Linux-Advocacy Digest #303, Volume #26 Sat, 29 Apr 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: So what is wrong with X? ("Mike Palmer")
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So what is wrong with X?
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 20:01:00 -0700
Reply-To: "Mike Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Streamer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stephen Cornell wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > What I am suggesting is that the `X-client/X-server' division of
> > labour is too unequal, and that a `remote server/local not-too-thin
> > client' approach leads to much less wasted bandwidth. I know this is
> > nothing new, and I also know that this approach can be (and is) used
> > with applications that run under X. However, as far as I know there
> > is no standard protocol (API?) for creating GUIs in this way, so
> > programmers are not encouraged to write most software according to
> > this model.
>
> Well, I have 2 machines, one Linux and one Sun Solaris. Neither machine
can run
> each other's binary, but they both have an X-server/client. The program I
have
> to run is on the Sun, but the Linux machine is my work machine. If both
machines
> had to equally run the binary, there would be no way for me to run the
program
> since my Linux machine can't run the Sun binary program. No Thanks.
>
> Instead, I just telnet to the Sun Machine and start the application.
Since I
> told X to use my X-server as a client for the display, keyboard, and mouse
> events, I can run that program over on the Sun Machine and have the
program
> display show up on my machine only. The X-server on my Linux machine is
involved
> in handling the display, keyboard, and mouse clicks from my machine.
Anybody who
> happens to be on the Sun machine won't even be aware that their machine is
> running the program I'm using.
>
> > <snip> In summary: X is very powerful, but its very flexibility means
that it
> > is too inefficient to be used as the communication protocol for most
> > remotely-run applications.
I think these last two posts, from Stephen Cornell and Streamer, sum things
up pretty well. The advantage with X is that it's similar to the old VT-52 I
used to use when X was introduced: the application runs completely on the
client, and the server is like my old VT-52 (I'm using the backwards X
client-server definitions here). The disadvantage with X is that the client,
formerly the server, is still doing all the work. Doing more work on the
server means that the application binary has to split somewhere. Right now,
that doesn't have to happen, so the client implementation doesn't matter. If
it supports X, you can run it from a remote X server. At the same time, the
thing this doesn't allow is any variation in the remote terminal: it has to
be an X server.
My dream is that some day I will log in to my local machine, which will run
whatever OS I want, and will remotely connect to another machine, running
some other OS. I'll connect by starting a view application locally, and
telling it that I want to run the document server (switching now to the
equally strange document/view terminology that is/was popular a few years
ago) on the remote machine. My local view app will request the connection to
the remote machine, and the operating system will make the connection and
pass along the request to start the document server and connect it to my
view app. The data that transfers back and forth will be application data,
not display data - the display is handled in my local view app. The
disadvantage of this approach is that the application can't be run across
different platforms from a single binary. On the other hand, the view appl
could be customized in any number of cool ways, depending on the interface
that the developer wanted to present. I imagine something inherently simple,
like a text editor: I could have a simple text interface, like vi, or I
could have a sophisticated GUI interface, like CodeWright, both interfacing
with the same editor server. The view app would display the data
appropriately and translate requests from the user to the editor server.
This already happens in the database world, of course. We run our databases
off some server somewhere, through a whole variety of different interfaces
on different machines. Even the database vendor doesn't matter much any
more. Sometimes I access a database using Excel, and sometimes I use a
simple text interface: it all depends on what I need.
In my code, I have been separating the core of my applications (the document
server) from the display part (the view client) for years, even though the
final code all winds up in the same binary package. It would be REALLY cool
if there was a standard (straightforward, practical, easy, etc.) way to put
the server on a machine of my choice, and run it from the client machine of
my choice.
I still know people who would prefer X, but I think this would be an
entirely superior way to go.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 13:09:57 +1000
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8eda5q$5id$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8ebtjd$6mg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > : When Windows 95 first came out,
> > > > : engineers put sniffers on the
> > > > : net to figure out why desktops
> > > > : were sending traffic between 1:00 A.M.
> > > > : and 4:00 A.M. local time. Furthermore, this traffic was going
> > > > : via UDP (thus bypassing firewalls).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly this is why I've banned
> > > > all versions of Winblows from my
> > > > network. Prior to discovering NT's
> > > > propensity to try to connect at
> > > > random times to nameless IP addresses
> > > > in SE Asia,
> [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft is NOT entitled, legally, morally
> > > > or otherwise, to know what
> > > > is on the contents of my hard drive.
