Linux-Advocacy Digest #234, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 17:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows98 ("James")
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows98 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Number of Linux Users ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy ("John W.
Stevens")
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (EdWIN)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (dakota)
Re: Windows98 ("James")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:45:10 +0200
Yup, it is the engineer in me that draws me to Linux, but the businessman
that sees the weaknesses. I install each new version with excitement,
rejoice at the improvements, but is always brought back to reality when I
realise that I cannot perform my job using this system (however, I am sure
many persons in different, probably non-corp environments, can).
James
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:37:10 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ok, some examples :
> >
> >1) Installation
> >After installation of Redhat 6.2 / Mandrake 7.1 my Rockwell 56K modem is
not
> >properly configured, and my USB Epson 900 and Perfection 610 scanner do
not
> >work. Play around with pnptools and setserial to get the ISA modem card
to
> >work. No problem with W2k pnp. Another way is to set the OS to non-pnp
in
> >BIOS, but this is a hassle for W2k. Linux requires better pnp.
> >Poor system configuration compared to W2k start>settings menu. Eg where
in
> >Linux is there a full and accurate list of detected/configured hardware,
> >well-presented, which can be easily printed.
>
> You might have tried the vendor's website.
>
> >
> >2) Presentation
> >Fonts are ugly. I know it is an old issue (since I first tried Linux in
the
>
> Learn how to configure GUI applications. It's really not that hard.
> You do it the same way you do under Windows when one if it's apps
> defaults to something ugly or otherwise unsuitable for fonts.
>
> >mid 90s). I understand that this is a patent X problem. Saw some paper
on
> >the xfree website to improve matters, but no real action. Won't be
> >surprised if it takes another few years to solve this problem.
> >
> >3) Printing
> >After getting my modem to work I browse the internet and read mail with
> >Netscape 4.7. I open a page and then print it (thru /dev/lp0 as
> >/dev/usb/usblp0 does not work). Guess what? It is not wysiwyg or even
the
> >same as the screen fonts, and looks ugly. Not even in colour. Compare
the
>
> That's strictly a Netscape problem. It does pulls the same crap
> on Solaris too.
>
> >printout to that produced by IE5. In Linux printing often do not match
the
> >app screen presentation.
>
> You need to get around more.
>
> >
> >4) App setup
>
> Who cares?
>
> [deletia]
> >5) Lack of apps
> >In Linux I don't have access to powerful, industry standard, desktop
> >applications. Do I need to elaborate here? The apps bundled with
gnome/kde
>
> Yes. The obvious would be that MSoffice isn't the the only
> suitably sophisticated office suite in the world, or on Linux.
>
> >are really very crude. For example, the newsreader where I cannot
quickly
> >find a particular newsgroup and the sorting is limited (compare this with
> >OE).
> >
> >Can you provide me with a list of Linux apps to match the following in
BOTH
> >power and usability :
> >
> >Office 2k
>
> Perfect Office 2000, StarOffice.
>
> >Adaptec Easy CD creator
>
> xcdroast. Both KDE and GNOME have their own variants as well.
>
> >Adobe Acrobat
>
> Adobe Acrobat.
>
> >AudioCatalyst
> >GetRight
> >Windows Commander (an excellent prog, unlike mc)
> >MS Bookshelf
> >MS Money
> >Napster
>
> knapster, gnapster.
>
> >Visio
> >AutoCAD
>
> Are you seriously trying to convince us that you are a
> professional engineer AND interested in the rest of this
> stuff (most notably, the very latest version of msoffice)?
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:37:23 GMT
In article <8ir19u$20kt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> In article <8iqugi$gf0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, your mistake in reference to KDE as a "window manager"
> >> entirely nullifies all of your previous points. To make such a
> >> collosal mistake as this betrays the true amount of unix knowledge
> >> you posess, which would be this much:
> >>
> >> 0
> >
> >Although its an easy flame for you, I think that for lusers
> >like me, its an easy mistake to make. In all the time that
> >I've used Redhat, I thought KDE was a window manager, and am
> >only just learning that it isn't. Now, if this does equate
> >to having a knowledge level of 0, then yes, clearly linux loses
> >points here, most windows users can get to work immediately,
> >ie., attain a "knowledge amount" significantly greater than 0,
> >even if unable to separate the idea of a user interface from the
> >operating system, if only because in the microsoft world, there
> >isn't that much separation between the interface and the OS.
