Linux-Advocacy Digest #126, Volume #35 Mon, 11 Jun 01 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("David Brown")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("David Brown")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Bill)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("David Brown")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("David Brown")
Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff? (pip)
Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff? (pip)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:26:43 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>No, that is not the problem. The problem is this ridiculous idea that if
>>you don't salute your country's flag first thing every morning, then you
are
>>automatically a communist and should move to China.
>
>AFAIK, you are the only one to mention saluting anything.
You like talking about metaphors - can't you understand one when you read
one?
>
>>True freedom (the
>>founding principle of America) is about choosing the ideals and
philosophies
>>you want, and being free to express these ideals and live them out.
>
>So true freedom requires political adherence to a particular supposedly
>idealistic method of government? Hell; sounds like patriotism to me!
>
That might be true if the American government was remotely like this ideal,
and if in addition I were an American.
>"True" freedom has nothing to do with it. America was founded on the
>principle of *real* freedom,
Call it "real" freedom if you prefer, I don't mind one way or the other.
>and if you don't like it, then you are (not
>automatically, but are nonetheless) a communist and should move to
>China, metaphorically.
This is the key point that I object to. I really cannot understand this way
of thinking - "if you do not agree with the American system of government
then you are a communist". Perhaps I am naive, but I thought that most
Americans disapproved of this sort of McCarthy drivel.
>
>> The
>>idea of some American claiming that the American political system is the
>>only free system, and insulting those who do not support it, is just as
>>repulsive as any other political oppression.
>
>I thought you said True Freedom was the founding principle of the
>American political system. Now you're saying it is political
>oppression? What's up with that?
Both are true - it is just that modern America has deviated wildly from its
founding principles.
>
>I don't think Stephen mentioned anything about 'not being fond' of one's
>own country at all. This seems to be something else you just made up
>extemporaneously. Stephen was saying that patriotism is not a bad
>thing; you seem to be agreeing, but yet pretending to be disagreeing.
>Why?
I agree that a little patriotism can be a good thing, but I am also noting
that too much can be a bad thing (a vital point that Stephen is missing).
>
>> An American may think the US political system is
>>oppresive of human rights, yet still believe it to be the best in the
world.
>
>People can believe all sorts of stupid things.
There's no arguing with that one :-)
>Are you saying that it
>is better to be oppressive of human rights than to have pride in your
>country? I'm sure that can't be right, but, honestly, I can't tell what
>you're trying to say.
Perhaps I am not making myself clear. An American may dislike the US system
for its faults (for example, he might find the idea of the death penalty
repulsive), but when weighing up its benifits and its faults, and comparing
it to other countries, he finds that while the US system has its faults, it
is still better that any others. (Didn't someone famous describe democracy
like that - the worst of all possible systems, yet better than all the
rest?).
>> But
>>"recognizing the superiority of your local group of monkeys"? To call
>>yourself "superior" is to call everyone outside that group "inferior"
merely
>>because they are not in that group.
>
>You have committed an abstraction error, presuming that because the
>group is superior to other groups, the individuals in the group are
>superior to other individuals. No big deal, it is trivial in some
>respects, but I thought it important to point it out.
>
That is a complication I hadn't thought of, but as you say, I don't think it
is vital here.
>>Supposing your group is that of white
>>males?
>
>No; my group is just those who agree with my opinion. I'm not much of a
>sexist or a racist. But, anyway, OK; supposing.
>
>>Is there still nothing wrong with treating everyone outside it as
>>inferior?
>
>I do not understand this "treating as inferior" you mention. Is this
>yet another new thing you are throwing into the mix? We were discussing
>thoughts and beliefs, not actions.
>
>>Supposing your group is that of young white German males with
>>blond hair and blue eyes in the 1930's ?
>
>Why is it not surprising that you seem to want to claim I am a Nazi, but
>don't have the balls to do it?
