Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #33 Sun, 8 Apr 01 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: t. max devlin: kook (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was Re:
Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Linux is just another Unix (yawn) (Peter R. Wood)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Baseball (Anonymous)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: XP = eXPerimental (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Goldhammer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:42:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Anonymous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:30:34 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anything with a command line is easier to learn, of course, because it
>> is simpler
>
>i just wanted to see that again
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
There are advantages to the command line, but ease of learning
is not among them (though it depends in part on the complexity
thereof, the design of the GUI, and to a large part on the
documentation available using 'man' or 'info').
A well-designed GUI can be very easy, especially if it has common
elements; this is what makes Windows so powerful. (Mac OS, too,
as it turns out, although the details are different, and, to
a slightly lesser extent, widget sets on X; the main problem there
is cut and paste, and resize feedback.)
Everyone understands:
- moving the mouse pointer
- clicking, dragging, and dropping
- double-clicking, dragging, and dropping icons
- folder icons as directories, document icons as files
- top-mounted window pulldown menus
- keyboard shortcuts
- buttons with balloon help
- text entry controls, both multiline and single-line
- Control/C, Control/X, and Control/V
- scrollbars
- scrolling lists (both horizontal and vertical)
- drop down comboboxes (which are actually a combination of button,
menu, and list)
Windows does have advantages. However, MS may be frittering
away some of them; the latest Windows appear to have movable
menubars. What use is that? Detach a menubar from the window,
and it becomes a floating menubar -- um, now what app did
that floating menubar correspond to?! (Netscape and GTK have
the same capability, so it's not limited to Windows.)
And then there's the famous gorgeously slow disappearing and
scrolling out menus. Waste of CPU cycles, IMO. What's
next, rapidly rotating dialog boxes a la old filmreels and cartoons? :-)
At least balloon help serves a purpose, especially since some of
those icons aren't exactly intuitive. Even pulldown menus
are an aid to documentation; they show the capabilities of the
program -- which makes the "hide less recently used" option
on pulldown menus in Windows a bit puzzling. Then again,
one can make a case either way.
The horizontal scrolling file requester is an abomination, but
we're used to it now, even to the point of duplicating it,
bodge for bodge, in the Wine project -- although that may
be because I'm using it with Win95 and the Microsoft DLLs are
setting that up.
One other advantage with Windows -- IE has instantaneous refresh
during resize; Netscape does not. This feedback is very helpful
to the user who wants to see the web page just so, and may explain
in part why IE is so popular in the first place.
Most X window managers rubberband during resize, so this facility
may not even be available. I am tempted to write one that treats
X resize events similarly to X move events, but I fear the performance
in many apps may not be there -- and it will take me awhile,
as it's not my speciality.
Compared to all this, the command line is extremely dry and
uninteresting, although improvements have been made there, too;
older systems don't have:
- filename completion
- command completion
- filename and command listing on double-TAB
- arrow-key history and editing (although some used VI-style keys)
Heck, HP-UX can still come up using @ for linekill and # for backspace.
Arcane? You bet your sweet bippy. But the users have changed;
we're more demanding and fickle now.
>
>men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>more even than death
>- bertrand russell
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:22h:12m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:42:55 GMT
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:57:48 GMT, "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> TCLPro, Corel PhotoPaint, WordPerfect, Snif+, not to mention the usual
> >> apps like GIMP and XEmacs. There's bunches more but it's been a long
> >> day.
> >
> >The TCLPro is available for the Windows platform also for the same cost,
> >which is free.
>
> Your original statement, to which I was responding and which you
> carefully clipped, was:
>
> >You'd have hard time naming some commercial
> >grade application for Linux. Even if you do,
> >they won't be free.
>
> It doesn't matter that TCLPro, GIMP, and Emacs/XEmacs are also
> available free for Windows, they still prove that statement wrong.
How so?
>
> >The commercial software like Corel isn't free as I said
> >previously. You can have any versions of the Emacs....
>
> Go to <http://linux.corel.com/download/>. You'll find free downloads
> of the linux versions of Corel Photopaint 9 and WordPerfect.
Time limited and restricted software, a.k.a shareware...
