Linux-Advocacy Digest #357, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux Users...Why? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Chad Everett)
Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux and the War against M$ (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chad Everett)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chad Everett)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chad Everett)
Re: women who pick criminals for mates are undesirable mates (Steve Chaney)
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... (Brent R)
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (Chad Everett)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chad Everett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:11:47 GMT
On 09 May 2001 06:51:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>On Wed, 09 May 2001 03:53:37 GMT, Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It has never ceased to astound me that people would do away with their
>> favorite apps just for a moderate increase in OS quality. That's one
>> thing I've never really understood about this movement I guess.
>
>I can inderstand why some may do that, but I actually switched from
>Windows to Linux *because* of the Linux apps that were available.
Which is also why many people stay with Windows.
>To get the same things under Windows, I would have needed to spend
>$10,000 plus.
You do circuit board layouts or something of that nature I believe?
That more than likely means you have a need for highly vertical
applications like AutoCad etc, which are also extremely expensive.
This is quite similar to my situation as well with the DAW programs
and plugins. Programmers are in a similar situation as well and in
those cases as well as no per license cost Linux becomes a viable
option. As long as the person can do their work and share their work
with others running different platforms it makes economic sense to go
with the less expensive solution.
It all boils down to applications.
Flatfish
>>
>> To me, I like Linux but Windows has so many great apps that I cannot do
>> without it.
>>
>
>> --
>> - Brent
>>
>> http://rotten168.home.att.net
>
>
>--
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 07:37:45 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 10:35:31 +0200, robert bronsing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> robert bronsing wrote:
>> >
>> > The majority of AIDS patients and HIV positive people in the world are
>> > heterosexuals.
>>
>> Then how come, if someone asks "what the hell did you do to get this
>> deadly, but very UN-contagious disease", they are accused of being
>> anti-homosexual?
>
>Well, that's because the great united states of america started by
>calling AIDS 'Gay Cancer' (if you remember the eigthies, and how mr
>Reagan was so open about this disease).
>The reason is that the first AIDS patients in America were San Fransisco
>gays. It got this air of homosexuality about it and conservatives (you
>may know them) made it into a 'gay disease'.
It didn't help that at the time AIDS was starting in San Francisco, gays
were having rampant, open sex orgies with completely random strangers in
public "bath houses". They'd all of been dropping dead of every VD
known to man if they're hadn't been treatment for most of them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:15:29 GMT
On 09 May 2001 01:42:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>This is no different to how I make money from Linux.
>
>IBM actually have to make a physical product (hardware),
>to make money, they can't sell Linux for any more than
>the cost of the media.
>
>--
>Kind Regards
>Terry
What if they released their own distribution like Redhat or SuSE does,
can they charge whatever they want for it?
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 07:41:18 -0500
On Wed, 9 May 2001 08:46:33 +0100, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ralsina@my-
>deja.com says...
>> >... what else do you need?
>>
>> How do I set a per-host route on windows? (consumer version ;-)
>> Mind you, I *can* configure that from a GUI on Linux, but I just
>> can't find it in this windows control panel thingie.
>
>Ah, I see what you mean. You want something beyond the simple stuff
>present in Windows.
>
Yeah, Peter. He wants to do the same sort of thing on Windows that
you've been doing on Linux with that manual setup of yours.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 01:29:15 +1200
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> A great deal of you don't remember this as you weren't
> alive during the 80's, at least not consious, and you never
> knew a life without Windows.
>
> Windows got it start into business by attacking small business.
>
> Linux is going the same thing.
>
> From my consensus in my own town, 50% of the small business's,
> that being a business with under 100 employee's are using Linux
> now.
>
> Surprisingly, most of these business's have established REDHAT
> Linux ONLY policies and don't have Novel, other UNIX, or even
> Windows in their offices anymore.
>
> They are LINUX ONLY shops.
>
> There other business's in this catagory just replaced their
> back office servers with REDHAT servers and left the desktops
> as Windows for the most part.
>
> Linux is taking the exact same path that Microsoft did to achieve
> power. They conquer the small businesses first then work on
> the larger ones.
>
> In the larger shops, I don't know of any companies as of now
> which don't have at least one LINUX server of some kind.
>
> The Military is starting to buy REDHAT equipped PC's in serious
> quantities now.
>
> The Governments are dabbling in Linux still here. There about
> like the large shops.
>
> Linux is very clearly feeding on replacing Microsoft equipped
> machines. That seems to be what's it doing 80% of the time
> right now. There's no NOVEL or other UNIX left hardly anywhere.
>
> In the last year of deploymnet, I have heard of NO LINUX retractions
> in business. Once Linux get's started in a business it seems to stay
> and even grow.