> >
> >So one conclusion to be reached is that unix requires too much
> >knowledge to be used by the majority of computer users. Score
> >one for Bill, attaining a knowledge level greater than 0 is
> >much easier for the windows side of the OS wars.
>
> Huh? Note that it was not necessary for you to know the
> difference between an environment and a window manager
> to use a distribution.
I won't run an OS that I have 0 knowledge of ;-)
> Also, you are just as wrong about
> MS windows as demonstrated by whoever it was that managed
> to remove IE from win98 and keep it working. As I recall,
> even Bill didn't know how to do that...
Never saw how to do that. Additionally, if its not supported
by the producing company, its a moot point.
> >But now that I'm at least clear on what KDE is, how can I give
> >KWM a spin without running KDE, so I can get an idea how it (KWM)
> >ranks as a windows manager? Specifically, I'd like to install
> >KWM without KDE, because, for me, in a purely subjective manner,
> >KDE disagrees with me, and from my superficial bit of '0-level
> >knowledge based investigation', I can't seem to find a KWM tarball.
>
> Just remove all of the other kde components that you have
> suddenly decided to dislike. Unless you are horribly short
> on disk space there is no particular reason to remove them,
> though. You can leave kfm on the disk and run gmc or xwc
> if you prefer. Likewise will all of the other parts.
Where did you read 'suddenly'? Where did you read me asking
'how to remove files from an existing KDE install so as to leave
behind just KWM?'
If you like, you're welcome to try again, preferrably with
a bit more precision this time.
Cheers!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:50:52 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:15:42 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
>Browne) wrote:
>
>>KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
>
>Call it whatever you want... it's still a pathetic clone of the
>Windows 9x style UI that's ugly and slow.
...which makes it indirectly a poor clone of MacOS.
Calling something else a clone of Windows is hardly compelling.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: 21 Jun 2000 20:51:48 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
: Browne) wrote:
:>KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
: Call it whatever you want... it's still a pathetic clone of the
: Windows 9x style UI that's ugly and slow.
I agree. The Windows 9x style of UI is ugly and slow.
Fortunately, KDE doesn't have to look or act like it.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:44:55 -0600
Paul 'Z' Ewande� wrote:
>
> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
> > > You claimed that users didn't need to learn Windows. Just how are they
> > > supposed to do the things you listed if they don't learn Windows?
> >
> > He's just demonstrating the usual stupidity of the typical LoseDows
> > advocate.
>
> Reading comprehension problems ? I said :"End users have no need "to futz
> around trying to learn the clunkyOS", there are trained/experienced people
> for that."
And you are, in fact, wrong. Users need to learn to use the OS,
regardless of what that OS is.
Your "trained/experienced" people are there to *ADMINSTER* the system,
not *USE* it for the user.
> All they have to learn is how to click on icons and menus.
"All they have to learn". . . you've never seen someone absolutely brand
new to computers, have you? Navigating a mouse is not something that
human beings are born knowing how to do. They are also not born knowing
what an icon is, that it can be "clicked" on, that that funny word at
the top is a "button" that they can "click-and-hold" on that will "drop
down" a "menu" . . .
Etc., etc.
While I agree that the differences between the Mac and Windows GUI are
trivial, to claim that users do not have to "learn how to use the OS" is
simply wrong.
Note that the same argument applies to Linux: the difference between the
Windows and MacOS GUI's and either Gnome or KDE are so trivial as to be
irrelevant. So, obviously, Linux on the desktop is eminently possible.
On the topic of learning: I could give you quite a few stories that
illustrate a user learning to simply use a GUI, to say nothing about
learning to use an OS ("directory? what's a directory?").
> You don't have to
> futz around trying to learn the clnuky OS and spend thousands of hours doing
> that. Or you'll have to spend a similar amount of time on the Mac, or you'll
> have to show me how they are different.
