Linux-Advocacy Digest #44, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 19:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Larry Caldwell)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. ("John O")
Re: IE (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:14:00 +0100
>> You really are that stupid, arent you?
>
> Why don't you stop wasting oxygen on yourself, Rick?
You're the one wasting oxygen. Office is shipped on many PCs, so most
people have little choice. The res don't know any better. Office is still
appauling.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:17:25 +0100
> The only answer I see up there is the for the question "why do Mac
> advocates have the reputation of being arrogant jerks?" Windows and
What the fsck has this got to do with Mac advocates (hint, there are more
alternatives than just macs)
> Microsoft products are in no way analogous to drugs. People use them
> because they do the job, and do it well, for a price they're willing to
> pay. No amount of your insults or ego is going to change that.
People use them because they come with the computer they buy from PC
World or and/or because they don't know any better. To be frank, the
quality of word is appauling. Compare it to, say TeX (yep, there are GUI
happy-shink-pointy-clicky front ends for this). TeX is 80's software yet
the quality far exceeds the best word can produce. Oh, and its free.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Larry Caldwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:23:49 -0700
In article <9cglmp$370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Well, I haven't tried to make many people more tolerant, because the
> people I am friends with have enough of a moral sense to realise that
> blind prejudice is wrong. As for the bigots I've tried to convert here?
> well, they're still bigots. What more can I say.
Unfortunately, many people have no sense of discernment at all. They
can't tell the difference between judice and prejudice.
I went to a cultural awareness workshop Friday. Two days before I had
attended a motivational seminar, and the facilitator said that he had
recently completed a session in San Diego. He was having his book
translated into Spanish so it would be accessible to teachers in Southern
California. It seems that there are teachers in the California school
system that don't speak English.
When I related this at the Cultural Awareness workshop, I was challenged
about seeing this as a social problem. Evidently the dangers of
Balkanizing the USA are completely lost on the Cultural Diversity
industry. They lack judgement, even when confronted with the unpleasant
consequences of their blind acceptance.
> Another thing is that these bigots assume that I'm homosexual because I
> am not homophobic and also have a deep dislike of homophobia. This simply
> shows up the bigotry. I have been careful in this not to mention my
> orientation once.
I have the same problem. Just because I support the BSA and oppose
homosexual contact with pubescent boys, people assume I am homophobic.
It is not acceptable to disagree with the Sensitivity Industry. They
will label you a bigot at the first indication that you don't come to the
same conclusions they do.
--
You don't have much to say about the length
of your life, but you have a lot to say
about the breadth and depth.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:16:53 +0200
In article <A90H6.803$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> tmax just isn't worth it, and it is fairly clear that his job is to
> obscure argument, only to make sure that the proof of the GPL not being
> free is forgotten about, ...
Never explain by malice what can adequately be explained
by stupidity. There is no conspiration, and Max doesn't
have a "job".
--
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: [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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 21:51:48 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> So any random arrangement of code will support any API you imagine?
>>>>>> Somehow, this doesn't seem like its going to work. Somehow, I think the
>>>>>> implementation details are related to the API, if it is written first,
>>>>>> and the API reflects some of the implementation details, if it is
>>>>>> documented last. In other words, an API is a sketch of the facade, not
>>>>>> an architectural diagram, however complex that facade may be, and
>>>>>> however it may limited where the beams can or must go.
>>>> T. Max, implementation has rarely anything to do with the API.
>>> Obviously, this statement would require some rather tortuously
>>> restricted sense of "having to do with".
>>
>>Not at all. You're just too ignorant to know reality.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
>>>> Consider this code:
>>> [...]
>>>> How do I implement this system is irrelevent.
>>> Then how is it that you have written code to implement it?
>>
>>He hasn't. He's written the API for it. It's definitely not
>>implemented.
>
> Well, it looked like code to me, and he said "consider this code:".
> What does that say to you?
That you don't know anything about programming. A declaration
is not an implementation, just a formal definition of the
class. It tells you the name, the class(es) it's derived
from, and the members of the class (variables and methods).
It is certainly possible to have many implemenations of
such a declaration.
>
>>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
>>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
>>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>> not working as expected. Right?
>>
>>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
>>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
>>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
>>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
>>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
>>performance requirements than anything else.)
>
> In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
> about a function than the API documentation itself can provide. This is
> not a fact which magically goes away because you wish really hard.
In the real world, the only time an application needs to know
anything about the entrails of the functions it calls, is when
the function has been
a) badly designed and/or implemented
b) badly documented.