>
> >> Slackware and Debian are robust and they're both free. There are
> >> indeed some high-priced distro's that approach the cost of an NT
> >> license, but those are aimed at the corporate market and most permit
> >> an unlimited number of installations.
> >
> >Which is understandable. To develop a quality distro will cost money and
it
>
> Slackware and Debian are quality distro's and they're both free and
> both are far from disappearing. I think what you really mean by
> "quality" is "a comprehensive package tweaked and supported for a
> specific market". Companies buy such packages because it's cheaper
> than having a sysadmin spend a week or two gathering applications,
> tweaking one of the free distros, and testing/debugging his work. The
> total price doesn't have to get very high before it becomes cheaper to
> roll their own.
Slackware still exist?
>
> >needs to be recovered, otherwise the distro will disappear. The point is
> >that it won't be long when the Linux pricing will go by licensing the
> >distros for corporation based upon the number of installation.
>
> I have no problem with that, since the only way a commercial distro
> can survive competition from the free ones is to offer value in
> proportion to its additional cost. However, the kernel is still linux
> and the applications are still open-source and freely downloadable all
> over the place, so there's a rather low real-world limit to just how
> much additional value any commercial distribution can possibly
> deliver.
Kernel in itself can do nothing applications are the entities what makes it
worth while to turn on the machine. That's how the distros get the companies
to pay for their distros. It won't be long before even the desktop versions
will be licensed. Sure, you still can have the barebone freebie but there
will be no compelling reason to have it without the apps.
>
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:44:44 GMT
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:57:48 GMT, WGAF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [-snip-]
> >
> >Which is understandable. To develop a quality distro will cost money and
it
> >needs to be recovered, otherwise the distro will disappear. The point is
> >that it won't be long when the Linux pricing will go by licensing the
> >distros for corporation based upon the number of installation. Take for
> >example Caldera's Tarantella Express, 5 user license for $835.00. As time
> >passes by I wouldn't be surprised that even desktop versions will need to
be
> >licensed also. Yes, the Linux kernel and the GNU part of the distros will
be
> >free, but when the company wraps some proprietery code around them, then
> >they can license it and won't need to make it available for free..
> >
> >
>
> Maybe, big maybe, I see only one strong company who is switching from
> service based revenue to a licensing revenue based on linux. Even
> if things go the way you predict, the beauty of GNU/Linux is that
> the same OS will still be available for those who want with no
> licensing at all.
The purist most certainly will love the basic GNU/Linux, but the masses will
need the full version.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser...
(was Re: Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:47:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 07 Apr 2001 19:06:41 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
[snip for brevity]
>> I don't think he's actually using Mozilla; he's using a
>> modified SLRN, if memory serves. Personally, I'm not
>> sure it's worth the trouble; security through obscurity
>> does not work in the cryptographic field and it's unclear
>> it would work elsewhere, either -- a hacker with access
>> to sufficient knowledge would probably just try everything
>> to get into a system. :-)
>
>Ask the military about camoflauge, and get back to us :-)
Yes, I saw your other post. Not unreasonable, actually.
Can't say I know how well it works -- and camoflage is such
a laughable idea on the surface that it's surprising how
well it works -- in fact it works so well it's implemented
in nature using a zebra's stripes, a tiger's stripes,
and a leopard's spots, otherwise pointless coloration.
I've not seen an animal using the current "crazy-color" scheme,
though -- but hey, if it works, use it; and the military has
been using it for years.
(It'll be interesting to see what can be done against
infrared goggles, admittedly. Most likely they'll
have to develop a good light insulating material made
into a coat, or a thick insulating goo spread on the
face, hands, feet, etc. But I digress. :-) )
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random warmth here
EAC code #191 1d:22h:35m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:49:26 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <snype>
>
> I guess you have never used Solaris before. Solaris, you download the
self
> exacting archive (with the extension *.class), double click on it, and a
> wizard is launched which you click on the next button to continue the
> installation. So, no, you comment regarding UNIX or Linux is not valid.
