Linux-Misc Digest #168, Volume #20 Wed, 12 May 99 12:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux finally (Gerald Willmann)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522) (Marco
Anglesio)
Re: rpm and Data Typ 9 (Gerald Willmann)
WARNING: terminal is not fully functional ??? ("KS")
Re: making linux go away ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (Mike Coffin)
Re: Patching problems... (Paul Kimoto)
quicktime (Allan Adler)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522) (Richard
Kulisz)
Modem ("Paul")
Re: Erasing RW cdrom under Linux. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Bar Code Reader Software? (Allan Adler)
Re: Ken Thompson on Linux (Rob Fisher)
Re: What app Is a better Dialup alternative to pon/poff??? (Ray)
Re: Xfig can't fit!! (Kenny Zhu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gerald Willmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux finally
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 07:25:08 -0700
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Brad wrote:
> I made it. Finally got linux installed. Finally got X working and
> finally got on to the net. Here I am.
congratulations
[...]
> My problem is with Netscape. Stuff on the web looks fine when viewed
> with Netscape but Netscape itself looks like hell. There is NO colour in
> it at all. It's all grey with black writing and graphics. Not even a
> shade of grey in the image just under the menu bar. All black.
> Is this something I can fix or is this the way Netscape looks in Linux?
> I would find that hard to believe.
netscape doesn't seem to work well in 24 bpp color depth. Switch back to
16 or increase to 32 and all should be fine. You can do this by changing
the default color depth in your XF86Config file.
Gerald
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:44:48 GMT
On 12 May 1999 11:08:36 +0200, Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't know whether he does in Canada, I have successfully left a
>few.
And so have I. And we both benefit from the existence of a social welfare
system that makes sure that we do not starve without an employer/master. I
would think that Bakunin's work is still relevant despite the quibbling;
you're taking a 19th century writer and looking at him through a 20th
century lens in order to prove your point on technicalities.
marco
--
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Marco Anglesio | It's bringing us love! <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Get it! Break its legs! <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | (The Simpsons) <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: Gerald Willmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: rpm and Data Typ 9
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 07:38:49 -0700
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Folkert Meeuw wrote:
> Hi Dear Friendly Readers,
> what is Data Typ 9 and why is it not supported by rpm ?
are you running some old RH4? Upgrade to the latest rpm.rpm from the RH4.2
updates and all should be fine.
> MfG Folkert Meeuw
if you don't want to spell this out cut it short - especially in an
English speaking ng.
Gerald
------------------------------
From: "KS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: WARNING: terminal is not fully functional ???
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:38:41 -0500
When I use the command :
less index.html (i get the following error)
WARNING: terminal is not fully functional
index.html (press RETURN)
Somehow I have changed the terminal to VT100 or something like that. Can
someone give me a pointer?
Redhat 5.2 server It has ran fine for 6 months until I changed something.
Thanks
Kevin Stoops
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: making linux go away
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 04:28:15 GMT
install another Windows95/Dos system make work, because once I install
both windows95 and Linux, and then I reinstall Windows95, then LILO
didn't work any more until I reinstall Linux again.
Hope it works.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I did an install of Red Hat at one point, and now I just want it gone.
>
> Using FDISK to blow away the partitions though doesn't seem to do the
> trick. The LILO boot still comes up. If I disconnect the drive and put
> another one there even, then the machine just keeps asking me to
reboot
> over and over.
>
> How do I get rid of Linux in the boot sector (I guess that's where it
> is) once and for all?
>
> thanks,
> -mike
>
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Date: 11 May 1999 23:07:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Linux systems don't put anything in /usr/local. That is your space.
> Then they put it in /opt or where?
There is a document describing the standard somewhere, but basically
all config files live under /etc, system administration programs
live in /sbin and /usr/sbin, all other programs in /bin and /usr/bin
with the /usr/ version used unless the program is needed during booting.
>: If it comes with the distribution it doesn't go in /usr/local regardless
>: of anyone's concept of whether it is part of the base system or not.
>
> Ok, then where does it go, /opt, /usr, or someplace else?
/usr, generally.
>: (My take on this is that any program that knows how to call system()
>: or popen() includes all the others...).
>
> Er, huh?
In other words, anything can be a part of the base system.
> "system", that's the key word here. *System* re-install, not system
> + kitchen sink.
Why would you ever want to keep running some old apps on purpose when
the upgrade is available?
