Linux-Advocacy Digest #549, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Roger)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Roger)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Alan Boyd)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Roger)
Re: What is a good Setup Maker for Linux? (John Travis)
Re: Here is the solution ("Todd")
Re: Beowulf (JoeX1029)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: WHICH LINUX??? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (tholenbot)
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Here is the solution (Marty)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 02:10:39 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:35:03 GMT, someone claiming to be Charlie Ebert
wrote:
>It seems Microsoft has thrown in their hat with HOTMAIL, once again
>attempting
>to replace FreeBSD servers with W2K.
Proof?
>If you recall, the last attempt was made just a couple of years ago with
>NT and it failed due to blue screens, and the need for MASSIVE HARDWARE!
No, I recall that no such attempt was ever made, and was specifically
disclaimed by all involved.
Doesn't seem to have stopped the ABM crowd.
>Since W2K is actually slower than NT, we can assume some special
>hardware
>has been put in place for this test.
Proof that W2K is slower than NT4.0?
>Also, keep in mind that during the last test, they had NT up for several
>weeks
>before they decided to pull the plug.
Proof?
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 02:16:34 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 15:30:10 GMT, someone claiming to be JEDIDIAH
wrote:
>On 16 May 2000 05:56:31 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>My point was, it's up to the system administrator to know and understand
>>the OS, and that most of the problems that I've encountered, and witnessed
>>other having, were due to thoughtless hardware purchases, and reflexively,
>>poorly written drivers.
> So, by your argumentation: my burden as a user would INCREASE
> if I were to suddenly dump Linux for NT.
If you, personally, with your knowledge of Linux and lack of same for
NT, switched: yes.
Of course the same can be said of someone with little to no Linux
knowledge making the switch from an NT box they knew.
Your point was?
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:16:42 -0500
Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > One can form an opinion, pretty quickly, about one person by the way
> > they address another.
>
> Posts like tsm's make me wonder whether there is an incivility class
> that some programmers get to take once they achieve a certain level of
> proficiency. Can someone send me a brochure or something?
Ask Bob Germer, I think he teaches it.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 02:20:40 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 13:50:59 GMT, someone claiming to be R.E.Ballard
wrote:
>If you examine which sites are most profitable - generating the most
>revenue for the revenue invested, the top sites are Linux and FreeBSD
>sites, using Apache servers, CGI/PERL, and very few "bells and
>whistles.
Proof?
>The royalties on this technology are next to nil, but the revenue
>generated from customer support, service level agreements, web hosting
>services, secondary services (credit card clearing, shipping, sales
>of goods and services,...) is quite substantial. The revenue is
>rapidly approaching $1 trillion in direct-to-customer sales, and
>$3 trillion in Business to Business sales.
Documented where?
>Also, many customers are purchasing Linux distributions for
>the purpose of accessing applications and application upgrades,
>as well as extensions to software licenses - effectively "renting"
>software.
Documented where?
>In 1994 and early 1995, many companies exploring the internet
>couldn't see the possibility of revenue, let alone profit, in
>owning, operating, and management of internet sites. Today,
>there are 13 million servers, with average revenue of about
>$3000/server/month.
Documented where?
>It's very likely that once the Court imposes sanctions restricting
>Microsoft's anticompetitive business practices, that OEMS, protected
>from reprisals, will begin to roll-out dual-boot and Linux based
>desktop systems.
Ignoring that there was nothing stopping them from doing so before, as
evidenced by those that did.
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is a good Setup Maker for Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:30:38 -0500
Mig Mig wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I can't find any good one so far. Can anyone recommend a good one. It
> > doesn't have to be fancy like InstallShield, as long as it can ask the
> > user for options and copy the files to their appropriate locations.
>
> There is RPM for RedHat/Mandrake/SUSE and others.
> Debial and one named "apt" i think.
>
> Much better than install shield since there is a database that knows what
> files where installed and where.
And don't forget about kpackage for mandrake etc. 8^)
jt
P.S. You really don't want it to be anything like InstallShield.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:47:21 +0800
josco wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 17 May 2000, Todd wrote:
>
>>
>> Joseph wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>
>> Again, most Win32 API functions have been around unchanged for years.
>
>Again, NO ONE cares. MS even says they innovate by changing/adding to the
>APIs so your comments are pointless and contradict MS and its detractors.
No. Point me to where MS says this.
Also, give me some API calls that have *changed*.
As for additions, developers had the entire set of new APIs for W2k more
than a year before those APIs became standard.
>> Most
>> commercial applications such as Office use only a very small subset of
these
>> calls. These very calls are in one of the most well put together SDK's
>> available today -- free.
>
>MS insists that without the Apps group develiping new APIs for windows
>they would NOT have been unable to build Windows95/98 NT.
