Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Windows98 (Tim Palmer)
Re: Windows98 (Tim Palmer)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (Tim
Palmer)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (Tim
Palmer)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Windows98 (Tim Palmer)
Re: What UNIX is good for. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Something wrong with linux :-( (mark)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (mark)
Re: slashdot ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: 26 Jun 2000 05:31:37 -0400
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:17:33 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Cihl wrote:
>
>> Tim Palmer wrote:
>> >
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/bin/nts/ntsysman.exe
>>
>> What's the point of this? It's a dead link.
>
>But he spelled it correctly! This could be the start of something!
Yeah. He discovered how to cut and paste.
>
>Colin Day
>
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux.
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:30:38 +0400
KLH wrote:
>
>
> The only problem with your theory is that it doesn't make any sense.
> Reiserfs was developed by a company. Perhaps some voluntary development but
> I wouldn't wager that there was much.
You lose with your wager. Boot Mandrake 7.1 and it will tell you "sponsored
by"SUSE, MP3.com and whoever else.
> And saying that it was developed under
> limited resources is, well, duh. So was Windows 2000.
Limited resources, huh. With all their billions? Limited resources?You must be
blind.
>
>
> And could you please quit putting a dollar sign in the abbreviation of
> Microsoft!
NO!
Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 26 Jun 2000 06:28:54 -0500
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:24:02 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>James wrote:
>>
>> See my post above. Most importantly :
>>
>> a) Improved hardware detection, configuration, support & management (not
>> just a desktop function).
>
>at this point linux already has better hardware detection and
>support than windows - for the hardware that has drivers. The
>kernel sees it at boot and loads the module. No hassling with
>stupid driver installation. How much easier do you want it to
>be?
So how is the proletrareit doing you STOOPID COMMY!
>
>I've never had to "install" hardware in linux as in windows.
>I've never spent hours trying to set up an ethernet card in linux
>as I have in windows.
Try settling up a PCI Plug-and-Play modem. Stoopid commy.
>And if you have never had to spend hours
>setting up hardware in windows then you just haven't worked with
>it enough - it has nothing to do with how much you know.
>
>> b) Improved desktop design, consistency, presentation (eg fonts,
>> appearance).
>
>KDE at least has windows beaten into the dirt here, with the
>exception of true type fonts which are fairly easy to install. It
>takes about 1 minute to get all your windows fonts in linux.
And about 2 hours to rede the Font Deglication HOWTO.
>KDE and GNOME both are vastly superior interface over windows'
>explorer. Everyone says it's a "copy of windows" but I really
>find that absurd. They don't look anything like windows to me,
>and neither acts like windows in any way imaginable.
Yeah. The Icon's are all funny-looking and there titals cut each other off and the
screen flickers.
>
>The windows UI is in my opinion one of the WORST user
>interfaces. It's klunky, limiting, and full of stupid features
>that get in your way. I don't see why anyone would want to
>imitate it.
>
>> c) Improvements to X (speed, presentation, etc).
>
>Seems good enough to me, but your mileage may vary depending on
>your version of X and your video card.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 26 Jun 2000 06:29:04 -0500
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:54:28 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Lie-nux doesn't HALVE any apps and nobody's gonna make any either. STOPPID COMMY! GO
BACK TO THE RUSSIA!
>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
You cut off yor IWW sig this time, commy. Are you trying to hide something?
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: 26 Jun 2000 06:29:14 -0500
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:21:49 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If they're allreddy in Windows, why would they want the option to boot Linux to run
>there Windows app?
>>
>
>Perhaps, like me, Windows can't handle the majority of the work they do while Linux
>can. The occasional Windows app can then be run on Linux without a reboot necessary.
>
>> ...but rather a few sharware versions of crap from TUCOWS will run, whial WINE
>would choke on any large, full-feetured program and take X Windows and the consoal
>down with it.
>>
>
>I run Lotus Notes under wine on Linux with no problems. X and the "consoal" have no
>problems with that. Do you consider Notes to be a
>"full-feetured program"?
>
>> Can you immbed VB scripts? Didn't think so.
>>
>
>And you consider being able to imbed VB scripts a virtue?
Millions of people find that feature usefal.
>
>>
>>
>> ...and NT 4.0 was registering 99.999% uptimes on at least twice that manny.
>>
>
>What are you smoking? Do you have any idea what 99.999% uptime is?