>
> > > It seems a lot of people like to make
> > > claims like this, but I don't believe
>
> Actually, the Microsoft End User License Agreement (EULA)
> explicitly forbids "reverse engineering" of any aspect of
> the Microsoft product. This actually includes debugging
> efforts that attempt to walk through the assembler portion
> of a dll.
>
> If you publish actual evidence of "wire-tapping", you are in
> violations of the license, and therefore the copyright. This
> then makes you a pirate. Furthermore, you're evidence can be
> used in a court of law, and the penalty for Copyright violations
> is $250,000 PER OFFENSE, or 25 years in prison (worse than murder),
> and you've literally confessed.
>
> All wire-tap technologies are also protected under the trade secrets
> act, and these have even stiffer penalties.
Since when is packet sniffing reverse engineering ?
In any case, AFAIK reverse engineering is legal in the States, and no EULA
can change that.
> > > I've ever seen a single one back it up
> > > with actual evidence. Do you think
> > > you could be the first ?
>
> Looking for a confession? There are some things you can do to discover
> if you are being "tapped".
>
> What makes this particularly interesting is that I'm being tapped at
> this moment.
>
> The there are only four tasks running on the desktop - netscape,
> Card Wizard (for my ethernet card), Diagnostics, and task manager.
> 70 background processes. ntvdm has eaten 2:09:47 since bootup, more
> than the idle process. The PC is slower than molasses in january.
Yes, Rex. We've heard all about your special edition PC before.
> The performance meter shows a 300 mhz Pentium II running at 100%
> all the time. The file handles go up and down, about once/second.
> The hard drive light goes on 10-20 times/second, and the output line
> activity shows that I'm SENDING packets at a remarkably high rate.
Then task manager or some other process viewer should allow you to pinpoint
precisely which task is doing that in a second or two.
> I booted NT several times, and the performance slowed to a crawl
> about 20 minutes after starting IE (my default browser is netscape).
That's the Anti-MS User Detection (tm) code kicking in. It's a
sophisticated AI spin-off from the MS Bob system that actually detects when
a user with heavily anti-Microsoft tendencies is using the machine and makes
it run slower and slower in a bid to make them forsake the platform forever
and stop bothering the rest of us.
> I'm using 60 k out of 128 meg of RAM. But the file cache is shifting up
> and down by about 20 kbytes. None of the background processes are
> doing anything interesting that should be generating any significant
> activity, especially outbound network traffic.
Presumably you mean megabytes there.
Naturally you've tried killing all those background processes to see whether
or not this "outbound traffic" stops ?
Speaking of which, just how are you determining that it is "outbound
traffic" ?
> My primary activity is that I'm using Netscape to compose a document
> in a static text buffer.
>
> What makes this even more interesting is that the machine is behind
> a firewall at a financial institution.
>
> Some simple tests I haven't run yet:
>
> Put a sniffer on the ethernet packets. If the traffic is
> going to port 80 (out the firewall) they are tunnelling the firewall.
And obviously They can do this because They have secret agreements with the
developers of every major firewall to insert appropriate backdoors, right ?
> Install most of your software to an SMB Linux remote drive, put
> all of your servers on the drive. Every 15 minutes, run a
> "find <share path> -newer touchfile -print >logfile ; touch touchfile ;
>
> You can either throw it in a crontab file, or generate a loop.
>
> In the morning, you will have files that were touched that you
> expected to see touched, and then you will find the ones that
> shouldn't have been accessed for any reason.
And how will you know which files shouldn't have been modified ?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 13:13:39 +1000
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8edf8l$5hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :> Interestingly this is why I've banned all versions of Winblows from my
> :> network. Prior to discovering NT's propensity to try to connect at
> :> random times to nameless IP addresses in SE Asia, I had a lone NT box
> :> behind a masquerading firewall. No more. It still exists in case I
> :> have to open Office documents that SO or WP can't handle, but its only
> :> connection to the rest of the network is via Sneakernet.
> :>
> :> Microsoft is NOT entitled, legally, morally or otherwise, to know what
> :> is on the contents of my hard drive.
>
> : It seems a lot of people like to make claims like this, but I don't
believe
> : I've ever seen a single one back it up with actual evidence. Do you
think
> : you could be the first ?
>
> I can't prove anything just by posting the logs, and to be honest I
> don't have them anymore. This was about 6 months ago.