I've been writing code for UNIX since 1980, and I've _never_
had to know anything about the system libraries that wasn't
in the man pages.
>
>>>> I hope this example will help you understand how meaningless the API is when
>>>> you try to understand the implementation.
>>> I am well aware that in theory you pretend the two are unrelated.
>>
>>They are unrelated in theory and in practice. If they were not, then
>>you could not have multiple independent implementations of the same
>>basic API. Ooops...
>
> Think, man, think! Why one earth would you need multiple independent
> implementations if this were true? Ooops...
>
> Just because you CAN write the library code in a number of ways to
> support the API doesn't mean it "doesn't matter" how you write the
> library. An API which has been implemented in many ways is easier for
> an app producer to write to, because the API has been 'proven' to be
> sufficiently well supported by multiple implementations.
>
> Still, in the real world, nobody writes a program which requires a
> library which doesn't yet exist. The idea is ludicrous.
Well, one of my colleagues is writing an application to a Java
.jar that's not yet implemented (I finished the spec, he started
on his application after about the third draft, when we felt it
was stable enough). I'll have the classes implemented when he'll
start testing. Hint: writing a program != coding. There's a lot
to do before the first line of code is written, or before the
first test is run.
--
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: "Les Mikesell" <[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
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:32:30 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Why? Sun was getting its ass kicked for more than a decade by MS
> >> shenanigans.
> >
> >Would it have done better or worse without a network protocol
> >that interoperated with a large number of other vendors' products
> >and a set of applications that worked identically across platforms?
>
> What is that supposed to mean? Still trying to convince people that
> without the ability to profiteer on other people's code, the software
> industry would not have occurred?
There are plenty of examples of software that developed without any
concern for interoperating correctly with other vendors or with
sharing and helping to improve a reference base of code. The
industry clearly could have gone entirely that direction. The only
thing I am trying to convice anyone about is that we are all better
off that it didn't, and that instead the Internet developed around
open TCP/IP instead of some protocol owned by a single vendor.
This is just the most obvious case, but in every case where a
working, well-tested reference code base is shared without
restrictions everyone involved comes out ahead. Only the GPL
claim otherwise, yet I don't see any of them backing away from
using the Internet that developed precisely because there were
no GPL-like restrictions on sharing the reference code.
> >> Now that Linux is the most popular non-monopoly OS around,
> >> you're going to claim that their obviously capitalist use of non-GPL
> >> software somehow casts doubts on GPL?
> >
> >Yes, 'now' is way too late to have had any effect at preventing a
> >monopoly, and the GPL prevented many possible competitive
> >uses of the covered code.
>
> Your comment is incomprehensible to me. How could the GPL "prevent"
> something which is not possible under the GPL?
By definition - what it does is prevent sharing.
> You would like to
> imagine many things which "would have" occurred "if not for" the GPL,
> but it seems to me like you're trying to use a time machine, again.
No, we can easily see the things that have developed from code without
the GPL restrictions. Yet the GPL proponents claim that their
restrictions
provide some sort of benifit by preventing similar development of covered
code. It has not been a benefit to me, or to you either, so I don't
understand
your defense of it.
> >I keep pointing out the very real example of BSD TCP/IP and you
> >are the one pretending that it doesn't clearly demonstrate the advantage
> >of allowing vendors to provide competing variations of a freely
> >available reference version.
>
> I am not pretending anything: the existence of TCP/IP does not provide
> evidence of any random supposition about what characteristics might have
> been necessary for it to exist.
I can only observe relationships that exist: the reference BSD code
developed into products both free and commercial that help us all
today. The GPL specifically prohibits that proliferation of useful
development on covered code. There is no supposition involved.
> You act as if to deny your conclusion
> is to deny that IP exists in the form that it does. Meanwhile, I can
> point out that the source code to Windows no doubt still includes 1980s
> era code, clearly destroying your argument that there is some benefit of
> quality to profiteering.
What does that have to do with the GPL's restrictions on the way code
may be shared?
> >> Forgetting, again, that, yes, commercial sale of
> >> licenses is precisely what the GPL is INTENDED to accomplish.
> >
> >You are imagining things again.
>
> What?
The GPL has nothing to do with the commercial sale of licenses.
> >> The
> >> "products that offered competition to the []* monopoly" that are
non-GPL
> >> (regardless of any other putative feature of their license**) might
very
> >> well ALWAYS outnumber the GPL codebases, since there is need for only
> >> one GPL codebase to begin with, and it lends itself to services more
> >> than products, by design, again.
