Linux-Advocacy Digest #347, Volume #33 Wed, 4 Apr 01 09:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (mlw)
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (Peter da Silva)
Re: Ultimate TV or Peeping Tom? ("Flacco")
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (Nick Maclaren)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Andy Walker")
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("Cat")
Re: Baseball ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 07:45:36 -0400
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > >
> > > mlw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is why I think Darwin's theory does not apply to software
> > > > > development:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Biological evolution does _not_ look to the future (it cannot, for
> > > > > there is noone to do the looking), but builds up on the past. - Software
> > > > > development does nothing but look to the future (this has to be faster,
> > > > > that could be coded more efficiently...).
> > > >
> > > > Evolution is the selection of the "best" survivor for the current environment.
> > > > Assuming the environment is a steadily changing along a predictable pattern,
> > > > then changes now, based on natural selection, better prepare the survivors for
> > > > the future.
> > > >
> > > Nicely put, but wrong. "Predictable pattern" assumes an intelligence
> > > surveying the environment, but, since evolution is not controlled by
> > > intelligence, the changes in the environment are essentially random and
> > > will always be so.
> >
> > A "predictable pattern" implies that an environment is slow to change, not
> > necessarily controlled. The Earth's temperature is rising, not quickly, but
> > slowly, in a predictable pattern.
> >
> > Apply heat to a solid body, it will slowly and predictably rise in temperature
> > based on the amount of heat and the mass of the body. The Earth is like this.
> > It is a very large mass which is very hard to change.
> >
> The rising of Earth's temperature is a phenomenon which takes millions
> of years to even notice. Such changes are essentially imperceptible to
> evolutionary mechanisms. In general, geology is either too slow
> (tectonics) or too fast (volcano) for evolution to react to. Evolution
> works on the climatological scale, and even then it can sometimes be
> taken by surprise.
That is not sound reasoning based on the evidence. An Ice age is a perfect
example. How many species of plants can not handle sub-zero temperatures? In
the on-set of an ice age, the plants and animals that can adapt will.
> > >
> > > > This is, in fact, how evolution works. It is only when we have had drastic
> > > > changes that we have seen many species extinct within a small period of time.
> > > > Normally there is time for random traits to develop into recurring traits if
> > > > they allow a specimen to be more successful and reproduce more so than one
> > > > without.
> > > >
> > > It is now widely (or maybe not) assumed that evolution works in fact in
> > > a sort of "burst mode", due to how the environment changes: long periods
> > > of stability followed by short periods of drastic chaanges (of course,
> > > "long" and "short" are to be understood in the geological meaning).
> >
> > Regardless of meaning, "bursts" happen in periods measured in thousands, if not
> > millions of years. These bursts actually prove my point, an initial shock is
> > applied to the ecosystem, there will be a slow change which happens over
> > thousands of years, or even millions, and new creatures develop.
> >
> I dunno. THese days there seems to be a tendency to explain our climate
> in terms of relatively long periods of nothing happening much,
> interrupted by short preiods of "interesting times" (in the meaning of
> the Chines proverb, that is). This would imply that evolution would
> follow this pattern: a long period of nothing really happening (every
> species has its niche, no need to change); then a short period of mass
> extinctions (caused by sudden changes in the climate), followed by
> "evolution in action" (species moving into emptied niches, competition
> and adaptation galore). This would also imply that a new species has
> only a relatively short period of time to "get its act together" or be
> outcompeted by a better candidate; once the niches are filled, evolution
> kinda takes a back seat and waits for the next calamity.
Yes, and this is exactly what we see with the exception of "periods of time
where nothing seems to happen." You see, as prey becomes better at avoiding the
hunter, the hunter becomes better at getting the prey. There are many forces at
work in evolution, competition, sexual attraction, changes in environment. Say
one species is food for 2 or more species of predator. Unknowingly, the two
predators are competing. Should one predator become too good, the second
predator will need to adjust because a change in its food supply.
