Linux-Advocacy Digest #435, Volume #33 Sat, 7 Apr 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: XP = eXPerimental (J Sloan)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (Goldhammer)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Goldhammer)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
MS and ISP's (667 Neighbor of the Beast)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Peter Hayes)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Peter Hayes)
Re: How funny. (Peter Hayes)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Logan Shaw)
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? (667 Neighbor of the Beast)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:38:03 GMT
Ermine Todd III wrote:
> Linux is for people who don't have any real work to do and can spend endless
> hours recompiling the kernel and are too cheap to pay for the real thing.
>
Linux is for people who don't have time to futz around
with reboots, blue screens, virii and reinstalls.
Linux is for people who need solid Unix services
without all the red tape and licensing hassles of
traditional old time Unix vendors, or the lock in
of proprietary single vendor RISC platforms.
Be advised that most Linux users never recompile
their kernel - it's just not neccessary - however
they can if they want to, unlike ms customers.
BTW I've gladly paid a lot of money for Linux distros,
and for good software to use on Linux - e.g Red Hat
Professional and SuSE distros, good games like Quake
3 Arena, stuff like Applixware, Mathematica, etc.
OTOH, one thing I will NOT do is to spend another
penny, ever,on software of any kind for ms windows.
cu
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:48:31 GMT
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:00:54 GMT,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Goldhammer wrote:
>>Of the three principles of Microsoft-think,
>>here we see yet another manifestation of
>>the 3rd.
>>
>>1. A database is a file.
>
>Well, a file *is* a database -- and the term "database" is
>slightly stupidly used, anyway; the correct term (IMO, although
>I know at least one person who would agree with me)
>is "data retrieval system". A file in such a system might be
>a "data retrieval system data storage container".
But even so, it does not imply that a database
is a file, as so many Access users seem to think.
>Of course, one
>could get arbitrarily verbose here. :-)
Sure. With such definitions, a laundry-list
can be considered a database.
>But yes, you're right; data retrieval systems such as Oracle
>are very flexible, and can use files or partitions. Even
>Postgres uses multiple files, as I understand it, although
>it's not clear to me whether it can handle a relation > 2GB.
>I'd have to poke around in its source code... :-)
Why not just go ahead and create a very large Postgres
database and see for yourself?
>>3. An OS is something that runs on an x86.
>
>Indeed.
Then I wonder why some people think Linux
is limited to <2Gb files. It must be because
they think Linux, like all OSs, only run on
x86s.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:51:24 GMT
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YN1z6.2745$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > IMHO anyone who reads mail with a variable-width font shows a remarkable
> > lack of understanding.
>
> Now why would that be? Some of us happen to find variable-width fonts
> easier to read; you're saying that making computing easier and more
pleasant
> is a lack of understanding? What a bizarre position.
Perhaps you can explain why there is no sense of pain or suffering about
this problem in the biographies of all those people who had to compose
and read their historically significant works on typewriters with no choice
of fonts at all....
> Now it's true you can't, say, read someone's nicely-aligned columnar text
> which they developed with a fixed font, if you're reading with a variable
> font, but that, if anything, suggests that there are probably better ways
to
> produce documents containing layout information, ways that don't require
> that the recipient happen to use your particular choice of font type.
No, it suggests that it is impossible without having a mate to your
particular choice of typesetting tools.
> HTML
> is one answer, although its layout capabilities may be less than ideal for
> many uses. PDF is another. I'm sure there are more.
And if the recipient doesn't happen to have this particular tool? Or
it is not available for the device where he reads or prints his
email?
> Because absolute formatting might not be important, but relative
formatting
> might be. For example, if I have a table containing part numbers in one
> column and prices in another, it probably doesnt matter if the table winds
> up centered instead of on the left, or squeezed a little; chances are it
> will still contain the correct correspondence of data regardless of how
the
> user's machine mungs it, except perhaps in truly pathological cases.
You can always turn it into a bit-image graphic if you need that much
control. But how much material do you really produce that has meaning
that could not have been conveyed in typewritten correspondence a
few years ago. Somehow everything I see in email seems less significant
in spite of it's pretty face than a time-worn typewritten document where
everything could be represented in fixed-pitch ascii characters.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:04:06 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jasper quoth:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:01:44 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>>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.
>>
>
> Only on the net...
>
> The day cockroaches become a threat to the existence of the human
> species would be the day of the beginning of the end of the
> cockroach.
I saw on the news last night that a woman set up 30 bug bombs in her
2 bedroom < 1000 squarefoot house to kill the cockroaches in it.
Trouble is, she forgot to turn off the gas when she killed the pilot
light on her water heater. This detonated all 30 bug bombs with the,
literally blowing the roof off of the place.
