Linux-Advocacy Digest #821, Volume #34 Mon, 28 May 01 04:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Perry
Pip)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Mike")
Re: The nature of competition (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Michael Vester)
Re: Linux disgusts me (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 28 May 2001 06:08:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 27 May 2001 23:11:03 -0500,
Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > Nope, but you can download SSH. Not many people use it for this, so
>> > Linux can be the king of the not-so-used features, I guess.
>>
>> not-so-used?!? SSH is used by huge numbers of people everyday!
>
> because they don't use/have terminal services
Terminal services doesn't provide even half the functionality of SSH.
>or RPC
RPC was around in Unix before Windows even existed (ie. before you
were born). It's not a substitute for SSH. Stop pretending you know
something about computers.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:07:56 +0800
As much as I hate to interrupt the bickering, I feel any irresistable urge
to join in.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >> >Device drivers on Linux are written in C? Device drivers on
>> >> >Windows are written in C++ and make use of COM. Which one is more
>> >> >technologically advanced?
[above quote added from an earlier article]
I am certainly no expert on this, but I don't see why you would have to
use a particular language to write device drivers. The only constraint I
can see is the interface between the OS and your custom drivers. You may
need a stub to support the OS's API, but really. I also doubt all Windows
device drivers are written in C++, but I'll take your word for it.
>> >C++ (when used correctly) will produce code that is more advanced than
>> >C, since it uses objects etc. Not that you can't do objects in C, it's
>> >just harder.
"When used correctly" -- this implies that everybody who writes a device
driver will use C++ correctly. Naturally we can assume that MS will take
the time to use it correctly, for the benefit of the future of all
mankind. This is why their products are delayed by several years - it
takes time to do it right. Of course, how many drivers do you use that
actually come from that wonderful, benign entity?
> Yet Linux supports less hardware than Windows does. Linux only recently
> supported USB devices and struggles with other devices. How is Linux
> more technologically advanced when Windows does more and has more
> hardware support?
Have you not yet grasped the concept of a "monopoly"? Virtually all
hardware Windows supports is provided by THIRD PARTY software (i.e.
drivers from the hardware manufacturer) They don't provide drivers for
other operating systems because they don't feel it's worth their time,
since everybody uses Windows, anyway. It is not the linux community's
fault that so many manufacturers refuse to a) release drivers, or b)
release sufficient specs for their hardware that other people can make
drivers. Of course, many companies do. Everything on my system was
supported out-of-the-box by RedHat 7.1 - including my optical USB mouse (a
Microsoft one. at that), right down to the temperature sensors on my CPU.
As for Windows "doing more" I'm not sure what you mean here. Unless you're
referring to the fact it reboots far more often (sometimes even without me
having to ask it to! The supreme efficiency is almost supernatural.)
> You, no doubt, will say it is because of monopolistic activity that is
> forcing hardware manufactures to do Microsoft bidding. I won't dispute
> that, but would you agree that hardware manufactures do Windows first
> simply because it is perceived (rightly or wrong) as more popular?
Well, yes. I wish I'd really read this before I typed all that above,
given that you just shot down your own argument. You argue that Windows is
more advanced with the evidence being that it is has Better Hardware
Support; than you go and admit that this BHS is a direct result of
monopolistic activity.
> [stuff about peer reviews snipped]
>>> Please make you statement comprehensible, and I will be glad to
>>> discuss it. The statement "a Linux upgrade rarely works and is not
>>> recommended" makes no sense, as it is false.
>>
>> >I read that statement here on COLA. I tried it myself. I upgraded
>> >Mandrake 7.1 to 7.2. My desktop suffered as a result.
>
> [petty bickering snipped]
Mandrake != Linux. You do somewhat have a point here in my experience,
however. RedHat 6.2 to 7.0 broke in various stupid ways. 7.0 to 7.1 seems
to have been painless. Windows upgrades are often quite painless, but then
again, it's also upgrading much less than a typical linux system - large
parts of which are nothing to do with the vendor.
>> >The monopoly bit is not in question. I question your use of
>> >"crapware".