Ah! So you realize that users need to learn how to use an OS? Good.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:45:13 -0600
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <8il6cp$gg7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Says who? You? Don't go making claims like this without having proof,
> > or at least a credible source to quote. Otherwise it's just hot air.
> >
> > >
> > > Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such dramatically
> > > higher productivity level?
> >
> >
>
> I've been providing highly credible, independent third party sources for
> at least 5 years.
>
> But I see _you_ haven't provided any evidence to support your
> position......
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:49:49 -0600
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <8il6cp$gg7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Says who? You? Don't go making claims like this without having proof,
> > or at least a credible source to quote. Otherwise it's just hot air.
> >
> > >
> > > Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such dramatically
> > > higher productivity level?
> >
> >
>
> I've been providing highly credible,
Translation: he believes what they say,
> independent
Translation: Their financial interest in proving the MacOS superior to
Windows is indirect . . .
> third party
Translation: Not Apple.
> sources for
> at least 5 years.
Translation: I've posted some stuff, then claimed it proved something
that not even the muck I posted claimed to have proven.
> But I see _you_ haven't provided any evidence to support your
> position......
I did, but of course, you failed to accept it . . . say, that's pretty
much the exact same thing people do to you, isn't it?
Such incredible nonsense. . . obviously, the Windows OS is superior to
the MacOS. Anybody who understands even basic evolutionary theory knows
that. And anybody who knows even basic evolutionary theory would know
that Linux is going to continue to grow, but that it is unlikely to ever
displace Windows on the desktop.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:54:41 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:33:25 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>See my post above. Most importantly :
>
>a) Improved hardware detection, configuration, support & management (not
>just a desktop function).
Actually, this has NOTHING to do with the desktop.
>b) Improved desktop design, consistency, presentation (eg fonts,
>appearance).
This is just another generalization split into smaller generalizations.
>c) Improvements to X (speed, presentation, etc).
Same as b.
Although, as far as fonts go there are plenty that can be used
effectively in place of their Windows counterparts. That's just
a common bit of FUD shared amongst Lemmings.
>
>James
>
>"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> James wrote:
>> >
>> > David,
>> >
>> > Even though Win98 is a much more usable desktop in many respects
>(including
>> > games) than Linux it is, agreeably, highly unreliable. Therefore your
>post
>> > in this NG will have no credibility, even though it deserves some. In
>the
>> > company I work for we run Win95 on most desktops (some 20000+) and of
>course
>> > experience the usual problems - mostly users corrupting their own
>systems.
>> > The company will in the next 2-3 years upgrade all desktops and backends
>> > (from Novell & GroupWise) to W2k. Linux, with its limited and crude
>desktop
>> > apps, its complicated man-machine interface (for average users), is
>simply
>> > not an option.
>>
>> If all the apps you need are available in linux than linux is a
>> far better choice than any version of windows. The problem is
>> application availability. The UI available for linux are far
>> better than windows and give the administrator a greater amount
>> of control.
>>
>> The wintrolls keep repeating this lie that windows "has a better
>> desktop" even though it is blatantly false ... when you press
>> them then you see what the problem always was: linux doesn't
>> have this program, doesn't run this game ... this has nothing to
>> do with windows being a "better desktop".
>>
>> What features does the windows GUI have that you would like to
>> see in, say, KDE?
>>
>> > Linux is for tinkering. W2k is for work.
>>
>> Oh bullshit
>
>
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:54:26 -0400
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:31:51 +0400, "Ferdinand V. Mendoza"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Installed Mandrake 7.1 recently. I got all the
>partitions for reiserfs.
On the flip side Mandrake 7.1 locks up for me on a system with a 5
year old video card while trying to probe for SCSI cards.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:57:34 GMT
On 21 Jun 2000 20:51:48 GMT, Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
>: Browne) wrote:
>
>:>KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
>
>: Call it whatever you want... it's still a pathetic clone of the
>: Windows 9x style UI that's ugly and slow.
>
>I agree. The Windows 9x style of UI is ugly and slow.
>Fortunately, KDE doesn't have to look or act like it.
Fortunately, you don't have to use KDE (or GNOME) to get
a desktop equivalent to WinDOS...