The last camera shot on the news showed roaches running in an out of
cracks in the foundation caused by the explosion.
Totally off topic, but if that is the kind of person leading the
fight against roaches, I shudder to think of our chances over the
long haul.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:58:55 GMT
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:33:47 -0700,
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What you have shown is that it's pretty easy to decontextualize and
>misreperesent, or outright contrive statements by three of the most
>influential thinkers of the 19th century in a flippant way and make
>yourself look like an arrogant boob in the process.
That's odd. I didn't present any "statements"
by Marx or Freud, contrived or otherwise.
Perhaps it's just your imagination here.
As for Darwin, every paraphrasal I attributed
to him can be easily verified by reading
'Descent of Man'.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:25:28 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 5 Apr 2001
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>>How can source code that doesn't contain a single line of
>>a library be a derivative work of the library, unless you
>>accept API copyrights (which no-one, including the FSF,
>>accepts)?
>
> There is a difference between infringement and plagiarism. A
> "derivative work" could be derivative through either means. You speak
> of plagiarism, not infringement, in your example.
Nonsense. I've written source code that's not plagiarism,
and happens, for the sake of the argument, to contain the
single word "readline(..)". Does this make the _source_
code a derivative work of libreadline.so?
Does the fact that all 'C' code contain constructions
such as "for (i=0; i<10; i++)" make each and every 'C'
program a derivative work of "The 'C' Programming Language"?
For your education, I'll quote the definition of
"derivative work" as given in US Title 17, Chapter 1,
section 101:
| A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
| preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
| dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound
| recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
| other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or
| adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
| elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent
| an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
It's quite clear that in order for a work to be a derivative,
it has to "recast, transform or adapt" it, and not merely refer
to it. You could argue that "based upon" means that "based
upon the existence of", but the definition makes quite clear
that such a broad interpretation is not valid. Thus, a review
of a book is not a derivative work of the book, because it does
not recast, transform or adapt it, or makes references to it,
whereas a Reader's Digest abbreviation quite clearly constitutes
a derivative work.
>>Software is sufficiently different from litterature and music
>>to cause friction when treated under laws that were drafted with
>>books, plays and music in mind.
>
> The metaphoric argument is that copyright transcends books, plays, and
> music, and therefore if the intellectual construct of software is to be
> covered, it must be appropriate to be considered only trivially
> different from these things. The fact that software is now covered by
> EULAs indicates this is decidedly not the case.
>
>>I've argued that assimilating a
>>running program in memory with a "copy" isn't sensible, but the
>>law says it is. The law also clearly stipulates what a derivative
>>work is, and by that definition, the source code of a program
>>is not a derivative work of anything it might call, refer to,
>>or be combined with when it is executing.
>
> According to the definition of derivative in copyright, whether it is
> derivative doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with any "executing",
> whatever that might be. A program is derivative because of its origins,
> not its use.
No. A work is a derivative when it corresponds to the definition
I cited above. It could be argued that "based upon" as used in
that definition means that if source code is designed to work
with a library that has only a single implementation, it is
"based upon" the library, but the whole definition makes quite
clear that such is (to this layman at least) not the case, as
in no circumstances the library is "recast, transformed or adapted".
Furthermore, the source code of such a program is not a
revision, annotation or other elaboration of the library.
What is quite clear is that the compiled form of the source code
is a derivative work, and that the combination of this compiled
form with the compiled form of the library is a derivative work
of both the source code of the program, and the source code of
the library.
>>The binary form of a
>>program (which is a derivative work of the source code) that
>>dynamically links to a shared library does not contain any code
>>from the shared library, and hence it doesn't seem to match
>>the definition of a derivative work.
>
> I do not know what definition you are using, but it is definitely
> flawed, even apart from your application of it here. It is very
> possible for a work to be derivative but not literally include any of
> the original.
No, but it seems to have to be a transformation, adaptation or
recasting of the original, or be revisions, annotations,
elaborations or other modifications. The only way in which you
can make your approach stick is when everything is deemed to
be a derivative work of everything that existed before its
production. (Like every 'C' program is a derivative of "The
'C' programming Language", because without this book, no-one
would be able to write 'C' programs.)
>
>>To put it in litterary terms:
>>
>>"<character> ran into a wall."
>>
>>is not a derivative work, whereas
>>
>>"Donald Duck ran into a wall."
>>
>>is a derivative work of IP owned by Disney, even when
>>"<character>" is clearly designed to be replaced by
>>something more specific.
>
> I think that would depend on just how clearly designed and how specific
> the character, wouldn't you? If there is only one character that could
> possibly be substituted, it makes it pretty clear you're just trying to
> out-wit the copyright protection someone else's work, doesn't it?