More than Lie-nux will ever acheive.
>
>>
>>
>> Tell me when Linnux can actually drive moar then 4 processers like Linux 2.2 was
>suppost to.
>>
>
>Well, I've got the 2.2.14 kernel driving 12 processors with no problem.
>
>>
>>
>> But that's only becaze there down most of the time for kernal recompiles.
>>
>
>Lie all you want. It doesn't make it true.
>
>>
>>
>> And noboddy want's to either.
>>
>
>I do.
>
>Now, Tim, you really do have to stop lying. You never did admit that you were dead
>wrong about Linux for S/390 requiring VM.
>
>Gary
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: 26 Jun 2000 06:29:24 -0500
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:27:58 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If they're allreddy in Windows, why would they want the option to boot Linux to run
>there Windows app?
>>
>
>Because Linux is more stable.
Lie-nux still crashes you LIE-NUX LIAR!
>
>>
>> >Sure, not every single
>> >application will work exactly the way it does on native Windows (the
>> >system won't crash, burn, hang, and die if the application goes nuts),
>>
>> ...but rather a few sharware versions of crap from TUCOWS will run, whial WINE
>would choke on any large, full-feetured program and take X Windows and the consoal
>down with it.
>>
>
>No. even if WINE hangs the display, you just hit CTRL-ALT F1 to get a console, and
>then kill the offending process. You return to X by hitting CTRL-ALT F7.
>
>
>> >
>> >StarOffice is one of several office suites available for
>> >Linux, and one of several Office suites available for both
>> >Linux and Windows.
>>
>> Then why doessn't anyboddy use it?
>>
>
>But anybody (i. e.) somebody does use it. Or are you asking why
>everybody doesn't use it. But not everybody uses Microsoft Office,
>either.
Most people use Microsoft Office even though StarOfice is avalaball.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >StarOffice is written in Java, eats a great deal of memory, and
>> >runs all applications under a single MDI. Some people like that,
>> >I don't.
>> >
>> >WordPerfect for Office is also available for Linux and Windows. The
>> >import/export features leave a bit to be desired, but you can publish
>> >pretty sharp documents that can be read by Microsft Office.
>>
>> Can you immbed VB scripts? Didn't think so.
>>
>
>Aren't VB scripts just text files? Besides, VB doesn't work in Linux.
One more reasin not to run Lie-nux.
>Can one imbed UNIX shell scripts?
Problaby not.
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> I doubt it. Today's PC's come with state of the art
>> >> hardware built in to the system.
>> >
>> >A PC with a built in printer - what, the Coleco Adam? :-)
>>
>> A laptop.
>>
>
>A laptop has a built-in printer? That must kill battery life.
>
>> >
>> >Microsoft pushes Winmodems, so you dedicate 30% of your processor to
>> >feeding a dac and sucking an adc.
>> >
>>
>> I seariously dout its' 30%, you LIE-NUX LIAR! It probly more like 4%, whitch is
>NOTHING unless your on a 386 and
>> only Lie-nux losers still have 386s.
>>
>
>It's not the absolute number of CPU cycles, but a winmodem has to hit the CPU
>in real time.
Its unnoticable unless your on a 386.
>
>>
>> >Microsoft pushes SVGA so you don't get an HDTV display.
>>
>> Lie-nux cant even handle 90% of SVGA cards.
>>
>
>Which 90% would that be? Creative and ATI are pretty much supporting
>Linux.
>
>> >
>> >You get VBScript attachments - which makes it easer to do anything
>> >to the hard drive and the registry.
>> >
>> >Windows is hacker heaven,
>>
>> All the stuff in Phrack is about UNIX.
>>
>> > HDTV displays - big and wide. Linux uses X11 to set resolutions, and
>> > the Xserver can be configured for pretty much any format display.
>>
>> You don't half to look for HDTV to find vidio cards that X11 doesn't support. If
>HDTV displays came to PCs, Windos would support them furst.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >compatibility with other formats. Try editing that word .doc file under
>> >notepad and see what word gives you when you're finished.
>>
>> Try edditing a .DOC fial under VI and see what Word gives you.
>>
>
>About the same as trying to generate a .DVI file in Microsoft Word.
>
>
>> >little VHS sized box, but then again, CompUSA charges about $200/cubic
>> >foot per month for floor space.