>> How can a monopolist know when it has made a stupid engineering choice.
>> Do their sales go down? If you think this is the case, then you are
>> bringing the monopoly big back into question. Get it?
> I still question your use of "crapware" - yet you answered me about
> monopoly?
Max could probably explain more eloquently than I, but I'll give it a
shot:
"Crap" is a slang term that literally refers to faeces, but is often
employed in a more general sense to mean "not good," or indeed, "quite
bad." "Ware" is derived from the term "software," which refers to the
programs that run on your computer. Together, the general meaning is "bad
software," characterised by bloated mis-features that most people don't
want or use anyway, seemingly-random behaviour, clumsy interfaces which
care more about being aesthetically pleasing than productive, and so
forth.
>> >> >I don't rate gcc [as] a leading edge development tool unless it has
>> >> >an IDE and the whole kit and kaboodle.
>> >> I don't care.
>> >I see. So, wearing skins and using clubs, you'd say "I don't care" to
>> >civilisation.
>> I have cotton and polyester, and a shotgun. What the hell are you
>> talking about?
Damn, nicely put.
> 8)
> I was using an analogy.
> Think of the IDE as civilisation.
Okay, I'll think of the IDE as civilisation. Think of the compiler [gcc]
as the people in the civilisation. Understand? I haven't eaten yet, so
I'll use another analogy - think of the IDE as icing on the cake. The
compiler is the cake. The cake does not need icing to be useful, and in
fact, the icing may make you sick if it's particularly sugar-laden and you
haven't eaten yet.
Anyway, the point I really want to make here is that Visual C++ (or your
favourite civilisation of choice, but we'll stick with Microsoft
Civilisation [oo, Sid Meir would be pissed]) is a bloated, memory- [and
disc space-] hogging piece of crapware. It employs all sorts of completely
non-standard, let's-make-it-really-hard-to-port misfeatures, and is the
source of all that is Bad and Evil.
Everyone has their own favourite way to work. I appreciate that you prefer
to use an IDE - and I know that VC++ has some really nice features. My
preferences tend towards a gvim window to edit the source, a terminal to
build and run it, and XMMS playing the*Ataris.
Another point; you're comparing gcc to an IDE. Why are you doing this?
What voice in your head is causing you to perform such bizarre acts of
randomness? IDE stands for Integrated Development Environment, and it
integrates other tools - the compiler, the debugger, the build system
(e.g. make) and so forth. The real icing on the cake here, however, is
that because of the way UNIX apps generally work, building an IDE around
gcc, make, and gdb would be essentially trivial. Doubtless several exist,
and are quite possibly every bit as good as VC.
Now I deeply apologise for making you read this long-winded, meandering
pile of BHS [brown horse sh*t]. If you promise to stop comparing apples
and oranges, I promise I won't do it again.
>> >I've used C compilers on the command line, and I've used them with
>> >various IDE's etc. You become more productive with the latter tools.
>> >Still, there are always those who swear by the old way of doing
>> >things...
>> Because they are more productive, having learned how to be efficient to
>> a degree that you are unable to match, even after mastering your IDE.
>> Get it?
> I disagree. A good example is programming a GUI using just the plain
> API. It's much harder that way. Using a class library makes it a lot
> easier, even more so if there's an IDE and object browser tied into it.
Do what works for you, but don't go calling people inefficient because
they prefer to do things another way. Some people don't like having
excessive baggage tying up system resources when they're doing stuff.
>> >Modern kernels do not require a rebuild.
>> I don't think the term 'modern kernels' makes any sense, honestly.
>> Kernel rebuilds are a unixism, yes. The OS that supports flexibility
>> more than anything else.
> Try OpenVMS. It came after UNIX.
>
>> >OpenVMS went for dynamically loadable modules, just like Windows does.
>> OpenVMS doesn't seem to be around much anymore.
> Sadly true.
>
>> >Linux has this feature - but it still has the good old kernel rebuild.
>> >That's progress for you.
>> Indeed. That is progress.
> Progress is moving onto better things. Hanging onto the past is not
> progress.