>
> But almost everyone I know who's put Windows behind a Linux or *BSD
> autodialer has encountered the same problem - 'Doze tries, for
> whatever reason, to send packets outside the local network even when
> there's nothing that running that should need or want to.
>
> Because it happens so consistently, I'm sure it's easily reproducible,
> and I'm also sure that Microsoft or its apologists can come up with
> some nicer-sounding explanation or excuse for this behavior than that
> Microsoft is stealing my data.
If it's so easily reproducible then why can't you easily reproduce it for us
?
> I can't prove they are, but no one can prove they're not, and they are
> known to have engaged in similar behavior before and to have defended
> the practice and even sponsored legislation pretending to legalize it.
Which was what, precisely ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
Date: 28 Apr 2000 22:03:05 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Achim Nolcken Lohse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 28 Apr 2000 10:53:09 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) writes:
>>
>>> I have to concur with Achim's comments.
>>>
>>> All of the guys I work with are Linux advocates (with a definite
>>> hatred of MS).
>>>
>>> One of them recently purchased a Dell Inspiron 7500 notebook and
>>> promptly installed Madrake 7.x. He spent a fortnight trying to get
>>> the PCMCIA network card running. I was rather amused to see him
>>> camped in the communications cupboard with his notebook directly
>>> connected to the switch in an effort to get the network running.
>>>
>>> He finally gave up on the card and installed one he new would work
>>> with Linux.
>>>
>>> We purchased a second identical notebook (except for having a Linux
>>> compatible PCMCIA network card). It dual boots Win98 and Linux.
>>> Getting the Win98 networking took less than 15 minutes.
>>
>>And I have a dozen other stories in which Linux works "out of the box"
>>with something while NT falls on it's face.
>>
>>What's the point?
>>
>Well, as it happens, I've just spent about 16 hours over the space of
>the past week trying to get an OSITECH modem/Ethernet card working
>properly on my laptop under Win95.
>
>Happily, Ositech responds promptly and almost exhaustively to
>requests for technical assistance. And they have drivers available for
>WinXX, NT, and OS/2.
>
>With Linux, you're pretty much on your own when something doesn't work
>"out of the box".
Usually a driver either exists or it doesn't. If it does, it is
generally included in the box but not a big deal to download and
install (assuming you have a working machine for net access). If
the windows driver didn't exist you would be out of luck there too.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 02:59:24 GMT
In article <8e2260$s3b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8e1q5m$n8l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If, like me, you are concerned about
> > the fact Microsoft has frozen
> > progress in every software industry
> > segment they have entered, here's
> > good news:
>
> Hey, look at that, petilon spreading FUD, what a shock!
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt? Only if you are a Microsoft executive.
> Frozen each segment? Let's review, shall we?
>
> - OS software is more advanced, more usefriendly,
> - and more stable now than ever.
All platforms evolve, including Linux, UNIX, and MacOS.
> - Apple is soon to release a finally-stable version of the MacOS.
MacOS has usually been MUCH more stable than the Windows/Microsoft
counterpart ever since the first Mac hit the floor. With MAC, you
got mushrooms, with Windows 286, 386, and 3.0, you were lucky to
have you hard drive. Windows users had to make a regular habit
of "autosaving" everything every 5 minutes, because the system
could lock-up or GPF any time.
Windows NT is moderately stable as a workstation, but not as stable
as Linux. NT doesn't like WinModems either.
> - Linux is out and popular, BSD is gaining ground steadily,
Since 1992, Linux has enjoyed 4-8 upgrades/year, as many as 64
distribution releases. Back in 1993, Linux could look and act
like a $25,000 sparcstation. It even ran most of the same
software. Since then, Linux has gotten friendlier and easier
to install and use.
> and
> Windows2000 is the best Windows MS has every come up with,
Can't argue with that. It's still not UNIX or Linux, but it's
the best they could come up with. It's certainly better than 95, 98,
or even NT 4.0. Even if you do have to replace or remove most of
your favorite 3rd party applications (Microsoft is of course providing
free services packs to properly registered Office 2000 users. But
it checks.
> and is a damn fine, stable, and advanced OS that competes
> with anything else out there.
So far it hasn't done all that well. It didn't do as well as Win95,
or Win98, or even NT 4.0. And for some reason, most of the software
vendors aren't killing themselves to create new applications that truly
exploit the features that make Windows 2000 reliable.
> Windows ME and Whislter are not far
> behind and bring even more
> innovations and advancements.