Adding APIs is just exposing functionality that they added to the OS. MS
has every right to expand their OS, just as IBM has a write to develop an
addition to OS/2 and expose its functionality.
This is how OSes or other software get upgraded.
A normal part of the development/upgrade cycle.
I welcome the new functionality.
>You're behind the PR spin: What we have here is a lag between a
>significant change in MS's defense and the time an advocate clues into
>MS's new defense.
I don't follow what MS says, or what anti-MS advocates *say* what MS says.
You just see a conspiracy behind everything they do.
>> It wouldn't be hard to write a competitor to Office with today's version
of
>> the SDK. The question is, would you really want to compete with a
>> standard -- and a refined one at that.
>
>The question is what right does a monopoly have in excluding competitors?
They don't... MS has gone out of there way to publish a full suite of
tools/documentation for free to develop quality applications for the Win32
API market.
>The answer is NONE. All APIs must be published as they are designed and
>implemented.
Again, they were. Anybody could have gone and downloaded the W2k SDK for
free more than a year before W2k debuted. Yes, it wasn't in its final form,
but that's what happens when APIs are published while they are being
designed and implemented.
The fact that *you* overlooked this does not mean it didn't happen.
>> >No one argues ISV competitors cannot make apps - the argument is MS has
an
>> >unfair advantage. Why argue an irrelevant point?
>>
>> I don't see the advantage *unless* the app. in questions is a app. that
>> could *not* be developed without that particular API call.
>
>How can you ignore the quality and cost of implementation in a commerical
>application?
I'm not.
>> If you don't agree, what *new* API calls are required for the particular
>> app. in question? I'd really like to know.
>
>A hidden API can be more efficient than those docuemnted allowing for the
>SAME functionality but with better performance.
It *could* be, but nobody has yet pointed out a single API that could be
used that offers *better* performance or *more* functionality than one
offered by the standard SDKs.
In addition, the ones that were pointed out (by OS/2 advocates) were either
discontinued or didn't exist on one platform or another.
Finally, most to all of MS' apps. are writtin in MFC, which are available in
VC++, and it would be impossible to hide an entire class.
> How can you ignore the
>quality and cost of implementation in a commerical application?
Again, I'm not... MS has some of the best development tools for their
platform available for developers. They have the best SDK materials at the
lowest price. They publish their APIs before the final product that uses
them is even releases. All for free or for very little cost.
>> >Who cares about the core API? Pay attention.
>>
>> Who cares? Every developer writing Win32 apps.?
>
>They also care about electricity but we're talking about Hidden APIs not
>CORE APIs or electricity.
Again, there is no proof that these hidden APIs are anything more than NT
kernel calls (which don't exist on the 9x platform), or discontinued APIs
that *are* documented.
Given that, if there were one or two hidden APIs out there that MS really
does use, they would be less than 1% of the APIs that is required to create
an application, making your argument about competitiveness pointless.
Even so, there is no proof that they exist nor that they are actually being
used in commercial applications.
>> >MS is whining to the courts that they needed and continue to need to add
>> new OS
>> >APIs *specifically* for their Applications - they call it innovation.
>>
>> No, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that they should be
>> able to add new features to the OS.
>
>No. MS is talking about APIs their Apps group devleop that MS then adds to
>the OS.
>
>> That is what every other OS maker does.
>
>Only MS is a monopoly so It wouldn't matter what others do even if you
>were right (you're wrong).
>
>> What, developing features that customers asked for and then making an
>> interface for 3rd parties to extend?
>
>Ironically, MS's cheating has destroyed a majority of the ISVs and scared
>off a large fraction of new investments.
>
>That us the sad thing for you and those who advocate for MS and Windows -
>the market is really dead except for the work MS does which is always more
>limited than what a free and open market can accomplish.
Really? There is more software for WIndows than for any other platform.
There are hundreds of third party ISVs that create software for Win32
platforms. Yes, MS creates a lot of the core applications that people expect
when they buy a computer.
Sonique is a better Win32 MP3 player than MS' own... they probably had a
secret relationship with MS to secretly share the secret APIs so that
Sonique was better than MS' own player. But then that would have been dumb
on MS' part. Hmmm... I guess somebody can compete with MS and do better.
Too many conspiracy theories from the anti-MS advocates.
-Todd
> That's why game
>consoles have beaten PCs and why MS doesn't even talk about W2K but the MS
>X-BOX. They recognize their PC technology is monopoly based and inferior
>due to the lack of innovation and competition that would have forced MS to
>build a better PC game system. The lazy monopoly ruined the PC game
>platform so they are trying to fund the X-BOX with PC monopoly money.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Beowulf
Date: 17 May 2000 02:55:19 GMT
I got a dumb trick for ya. Send me one:)
No really no things for you to try but best of luck
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:06:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Within the filesystems of OS's such as dos or windows drive
> letters break the abstraction of the OS and are artifacts of
> physical devices present in the system.