>>
>> ...and nobody would actually pay for LYNX.
>>
>
>And would anyone pay for Internet Explorer?
>
>
>> >> Let's talk ISP's.
>> >>
>> >> Talk to Earthlink, Worldnet, FreeWeb, AOL, Compuserv and see what they
>> >> think of Linux.
>> >
>> >No problem with Earthlink, Worldnet, and MCI (though you do have to
>> >set the MSChap option). Many ISPs don't like dealing with Linux
>> >users because we stay on much longer.
>>
>> Too bizzy downlodeing kernal patches, eh?
>>
>
>No. And downloading the diff files isn't that bad.
So why do Lie-nuts users half to stay on much longer?
>
>> >
>> >Ever heard of IRC-II? Linux/Unix was doing streaming audio back when
>>
>> How does ircII mannadge to do streeming audio when it cant' even do graffix?
>>
>
>And why would streaming audio require graphics, except for a GUI to
>control the streaming.
>
>
>> >
>> >Actually, they are supported under UNIX! And from UNIX to Linux
>> >is a very short hop.
>>
>> Yeah rite. All the good apps I ever see are for Windows, and all you Lie-nux liars
>ever show me are half-assed substitutes.
>>
>> None of the good PC hardware is suppoarted by Lie-nux.
>>
>
>Does that include ATI video cards?
>
>Colin Day
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 26 Jun 2000 06:29:35 -0500
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 02:14:03 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:22:17 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Tim Palmer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:18:06 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Tim Palmer wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>or even a good LOGO interporator.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Oh yeah, I want Win2K just to allow kids to program in LOGO!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Brilliant!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >(IMO, one would be better off buying a used Amiga for that sort
>> >> >> >of thing, or perhaps an old Mac II.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But not UNIX beacause LOGO is far too advanced for UNIX!
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Logo is available for Linux. I have ucblogo-4.6-2. Now, MicroWorlds
>> >> >might be a problem.
>> >>
>> >> Photoshop is avallable for Windows.
>> >
>> >
>> >Why pay $700 when you can get the functional equivalent for free?
>>
>> ucblogo is not the functionall equivillant of Photoshop.
>
>First, you go off on a tangent, then you complain that the
>tangent isn't pertinent to the matter at hand.
I said that even LOGO was better than the GIMP, but then some Lie-nux nut
started trying to say that
LOGO was the functionall equivillent of Photoshop.
>
>EXACTLY what kind of moron are you, mister PALMer?
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Aaron R. Kulkis
>> >Unix Systems Engineer
>> >ICQ # 3056642
>> >
>> >H: Knackos...you're a retard.
>> >
>> >A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>> >
>> >B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>> >
>> >C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
>> > sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
>> > that she doesn't like.
>> >
>> >D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>> >
>> >E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
>> > ...despite (D) above.
>> >
>> >F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
>> > response until their behavior improves.
>> >
>> >G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
>> > adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
>C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
>D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
>E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
>G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 26 Jun 2000 06:29:45 -0500
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:17:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> 2) Presentation
>> Fonts are ugly. I know it is an old issue (since I first tried Linux in the
>> 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.
>
>read the font deuglification HOWTO
I have a better solution: Run Windows 2000.
>
>
>
>> 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
>> printout to that produced by IE5. In Linux printing often do not match the
>> app screen presentation.
>
>The web browser formats the text to fit the output medium. Screen !=
>sheet_of_paper
>so it will look different. Also, how exactly is this a linux problem?
>
>
>
>> 4) App setup
>> Eg download Nescape 6 trial, but cannot print from it. In addition it is
>> very slow. It also does not have a proper setup program that I could see.
>> With WinApps there is almost always a simple setup.exe to get started.
>> Apps, including system apps, often have their own config files which use
>> incompatible syntax. Many of these config files have to be manually
>> configured, or configured by crude little apps - which were an afterthought
>> to the app (like apache configuration).
>Netscape6 != Linux
>It is not linux's fault that a beta app doesn't work that well (I've
>never tried it)
>
>
>
>> 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
>By industry standard, you seem to mean microsoft.
>
>> 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
>StarOffice, all that corel/wp stuff. Or you can use a combination of
>seperate progs like lyx/TeX/LaTeX (which is an industry standard),
>gnumeric, etc etc.
>
>> Adaptec Easy CD creator
>Don't know---I don't have a CD burner.