A
> more pressing issue is why, when I was running Windows 2000, did I have to
> reboot after installing Media Player? its just a fucking media player, not
a
> low-level component of the operating system! explain that. Also, what
did
> I need to reboot after installing the high encryption pack for Internet
> Explorer did I need to reboot? I find those more annoying, esp. when you
have
> update Windows 2000 and everything you update requires a system reboot.
What is Solaris has to do with questionable distribution for KDE? You can
try to deflact attention from KDE upgrade method, but it doesn't change the
fact. The present distribution system for Linux sucks.
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:52:14 GMT
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <2oRz6.92517$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "WGAF"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Oh, maybe you've only got a text-mode system. Then you'd have to use
> >> the "get tarred directory" feature that most Unix ftp servers have:
> >>
> >> ncftp ftp.kde.org
> >> cd ...some long path...
> >> get RPMS rpms.tar
> >
> > Snip...
> >
> >> Like RPM? I installed KDE 2.1.1 (upgrade from 2.1) by doing this:
> >>
> >> $ for i in qt kdebase kdelibs kdegames ...; do rpm -U $i/*; done
> >
> > As oppose to downloading a single executable, running it once the
> > dowload finished and it's done? Linux really shines in that respect,
> > doesn't it?
> >
> > Otto
> >
> >
> Tell me again how all those Windows viruses propagated? Isn't this very
> mindset of blindly clicking on downloaded binaries to blame?
> If the administrators show this behaviour, how then can they blame the
> users when they click on yet another .vbs?
Yet another post which tries to make a different subject out of the
questionable KDE upgrade method. You do admit that the upgrade path for KDE
sucks, right?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:52:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:53:21 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> : Martin Eden wrote:
>> : >
>> : > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis says...
>> : >
>> : > Jesus Christ on a stick, kook-boy; Are you still going at this?
>> : > I would have thought you'd have shut your fat mouth by now.
>> : >
>> : > You do realize that *everyone* with an ounce of intelligence has
>> : > seen you for who you are, don't you?
>>
>> : you keep telling yourself that.
>>
>> : ALL newsreader software that has an ID string has it embedded
>> : within the source code. It's a simple matter or editing it with
>> : vi and running make to disguise both the newsreader and the OS.
>>
>> : And since on Linux...you have the source code....
>>
>> : Well, I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.
>>
>> : Clue for the clueless: make is your friend.
>>
>> Right Aaron. Just go ahead, and pretend that you're
>> some 'leet programming genius. We all know that you're
>> really just some luser with a PC. How can we make it
>> any clearer to you that you have absolutely nothing
>> on you to lead us to believe that you have one single
>> ounce of knowledge about anything?
>
>Actually, I have programmed in the following languages
>
>VSBASIC (IBM 370)
>APPLE BASIC (Apple ][ and ][+)
>Waterloo FORTRAN (IBM 370)
>6502 assembly language
>Fortran 77 (various BSD Unix systems)
>Pascal
>C
>PDP-11 assembly language
>VAX-11 asembly language
>IBM 370 assembly language
>Intel 8080 assembly language
>Motorola 6809 assembly language
>Motorola 680x0 assembly language
>Motorola 68HC11 assembly language
>csh
>ksh
>awk
>sed
I'd be surprised if you didn't also program in sh/bash. (Did
you touch VMS DCL at all?) Also, have you conspicuously
avoided x86 for any particular reason? I've dabbled in it
myself -- bodgy processor! Even the 1802 had more sensible
register allocation -- and that's an old 8-bit micro which
was so slow a PDP-8 could probably beat it. :-) But it was
fun to work with for flashing LED's. :-)
Mind you, the 6502 was even more quirky than the x86.
(Zeropage,X) and (Zeropage),Y? Sheesh.
Hmm, maybe I answered my own question. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random bodgery here
EAC code #191 1d:23h:40m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: Peter R. Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just another Unix (yawn)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:55:35 GMT
> Linux is the kernel, the last ingredient of a complete GNU OS. Given the
> look n' feel, it's easy to see how people use Linux and UNIX sa synonyms
> given the amount of GNUware found on UNIXes.
>
Actually, the Linux kernel isn't the last ingredient of a complete GNU OS.
The Hurd kernel is the last ingredient of a complete GNU OS. The Linux
kernel just happens to be filling that void right now.