>: Everything on the CD/ftp site - the things you expect to overwrite with
>: updated versions when you do a complete reinstall.
>
> On most CD's/FTP sites that pretty much includes 99% of *all*
> software that you could install.
Yes, this is getting better all the time. A couple of years ago you
had to track bugs and revisions of your important apps and often
reinstall fixed versions several times between a system distribution
update. Now having to do that is rare - you can just slap in the
new distribution and have the latest of everthing in one step.
>: Why do you want to have to sort these things out from your own additions
>: and modifications when it is time for an update?
>
> I don't have to. That's what package databases are for.
How does that work? Do you have to separately select every new
addition as a distribution is updated?
>: With the Linux layout you can keep /home and /usr/local on different
>: partitions and simply clobber / and /usr with the new stuff,
>
> And this is different then any other system, how? Also, define "new
> stuff". Do you mean a new version of the system, or a new version
> of Gimp, Enlightenment, MySQL?
Whatever the distribution includes and I choose to install. In most
cases, I pick the [] Everything checkbox on RedHat. That includes
Gimp, Enlightenment and omits MySQL from your list above (but would
include PostgreSQL).
>: then put any config files worth keeping back in /etc.
>
> And config files for local apps aren't in /usr/local/etc why,
> exactly?
For one thing, I can diff -r the /etc directories of any pair of
machines and know every configuration difference between them.
This turns out to be extremely handy if you manage several machines
and occasionally need to turn one into the other's personality
including all the IP addresses, services, etc.
>: If you stick to a strictly controlled upgrade path (like only one *bsd
>: flavor) you may not care about this sort of thing, but if you want the
>: option of switching to a completely different distribution with a minimum
>: of trouble it works out nicely.
>
> You, I, and most sane people have no problem agreeing that the
> system has no business installing *system* components into
> /usr/local.
I don't expect any two people to agree on the meaning of 'system
component', though.
> It's non-system components into /usr simply because the
> install CDROM thought it would be nice to ship them for optional use
> that dosn't make sense.
It makes as much sense as trying to make 2 people agree on what is
optional and what isn't.
> I'm still looking for a single, reasonable reason why any system
> install/upgrade should ever be placing things it might *optionally*
> include like Gimp, Enlightenment, or MySQL into a place like /usr.
It either includes it or it doesn't. The only optional part is
whether you install it or not. If you do install it, it shouldn't
overwrite your local space.
> More over why an RPM, DEB, or <insert package system> wouldn't
> install to the same target prefix as the same app uses when the
> distribution installed it for you.
They do install in the same place if you get them from the same distribution.
> It then follows that since Doom shouldn't use a prefix of /usr and
> since the prefix used should be the same regardless of when it is
> installed (optionally durring system install off a CDROM or later
> from a down loaded package), then it should use a non-system prefix.
It depends on where you get them. If you get the version maintained as
part of the distribution it should not install in your local area. If
you pick up original source not associated with a distribution it becomes
yours to maintain and you probably want it kept in your local space.
> The two common ones are /usr/local and /opt. Take your pick, but
> installing Doom into /usr because it's "included in the distribution"
> is simply stupid.
No, mixing locally maintained programs with packaged programs is stupid
because you then have to track everything yourself. You can't just
erase everything from the distribution and drop in a new copy.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism
Date: 12 May 1999 08:37:06 -0700
Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The icon of libertarianism is Ayn Rand, a cruel, selfish bitch who
> hammered everyone around her in demonstration of "The Virtue of
> Selfishness" (the libertarian motto as well as the title of one of her
> books).
No, you are wrong. Ayn Rand is the icon of Objectivism, not
libertarianism. Objectivism is not the same is libertarianism. The
fact that they happen to agree on some issues doesn't make them the
same. And the libertarian motto is *not* "The Virtue of Selfishness."
-mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: Patching problems...
Date: 12 May 1999 01:26:38 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <S08_2.941$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Spud wrote:
> patch: **** malformed patch at line 6495: \ No newline at end of file
What is your version of "patch"? (Running "patch -v" should tell
you.) Reportedly older version may experience this problem. The
current released version is 2.5, but I prefer 2.5.3.
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Allan Adler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: quicktime
Date: 12 May 1999 12:02:17 -0400
Is there a way to watch quicktime movies under RedHat 5.1 Linux?
Allan Adler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522)
Date: 12 May 1999 13:17:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz) cites Bakunin:
>> The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the
>> means to do so?