> >
> >Yes, but I prefer products that work over ones that need service all the
> >time.
>
> Then why on earth would you prefer closed-source code to GPL?
Free products often work well for the purpose intended by their authors,
but that may not be exactly what you need. Commercial products often
cater to the needs of the customers.
> >> >Let me know if you actually come up with an example where you
> >> >think GPL'd code was used in something that could have prevented
> >> >the monopoly from developing. I can't think of a single one.
> >>
> >> Actually, you've already cited dozens yourself, I would say, by
claiming
> >> that BSD availability of fundamentally important codebases (any
Internet
> >> protocol, for starters) DIDN'T contribute to the development of the
> >> monopoly.
> >
> >Dozens of what?
>
> Dozens of what you claimed to be unable to think of a "single one".
> Examples would probably be the easiest word to use. Doh!
I asked for examples of GPL'd code that was used in something that
could effectively compete. I didn't name any, and you haven't either
so what are you talking about?
> >> No code no matter how designed could have "prevented the monopoly from
> >> developing" to begin with, this is a fantasy which you have but I don't
> >> share. The 'development'* of the monopoly is not a matter of software
> >> and code, it is effected by anti-competitive strategies quite distinct
> >> from any technical or commercial merit of the product itself.
> >
> >Yes, but the anti-competitive strategies revolved around specific
> >products and worked only because there were no equal or lower
> >cost equivalents to provide competition. The GPL had a hand
> >in preventing existing code from being used in competitive ways.
>
> I'm afraid the first sentence there clearly demonstrates your
> insufficient grasp of the abstraction "anti-competitive". An
> anti-competitive strategy only works when there is no competition? Do
> you see the problem?
Yes I see the problem, and as I keep pointing out, the GPL prevents
covered code from being used in competitive ways.
> The GPL was designed to be anti-competitive, but not monopolistic. Your
> observation that it works to restrain trade is an accurate one, but I
> believe it is consistent to say that this is a reasonable restraint of
> trade, no more grievous than is necessary to accomplish the ironically
> pro-competitive effects of the anti-competitive license, not the
> unreasonable restraint of trade made illegal by section 1 of the Sherman
> Act. So this problem with GPL of "the code that won't be written
> because of GPL" that you imagine is, practically speaking, only in your
> imagination.
No, the current result I have pointed out is very real and we all have
to live with it. You are the one imagining it could be otherwise.
> Right along side your metaphysical substance of copyright.
My interpretation is that something has to be copied to violate
a copyright. Not necessarily literally, but a copy of something
has to be made. I see no way to relate this to dynamic linking
to a copy of a library that you obtained separately and have been
given the explicit right to use.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:43:45 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:08:24 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simple, the reason why alot of large companies settle a lawsuit is because
> it CHEAPER to settle than to go though with a trial and winning.
MS took a $250 million charge against earnings as a result of the
settlment with Caldera.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:46:07 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >>
> >> "Zippy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > actually, my system runs absolutely PERFECTLY. i'm a hardware tech with 9
> >> > years' experience in the business, am relatively fluent in basic and C,
> >> and
> >> > am capable of solving any hardware problem on a Mac, PC or Linux box.
> >>
> >> There is not such thing as a Linux box.
> >
> >It's sad to learn such a thing. My customers will be bitterly
> >disappointed when they'll learn that we've been developing for months on
> >a number of non-existing boxes, and we will deliver them a non-existing
> >box running the software they need!
>
> You didn't understand, Giuliano. What he meant was that there is no
> specific hardware platform, as in "Mac or PC".
>
It was an apparently failed attempt to be sarcastic. It's a common
language shortcut call "Linux box" a box running Linux, as opposed to an
e.g. "Windows box".
--
Giuliano Colla
------------------------------
From: "John O" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.men
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:43:49 +0100
Laura M. Hagan <doesn'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3ae9a71e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > The issue is not the presumption, but rather the right of the alleged
> > > father to dispute the presumption via a DNA test.
> > >
> > > Mr. Kulkis has claimed that no state allows that without the mother's
> > > permission. I do not believe him.
> >
> > Ohio is currently DEBATING whether the mother should be allowed to
> > block the gathering of such evidence....and this is considered to
> > be *EXTREMELY* radical, reactionary, and anti-women.
> >
> > No other state is even discussing it.