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:53:03 GMT
WOW, how unscientific! Never mind that users probably surf DIFFERENT
sites than the average point and click windows junky (thus may NOT be
counted), But many of them use different TOOLS to do so. Many of those
tools (lynx I know for one) DO NOT report the OS! Wow, I'm NOT
impressed.
In article <7t625.2215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the number of Linux users BOOMS to 0.3%. Is Linux taking over??!!
>
> http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
>
> http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:55:29 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What a lame response...
>
> Not even worth responding to....
Why? Truth hurts to much?
Been there, had to clean up the mess. A friend of mine did just what
you suggested . . . and never would have recovered from the mess if I
hadn't been there to help him straighten it out.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:01:56 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > -- snip --
>> >
>> > > > <snip replies>
>> > >
>> > > Taking more context restoration lessons from Curtis Bass?
Don't you know?
>> > -- snip --
>> >
>> > > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > Taking more context restoration lessons from Curtis Bass?
Don't you know?
>> > What's the deal, Marty?
You erroneously presuppose the existence of a deal.
>> > Are you agreeing with Tholen that I equate
>> > snippage with "context restoration?"
Don't you know?
>> > Just curious.
What you are curious about it irrelevant, what you can prove is
relevant.
>> I come here to bury Tholen, not to praise him.
Classic illogic. Are you taking illogic lessons from
Eric "Master of Illogic" Bennett again?
>> The above is typical of something Tholen might say.
Evidence, please.
>>I neither condone nor support it.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>Fair enough.
Typical pontification.
>Curtis
See what I mean?
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Prove it, if you think you can.
>Before you buy.
Illogical.
>
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
From: dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:12:13 -0700
Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>Advandage of TS:
>
>-It's faster on slower networks.
>-It has some default encryption.
>
X can be piped through an ssh session.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:05:57 +0200
Jedidiah,
The desktop user is not worried about whether (a) is a desktop issue or not.
S/he requires a solution.
I can go into great detail regarding (b) but perhaps the kde/gnome/xfree
teams need to do some usability/user studies. This is one of those soft
issues that MS has addressed in their OS', which makes them a commercial
success, unlike Linux.
James
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:33:25 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >See my post above. Most importantly :
> >
> >a) Improved hardware detection, configuration, support & management (not
> >just a desktop function).
>
> Actually, this has NOTHING to do with the desktop.
>
> >b) Improved desktop design, consistency, presentation (eg fonts,
> >appearance).
>
> This is just another generalization split into smaller generalizations.
>
> >c) Improvements to X (speed, presentation, etc).
>
> Same as b.
>
> Although, as far as fonts go there are plenty that can be used
> effectively in place of their Windows counterparts. That's just
> a common bit of FUD shared amongst Lemmings.
>
> >
> >James
> >
> >"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> James wrote:
> >> >
> >> > David,
> >> >
> >> > Even though Win98 is a much more usable desktop in many respects
> >(including
> >> > games) than Linux it is, agreeably, highly unreliable. Therefore
your
> >post
> >> > in this NG will have no credibility, even though it deserves some.
In
> >the
> >> > company I work for we run Win95 on most desktops (some 20000+) and of
> >course
> >> > experience the usual problems - mostly users corrupting their own
> >systems.
> >> > The company will in the next 2-3 years upgrade all desktops and
backends
> >> > (from Novell & GroupWise) to W2k. Linux, with its limited and crude
> >desktop
> >> > apps, its complicated man-machine interface (for average users), is
> >simply
> >> > not an option.
> >>
> >> If all the apps you need are available in linux than linux is a
> >> far better choice than any version of windows. The problem is
> >> application availability. The UI available for linux are far
> >> better than windows and give the administrator a greater amount
> >> of control.
> >>
> >> The wintrolls keep repeating this lie that windows "has a better
> >> desktop" even though it is blatantly false ... when you press
> >> them then you see what the problem always was: linux doesn't
> >> have this program, doesn't run this game ... this has nothing to
> >> do with windows being a "better desktop".
> >>
> >> What features does the windows GUI have that you would like to
> >> see in, say, KDE?
> >>
> >> > Linux is for tinkering. W2k is for work.
> >>
> >> Oh bullshit
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