>
Obviously I am not calling you a Nazi. I am following through some of the
extreme consequences of *treating* others as inferior.
>>Is there still nothing wrong with
>>considering everyone else as inferior?
>
>There is nothing wrong with considering anything ever anywhere. It is
>called "free inquiry". Ethics only comes into play when dealing with
>actions, and, as I've already pointed out, we are not discussing
>actions.
>
I agree on principle, but I don't have your believe in people's strength in
seperating thought from action.
>>As long as your opinions have no
>>bearing on your speach or actions, then you could well argue that there is
>>nothing wrong here
>
>No, only as long as they have no bearing on my actions; free speech is
>part of free inquiry.
>
This is true as long as you agree that some speech is actually a form of
action. If you tell someone that all the Chinese in the USA are actually
secret agents, and that person proceeds to beat up every Chinese person they
see, then your speech is very much an action. Most racists use speech to
hurt others - relatively few actually physically act racially. But I think
you are trying to think of speech purely as an way of sharing thoughts and
extending the free inquiry, then I agree with what you mean (though I
disagree with how you say it).
>>- but who can believe themselves to be superior without
>>beginning to treat others as inferior?
>
>A just and honest person, I would expect. It would be impossible to
>consider yourself anything but inferior to everyone else, unless you are
>capable of considering yourself superior to someone else. I have
>knowledge not available to other people; I therefore have superior
>knowledge. I have access to information more conveniently than many
>others. Therefore I have a superior perspective. I do not try to
>characterize people who disagree with my opinion as Nazis. Therefore I
>am intellectually superior to you. You see how it works?
>
And I do not classify people who disagree with me as communists. Not that I
think you called me a communist, nor that I called you a Nazi.
It is all a matter of levels. A just and honest person is perfectly capable
of controlling their feelings and opinions to a fair extent - most people
are not overtly racist, for example. But it is a matter of levels -
sometimes you will come across someone you believed to be a kind and just
person, but find later that they have uncontrollably strong opinions of
other groups of people. There are no problems as long as this boundary of
control is not breached. But there are a lot of people who are not so just
and honest, and there are a lot of people who are easily led - it is
important to try to limit the strongest superiority/inferiority feelings to
ensure that people do not go over the edge. A little patriotism can help
strengthen the boundary (by improving moral), but too much can easily cross
the boundary.
>Your problem is that you automatically assume that if I believe you are
>inferior, I have the right to ignore your civil rights. I don't know
>where you might have gotten that idea, but it is very sad, and very
>mistaken.
Not that I agree with your summary, but it should at least be corrected
slightly - you never have the right to ignore another's rights, but you may
*believe* you have that right.
>
>>As with many things, patriotism can be good in moderation. [...]
>
>Back-pedalling will get you nowhere.
>
Read what I said from the start. You seem to think I am confused and am on
the one hand saying patriotism is good, and on the other hand saying that it
is bad. Perhaps I am not writing clearly, or perhaps you are not reading
clearly, but I have been preaching moderation from the start. I have also
been condeming Stephen's McCarthism outright - that is not an outright
condemnation of patriotism.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:39:26 +0200
>>No, because he feels that a negative view on patriotism equates to a
>>positive view on communism.
>
>That sounds more like sound reason, rather than paranoia.
Where on earth does this idea of patriotism and communism being two absolute
opposites come from? These are two completly different concepts.
Why do Americans always seem to think that discussions are always
exclusively about the USA? People in this thread are condemning excessive
patriotism, regardless of the country. We will equally condem excessive
Dutch patriotism, or excessive Chinese patriotism (how does that fit in with
your "sound reason" ?).
I assume you mean "A negative view on American patriotism equates to a
positive view on communism". This is slightly better, but is absurd. These
are not opposites, although they are very different. But more importantly,
they are not black and white choices. There is a wide range of political
systems and beliefs. Some philosophies fall directly between these two, but
there are plenty of others wildly different from either system. They are
not extremes, either - there is plenty of room for ideas more extreme than
either system.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: 11 Jun 2001 01:43:41 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> I've never seen a system available with both a DVD and a CDRW. A DVD
> and a CDROM, sure. Maybe you don't understand the difference?