No, because copyright only protects the specific expression,
not the idea. Daffy doesn't infringe on Donald, and I'm
still able to make cartoons with ducks, as long as they aren't
_copies_ of Donald (or Daffy).
>>> So far, that specific issue has not be tested at all in court. But the
>>> copyright cases involving video game consoles seems to support it in
>>> some ways but not in others. Yes, to say that a console maker cannot
>>> prevent someone from "writing to their platform" seems to contradict the
>>> open use of whatever code is lying around. But the more subtle points
>>> in these decisions seem to indicate that it is *not* the metaphysics of
>>> intellectual property which decide such things, but the commercial
>>> implications and arrangements which result from them. Copyright law may
>>> teleologically exist in order to protect our natural right to property,
>>> but in the real world it exists so that science and technology are not
>>> subservient to capitalism. Copyright is book-keeping, not metaphysics.
>>
>>Please don't stand too close to a dictionary ;-)
>>
>>You are wrong on all counts.
>
> Look, putz. Either of the above sentences I would completely forgive
> and ignore as playful levity. Both in a row, and I'd say you're trying
> to slip an ad hominem attack in here. Make your case and shut your
> trap, if you don't mind.
You don't know what ad hominem means. Please explain where
you saw a circumstancial, abusive or "tu quoque" ad hominem.
>>The Sega decision doesn't allow you to use "whatever code is
>>lying around".
>
> How not? I presume you understand the metaphoric description I gave
> sufficiently enough that you can critique it. I would really appreciate
> it if you would do so. Otherwise, I'm forced to suspect that you simply
> didn't understand the metaphoric description, and wish to disagree with
> my general position but are at a loss for a valid argument.
You said:
| "Yes, to say that a console maker cannot prevent someone
| from "writing to their platform" seems to contradict the
| open use of whatever code is lying around."
First, your sentence doesn't make a lot of sense: it reads
like "the fact that you cannot stop people from releasing
games for a console (or programs for an OS/machine, by
extension) forbids the open use of whatever code is
lying around" (assuming that by "contradict the open use",
you mean "forbid the open use", as one cannot "contradict
the use"). Something or someone contradicts a notion, a belief,
or a person.
The Sega decision basically means that you cannot copyright
an interface, and that people are allowed to reverse engineer
it for the purposes of interoperability.
It does not allow, nor forbid, the use of "whatever code
that's lying around".
I admit that I misread your sentence; the context seemed
to indicate that you wanted to say that the Sega decision
allowed the reuse of "whatever code etc", that this was
a result not of the intent of the copyright statute, but
the commercial implications (like the clout of the makers
of third party cartridges was bigger than Sega's). You then
go on to say that the purpose of the copyright statute is
to protect property rights, and in the same sentence you
say that it really ("in the real world") serves to protect
science and technology from capitalism.
You contradict yourself all the time.
>
>>Copyright law does _not_ exist to "protect our natural right
> [...]
>
> Hey Stefaan! Do you know what "teleologically" means?
Yup. It's an adverb, and it means "exhibiting, or relating
to, design or purpose, especially in nature".
It didn't make much sense the way you used it, and
your utterance
| "Copyright law may teleologically exist in order to protect
| our natural right to property, but in the real world it exists
| so that science and technology are not subservient to capitalism."
made me believe you wanted to say that the ultimate purpose
of copyright is to protect "our natural right to property".
I simply stated that the purpose of copyright is to further
the development of arts and sciences, and that there is no
such thing as a "natural right to property".
Maybe you could explain what you meant by "teleologically"
in the excerpt above.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: 667 Neighbor of the Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: MS and ISP's
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 12:04:11 -0700
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:54:52 -0400, JS PL <jspl@jsplom> wrote:
> >"667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > But suppose microsoft actually did give away their OS and server software,
> > SO WHAT!! Who's business is it?
>
> There are laws on the books against "dumping" in order to drive your
> competition out of business. Which was exactly what MS was trying to do
> to Netscape.
>
Yes not only that but it is totally illegal to offer SW for free or at
steep discount if you promise to, say, convert 75% of your users to
IE, if you promise to only support IE, if you promise to put
IE-specific stuff on your web page, etc. That is an exclusive
agreement, and they are all illegal.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You crossposted
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Your stupidity is astounding
[ ] You suck
[ ] Other (describe)
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:03:59 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:37 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:27:48
> >> > I fear them for what they are doing! I despise them for doing it!
> >> >
> >> > Good luck to all of us... we're going to need it!
> >
> ><sigh> Do you guys ever think for youself?
>
> *Wow. I have *never* felt that feeling before.*
>
> *Is that what it's like to actually want to kill another human being?*
>
> >Do you think that any such terms would ever stand up in court?
> >Of course not.