>
> I expect the next 2 years to provide Microsoft with SERIOUS financial
> damage from loss of market share.
>
> In the same respect, I expect REDHAT stock to start to climb starting
> now for the next 2 years at least.
>
> Microsoft is getting their first taste of an ass whoopin right now!
>
Don't you love it when the market is working properly, and there is a
level playing field. Its about time Microsoft had some competition.
As for Microsoft, up until around 1994, I didn't know who they were, I
was happily using my Amiga 500 with Workbench 1.3.2, stable apps, great
games, and cool audio capabilities. Back in the Amiga world, releasing
a buggy app would be unheard of, shocking, terrible, ruin the name of a
software company, and now we have Microsoft who are more than willing to
flaunt the problems with their OS, and yet no one says anything? people
keeping living in their naive little existance thinking that computers
are unreliable, when in hinesight, had they a little knowledge, they
would actually be blaming Windows for their wowes. As for the Mac
crowd, at least Steve Jobs can admit that MacOS (pre X) is unstable, and
they have actually addressed these problems, aka MacOS X. When is
Microsoft going to do the same?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 08:01:32 -0500
On Wed, 9 May 2001 08:49:49 +0100, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>
>> And hard things possible.
>
>And hard things even harder.
>
And desirable things doable out-of-the-box.
Linux allows my private system to act as a proxy web server, ssh login
server, mail server, newsserver, etc., all accessed via ssh tunneling
from my work system through the only port not blocked and/or heavily
filtered and monitored. Linux also allows me to use my private linux
system to act as a NAT and firewall box to other systems on my private
LAN. I can direct all my GUI displays to forward through ssh to my work
system, all through an encrypted channel. I can browse the web from
work using my private linux system as a proxy web server with all web
traffic between the internet and my work system encrypted and going
over the ssh port. I can login via ssh to my private system from work
and send and receive mail, read and post to USENET, ftp to anywhere on
the internet, edit files, run GUI apps, etc. etc.
This is all done with software that comes out-of-the-box on my linux
distro. This is all IMPOSSIBLE on Windows without purchasing a LOT
of extra software after you've installed Windows 2000, or Windows ME,
or Windows 98, or Windows 98 SE, or Windows NT 4, ......or even
the beta version of Windows XP and some of it is just not on Windows
at all.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the War against M$
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 01:40:10 +1200
"Mad.Scientist" wrote:
>
> http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/9509.html
Just read a couple of posts. In regards to china, grab a piece of
software from Microsoft, say, Office 2000, which costs around $US500,
which is around 10,000 Yuan. Jane or John Tao being paid at $4 an hour,
it will take them years to save up for it, compare that to Linux which
they can pick up for around $2 (the cost of the CD). Mind you, the
chinese have always been very wise people, such as sticking with UNIX,
not giving into all this pro-democracy crap and flower-power groups.
China, give ya self a pat on the back.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 08:03:50 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 00:03:21 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:59
>> > [...]
>> > >Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did everything he
>> > >says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a minute.
>> >
>> > The NSA? Sure, 'less than a minute' is accurate, but 'a few
>> > milliseconds' is more precise.
>>
>> Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data. I'll
>> give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and the keys
>> value is 1.
>>
What is it going to take to make you understand that you're not using
a 1-bit key? You're key also includes a translation table.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 08:08:18 -0500
On Wed, 9 May 2001 05:03:48 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:59
>> > > [...]
>> > > >Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did everything
>he
>> > > >says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a minute.
>> > >
>> > > The NSA? Sure, 'less than a minute' is accurate, but 'a few
>> > > milliseconds' is more precise.
>> >
>> > Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data.
>I'll
>> > give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and the
>keys
>> > value is 1.
>> >
>> > The encoded data is (just the one line, not including carriage return):
>> >
>> > 2jhGjyD<qYwDgilj0sohkVuAy.
>> >
>> > Hell, I'll even give you hints when you need them. Here's the first,
>it's
>> > plain text words, but the values are not in ASCII.
>> >
>> > So, show me how simple it is to crack. Hell, after a week, I'll even
>tell
>> > you what the clear text is, and let's see if you can figure out a way to
>> > recreate a second encoded text that is encoded using the exact same
>> > algorithm. I'll bet you can't.
>>
>> Who said "WE" had the equipment?? But I'll bet that NSA has already
>> read this and has deciphered it. Doubt that they'll respond to it tho.
>> I've seen them decipher messages out of a continuous data stream. There
>> was no beginning of the message and no apparent end of the message. But
>> they did it anyway. One of the Doctors could actually look at the data
>> encrypted stream and could see where the message started and ended. I
>> couldn't see if my life depended on it.