>
>
You're not looking then... the American TV ad (Milwaukee) for 6/10 -
6/16 on page 11b has an HP pc with both a DVD and CD-RW, it's the
first of 3 pc's in the entire ad. The other 2 only have CDRW.
There's a statistic for you. 1/3 of the pc's in the American ad have
a DVD and CDRW as standard equipment.
And that was only the first ad I picked up. I was not searching high
and low to find it.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:45:03 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said drsquare in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:17:20
>>On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:34:47 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>>>drsquare wrote:
>>
>>>> >W2k rockz and linux suxors. Need I say more? :)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, American Windows and foreign Linux. Now what does that tell you?
>>>
>>>Linux is a flavor of an American OS.
>>
>>Written from scratch by a Finn...
Based on a design by a Dutchman...
>
>Well, the kernel was by a Finn. When most people say "Linux" today,
>they are actually referring to GNU/Linux (see
>http://www.fsf.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt for pronunciation
>guide). GNU, the balance of the operating system we call Linux, is
>international in scope, but the project was started by Richard M.
>Stallman, an American.
>
Have you any idea what you are talking about? Without doubt, RMS has
contributed more to GNU/Linux, and GNU itself, than anyone else. But also
without doubt, GNU, Linux and open source software are totally international
in their development and their use. Almost all major components in the
system are developed by groups spread out across the world.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:48:35 +0200
Todd wrote in message <9fttp8$i7k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>(hehe), we invented the light bulb, transistor, microprocessor, we started
>the Internet, and a whole bunch more.
>
Of course, the light bulb was originally Scottish, most of the practical
work on the foundations of computing was done in Britain (with a number of
prominent Dutch theorists as well), the web was Swiss, and a whole bunch
more.
Where would you be without your TV and your Cola, your antibiotics and your
steam engine? All are Scottish inventions, but I could hardly claim that
Scotland is a "better" country than the US because of it. Nor could I claim
it as a personal achievement, as you seem to.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff?
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:27:15 +0100
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> "Rene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:pwTU6.38562$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 1.- Is Linux (kernel) programmed on C or C++?
> > 2.- Is GNOME programmed on C or C++?
> >
> >
> > Is this the wrong place to post this question? Sorry I apologize, could
> you
> > please be so kind to point me to the right news group?
> >
> Linux is written in C, like all UNIX's, GNOME, I am not too sure, however, I
> do know KDE is written in C++, as they donot require the same low level
> access as an OS kernel requires.
Please could you highlight where C++ is deficient in "low level" access,
or even where the semantics of "low level access" differ from c ?
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff?
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:40:40 +0100
mlw wrote:
Agree with C++ stuff (well mostly).
> <RANT>
> GNOME is written in C for some stupidly flawed logic. I have yet to see a
> reasonable explanation, with the possible exception that the original
> developers only knew C and decided that ignorance was a better strategy than
> actually learning about computers and computing languages.
That is quite reasonable. If I wanted to start a popular opensource
project I probably would not choose Phyton as my target language. It is
just simply that more people know C because it is easier - so it is
easier to get more good people to help out your project.
I agree with your sentiment - but at the end of the day, if you reduce
your potential helpers down to 1/3 then you take the consequences of
missing out on some good coders (even if they can't be bothered to know
C++!). Of course, the more projects written in C++ (or Java) from the
start, will cause a natural swing in that direction.
> KDE, IMHO, is far more stable BECAUSE it uses C++. GNOME is a pitiful hack
> which attempts an object oriented paradigm who's design criteria directly
> adheres to the strengths of C++, yet they chose not to use C++.