Windows 2000 will kill ME before it even hits the gate.
Win2K resolves many of the issues of NT/9x compatibility,
like the ability to handle both NTFS and FAT32 partitions,
the ability to handle SCSI and USB, the ability to use cardbus
and PCMCIA cards, and the ability to run some of the MS-DOS programs.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, they didn't agressively push it, and
now the OEMs will have the Attourney's general of several states
in their corner breathing down Microsoft's neck.
Finally, the OEMs have problems of their own. The average user
doesn't get much benefit from a CPU running faster than 700 MHz
because the performance issues at that speed are centered around
the hard drive, the video display (have to scroll slow enough that
people can read the display). Where speed is critical - like servers,
UNIX is still leading the game.
Developing large scale solutions in an "all NT" environment is still
a nightmere.
> - Office Suite Software.
> - The Office productivity market was floundering
> with old-fashioned poorly featured word processors
By the time Microsoft came out with "Office", UNIX had Frame-Maker,
Applix, and a number of other very powerful tools. Furthermore, it
was very easy to import and export objects, including conversion from
one picture format to another. UNIX supported vector graphics and
bitmap graphics, and could display both very comfortably on the same
X11 window. Furthermore, UNIX didn't force the user to put all
documents in a single window frame (word still uses MDI). You could
do that if you wanted to, but most people hated it.
Xerox PARC introduced desktop managers that would let the user have
multiple desktops - this meant that I could have a word processor,
spreadsheet, database, and shell window (they are still useful for
"quick and dirty" ad-hoc solutions) on one desktop for filing your
status report. You could have another desktop with word processor,
spreadsheet, and charting tool (real-time charting) on another desktop.
You could have another desktop with your favorite stocks being charted
in real-time. And finally, you could have your e-mail and news
program in another desktop.
> and anemic spreadsheets until MS arrived.
This is quite amusing. When Exel was still trying to get
multiple worksheets in a single window right, Lotus was
calculating the S&P-500 along with treasury rates, bond yields,
currency rates, and other exchange data several times per SECOND,
in real time of course.
> Lotus, Corel, as well as other less-known suites like
> ApplixWare
ApplixWare is very well known, especially in the trading community,
where Applix "hot cells" are wired directly to real-time quotes feeds.
Within about 100 miliseconds after the trade registers, the Applix
display is showing not only the current price, but the net percentage
gain over a specific period of time. Applix had "hot cells" back
when Excel was still trying to talk to Access.
While OLE was able to make a cute "collage" of objects, it was a major
effort to get information from one control to another. You couldn't
just drag your spreadsheet and drop it into a chart, you had to
open the chart, edit the cells, and then you could draw your chart.
> and StarOffice have become better products because of some of
> the trends that MS has started.
Actually StarOffice had that little MDI problem too.
It also had an import/export problem too. Ever tried exporting
a Word document to another format like WordPerfect? Not only don't
they get it right, you can spend 30% of the time you spent creating
the document on word trying to make it look pretty again.
> People compute in a whole different way
> because of the Office suites that MS has put out.
> People now do many tasks
> as opposed to just simply word
> processing with blue-screen WordPerfect.
I was using FrameMaker and Lotus display widgets on UNIX back
when Microsoft was still trying to get Word to look less like
a terminal by painting the characters black on white. You had
a few fonts.
I was using integrated Wordprocessor, Spreadsheet, Charts, and
drawings on Applix back when Microsoft was still trying to get
drag-and-drop to work from Excel spreadsheets to Word tables.
I was using Sun Project Manager to manage 40-50 person projects
back when Microsoft was still allocating 5000% of a resources time
without complaining. That's one I'd REALLY like to see on Linux.
> - Personal finance applications
> - With Microsoft providing stiff competition,
> Inuit has been pouring more and more resources
> into Quicken, making it a
> great and very complete product.
Quicken was a pretty good product long before Microsoft got into
the picture. When Money came out, we joked about "Billy Bucks",
and wondered how many years you would have to wait between the
time you deposited a check, and the time that the bank would
allow you to withdraw anything. Microsoft Money provided intimate
details about your finances, investment plans, and even your personal
activities - with very little security - if you used Money on your
company computer, the Network administrator could take a good look
at the credit card receipts at bars and strip clubs and turn you
over to the manager - especially if he had your competitive and
ambitious peer giving him a little incentive. Remember, Windows
system administrators have share access to your hard drive to
manage software - or any other information they consider interesting.