Your fallacy is that you are thinking in the Windows paradigm. Drive
labels have been done successfully in many systems, and Windows is not
one of them. You have to think about it in other ways than the Windows
way.
> This is bad for
> aesthetic reasons: it doesn't make any sense. With mount points
> everything is subordinate to "/"; the abstraction of the
> directory/file metaphor is unbroken. This is not nitpicking, I
> think the idea of using filesystems according to some label is
> inherently stupid because there is nothing intrinsic to a file
> system that makes it the organizing principle of a heirarchy of
> directories.
But why should removable media be part of the filesystem? If I want to
mount a tape, or a ZIP drive, why should it be part of the system's
filesystem?
> If you have a heirarchy of directories it makes
> sense to have one top level directory, not several top level
> directories scattered about the system willy nilly according to
> what physical devices you have in the system. It is bad design
> in my view and there isn't any good reason for it that I can
> determine.
There are several advantages of drive letters -
a) It calls to attention the fact that it is a separate device. Often
times you want to insure you are not using a network drive and are
using a local drive. With mount points, it is not at all obvious what
physical device a path maps to it without resorting to DF (an
additional, inefficient step).
b) Instant error feedback. The mount point exists whether or not the
device is mounted. If you forget to mount the device, you copy files to
some directory, because the system is too stupid to know that you
wanted to copy to a device, not a directory.
c) Mounting a device covers the contents of the directory it was
mounted in. Whoever implemented this needs to be beaten with a clue-by-
4.
> Try explaining what "drive c" and "drive d" are to someone who
> knows nothing of computers and you will see how stupid it is.
And this is less intuitive than /mnt because ...?
> 2. Mount points, where any filesystem on any device is mounted
> anywhere you want within "/", are more flexible, I think this is
> obvious.
Again, you continue to think in Windows terms, not in general terms. In
VMS, I can set up logicals which (a) can be set to a device (so if I
change the device, I change the logical), and (b) can be set to a path
of directories, so I can spread out files arbitrarily over disks and
filesystems and have search paths to it. Lindows and Winux do not have
this capability, and this is an example of something far more flexible
done with drive labels than what can nbe achieved with mount points.
In general I think you will find that the ability to mount different
filesystems in the hierarchy is only useful for different system-
related filesystems (i.e. not removable media), and the paradigm breaks
down for removable media. Again, as I described above, VMS (a system
with drive labels) has a superior solution to this problem, without
using mount points.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:22:41 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WHICH LINUX???
Syphon wrote:
> You have answered your own question. Compatibility issues? Why should
> you suffer with compatibility issues in this day and age and
> especially since you seem to have pretty much state of the art
> hardware?
>
> Why do you want to punish yourself and run an operating system that
> doesn't take full advantage of your current hardware?
>
> Why run some Mickey Mouse system like Linsux?
>
> Run Win2k or Win98SE and take charge of the full capabilities of your
> hardware instead of using 1/10th of it's capability.
>
> Damm it's like putting Sears Bias Ply tires on a Porsche 911.
>
I was thinking about running Windows 2000 on my S/390 G6, but I understand there are
some compatibility issues. Besides, why run some Mickey Mouse system like Windsux?
So I decided to run Linux and take charge of the full capabilities of my hardware.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:23:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you get VMS to run on an entry level (ca $800 or less) machine?
I believe you should be able to get an EV5 system for around that price
or less, and you can certainly get an EV4 system for substantially less
than that. You can also get a VAX for free or very little.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:36:40 GMT
On Mon, 15 May 2000 22:06:04 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
Williams wrote:
>Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 14 May 2000 22:54:46 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
>> Williams wrote:
>> >No it wasn't. There were major discussions as to whether it should be
>> >patented or copyrighted prior to the changes in the copyright law.
>> Proof?
>go read some computer magazines from the 70's.
Which specific "computer magazines" from the 70's had you in mind?
IOW, "I have no proof of my contention."
>> >Television was always covered, since prior to a television program being
>> >made a script is written.
>> I know that TV has always been covered -- that's what I said. But
>> then language was added to specifically name the program itself as a
>> protected expression, leading to that warning about not infringing the
>> copyright that begins every movie sold on videotape.
Just like software was later specifically mentioned.,while always
having been covered.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:39:30 -0500
In article <l7jU4.396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > MS has denied the existance of a chinese wall since at *LEAST*
> > > December
> of
> > > 1991 when Mark Maples (MS's spokesman at the time) stated it didn't
> exist in
> > > InfoWorld. This was years before any DOJ negotiations.
> > >
> > > The Chinese Wall was talked about in the mid-80's, not in the 90's.