>
> Do you think Microsoft is going to wait until some proves this illegal
> in court before absconding with billions of dollars worth of trade
> secrets and intellectual property?
So, if Microsoft do acquire billions of dollars worth of trade secrets and
intellectual property by a process subsequently proved to be illegal, then
that will without doubt be the end of Microsoft.
They'll be sued by everyone and his brother for many times their assets, as
will all the companies they set up to exploit their illegally garnered
information and be very effectively bankrupted.
This could just be one step too far even for these arrogant toerags. Give
them enough rope...
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:04:03 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 Apr 2001 18:33:27 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:12:41 -0700, tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please re read the agreement it does not say anything about owning the
> >content of everything you do over any of its services only "comments or
> >suggestions" about the service are! Simply put any of my email or data
> >which uses there equipment is mine and only mine unless I submit it as a
> >comment or suggestion to microsoft directly!
> >
> >
>
>
> Some of you people are real idiots. This thread was about the Microsoft
> license as it stood until early this morning. Under pressure from privacy
> rights advocates, users, and the press, Microsoft has changed
> the license and the Microsoft URL referenced in these threads has been
> altered to contain the new revised license. Look at the bottom of the
> Microsoft webpage for the revision date. The license that has been the topic
> of this thread contained everything that we have been discussing. You think
> Microsoft would have changed it without pressure from users and the press?
> Don't think so.
Or maybe they set up the licence as it was so they could snaffle stuff they
knew would be passing through their servers at that time. Now they've got
what they wanted, they re-write the licence, excluding the contentious
clauses "under pressure from privacy rights advocates, users, and the
press", as if they've ever cared what privacy rights advocates, users, and
the press ever thought of them.
And don't forget the bit that goes
quote//....
MODIFICATION OF THESE TERMS OF USE
Microsoft reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices
under which the Passport Web Site and Passport Services are offered. You
are responsible for regularly reviewing these terms and conditions.
Continued use of the Passport Site or Passport Services after any
such changes shall constitute your consent to such changes.
...//quote
(From www.passport.com)
So any changes can be revoked as and when Microsoft see fit, even on a
minute by minute basis.
Answer? Don't use any Microsoft services, but if you have to then
encrypt,your messages, and you'd better use your own encryption system like
steganography otherwise Microsoft's back door keys or whatever will allow
them to study your secrets.
This presupposes Microsoft won't persuade the ultimate sock-puppet (George
W. Bush) to make it legal for them to demand the decryption key to any
material passing through their servers.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How funny.
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:04:04 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:45:38 +0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm downloading a new kernel, so I looked at kernel.org's mirror list.
> They have the list broken down by country, and a very exhaustive list it
> is. I was particularly surprised to see that the list includes the Holy
> See (i.e., the Vatican).
>
> I wonder whether they'll be coming out with their own distro? "St.
> Penguin Linux" or something.
>
> Other sites could yield interesting distros too:
>
> Antartica: "True Penguin Linux"
> Pitcairn Island: "Mutiny Linux"
> Saint Helena: "Napoleonic Legacy Linux"
> Monaco: "Gran Prix Linux"
> Isle of Man: "Manux"
> Chad: "Troll Linux"
Scotland: "MacLinux"
On second thoughts, maybe not...
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Logan Shaw)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 7 Apr 2001 14:06:02 -0500
In article <V%zz6.431$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kelsey Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That would be a fault of the person writing the columnar text in the first
>place. Rule #1 of portablility: don't assume everyone uses the same setup
>you do.
Another rule of portability: learn what the rules are. And guess
what? For quite some time, the rules have been that Internet e-mail is
80 columns of plain text viewed in a fixed-width font. It has been
this way at least since I started reading e-mail in 1989. I'm sure it
was that way for some time before that too. The fact that a bunch of
other people have come along and assumed otherwise doesn't mean they're
right.
>As I said, this really indicates a lack of a useful method of handling
>layout. There just aren't any decent, reliable and
>sufficiently-widely-available tools for it.
Well, TeX is decent, reliable, and available for every single platform
I've ever heard of in my life (except PalmOS, but I might be wrong
about even that). But, a typesetting tool like that might be overkill
for many purposes.
Of course, it doesn't really matter what the right format to use is,
because most people throw in unnecessary formatting either because they
they like to play with toys and the computer is a toy or because
they're trying to impress someone.
- Logan
--
whose? my your his her our their _its_
who's? I'm you're he's she's we're they're _it's_
------------------------------
From: 667 Neighbor of the Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 12:08:01 -0700
Mike wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Star is also horribly,
> excruciatingly slow... (the folks on cola have said that's just a problem
> with the Windows version of Star).
>
Supposedly rather slow and hoggy on OS/2 also.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You crossposted
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Your stupidity is astounding
[ ] You suck
[ ] Other (describe)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