And the Secure Electronic Transactions required authentication
by a company in which Microsoft held 25% interest, and no direct
liability. In fact, there were "signatures" for Donald Duck,
Goofy, Elvis Presly, and three Ronald Reagans, one was living at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 1997.
> They now include many features as well as
> allow people bank online,
I've been banking online using Qucken for about 6 years,
via dial-up and 3 years via internet. I suppose Microsoft
will be taking credit for on-line trading next year, when it
comes up with trading software that isn't regulated by the SEC.
What would be really cool is to set up a web crawler, loaded from
the MSN home page, that could look at you QNF and Money files and
figure out what your net worth, holdings, positions, and outstanding
orders (stops and limits), and alerts (not registered but aware)
without being detected. You could make a killing in the market.
You could also be audited for copyright violations and Microsoft
could provide you with the convenience of converting your cash
to license packs (for a 20% commission of course). They could
collect cash for everyhing, the freeware you downloaded 90 days ago
and didn't use anymore, the MP3s you loaded and played once before
deleting, and of course, the service packs that will keep the
"good" applications from crashing (they'll crash unless they get their
fix), and make the "bad applications" (we don't know what they are,
so they must be viruses) go away.
> which is a very new innovation in the banking
> industry.
You can't seriously claim that Microsoft innovated on-line banking?
Before Microsoft even knew what a check-book looked like, CheckFree
was processing on-line banking over MS-DOS on 300 baud modems. By
the time TCP/IP connections were available (1995), there were at
least 5 companies managing electronic payments ranging from thousands
of dollars to thousandths of a penny (for pay-per-view, paid-per-ad).
First Virtual had the first internet banking back when they were
still using e-mail on PSI and compuserve.
> Shall I go on?
This is entertaining, please do continue. I've read Microsoft's
version of history. Pretty soon they'll be saying that they
put Windows 2000 on the Altair in 1975.
You'd think they invented the PDA. I actually created the innovations
necessary to make the first PDA (the Federal Express SuperTracker)
sufficiently reliable as to survive 100 static charges per second.
This technology is still used in the Palm and other software (it was
owned by Federal Express).
Windows 2000 is reliable enough to go a month without crashing
(if you're very nice to it), but I measured my downtime in parts
per million (from working with AT&T). At Computer Consoles (now
part of Nortel) if the computer was down more than 15 minutes per
YEAR, the customer got as much as 1% of his purchase price back.
At Federal express, my team got the Malcolm Baldridge award (I left
the company a few weeks before the award) for dropping the number of
lost SCANS from 20% to 5 scans per million, and dropping the number
of lost packages from 1% to 1 package per 5 million shipped.
But Microsoft is THRILLED because Windows 2000 can stay up a
couple of weeks without crashing. By UNIX and Mainframe standards
that's disgusting.
Microsoft can take credit for one thing. They came up with the
"Dancing Paper Clip" that can give you help whether you want it
or not, especially when you're in a big hurry, late for a meeting,
and you just want to finish the report in time to present it
at the meeting.
And then there's BOB - the software that assumes you're a complete
idiot and have never seen ANY computer before. Where was BOB back
in 1981 - when my computerphobic wife was determined NOT to let
me have a home computer (I used them enough at work - she said).
Meanwhile, my 16 year old son installed Linux by himself, switched
to another distribution, and now has begun to explore the thousands
of programs available - without tying up the phone line.
> -Chad
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: 28 Apr 2000 22:11:15 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I've had relics of my own run circles around machines running
>> Win95,Win98 or NTW4 with superior hardware, sometimes
>> superior in all respects.
>
>>>I can run Windows just fine in 32M. Seems I can't run X, KDE et al on
>>>this
>>
>> Then don't run KDE, or just use it sparingly. It's really not
>> that complicated.
>
>Ah yes. So I don't run X. What's the alternative? The multiple consoles
>with the good ol' keyhole programming approach, and the cryptic command
>shells.
>The whole point about GUI's was ease of use. If X + KDE can't give me that,
>then that's the end of the story.
KDE is a large system. If you have enough RAM, CPU speed, and an
efficient video card you may like it. Otherwise you might want
a minimalist window manager like blackbox. One choice you have
with X that you don't with MS Windows is to run the program on
one box and the display on another to take advantage of both
machine's equipment.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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.advocacy) 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-Advocacy Digest
******************************