>
> > Catastrophic events i.e. comets hitting the planet, wipe out species. After the
> > initial event, the ecology slowly works back to an equilibrium, during which
> > time evolution is hard at work.
> >
> It may very well be that every change in the climate has catastrophic
> properties: our climate has a very high feedback buffer, which may be
> the cause of this.
> (disclaimer: I am not a climatologist. These opinions are not to be used
> to determine what dot.com shares one should buy.)
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Biological evolution is not guided (there is no master plan behind
> > > > > it), it just happens. - Software development is _always_ guided (no
> > > > > programmer sits behind his console just tapping blindly at the keys (*);
> > > > > he wants to create something, and usually has a pretty good idea of what
> > > > > it is going to be).
> > > >
> > > > This isn't really true either. A particular module of software, especially OSS,
> > > > can be guided by one person, but there are usually many people working on
> > > > software projects with their own views and feelings about what should be in it.
> > > >
> > > > Plus don't discount the users asking for features, randomly changing the
> > > > application to be more than it was before.
> > > >
> > > > Just look at the Linux kernel, I'd say it "evolved" it grew new features, it
> > > > has all but lost the Minux file system. It is a picture perfect example of
> > > > software evolution.
> > > >
> > > Still, evolution is an automatic mechanism, software is designed. I
> > > can't see how you are going to reason yourself out of that.
> >
> > Do you know anything about chaos? If you take two sets of programmers, give
> > both sets the same design specifications, you will get two entirely different
> > products. People are random.
> >
> IMHO, "chaos" is a term invented in the eighties to mask a lack of
> knowledge in a certain field. (addition of smiley left to the discretion
> of the reader)
Ahh, so I think I understand the problem, chaos is not a lack of understanding,
it is, in fact, a better understanding. Where once we thought that everything
was knowable, we now accept this this is not true.
It is impossible to predict the weather with 100% accuracy. Good old Albert did
not like the idea of chaos, and his quote was "God does not roll dice." Well,
he may be right, but certainly we are not gods.
>
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Biological evolution is never interested in the best possible
> > > > > solution, only in a solution that works sufficiently. - (I have to admit
> > > > > I got stuck here, because this is eerily reminiscent of how Windows
> > > > > "works") Software development should (see my previous remark) be
> > > > > interested in the best possible solution, to avoid needless future
> > > > > labour.
> > > >
> > > > I would go this far either. Biological evolution is based on competition for
> > > > reproduction. Good features win, better features often do better. Biological
> > > > evolution refines, over time, the species until they are very well adapted for
> > > > their environment. You can't say a cockroach is not an almost perfect creature.
> > > > Long after we humans die out, the near perfect cockroach will still be here.
> > > >
> > > If a cockroach were a perfect creature, it would not go "Splat!" if you
> > > trod on it.
> >
> > Why do you think that? An immortal cockroach would not be perfect. Perhaps a
> > cockroach's position in the world is exactly what it is, and it seems perfectly
> > suited.
> >
> > The cockroach has been around for longer than anything else, it is only your
> > view that something other than species survivability is important. That's all
> > evolution cares about.
> >
> > It may be very perfect at being a food factory for other creatures. That
> > doesn't make it any less of a success, just not something I would want for my
> > life. It may be a happy and fulfilled cockroach which becomes dinner for a
> > beautiful bird. Giving its life for such a noble creature, happy indeed, lucky
> > cockroach!
> >
> Species do _not_ evolve with the sole purpose of becoming food for
> others! The evolutionary goal for every species is to preserve its genes
> for as long as possible. This goal can be met in two ways: either the
> indiviual lives forever, or its siblings will.
They may not "intend" too, but they often do.
>
> Solution No. 1 kinda clashes with entropy, but some trees seem to have
> taken a stab at it. Solution No. 2 works for most species.
>
> Your misconception about evolution is that it somehow has a built-in
> mechanism to produce ever-improving species. This is not so.
Why isn't it? Evolution is at work as we speak. As we create better
anti-biotics, we create better bacteria. The bacteria evolve to be better than
the anti-biotic.