I think that it is grossly unfair to call it a pitiful hack. The only
thing that is strange is they have got these OO "rules" for C code -
like initialising GTK components (like calling object constructors) etc.
But, as there IS a) a GTK+ C++ wrapper (GTK-- ?) and b) it's corba-fied
: then working with it should be fairly easy in whatever language. And
unless you want to *work* in the project, then I would only be
interested in the available programming interfaces.
> It is a shame that so much development time and effort has been dedicated to a
> project which was a failure from the very start.
I use Gnome. I am sorry, but I don't see how it is a failure ? It's now
fast and stable and I like it very much. Just because you have a some
beef with their implementation and language choice - it is far to harsh
to say this. As far as I (a user) am concerned it is great - and as a
programmer they have added some wonderful things! All the better.
And the best thing is : we have Gnome and KDE - to satisfy both of us.
Of is it the SUCCESS of Gnome that you have an issue with one wonders ?
> </RANT>
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:34:30 GMT
In article <vRTU6.11701$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about web browser that remove information from your page? Many web
> browsers can't display certain pieces of information, so it ignores it.
> This is also changing the format of your page, and could have drastic
> consequences.
Savvy web designers understand that some web browsers don't do frames or
tables, and adjust their code to be readable nonetheless. But the
hypertext structure is still maintained.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:32:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh
McKee) wrote:
> And this changes what I said how? Regardless of what you have written
> (and the validity/invalidity of such statements) it isn't as easy as
> "then don't buy it".
The problem is not so much me having the web pages I visit changed as it
is visitors to my web site seeing links I didn't put in it.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:40:53 GMT
In article <9g1olv$qvo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article
> > <HPLU6.71636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > > Is BabelFish also evil?
> >
> > Straw-man argument. Theoretically, the information content of the
> > page (its mapping from symbols to real-world objects, actions, and
> > concepts) is not altered when it is translated into a different
> > language.
>
>
> You don't have to deal with translating text very often, do you?
Actually, I do, which is why I used the weasel-word "theoretically."
> Translation, even if done by an expert human, can totally change the
> meaning of the text.
If done by a knowledgeable and ethical human, the meaning is not
changed. There is no defense against misuse of a translator's skills.
>If done by a machine... well, it can render the
> whole thing into a senseless bunch of characters.
Oh, is that so? I can't tell you how surprised I am. }: )
> I present this link as proof:
> http://members.tripod.com/~Mysterium/ser0053.html
I saw these translations in a Readers Digest long before automated
translation was widely available.
But in any case, your analogy to machine-based translation is still
weak, for no web site owner can really defend against malicious or
inappropriate use of technology. And in that sense, it is right onj
target, for I believe that a system that adds new links (never fucking
mind all this hoohaw about changed formats!) is inappropriate.
> > > > Let's say you're a paperboy or a newsstand. Do you have the
> > > > right to insert your own pages into the newspapers and
> > > > magazines you sell?
> > >
> > > Don't they? I observe that some bookstores insert advertisements
> > > for themselves in books. Sure, they call them 'bookmarks'... :D
> >
> > The bookmarks advertise the bookstore where you go the book and are
> > recognized by the reader as separate from the book. The links added
> > by he MS browser, however, may not be distinguished by the user as
> > being added by the browser and not the page author.
>
> They have a *very* distinct look, I posted a screen shot, did you saw
> it?
They look different, but does the user know why? There is no standard
for the colors of links, and IE and NS have between them pretty much
destroyed any other useful standards ... why shoudl this be anything
different?
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:49:33 GMT
In article
<tXUU6.72704$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article
> > <%SLU6.71643$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
> > Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > You can call it versatile, but you can't pretend that
> > > it gives you the control over the final representation
> > > that you say MS is trying to take away.
> >
> > Sure, I can. When I create a web site, part of the final represenation I
> > can determine is the hyperlink structure. MS's new browser changes the
> > hyperlink structure.
>
> No, not really. Your structure is still there,
> same as it ever was.