>
>I don't know whether he does in Canada, I have successfully left a
>few.
What country is no? Because you see, Bakunin's remarks are still
relevant in the modern USA. Even in the highly paid sectors like
programming, Bakunin is still correct.
>> And if he does quit him, is it in order to lead a free
>> existence, in which he will have no master but himself?
>
>Perhaps not in mid-nineteenth century, but I know a few who have.
Not so in North America; all forms of business are highly monopolized.
>> No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He
>> is driven to it by the same hunger which forced him to sell
>> himself to the first employer.
>
>Or you could say he chooses to do so, because of the relative safety
>and security of getting a check every month.
Are you saying that starving *is* a choice?? Because the choice is
between #1 putting 12-14 hour days into your own business and still
having a 90% chance of starving, #2 finding a shitty job in a large
corporation, or #3 finding an even shittier job in a small business.
>> economic sense - broken up by momentarily brief interludes of
>> freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real
>> slavery.
>
>Yeah, sure. That really describes this worker's situation accurately.
It perfectly describes far too many US and Canadian workers. In fact,
the whole of Mikhail Bakunin's essay perfectly describes American (the
whole of North and South America) workers:
This slavery manifests itself daily in all kinds of ways. Apart
from the vexations and oppressive conditions of the contract which
turn the worker into a subordinate, a passive and obedient servant,
and the employer into a nearly absolute master - apart from all that,
it is well known that there is hardly an industrial enterprise wherein
the owner, impelled on the one hand by the two-fold instinct of an
unappeasable lust for profits and absolute power, and on the other
hand, profiting by the economic dependence of the worker, does not set
aside the terms stipulated in the contract and wring some additional
concessions in his own favor. Now he will demand more hours of work,
that is, over and above those stipulated in the contract; now he will
cut down wages on some pretext; now he will impose arbitrary fines, or
he will treat the workers harshly, rudely, and insolently.
But, one may say, in that case the worker can quit. Easier said
than done. At times the worker receives part of his wages in advance,
or his wife or children may be sick, or perhaps his work is poorly
paid throughout this particular industry. Other employers may be
paying even less than his own employer, and after quitting this job he
may not even be able to find another one. And to remain without a job
spells death for him and his family. In addition, there is an
understanding among all employers, and all of them resemble one
another. All are almost equally irritating, unjust, and harsh.
My father works as a computer programmer. He's had his wages arbitrarily
cut a couple of times. He's even been asked to make a multi-year commitment
to a company with new contracts every 6 months. IOW, they can fire him with
impunity but he's not supposed to be able to quit! That sure tells *me* who
has all the damned power!
Even if you have job security in Europe, Bakunin's remarks on the difference
between capitalists and workers are still very much relevant to you;
If, profiting by the powerful initiative afforded me by my
capital, I ask those hundred workers to fertilize that capital with
their labor, it is not because of my sympathy for their sufferings,
nor because of a spirit of justice, nor because of love for humanity.
The capitalists are by no means philanthropists; they would be ruined
if they practiced philanthropy. It is because I hope to draw from the
labor of the workers sufficient profit to be able to live comfortably,
even richly, while at the same time increasing my capital - and all
that without having to work myself. Of course I shall work too, but my
work will be of an altogether different kind and I will be remunerated
at a much higher rate than the workers. It will not be the work of
production but that of administration and exploitation.
But isn't administrative work also productive work? No doubt it
is, for lacking a good and an intelligent administration, manual labor
will not produce anything or it will produce very little and very
badly. But from the point of view of justice and the needs of
production itself, it is not at all necessary that this work should be
monopolized in my hands, nor, above all, that I should be compensated
at a rate so much higher than manual labor. The co-operative
associations already have proven that workers are quite capable of
administering industrial enterprises, that it can be done by workers
elected from their midst and who receive the same wage. Therefore if I
concentrate in my hands the administrative power, it is not because
the interests of production demand it, but in order to serve my own
ends, the ends of exploitation. As the absolute boss of my
establishment I get for my labor ten or twenty times more than my
workers get for theirs, and this is true despite the fact that my
labor is incomparably less painful than theirs.
But the capitalist, the business owner, runs risks, they say,
while the worker risks nothing. This is not true, because when seen
from his side, all the disadvantages are on the part of the worker.
The business owner can conduct his affairs poorly, he can be wiped out
in a bad deal, or be a victim of a commercial crisis, or by an
unforeseen catastrophe; in a word he can ruin himself. This is true.