>
>Yeah, right. Now you expect us to believe that you have watched NSA
>researchers cracking mysterious "continuous data streams". Had you actually
>seen this, you wouldn't be able to talk about it.
>
I think Greycloud used to do some with either for or with the NSA, but I also
believe his understanding about what the NSA can do against modern encryption
technologies is out-of-date.
A better test of your worthless encryption scheme would be to distribute your
key: (the index and the translation table) to another party and use it to
communicate with that party and allow us to observe the channel between you
and this other party.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 08:09:42 -0500
On Wed, 9 May 2001 11:44:00 +0100, JamesW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <dB3K6.374$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data. I'll
>> give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and the keys
>> value is 1.
>>
>> The encoded data is (just the one line, not including carriage return):
>>
>> 2jhGjyD<qYwDgilj0sohkVuAy.
>>
>> Hell, I'll even give you hints when you need them. Here's the first, it's
>> plain text words, but the values are not in ASCII.
>>
>> So, show me how simple it is to crack. Hell, after a week, I'll even tell
>> you what the clear text is, and let's see if you can figure out a way to
>> recreate a second encoded text that is encoded using the exact same
>> algorithm. I'll bet you can't.
>
>From earlier posts by Erik I suspect his definition of a 1 bit key is a
>flag to encrypt using some other method or a line in a file containing
>random characters that are munged somehow with the plain text. Of course
>this is not an encryption key but a pointer to the true encryption
>method.
>
>Erik was wrong with his original security by obfuscation claim. Adding
>more and more layers of complexity in no way guarantees additional
>security if the underlying key is weak - and a one bit key is certainly
>weak. Maybe Erik thinks that ROT13 applied twice is twice as hard to
>decrypt?
Bingo. I've just been trying to get him to understand he's not really
using a 1-bit key, or a 4-bit key, etc. etc. but that the translation
table is the key.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: women who pick criminals for mates are undesirable mates
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:47:03 GMT
On Fri, 04 May 2001 14:03:52 -0700, Ich bin Americaner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 May 2001 04:24:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 May 2001 02:32:14 GMT, "Deborah Terreson"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nomen Nescio
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> who is more likely to be a total failure with women?:
>>>>
>>>> a. a drug dealer
>>>> b. a dumb jock
>>>> c. a jerk
>>>> d. a criminal
>>>> e. a computer nerd
>>>
>>>
>>>Damn, that's cold!
>>
>>Any woman who picks a criminal over a nerd is definitely a suicidal
>>headcase that should not be swimming in the gene pool. The rest are pretty
>>much borderline headcases but a woman who picks d) is undisputably the one
>>to avoid having kids with
>>
>>or even close relations, for that matter.
>
>Kinda brings meaning to the ol' ball and chain.
They're all comedians, I tell ya!
-- Steve
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:49:23 GMT
"~¿~" wrote:
>
> > > Okay, I was a little bored last night, so I thought I'd do a little
> > > investigative work to see if I could discover who flatfish really is.
> > > At this point, I'm about 90% certain I know his real identity. Here's
> > > the trail I followed...
>
> OK. A statement and a suggestion.
>
> Statement: --Who gives a shit?
>
> Suggestion: --Get out more and build a real life.
>
> Really. This is not meant as a putdown. Your post is depressing to say the
> least.
No... I agree, I didn't make the original post though. I couldn't care
less either.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 08:15:34 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 10:07:24 GMT, Brian Craft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <9daq5c$9bs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chaparral"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We can all say what we want about how Windows sucks and that Linux is
>> the end-all-be-all, but after trying almost every Linux version to date,
>> the bottom line folks is that Mr Gates has made operating a home
>> computer easy enough for my great uncle to run. The Penguin still
>> doesnt come close!
>>
>> What Linux is VERY good at is the handling of servers... this is stuff
>> that you are expected to fiddle with and fine tune. Home users don't
>> want to fart around all day trying to figure out what to click and then
>> having barely predictable responses.
>>
>> So, Linux sucks hard for the home user but beats the hell out of
>> WinBlows on the server farm... especially when you can tell a client
>> that full-blown server software will only cost him $75 compared to $2000
>> plus for 2000Server!
>>
>> Microsoft will rule the home front for many years I think, but their
>> exorbitant pricing and draconian licensing policies will soon cause the
>> server market to dry up.
>>
>> Im done now.
>>
>>
>
>Just by the way you wrote this posting, I'd have to say you don't have
>much experience with Linux. Just take a look at Mandrake 8, RedHat 7.1,
>SuSe 7.1, and you will see distributions that are able to function very
>well as a desktop machine. Myself and many other people are
>"Window-less" and we function very well.