No, not really. There are new hyperlinks to places outside my web site.
> MS provides other links, but they so do
> all browsers. Internet Explorer historically
> has always provided the *same* set of
> canned links, no matter what you are viewing;
> SmartTags are, well, smarter than that.
Show me these links in my archived NS 3.0, please.
> > > You don't have that. You never did. MS may
> > > wish to do so, as they wish to do all other
> > > evil things for no reason, but they can't
> > > take away what you do not have.
> >
> > You're creating a straw-man agument that runs like this:
> > HTML browsers differ from each other in how they render the
> > informationpresented to them by the web server. Therefore the web page
> > author has no control over the content of his pages and any changes made
> > by the web browser is permitted.
>
> Well, rather I would said that web pages
> can't expect to dictate the UI of the web
> browser. They've never been able to do that.
>
> > That's stupid!
> >
> > Web browsers are supposed to faithfully present the *content* of the web
> > pages in a layout consistent with the capabilities of the disp;aying
> > technology. This new browser, in that it adds links not supplied by the
> > web page author, is not faithfulto that original content.
>
> It seems to me that it *is* faithful, or at least
> as faithful as web browsers usually are (which
> isn't very, as I've pointed out)
As I said. The argument you present boils down to this: since web
browsers have already done all this other unfaithful stuff, so let's
expand the scope of the unfaithfulness. After all, this leeetle teeny
extra change isn't going to matter much...
> [snip]
> > > That's a rather odd way to look at it. I believe
> > > some people are arguing that it violates Time's
> > > *copyright*.
> >
> > Freedom of the press means the freedom to print what you want to and the
> > freedom to not print what you do not want to.
>
> The Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one.
>
> You cannot demand that Time print this or that- it's
> their press, they print what *they* want to.
>
> And you cannot demand that I display this or
> that- it's my computer, it displays what *I*
> want to. Even if you do not approve.
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own a web site. And Microsoft
cannot demand to display this or that link on MY web site, even if you
approve.
> > > I'm not sure putting sticky-notes in a copy of
> > > Time *does*, especially if it isn't done except
> > > by consumer, and only at that consumers individual
> > > discresion.
> >
> > But it's not done by the consumer, it's done "on his behalf" by
> > Microsoft's browser.
>
> You were expecting him not to use any tools? Web
> page authors do not do it that way, why should
> end users have to?
You know what I mean, but your'e deliberately misinterpreting my
argument to mean something you can easily dismiss.
> > > I dion't see what the freedom of the press has
> > > to do with it. Time can publish copies without
> > > sticky-notes no matter what you do, after all.
> >
> > If I hijack a truckful of Time Magazines on their way to Safeway...
What did you snip here? Oh, nothing. Just some bit about changing the
text of those issues of Time and *putting them back*. Kudos on your
skilful snippage to ignore the key points.
> > Yes, some copies of Time Magazine remain that are unaltered, but that
> > truckful is changed.
>
> Sure. But it is the hijacking that it wrong, and the
> stealing of the magazines- what you do with them
> after that is not particularly vile, if we ignore
> the theft itself.
>
> MS does not seem to be doing anything analagous
> to stealing magazines or hijacking trucks. I think
> this analogy does not work.
It is analogous to the extent that the web page is still there, but
altered by Microsoft.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:50:58 GMT
In article <9g1mta$pbp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My main question was "Who controls what hyperlinks are added?"
> >
> > The answer is "Microsoft and whoever else has enough money to develop
> > and distribute their own plugins."
>
> No, the SmartTags SDK is available for free at MS' site.
> You can download and roll your own.
>
> > This answer is not "the web page author."
>
> If he feels like investing its time, yes it is.
Ah, so if I want my page to be unaltered by Microsoft, I have to get
their DSK? Which means I have to get a Windows machine that runs it?
Ah! So Freedom of the Press belongs to anyone who will buy Microsoft
tools!
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