> >
> > Bummer dude because "The FEDS" began their MS anti-trust investigation
> > in
> > 1989 - two full years before 1991.
>
> That was not the DOJ. That was the FTC.
Typical irrelevant sematic argument.
--
Prove that there are fifty ways to leave your lover, if you think you can.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:31:08 GMT
In article <8fqekl$294r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> And the starting price for a VMS cluster would be???
I doubt I've spent $1,000 on my home VMS cluster, which has about 5 or
6 VAX nodes, and 1 Alpha node.
The real problem is power. My MicroVAX 3900's have 3 kilowatt power
supplies, and it is expensive to run them. Even a modern Alpha will eat
up a lot of power as well. But the cost of the machines is minimal (and
software of course is free), at least if you get something aside from
the newest generation. Unlike Winux and Lindows, VMS runs perfectly
well on hardware which is not the latest and greatest
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:41:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How do you get VMS to run on an entry level (ca $800 or less) machine?
>
> I believe you should be able to get an EV5 system for around that price
> or less, and you can certainly get an EV4 system for substantially less
> than that. You can also get a VAX for free or very little.
And the required floor space and environment control? :-)
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:33:51 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 00:05:04 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 08 May 2000 02:13:52 GMT
>>On Thu, 04 May 2000 13:40:19 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>Devlin wrote:
>>>Quoting Damien from alt.destroy.microsoft; 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT
>>>>Is there any way to change the system to
>>>>make it save into the older formats by default?
>>>Depends on the program. I haven't seen Office 2000 yet, but in Office 97, I
>>>think all three (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) finally have this feature.
>>"Finally?" They've been able to since they were first offered as
>>Office.
>This is inaccurate. Word 2.0 was available in Office, and did not have the
>ability to save into older formats by default. Investigating whether all
>other Microsoft applications in Office supported that feature at specific
>points in the past I will leave to you, Lord Weasel.
Version 2.0c, actually. And what Max fails to mention is that there
were no older formats to save in -- 2x used the same format as 1x
(which was the MS-DOS version.)
>>>Not that it is really anywhere near as functional as you would imagine. The
>>>applications don't, for instance, register themselves as servers for the older
>>>file types.
>>Since the file types have not changed, this is wrong.
>"Word document" is not the same file type as "Word 6.0/7.0 Document" nor
>"Word97" document. The file extensions haven't changed. The file types are
>listed separately in the registry, whether the file structures have or not.
And both point to the .DOC extension, which is what is used by most
applications to determine file type.
>>>So even though they can read the file, and the extension is the
>>>same, any program other than the Operating System that tries to launch a file
>>>as an embedded object and the like will fail.
>>Also wrong.
>Oh really?
Yes.
>>>I would guess that this is
>>>excused with claims that it allows alternate applications to support older
>>>file types, but that doesn't wash, as none of Microsoft's applications are
>>>capable of co-existing with older versions very well in any other way.
>>And you would guess wrong, since your guess is based on something
>>incorrect to begin with.
>Whatever.
>
>***ZZZZZZZZZ***
So being flat-out, demonstrably wrong doesn't bother Max.
Since he has no problem lying either, our regular readers should not
be surprized.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:35:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> VMS might make a good core, just so long as the guts of it are
> kept away from the end user. I has the necessary characteristic
> of an appliance of being reliable.
The guts of VMS are the good part. I'm not sure if you mean the CLI or
the API, but both are by far the best in the business (or at least
substantially better than Winux and Lindows).
> It would make more sense for the end user to just start porting
> gtk... ...if they would have to deal with VMS personally.
CDE is already available and comes standard with all VMS installations,
so VMS is already at least as modern as any commercial Unix from a GUI
standpoint. I believe there is a GTK port, but I'm not sure (I'm not
interested as I much prefer Motif).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:44:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Isn't VMS a batch OS underneath, like MVS? I suppose you might replace
> some OS/2 server usage with that; but, what about the interactive
stuff.
> I don't imagine VMS is exactly overflowing with word processors and
> stuff... Doesn't seem a likely choice to me.
VMS has batch capabilities built-in. It comes with batch processing
facilities (which I find are typically developed in house in Lindows
and Winux installations since those system do not support them).
But VMS is the best general purpose OS. Not only does it excel at batch
processing, but it is also one of the best real-time operating systems
(it has its roots in RT-11, of course). It is also an excellent
interactive and server OS (it is used for etrade.com and
northernlight.com, among others, and has an extremely impressive
presence in various industry functions).
VMS currently ships with CDE as the GUI. Most modern applications are
available for it, such as Netscape, and SETI@home. Word processors such
as DECwrite and WordPerfect are available for it. I do not know if the
open source office suites can be ported to it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