You are arguing that it's better to NOT be able to rebuild the kernel if
you so desire? Again, why are you doing this? Besides, kernel rebuilds are
very rarely mandatory. Case in point - I haven't rebuilt my kernel. It's
the stock i686-optimised kernel from RedHat 7.1. Everything works; and I
haven't rebooted for over 8 days, despite installing several programs ;-)
--
Mike.
Remove "-spam" to mail me.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:04:10 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> TiVo doesn't do video editing, it only does video capture/playback
>>> to/from mpeg. While, that's not a simple task by any measure,
>>> TiVo isn't doing this through X, it's doing it to a dedicated
>>> framebuffer.
>> What, you mean displaying a video stream? I agree X isn't a good
>> choice for this, since you simply do not nead any of its features.
> Yes, you do need X's features. You need windowing, the ability to drag
> clips around on a screen, select sections of a timeline, etc...
Well, I haven't actually seen a TiVo box, so I wouldn't know.
Apparently, I lack the imagination to see why dragging video clips
around is useful in a TV.
But, yeah, if you want a full-blown remote-capable GUI, then X
presents a useful set of features, even for a TV.
>> Why not? Certainly my aging computer can display video streams using
>> only software YUV decoding, with a modern card supporting this in
>> hardware, I don't perceive any problem.
> And you can display full speed 720x480 in a window without dropped
> frames?
Yes? Obviously, I don't know whether it drops frames or not, but it's
smooth as far as I can tell.
Is this a big deal? The YUV stream isn't a lot of data (it's a TV),
and I assume the video card does the final scaling and smoothing.
(Of course, with a decent card and X server, you could just feed it the
YUV stream through the Xv extension.)
> and it can do two simultaneously?
I've no idea, since I only have one input. I can try to play back a
captured stream, perhaps, but that would of course add overhead in
decoding and/or disk accesses -- probably negligible, but
nevertheless. I'll give it a try if you like.
> In XFree86?
Yes.
> Without latency?
How would I measure latency? I'd guess there's probably a buffer of a
frame or two.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:37:31 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Vincent Maycock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
> > >Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >snip
> > >>> One of the lovely things is that in many things there seem to be two
> > >>> enirely different explanations for the same thing that are both correct.
> > >>
> > >>Duality only kicks in at short wavelengths.
> > >>
> > >>At least, i've never heard anybody discuss photons which correspond
> > >>to radios in the 300m wavelength region.
> > >
> > >No, EM radiation of all wavelengths is composed of photons. It is true that
> > >people tend to think of high-energy photons (like gamma "particles") as
> > >particles, though, more so than radio photons. It's just a question of
> > >context, though. When you're dealing with gamma rays or x-rays, you're more
> > >likely to be dealing with situations where the wavelike characteristics of
> > >the photon are not as noticeable.
> >
> > The way I see the context, people do believe that the universe is only
> > relative at relativistic speeds, and only uncertain at quantum
>
> Actually, the relativistic terms in the equations approach zero very
> rapidly as speed decreases.
>
> Primarily, because they have the form [whatever stuff]/[c-v]
>
= 1/(1 - (v*2/c*2)) * 0.5
> when v gets close to c, the denominator gets very small, and thus,
> this term always gets VERY BIG when near C.
>
Correct
> > distances, and this is what causes all of this confusion about the
> > nature of things.
> >
The speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. A non-Newtonian
way of looking at the universe.
> > --
> > T. Max Devlin
> > *** The best way to convince another is
> > to state your case moderately and
> > accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:10:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> According to who? You? Guffaw.
> >
> >ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>
> Not too original, are you, Pete?
That's rich coming from you, Mr Bwa-ha-ha-ha/Guffaw.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:28:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, rapacity-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> >> >Device drivers on Linux are written in C? Device drivers on
> >> >> >Windows are written in C++ and make use of COM. Which one is more
> >> >> >technologically advanced?