>I would challenge you to get Mandrake 8 and stay away from Windoze and
>after a few months see how happy you can be.
>
I used to run both a Windows 2K box and a linux box. Windows 2K was pretty
much for my wife who needed to run Excel, Access, and Word. I have since
move my Windows 2000 over to my linux box and it runs under Vmware.
I haven't turned on my Windows 2000 box for over a month, my wife is happy,
I am happy. My linux box acts as a server for me to access from work
via an encrypted channel and I can use it to browse the web, read and post
news, send and receive mail, run GUI apps, etc. all via an ecrypted channel
from work through the only port that's not blocked or filtered at my work's
gateway.
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 18:05:19 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> >> No in the number of extra steps you need to do to make it work.
> >>
> >
> > That is - excusez le mot - bull. The important thing to look at is if
> > the user has a "clear path" through the steps, i.e.: are they logical
> > (*), do they require unnatural bending of the limbs, does the same kind
> > of action always have the same kind of result, and more of that
> > ergonomic stuff. The number of steps to do something features pretty low
> > on the list.
>
> Which is precisely my point. With Word you start Word, you create your
> letter, you print it. With LyX you have some extra steps, but do
> essentially the same thing.
>
Again: this does not matter. You claimed Word was easier to use than LyX
_because_ it - allegedly - takes less steps to do the same thing
(assuming for the moment that Word and LyX indeed do the same thing).
The word "easier" to me implies a better ergonomic design but, as I am
trying to state, the number of steps to do something features pretty low
on the ergonomic scale.
> > (*) a rather famous example of how _not_ to do things is to make a user
> > click a button marked "start" to actually stop the machine.
>
> Say "Start shutdown". Does that sound illogical?
>
... except that it does not say "Start shutdown"; the button says
"Start", and hidden somewhere under it is the option "Shutdown". It is a
blooming pixmap; if Microsoft were that interested in ergonomy, they
could at least have changed it to a Windows logo, or even an apple, for
all I care.
To me, this "start" button proves two things:
1. Microsoft either has no idea of, or is not interested in ergonomic
improvement of its products (if they can't do it right with their
operating systems, why would we expect them to get it right with the
application software?)
2. Microsoft only cares about brand recognition, and not improvement of
their products (they obvioulsy made a mistake with their first release
of Windows 95, but rather than admit that and correct their mistake,
they choose to ignore the issue).
But really, that's all fine by me; I don't use Windows at all. What
baffles me is that apparently oodles of at least partially intelligent
computer users choose to ignore these signs and continue to bet the
future of their businesses on second-rate products. Heck, more power to
me, I guess...
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[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: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:55:42 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Let's assume that you are correct..that most men are bisexual.
>
>Please explain then, why all of these supposedly bi-sexual men at the
>typical bar or night club aren't hitting on each other after striking
>out with the women?
There's any number of reasons, OBVIOUSLY, ranging from the social
stigma of revealing these desires, to fear of disease, to just not
wanting it too much at all. Any NUMBER of reasons that are more
plausible than your assertion that most people have 0 (zero) capacity
for bisexual feelings.
>You are making an assertion. Natural consequences of that assumption
>contradict reality. Thererefore, your assertion is wrong.
Your logic is false.
>Get a grip, and stop being a moron.
Use your head. Read John W. Steven's posts. They are much more
logical than your hand waving, empty, and clearly false, theories.
Why do you think homosexuality hasn't died out? How do those
"homosexuals" keep breeding? This is not difficult to figure out!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 08:21:33 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 11:44:45 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Sheldon wrote:
>>
>> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > You might as well complain about the inadequate amount of storage
>> > capacity on a hard drive cause the last time you used one was
>> > 1996. Notice where 1996 is in the following:
>> >
>> > Linux kernel history:
>> > ---------------------
>> > Pre-1.0: 1991 - 1994
>> > version 1.x.xx: 1994 - 1996*
>> > version 2.0.xx - 2.1.xx: 1996 - 1999
>> > version 2.2.xx: 1999 - present
>> > version 2.4.0 - January 4, 2001
>> > version 2.4.1 - January 29, 2001
>> > version 2.4.2 - February 21, 2001
>> > version 2.4.3 - March 29, 2001
>> > version 2.4.4 - April 27, 2001
>>
>> Yes, and notice how little has really changed... Version numbers don't tell
>> the whole story.
>
>Guys, Steve here is obviously trolling.
>
..and his statement proves how completely ignorant of Linux he is. If
he thinks very little has changed from kernel version 1.x to 2.4.4, he
is an utter moron.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
