short - I've got a Windows for Workgroups box that I set up in my lab
that logs temperatures and pressures and runs and ftp server and has
simply never crashed on me - not once!
I telnet in to unix servers to check email, down/upload datafiles,
manipulate datafiles with Excel and it all runs smoothly on a 486DX266.
It does exactly what I need it to do and I am perfectly happy with it.
Implementation was effortless and I'm no pro.
Why am I posting this? I just think it's appropriate to balance all the
legendary stories we see about linux. Unfortunately, I wish my AMDK6
400Mhz with Win98 ran with as few crashes as my WFW3.11 box does.
Ofcourse - I'm not running Word, Excel, Powerpoint, IE (with
streaming video), Acroread, Kaleidiagraph, EndNote, Winamp, WarFTP,
Napster all at the same time on the old clunker. In all fairness -
considering the fact that this list is the typical load (and I stress
TYPICAL) of what I run on my machine (400MHz,Win98,128MB RAM which
nowadays is a modest amount of muscle) - I really can't complain if it
crashes three or four times a year. I have NEVER had to worry about
running too many apps at the same time on this beast. On X, however, I
have had a MUCH different experience.
I know that at home I run RH6.1 on an identical machine and I'll be lucky
if can get through a single StarOffice session without it vanishing into
thin air on me. Not to mention the XMMS lockups, lousy looking pdf's on
Acroread, illegibly tiny fonts on Netscape, and, for me, at least - video
never works very well if at all.
Why do I use Linux? - As a programming environment - it reigns supreme.
Which is handy when I want to do some mathematical modeling. In which
case - I don't even need X. I should mention though that the ubiquitous
FORTRAN benchmark program mytest1.f runs just as fast on my Win98 machine
as it does on my RH6.1. Go ahead and laugh at me for still using FORTRAN
- I don't care.
Lastly, I fully acknowlege that I can only speak intelligently about MY
experience and cannot, therefore, make generalizations about which
OS/platform is best for desktop computing. I also recognize tha, being
completely self-taught on Linux (if you don't count reading HOWTO's), my
bad luck with Linux can likely be attributed more to the poor job of
installing/maintaining/configuring it than to the actual OS.
What I have I gained from using Linux? - certainly not free time. "Mental
exercise" I think is the answer to that question - which I genuinely
enjoy. But I'd just be kidding myself to say that it's anything more than
that to me.
I commend you on reading this lengthy post to the end.
- David
"Talent imitates. Genius steals."
------------------------------
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: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:39:48 GMT
Said Barry Manilow in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:33:55
>"T. Mx Devlin" wrote:
>
> NT is
>> certainly faster, and better able to handle I/O and multi-tasking.
>
>I believe it has been shown over and over that NT is about 20% slower
>than Win 98, which was 20% slower to Win95. WinME has been shown to
>be 10% slower than Win98. Win2K is the slowest of all. A friend has
>it on a 700 MHZ and it is so slow it is depressing. I just got thru
>using NT on a 600 MHZ with 128 MB and it was quite slow. Like a
>lumbering beast.
Well, I have to admit to somehow believing that both experiences may be
valid. Perhaps you've accounted for the behavior on systems too small
for the OS (existing systems), while the actual productive speed of each
(what I think of as "throughput", but not in a networking sense, and
more a matter of application performance than shell stuff specifically)
does increase, when sufficient resources are available.
"Windows" the OS, has better performance. "Windows" the platform does
not, as exhibited by "Windows", the GUI.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