>
> [above quote added from an earlier article]
>
> I am certainly no expert on this, but I don't see why you would have to
> use a particular language to write device drivers. The only constraint I
> can see is the interface between the OS and your custom drivers. You may
> need a stub to support the OS's API, but really. I also doubt all Windows
> device drivers are written in C++, but I'll take your word for it.
Oops! There's no requirement to write device drivers in C++ on Windows.
It's certainly true of WDM drivers but not so true of DRV/VXD ones.
> >> >C++ (when used correctly) will produce code that is more advanced than
> >> >C, since it uses objects etc. Not that you can't do objects in C, it's
> >> >just harder.
>
> "When used correctly" -- this implies that everybody who writes a device
> driver will use C++ correctly. Naturally we can assume that MS will take
> the time to use it correctly, for the benefit of the future of all
> mankind. This is why their products are delayed by several years - it
> takes time to do it right. Of course, how many drivers do you use that
> actually come from that wonderful, benign entity?
"When used correctly" implies not using C++ as a glorified C enhancement.
Our device drivers are based on sample code from Microsoft.
> > Yet Linux supports less hardware than Windows does. Linux only recently
> > supported USB devices and struggles with other devices. How is Linux
> > more technologically advanced when Windows does more and has more
> > hardware support?
>
> Have you not yet grasped the concept of a "monopoly"? Virtually all
> hardware Windows supports is provided by THIRD PARTY software (i.e.
> drivers from the hardware manufacturer) They don't provide drivers for
> other operating systems because they don't feel it's worth their time,
> since everybody uses Windows, anyway. It is not the linux community's
> fault that so many manufacturers refuse to a) release drivers, or b)
> release sufficient specs for their hardware that other people can make
> drivers. Of course, many companies do. Everything on my system was
> supported out-of-the-box by RedHat 7.1 - including my optical USB mouse (a
> Microsoft one. at that), right down to the temperature sensors on my CPU.
My point (later on) is that because Windows is more popular, it gets the
device drivers, monopoly or not.
> As for Windows "doing more" I'm not sure what you mean here. Unless you're
> referring to the fact it reboots far more often (sometimes even without me
> having to ask it to! The supreme efficiency is almost supernatural.)
It has more device drivers therefore it can "do more".
> > You, no doubt, will say it is because of monopolistic activity that is
> > forcing hardware manufactures to do Microsoft bidding. I won't dispute
> > that, but would you agree that hardware manufactures do Windows first
> > simply because it is perceived (rightly or wrong) as more popular?
>
> Well, yes. I wish I'd really read this before I typed all that above,
> given that you just shot down your own argument. You argue that Windows is
> more advanced with the evidence being that it is has Better Hardware
> Support; than you go and admit that this BHS is a direct result of
> monopolistic activity.
Read it very carefully - I said Windows is more popular therefore it gets
the device drivers.
> Mandrake != Linux. You do somewhat have a point here in my experience,
> however. RedHat 6.2 to 7.0 broke in various stupid ways. 7.0 to 7.1 seems
> to have been painless. Windows upgrades are often quite painless, but then
> again, it's also upgrading much less than a typical linux system - large
> parts of which are nothing to do with the vendor.
I thought someone else would agree with me, and shoot down T.Max Devlin's
assertion in flames.
> > I still question your use of "crapware" - yet you answered me about
> > monopoly?
>
> Max could probably explain more eloquently than I, but I'll give it a
> shot:
The difference is that Max rarely explains anything and merely hides
behind a Bwa-ha-ha-ha or a guffaw. He quotes "moderation" but does
nothing more than hide.
> "Crap" is a slang term that literally refers to faeces, but is often
> employed in a more general sense to mean "not good," or indeed, "quite
> bad." "Ware" is derived from the term "software," which refers to the
> programs that run on your computer. Together, the general meaning is "bad
> software," characterised by bloated mis-features that most people don't
> want or use anyway, seemingly-random behaviour, clumsy interfaces which
> care more about being aesthetically pleasing than productive, and so
> forth.
Well, I already knew what "crap" is and what "ware" is. That part I can
ignore. The second part is at least a reason why anyone might consider
Windows crapware. You have offered an explanation, something Max rarely
does.