>
> > > Evolution tends to pick the first solution that can solve a
> > > particular problem. Rarely this is the best possible solution, because
> > > if the _better_ solution works, there is no reason to keep investing to
> > > come up with the _best_ solution.
> >
> > This isn't true either. Evolution often has many parallel solutions competing
> > for survival. Many times, competing solutions can coexist. How many types of
> > ants are there? How many types of birds? There are constant wars between birds,
> > insects, etc. All fighting for survival. Maybe in a thousand years, we'll lose
> > a species of ant.
> >
> The mere fact that different species of birds, ants, grass, whatever
> exist, proves that evolution does not come up with perfect species.
> Otherwise we would have only one kind of each.
There are few, if any examples of "perfect" species, but there are many
examples of very well evolved species. The cockroach, all hyperbole aside, is a
very well evolved creature. It lives in harmony in its environment, it's
instincts and practices are a near perfect formula for survival. Why does it
need to change?
>
> It is exactly because evolution does not produce perfection that
> evolution exists.
No one argues that creatures are not perfect, but the argument is that
evolution pushes improvement, not just the first success to come along.
>
> > >
> > > The idea of refinement over time would be correct, if the environment
> > > would keep changing in the same direction (if the temperature would drop
> > > constantly, we would see a constant refinement towards better-insulated
> > > organisms). However, the environment canoot be bothered with pleasing
> > > evolution, and it will do its own thing i.e. swing wildly into every
> > > possible direction.
> >
> > You are forgetting competition between species, not just environmental factors.
> > In changing environments, many species are competing for the resources. Hunter
> > becomes hunted, others become food.
> >
> Again, the same thing. Take gazelles and cheetahs. They have evolved to
> the point where gazelles are usually - but not always - quicker than a
> cheetah, and v.v. The result is a stable ecology where stable
> populations of each species exist. There is no continuous competition of
> breeding faster variations of each, because that kind of competition
> would destroy the ecological niche.
Ahh, what about man? We are affecting the relationships with building and
hunting. Soon there may be no cheetah nor gazelle, we are forcing their
"evolutionary" hand. Who knows?
Evolution is WAY too complication to tie the development of a species to a few
limited relationships. There are way to many factors at work. Disease, climate,
air quality, insects, competition, comets, atomic weapons, everything on the
earth affects everything else.
Chief Seattle "The world is a spiders web, everything affects every other
thing, what man does to the web, he does to himself."
>
> The point is: neither species is perfect (a pack of human hunters will
> whack off the gazelle population in no time, and inbetween meals take
> care of the cheetahs as well), but they are good enough for the
> ecological niche they inhabit.
I'm not disagreeing with "perfect" nothing can be perfect for very long because
everything is always changing. (Except for the damned cockroach.) The issue I
take is the "good enough" attitude with can be proven by observation. Some
species are simply amazing at how well they are adapted.
>
> > The environment does not change drastically all that often, and when it does it
> > often kills off many species.
> >
> I agree completely. The difference is that I consider these drastical
> climate changes to be the main motor of evolution.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, if one insists on twisting Darwin's scientific theory into a
> > > > > philosophical system (for which it was never meant BTW), one might come
> > > > > up with a utopian construct (in the line of marxism) that said that
> > > > > software _ought_to_ develop according to the laws of natural selection.
> > > > > It'd be dead wrong, but one might fool a number of people for some
> > > >
> > > > Science and philosophy walk hand in hand. One can not realize that truths about
> > > > physical universe and not internalize them. Philosophy is what bridges
> > > > knowledge and understanding. A theory as profound as the origin of species must
> > > > generate a philosophy. One may not agree with it, nor even intend it's
> > > > creation, but it will exist.
> > > >
> > > It is very easy for me to realise the truths about the physical universe
> > > and not internalize them. The biological environment essentially shows
> > > me that the biggest bastard wins, yet I can choose to donate money to
> > > charity.