>
> Well, one state isn't discussing it because it's already the law, and
> has been for some time:
> Cal. Family Code 7551:
> "In a civil action or proceeding in which paternity is a relevant
fact,
> the court may upon its own initiative or upon suggestion made by or
> on behalf of any person who is involved, and shall upon motion of
> any party to the action or proceeding made at a time so as not to
> delay the roceedings unduly, order the mother, child, and alleged
> father to submit to genetic tests. If a party refuses to submit to the
> tests, the court may resolve the question of paternity against that
> party or enforce its order if the rights of others and the interests of
> justice so require. A party's refusal to submit to the tests is
admissible
> in evidence in any proceeding to determine paternity. For the purposes
> of this chapter, "genetic tests" means any genetic test that is generally
> acknowledged as reliable by accreditation bodies designated by the
> United States Secretary of Health and Human Services."
Sounds pretty much like the UK position. Weird how, in some things we seem
to be behind, in others way ahead of the US.
I don't really like the idea that the primary familial responsibilities are
now being defined in biological terms....we've leapt a long way from the
idea of the social family in a very short time.....still less that, when it
comes to the idea of marriage being a ccontinuing responsibility - at least
as far ass the children are concerned - the UK has now abrogated the
responsibility of ONE partner to contribute in explicit financial terms
toward children post break-up.
For all that, the position vis-a-vis any new CSA cases is that a father may
automatically challenge paternity.....pays for the test if he is found to be
the father, doesn't pay if he wasn't....and that, then, is the end of the
matter.
And if the mother refuses to allow testing to take place, that is considered
sufficient to end her claim against the alleged father....and vice-versa:
refusal to take a test is considered sufficient to have a guy declared
liable.
>
> > Hope that helps, fascist prick.
>
> My! Does your ass always use such language when it's the
> one doing the talking?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:05:46 GMT
Ed Allen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >how to do it, and when I tell that I often use a text-only browser
> >(Lynx), they ask me if something similar is available for Windows.
>
> Go straight for the original:
>
> Linkname: Lynx Browser for Win32
> URL: http://home4.pacific.net.sg/~kennethkwok/lynx/index.html
>
> --
> Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
Thank you for the link.
--
Giuliano Colla
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 02:07:13 +0200
"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>> Consider this code:
> >>> [...]
> >>>> How do I implement this system is irrelevent.
> >>> Then how is it that you have written code to implement it?
> >>
> >>He hasn't. He's written the API for it. It's definitely not
> >>implemented.
> >
> > Well, it looked like code to me, and he said "consider this code:".
> > What does that say to you?
>
> That you don't know anything about programming. A declaration
> is not an implementation, just a formal definition of the
> class. It tells you the name, the class(es) it's derived
> from, and the members of the class (variables and methods).
> It is certainly possible to have many implemenations of
> such a declaration.
Check the qoute just below, I *told* him what this is, and a couple of way I
could implement this with.
> >>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary
tree,
> >>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using
this
> >>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
> >>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application
is
> >>> not working as expected. Right?
> >>
> >>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
> >>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
> >>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
> >>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
> >>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
> >>performance requirements than anything else.)
> >
> > In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
> > about a function than the API documentation itself can provide. This is
> > not a fact which magically goes away because you wish really hard.
I can't think of a single case off handly.
What you need to know about an API, or any function, for that matter, is:
A> It's name & parameters.
B> What it does.
That is true for any programming languages that I've used.
*How* it does it is totally irrelevent.
Consider this code:
void printFunc(const char const * printThis){
cout<<printThis<<endl;
}
void printFunc(const char const * printThis){
printf("%s\n",printThis);
}
Both functions print a null terminated character array to stdout, and a line
break;
I could implement the function in assembler, and you wouldn't need to know
about it.
This is an simplified example but it should clear the message.
BTW, can you tell me what language each function is written in?
> > Still, in the real world, nobody writes a program which requires a
> > library which doesn't yet exist. The idea is ludicrous.
T. Max, you really need to get out more.
Ada, frex, can *compile* declarations, and people use this to code against
the declaration.
To take a simple case, two people who code in C a dog-emulator.
Here is their .h file
#ifndef dog_h
#define dog_h
#include "dog_struct.h"
typedef struct dog dog;
void proccessCommand(dog, const char const *); //proccess the command
void bark(dog);
void rollOver(dog);
bool isHungry(dog)
#endif
Now, person A will implement proccessCommand which process a character
array, and then call bark, rollOver, or isHungry (I did to much OO lately, C
is not the place to try this, but it's too late for me to think clearly,
sorry)
Person B will implement bark, rollOver & isHungry.
A doesn't need to know anything more about B's functions, nor does he have
to wait for them to be implemented so he can write his own function.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