But does ruin mean from the bourgeois point of view to be reduced to
the same level of misery as those who die of hunger, or to be forced
among the ranks of the common laborers? This so rarely happens, that
we might as well say never. Afterwards it is rare that the capitalist
does not retain something, despite the appearance of ruin. Nowadays
all bankruptcies are more or less fraudulent. But if absolutely
nothing is saved, there are always family ties, and social relations,
who, with help from the business skills learned which they pass to
their children, permit them to get positions for themselves and their
children in the higher ranks of labor, in management; to be a state
functionary, to be an executive in a commercial or industrial
business, to end up, although dependent, with an income superior to
what they paid their former workers.
The risks of the worker are infinitely greater. After all, if the
establishment in which he is employed goes bankrupt, he must go
several days and sometimes several weeks without work, and for him it
is more than ruin, it is death; because he eats everyday what he
earns. The savings of workers are fairy tales invented by bourgeois
economists to lull their weak sentiment of justice, the remorse that
is awakened by chance in the bosom of their class. This ridiculous and
hateful myth will never soothe the anguish of the worker. He knows the
expense of satisfying the daily needs of his large family. If he had
savings, he would not send his poor children, from the age of six, to
wither away, to grow weak, to be murdered physically and morally in
the factories, where they are forced to work night and day, a working
day of twelve and fourteen hours.
If it happens sometimes that the worker makes a small savings, it
is quickly consumed by the inevitable periods of unemployment which
often cruelly interrupt his work, as well as by the unforeseen
accidents and illnesses which befall his family. The accidents and
illnesses that can overtake him constitute a risk that makes all the
risks of the employer nothing in comparison: because for the worker
debilitating illness can destroy his productive ability, his labor
power. Over all, prolonged illness is the most terrible bankruptcy, a
bankruptcy that means for him and his children, hunger and death.
and he goes on to explain the relationship between workers and employers:
I know full well that under these conditions that if I were a
capitalist, who needs a hundred workers to fertilize my capital, that
on employing these workers, all the advantages are for me, all the
disadvantages for them. I propose nothing more nor less than to
exploit them, and if you wish me to be sincere about it, and promise
to guard me well, I will tell them:
"Look, my children, I have some capital which by itself cannot
produce anything, because a dead thing cannot produce anything. I have
nothing productive without labor. As it goes, I cannot benefit from
consuming it unproductively, since having consumed it, I would be left
with nothing. But thanks to the social and political institutions
which rule over us and are all in my favor, in the existing economy my
capital is supposed to be a producer as well: it earns me interest.
From whom this interest must be taken - and it must be from someone,
since in reality by itself it produces absolutely nothing - this does
not concern you. It is enough for you to know that it renders
interest. Alone this interest is insufficient to cover my expenses. I
am not an ordinary man as you. I cannot be, nor do I want to be,
content with little. I want to live, to inhabit a beautiful house, to
eat and drink well, to ride in a carriage, to maintain a good
appearance, in short, to have all the good things in life. I also want
to give a good education to my children, to make them into gentlemen,
and send them away to study, and afterwards, having become much more
educated than you, they can dominate you one day as I dominate you
today. And as education alone is not enough, I want to give them a
grand inheritance, so that divided between them they will be left
almost as rich as I. Consequently, besides all the good things in life
I want to give myself, I also want to increase my capital. How will I
achieve this goal? Armed with this capital I propose to exploit you,
and I propose that you permit me to exploit you. You will work and I
will collect and appropriate and sell for my own behalf the product of
your labor, without giving you more than a portion which is absolutely
necessary to keep you from dying of hunger today, so that at the end
of tomorrow you will still work for me in the same conditions; and
when you have been exhausted, I will throw you out, and replace you
with others. Know it well, I will pay you a salary as small, and
impose on you a working day as long, working conditions as severe, as
despotic, as harsh as possible; not from wickedness - not from a
motive of hatred towards you, nor an intent to do you harm - but from
the love of wealth and to get rich quick; because the less I pay you
and the more you work, the more I will gain."
This is what is said implicitly by every capitalist, every
industrialist, every business owner, every employer who demands the
labor power of the workers they hire.
I highly recommend reading Bakunin's and other's essays at
http://flag.blackened.net in the Library section. It is horrifying
to see how little the economy has changed in almost two centuries.