> >
> > That isn't always true either. Smaller creatures, which can survive on less,
> > can live longer on less than larger creatures during hard times. (Seems
> > relevant these days.) Faster creatures can often outrun the larger ones. Slower
> > creatures typically use less energy and can be in areas where larger/faster
> > creatures can not exist due to a lack of food. Smarter creatures can outsmart
> > larger or more powerful ones. There are lots of different combinations of
> > features which aid success of a species.
> >
> > Evolution is not a simple theory, it is quite complex. The "survival of the
> > fittest" is a fact. Understanding what is "fittest," is the hard part.
> >
> Can't argue much with that.
>
> Sidenote: This discussion seems to be veering wildly off-topic, even for
> COLA. If noone else is interested in participating, would you object to
> moving it to e-mail?
I didn't know one "could" get off topic on COLA.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Karel Jansens
> ==============================================================
> "You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
> ==============================================================
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: 4 Apr 2001 11:35:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At what point does Intel just throw in the towel on IA-64?
I dunno. I've had the Alpha "yawning cheetah" ad[1] up on our corporate
notice board for over a year now, and IA64 seems no closer to reality.
[1] Caption something like "Come on Intel, we're still waiting."
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ultimate TV or Peeping Tom?
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:11:14 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An Ad in TV Guide:
> ---------------------------------------------------------- Ultimate TV
> from Microsoft
> Watch Carmen Electra take a shower
> No, you're not dreaming.
> Now UltimateTV service from Microsoft lets you do what you gotta do and
> still watch what you wanna watch. So go ahead and pause live TV. Perfect
> for a long, cold shower. Or instant replay it and savor Ms. Electra's
> big, beautiful eyes over and over. Want to catch a game on one channel
> while you watch Carmen on another? Only UltimateTV lets you watch and
> record two channels at once with the touch of a button. And with web
> access right on your TV, you can confess your love on Carmen's fan club
> website, while you drool over her on TV. and of course the phone no.
> .....<snip> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Good grief!
Great, now that MS has run out of victi- I mean "customers" - it's going after the
chronic
masturbator market.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Maclaren)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: 4 Apr 2001 12:22:54 GMT
In article <9af0u5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
|> cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> > At what point does Intel just throw in the towel on IA-64?
|>
|> I dunno. I've had the Alpha "yawning cheetah" ad[1] up on our corporate
|> notice board for over a year now, and IA64 seems no closer to reality.
|>
|> [1] Caption something like "Come on Intel, we're still waiting."
It would be nice, however, if that wasn't so horribly accurate.
Pretty well all the Alpha does seem to have done in the past two
years is to wait complacently for Intel to catch up :-(
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:31:56 -0000
mlw wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Yes, I know about "configure" and "make," but for binary distribution, is
there
>an open source installer? One, gasp, which is pretty and programmable, will
>switch to root to perform the install? If so I haven't seen it.
>
>While I think Install Shield is a miserable hack, and anyone that has used
it
>will fundamentally agree, it gets the job done.
>
>So, if one were to write such a program, should it be able to handle RetHat
and
>Debian packages? Or would it be OK to simply use its own format? Self
>extracting is a must.
>
>Anyone have any ideas?
>
>
>--
>I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
>------------------------
>http://www.mohawksoft.com
I've had this discussion before and came to the conclusion that most Linux
users are masocists.
In my experiences, the RedHat package manager is a pile of crap, nearly
everything I try to install on it fails due to dependancies and I've never
had much luck compiling code from tar files either.
People say Debian is better but I've no experience of it (though I would
bet money that it's not as easy as people say)!
I think what is needed is a standard installer interface that installs all
RPM's, Debian packages, tar, gzip, binaries and source code across the
board, with the intention of, ultimately, a common type of package.
On my old Amiga, Commodore created a simple script installer to standardise
the install interface across the board. While not being the greatest program
in the universe, it did solve the problem and I'm amazed that Linux has
something so clumsy as the RedHat package manager. Most times I've
successfully installed a RPM it hasn't left me with a single clue as to
where it is installed, let alone how the hell you start the application! No
doubt someone will harp on about man pages etc but as far as I'm concerned,
If you have to use help pages, there is something fundamentally wrong with
the interface. I've never needed to resort to manuals to install Amiga or
Windows software, surely clicking on a install icon shouldn't need it!