>
>> Adobe Acrobat
>Um... adabe acrobat? xpdf?
>
>> AudioCatalyst
>> GetRight
>I don't know either of these
>
>
>> Windows Commander (an excellent prog, unlike mc)
>Likewise, but I do like mc.
>
>...
>
>> IE5
>Why would I want a piece of shit like that on linux?
>
>
>> 6) Usability
>> Many small things, like having to specify a DNS when setting up my ISP.
>> Poor error messages, eg "modem is busy" when ppp cannot find unconfigured
>> cua port. Like getting an error message from linuxconf about my system
>> clock, just after I have installed the system. Constantly getting garbled
>> output in a terminal (which has to be cleared with ^L).
>Can you be more specific. Oh, yeah, and windows gives the most helpful
>messages.
>
>
>> 7) Consistency and interface design
>> Inconsistent and poorly designed user interface, and poor utilisation of
>> screen space.
>Poor utilisation of screen space? What do you mean?
>
>
>> 8) Speed
>> X still feels sluggish, and programs load slower than in W2k (I only have a
>> 200MHz machine), even though I have a TNT video card.
>
>I have never experienced sluggishness with X. I have an old PC with an
>old distro (RH5.2 vanilla) and I find X very fast. It is in no way
>slower than windows on my computer.
>
>
>
>--
>The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
>http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
>
>remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
>it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:32:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Palmer wrote:
> > It supported the modams that came with it preinstalled.
>
> What is a modam?
I think it might be a MOdulator-DAMm Windows crashed.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Something wrong with linux :-(
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:22:04 +0100
In article <0Qf55.223299$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, KLH wrote:
>
>2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> If you look at my previous posts, you'll know I'm definitely a
>> linvocate, so I'm not trolling here.
>>
No?
>>
>> Now it comes to my sister. She's not stupid, but she's not the kind of
>> person who likes playing with computers at all. She esentially needs a
>> souped up typewriter.
>
>Well, they actually sell souped up typewriters, with spell check and all.
>They call them word processors. They get the job done. My grandparents use
>one.
>
So, why did you recommend a Mac if she wanted a typewriter?
Seems strange to me. Can't see what this has to do with computers
at all.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:42:59 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>Hoobajoob wrote:
>>
>> > I know that in the case of a missing DLL, Windows 98 will tell
>> > you that your program (or one of its components) is missing,
>> > and might give you the name of the missing DLLs before the
>> > Fatal Exception Error occurs. Win2K can't be much different,
>> > unless it automatically knows how to generate the missing DLLs.
>>
>> It asks for the Windows 2000 CD. Then the problem goes away.
>
>Why should an installed DLL ever disappear?
>
>It's inexcusable!
>
I thought that the CD wasn't being distributed in many cases now?
Just the hdd copy. Suppose that means Win2k users will have to
try fixing their Win2k using ftp or something?
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: 26 Jun 2000 11:09:14 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I just think it's funny. The point is supposed to be Linux is so much
: better than NT right?
NT is not in the same class as Linux or any Unix-like OS as a server
OS. That point is not in serious dispute, even by Microsoft, which
runs crucial parts of its business on another Unix-like OS rather than
NT.
: I remember when the Win2k test site was DoS-ed.
: The suggestion at the time was that Win2k sucked because of it..
People asserted this because the machine itself gave indications of
failure (as opposed to merely being unreachable due to upstream
network problems).
And while W2K does suck, it doesn't suck for that reason. Any naked
OS trying to perform multiple tasks without being behind a proper
firewall would have trouble.
But Linux can be locked down tightly enough to function as a very
adequate firewall,* and competently administered machines behind the
firewall should not experience any major problems. Linux has been
used in production Web sites since before the Internet was on
Microsoft's radar. We know how to do this job right. We can't
prevent upstream network outages, which is the most likely explanation
for the ./ and Freshmeat problems. But we can prevent most problems
on our own servers before they occur, and fix those that do occur,
from anywhere in the world, in minutes - without rebooting.
: I
: don't really care why slashdot is down... It's the irony of it I
: enjoy.
Yeah. Why let facts get in the way of a good intellectual jerkoff
session? You're a Wintroll after all. That would completely ruin
your reputation. :)
Joe
* I prefer OpenBSD for firewall duty, but if it and the other
*BSDs didn't exist, Linux would more than suffice.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