Please read this page:
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:56:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Goldhammer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:48:31 GMT
<3iJz6.47550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>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.
A small one. :-)
>
>
>>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?
I may do just that, but I may have to move my Postgres account.
Easily enough done, admittedly.
>
>
>>>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.
It's a limitation, admittedly. I think it's a combination of factors.
It's easy enough to work around in source code, if one remembers
the right combination of -DXYZZY and such:
g++ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D__USE_FILE_OFFSET64
Of course, this is going to make no sense to those not well-versed
in compiling applications. :-)
>
>
>--
>Don't think you are. Know you are.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:23h:45m actually running Linux.
You were expecting something relevant down here?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 07:16:48 -0600
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Baseball
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:09:06
> -0600;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:06:51
> >> -0600;
> >> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Maybe Microsoft will go the full monty and deliver a stable OS for once?
> >> >
> >> >why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while
> >> >retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
> >>
> >> Your result does not logically follow from your premise, I'm afraid.
> >> What does ease of use have to do with illegal monopolization?
> >
> >for one thing it's extremely popular and thus affords you the opportunity
>
>
> What does ease of use have to do with illegal monopolization?
microsoft's total domination of the desktop is the result of windows.
no amount of alleged monopolistic tactics will cut it if the product
don't sell.
or:
if they had stuck with dos we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:58:21 GMT
"Robert@-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <2oRz6.92517$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "WGAF"
says...
>
> >
> >> Like RPM? I installed KDE 2.1.1 (upgrade from 2.1) by doing this:
> >>
> >> $ for i in qt kdebase kdelibs kdegames ...; do rpm -U $i/*; done
>
> >
> >As oppose to downloading a single executable, running it once the dowload
> >finished and it's done? Linux really shines in that respect, doesn't it?
> >
> >Otto
>
> Otto,
>
> This is Unix mind set, it has nothing to do with Linux only.
>
> If you suggest one solution to unix people that could make it little
> easier to the end user, they respond with 20 other alternatives
> using the most convoluted and absured ways to do it, and they wonder
> why you would not try one of those unix ways.
>
> They will never get it.
That seem to be the case..
>
> Any suprise windows, with all its faults, has 90% of the desktop
> marker, and %45 of the serve market?
>
> Well, Unix only had 35 years to understand the end user, they might want
> another 35 years more still, and I bet they will never get it.
Unix isn't even close to understand the end users, which is the fault of the
Unix admins. For them the end user is stupid, called end losers. Forgetting
the fact that people do have a life after work and they don't want to learn
anything about OSes, apps, etc. They just want to use the damn machine
without become like one of the Unix admins.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:58:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 08 Apr 2001 00:14:06 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > In misc.invest.stocks J.T. Wenting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > | "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > |> XP = eXPerimental
>> > |>
>> > | thought it meant ExPert?
>> >
>> > Naw...It means eXtra Profit...
>>
>> X-ray (your) Possesions?
>> eXamine (your) Passport?
>> eXcoriate (your) Pudendum?
>> eXit (all) Programs?
>> Xerxes-like Profits?
>> Xenophobic Posturing?
>> eXcess Pee?
>>
>> --
>> [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
>
>Now that I look at it long enough, XP,... it looks like a dead emoticon
>with its tongue hanging out.
It could be a cyclops, at that. :-) Wonder who Ulysses is in
this case? :-)
>
>--
>V
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:23h:50m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:05:12 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Caldera is already having troubles from what I've heard on the net.
> (A lot of things are heard about different things.) But since its still
> Linux
> people will weigh what is it that they're getting for their money? The
> average user
> doesn't need it. The 5 user license more than likely can be
> circumvented by looking around for the equivalent for free. The spirit
> of Linux is just that... free and good.
No, the spirit of Linux is to circumvent. If that doesn't work, then crack
it...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:09:32 GMT
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:52:25 GMT,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(Did you touch VMS DCL at all?)
This is a bit off-topic, but if pine
away from nostalgia for VMS and DCL, you
can get relief by picking up DCL-Lite
for Linux here:
http://linux.dreamtime.org/decnet/links.html
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