------------------------------
From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Modem
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:32:54 -0700
Does anyone know if an ESS es56v-x pnp modem can be configured for linux?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Erasing RW cdrom under Linux.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 04:49:49 GMT
According to Stephen Lohning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does any body know how to erase RW cdroms under linux. Preferably RH5.2
The 'cdrecord' package does this. Its primary function is to burn
data onto cd, but you can also erase (quick, full, last session, etc)
cdrw media. Tres cool package, btw.
-p.
------------------------------
From: Allan Adler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bar Code Reader Software?
Date: 12 May 1999 12:04:10 -0400
Is there any free software for bar code readers under Linux?
Allan Adler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Rob Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ken Thompson on Linux
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:19:13 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Rememer that this man has been working with/on Unix longer than anyone
> > else. He invented it. He didn't rip it off from other peoples'
> > implementations, he took a few simple ideas he liked and started pretty
> > much from scratch.
>
> Now, that's not true: Unix stole many concepts from Multics. (And it
> also refused to do some things due to Multics's crappy implementation of
> them.)
Isn't that what I said?
> Thompson has freely admitted this. Multics was the godfather of
> operating systems and had a lot of ideas worth stealing and proved a lot
> of things were truly stupid ideas worth avoiding.
Which were avoided. I stand by my original point: Linux is just another
Unix. It offers nothing new. Unix was a whole different methodology to
Multics. (As I understand it.)
> > > In a non-PC environment, it just won't hold up. If you're
> > > using it on a single box, that's one thing. But if you want to use
> > > Linux in firewalls, gateways, embedded systems, and so on, it has a
> > > long way to go.
> >
> > I agree with this wholeheartedly. The vast majority of the Linux
> > community just don't understand the demands on commercial production
> > boxes, or that these are demands Linux can't yet meet.
>
> Really? I use Linux as firewalls all the time.
Great. I suppose it's a good choice for a firewall machine. All you need
is to know how to set it up. No need for stacks of CPU, RAM or disk
space, so you could run it on pretty much any h/w.
> I see no evidence that Microsoft's OS products are getting better:
> NT3.51 was far more stable than NT4. (We have 3.51 running on a pair of
> servers here because NT4 wasn't stable enough for the application.)
I think NT4 is better than 3.51 in every respect. I once saw a 3.51
server crash because someone tried to change the Office paperclip thing
into a robot. (Very very funny!) I reckon I only have to reboot my 4.0
workstation about once a week.
> NT5, er, WindowsY2K, claims to be moving still more code into the kernel
> ("for performance") -- ignoring that code running in ring0 can easily
> take down the whole system when there is a simple bug. I don't expect
> that to do much for stability.
Hey, maybe they're planning on writing it with no bugs? ;-)
> > I know Linux has greater stability and less overheads than NT. But I
> > also know that it doesn't run Word or Excel, and that's what counts
> > these days.
> I've never seen a need to use either Word or Excel.
Me neither, but we're hardly representative computer users are we?
Rob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Subject: Re: What app Is a better Dialup alternative to pon/poff???
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 07:16:22 GMT
On Tue, 11 May 1999 17:35:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>as for pon/poff, where is the password stored, I would like to get rid
>of the file if i can.
/etc/ppp/pap-secrets
You would probably be better off just deleting the line that has your
password in it rather than deleting the entire file.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenny Zhu)
Subject: Re: Xfig can't fit!!
Date: 12 May 1999 15:39:33 GMT
: I posted this answer to comp.os.linux.x:
: Use:
: xfig -pwidth 8 -pheight 5.5 -but_per_row 3
: This will make it use 3 buttons per row on the left panel and size the canvas
: to fit in 800x600.
: This is all mentioned in the man pages !
Cool! That works for me perfectly! Thank you!
Kenny
__--------__
/ | \
/ | \
_[/----------------- \]_
/ _ |\ 0 /| _ \
| (_)| \ / |(_) |
|____|__\_____!______/__|____|
[________| KENNY |_________]
|__| ~~~~~~~~~ |__|
___ _________ ___ ___ ___ __ _______ __
/ _ )/ _/ ___/ / _ )/ _ | / _ \ / //_/ __/ |/ /
/ _ |/ // (_ / / _ / __ |/ // / / ,< / _// /
/____/___/\___/ /____/_/ |_/____/ /_/|_/___/_/|_/
"The most important thing is be true to yourself."
$$$$ http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ah190/Profile.html $$$$
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Misc Digest
******************************