I doubt you will get much constructive criticism in this newsgroup, as
there are a lot of people here who get kicks out of running down newbies,
but to get more people to use Linux you need to make it easier to do the
more basic tasks so you don't get disheartened within five minutes and give
up. It takes time to learn how to use Linux and that is one thing most
intelligent people have very little of!
------------------------------
From: "Cat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:48:48 +1000
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
Or better yet to put additives in the fuel that stop other car manufacturers cars from
working
then refuse to tell them what they are. This isn't as bad as "The Evil Empire"
OS/Software
vertical integration because you don't have a practical way to get the source code to
the OS
where as you could easily test to find the additive.
When I wrote an article about this
http://www.ratrobot.com/ms/ms.htm
I think I neglected one of the most important factors in the evil empire's ability to
get away
with the crap they do. The techno ignorance of the average politician. How many of
them even
have a good idea of the difference between an OS and an application? If it was a car
company
running 95% of the worlds petroleum industry would the dopey idiots in Washington let
it
continue? Maybe the anti-evil empire campaign should invest in some crayons.
Cat
http://www.ratrobot.com/sport/sport.htm NEW THIS MONTH Would you cheat in a $100
million
dollar lottery if you knew they wouldn't catch you? This is the problem with drugs in
sport.
How do we solve it?
http://www.ratrobot.com/java/ratrobot_help.jar FREE APPLETS JARS EDITORS CHOICE
www.ratrobot.com Articles that challenge your ideas about yourself and the world you
live in.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> none wrote:
> >
> > >Yes; When I mentioned this before, people misunderstood what I meant by
> > >it...so I'll be careful in my phrasiology this time...basically, M$ use
> > >"drug-dealer" tactics...now, last time I said that people were totally
> > >misunderstanding me...what I mean is that they give away free "tasters" and
> > >such to get you "hooked" (that is, all your data in Excel, Media Player or
> > >Word formata :) then make you pay through the nose later when you have no
> > >choice left...
> >
> > You mean Microsoft is in the business of MAKING MONEY??? HOW DARE
> > THEY?! Why don't they just follow the lead of the .coms, give
> > everything away, and go out of business in a year?
> >
>
> It's one thing to make money selling cars.
>
> It's another thing to go around getting new additives put into the fuel
> which cause the rings in the cars you sold last year to burn out.
>
>
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> > With Seven Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
> >
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOsqLkCh0Y2LcENUAEQK4awCgjv+7SOKrFHYSfvCxZlwImNEg+W0AoMLF
VzurwgMUL4hVJzFfwmF4ZzKO
=kTly
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:52:04 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:01:09 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Ever played rugby? Ever been in the position of having a 140KG Somoan
> > charging towards you
> > > >(and you're only 85KG), and being hammered when trying to tackle the
> > person? I also find
> > > >it rather amazing how little Septic Tanks know about the world
outside
> > the US? Did you
> > > >know we have Televisions, Tree's, cars, computers, I know, its
probably
> > has come as quite a
> > > >big shock to you.
> > > >
> > > >Matthew Gardiner
> > > >
> > >
> > > Big deal. You don't have the SuperBowl. Are those tin cans you drive
> > around in called
> > > "cars"?
> >
> > Hey! Austin Healeys were damned cool! I had one albeit briefly. At 6'3",
I
> > didn't so much drive it as wear it
> >
> > > Here in America we call them go-carts. Yes, you do have television,
but
> > it's
> > > really crappy.
> >
> > I'll take "Are You Being Served?" reruns over OUR television any day of
the
> > week.
> > Also....Two words.... Monty Python
>
> Not to be confused with "The Full Monty Python".....or is it?
Somehow, a movie about a group of unemployed, Oxbridge-educated comedians
becoming strippers doesn't sound so appealing <g>
Of course, the movie about the blue collar Brits doing the same thing didn't
strike me as a must see either...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