You've quoted some aspects of Microsoft software that I am aware of and I
agree with you. However, not all Microsoft software is "crapware". COM at
its basics is a very elegant design - and it appears in Java too, at
least in the form of interfaces.
> > 8)
> > I was using an analogy.
> > Think of the IDE as civilisation.
>
> Okay, I'll think of the IDE as civilisation. Think of the compiler [gcc]
> as the people in the civilisation. Understand? I haven't eaten yet, so
> I'll use another analogy - think of the IDE as icing on the cake. The
> compiler is the cake. The cake does not need icing to be useful, and in
> fact, the icing may make you sick if it's particularly sugar-laden and you
> haven't eaten yet.
I'd say "icing on the cake" is a bad analagy in this case.
Have you ever tried coding a GUI without a class library or an IDE? It
takes a _lot_ longer and is a very slow process. Sure, you can do it, but
why bother when there are IDE's and class libraries that make it much
easier to do. I'd harldy call an IDE in this case "icing on the cake" but
a necessity, if you want a job done quickly.
> Anyway, the point I really want to make here is that Visual C++ (or your
> favourite civilisation of choice, but we'll stick with Microsoft
> Civilisation [oo, Sid Meir would be pissed]) is a bloated, memory- [and
> disc space-] hogging piece of crapware. It employs all sorts of completely
> non-standard, let's-make-it-really-hard-to-port misfeatures, and is the
> source of all that is Bad and Evil.
And MFC (the class library) is not much better. However, I wasn't
thinking of VC++ and MFC, but Borland's Delphi.
> Everyone has their own favourite way to work. I appreciate that you prefer
> to use an IDE - and I know that VC++ has some really nice features. My
> preferences tend towards a gvim window to edit the source, a terminal to
> build and run it, and XMMS playing the*Ataris.
I prefer to use Kylix on Linux. It's the Delphi equivalent Borland
rewrote for Linux. It has a few problems which I'm sure they'll solve but
it's the most usable IDE/class library I've seen for GUI work.
> Another point; you're comparing gcc to an IDE. Why are you doing this?
> What voice in your head is causing you to perform such bizarre acts of
> randomness? IDE stands for Integrated Development Environment, and it
> integrates other tools - the compiler, the debugger, the build system
> (e.g. make) and so forth. The real icing on the cake here, however, is
> that because of the way UNIX apps generally work, building an IDE around
> gcc, make, and gdb would be essentially trivial. Doubtless several exist,
> and are quite possibly every bit as good as VC.
Someone made the point that gcc is technologically as good as an IDE. I
question this is the light of Delphi on Windows and Kylix on Linux.
> Now I deeply apologise for making you read this long-winded, meandering
> pile of BHS [brown horse sh*t]. If you promise to stop comparing apples
> and oranges, I promise I won't do it again.
Why apologise for something very interesting and thought provoking? It
makes a change from the sheer hot air that T.Max Devlin generates!
> > I disagree. A good example is programming a GUI using just the plain
> > API. It's much harder that way. Using a class library makes it a lot
> > easier, even more so if there's an IDE and object browser tied into it.
>
> Do what works for you, but don't go calling people inefficient because
> they prefer to do things another way. Some people don't like having
> excessive baggage tying up system resources when they're doing stuff.
Please go back and read what I've said about and IDE and classes. GUI's
are hard things to create - they get easier with an IDE and good classes.
> > Progress is moving onto better things. Hanging onto the past is not
> > progress.
>
> You are arguing that it's better to NOT be able to rebuild the kernel if
> you so desire? Again, why are you doing this? Besides, kernel rebuilds are
> very rarely mandatory. Case in point - I haven't rebuilt my kernel. It's
> the stock i686-optimised kernel from RedHat 7.1. Everything works; and I
> haven't rebooted for over 8 days, despite installing several programs ;-)
I'm arguing that kernel rebuilds are an old requirement that ought not to
be necessary on a well designed system. Interesting that only UNIXen have
clung this style of upgrade whilst everyone else has moved on.
--
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
