Linux-Advocacy Digest #173, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:49:37 -0000
Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Zenin wrote:
:> Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Wow. This thread took off on the weekend :)
:> : Can you not take BSD-licensed software, and sell it (withholding source)?
:>
:> Yes, however you can't stop anyone else from giving the source away
:> either. You can not "hijack" BSD code.
:
: Yeah, but whatever changes you made (no matter how revolutionary) are
: unavailable to the rest of the community. Whether this is important or not
: is up to an individual's politics I guess. (Please note, I'm not
: necessarily stating mine :))
The changes however, are mine, I made them, and therefor just like
the original author I have the right to choose if and how those
changes are given to anyone. The point is *other* people have NO
RIGHT whatsoever to be telling ME what I must do with MY WORK.
I may well give them back to the community, but the choice should be
MINE as it's MY WORK.
:> : (honest question; haven't read the BSD license entirely yet)
:>
:> Huh? The BSD license is one of the shortest licenses written. -In
:> striking contrast to the complex and deceiving GPL, a large (and
:> required) chunk of which isn't even part of the license...
:
: Wow, so it is. (I didn't mean to imply I'd read part of it; what I'd
: seen was stuff that been quoted at me. I'd assumed there was more)
:
: [ copyright notice ]
: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
: modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
: met:
: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
: notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
: Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
: notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
: documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
: [disclaimers follow]
:
: Is there a longer version?
Not really. Earlier versions had a clause stating that credit must
be given in any advertisements, but most have removed that
requirement long ago.
More or less it's "do whatever you like with this code, but don't
sue me and make sure my name is spelled correctly.". It also, of
course, continues to hold all rights to the work which insures it
will be continue to be "free"...without any strict contortions that
inflict conditions on the work of others.
What it explicitly does *not* do is make the decision for you (as a
user) as to how you must license *your* work (extensions, whatever).
It only cares about itself, as it should.
:> If Oracle's SQL*Plus were to use the GNU readline library,
:> without "altering" it in any way would SQL*Plus then be an
:> "enhancement" of the readline library?
:>
:> Common sense says no, the GPL says yes.
:
: I personally prefer the LGPL over the GPL for many uses because of that.
: (I don't know enough licenses to say if I'd prefer either over another
: though.)
Which is why the LGPL was created...however, the FSF (ie, RMS)
doesn't feel the LGPL is infectious enough and so its use is now
official discouraged.
The problem however, is making a distinction between "programs" and
"libraries". In the end we're talking about code. An HTML
rendering engine my be part of a GPL browser and not a "library",
but it could still be extracted for other uses. The same rendering
engine built as a library and it would likely be put under the LGPL
(RMS be damned).
:> :> > "Do anything you want, as long as you don't stop others from doing what
:> :> > they want too."
:> :>
:> :> And how does not distributing *MY* source code stop others from distributing
:> :> theirs?
:> :
:> : The primary motivation with GPL was to ensure that if you make changes to
:> : the code, those changes go back into the source pool so others can
:> : benefit. (The viral nature of GPL is secondary, I think, in keeping with
:> : RMS's philosophy.)
:>
:> You've got it backwards. The viral nature is primary; the first
:> part is simply the spin put on the idea to make it easier to digest.
:
: Um, okay. You're not really suggesting the GPL is primarily a virus to
: cause mayhem in the software industry -- and the idea of ensuring
: availability of source is just a scam to spread it? You don't have
: *that* low an opinion of RMS do you?
Have you read RMS's rantings? The man is truly disturbed, IMHO.
RMS believes all code should be freely available and perhaps that's
so, however he also believes it's his job to force everyone to do so
and to do so by his rules, if you want to or not. He feels it's not
only his right, it's his responsibility to cause everyone to release
their source for free...by any means possible, and again under his
terms.
>snip<
:> And if the original author wants to use his code in a non-GPL
:> form, he (effectively) can't, period. Why? Because as
:> "additional developers" have contributed to his code under the
:> GPL, his code is now forever infested with the GPL.
:
: (asuuming he's thrown away his original source, from before other users
: got into it; he's the only one that can hold up source not based on or
: added to an existing product. He can relicense *that* code without needing
: anyone's consent, because its solely his work.)
So...at version 10, the author can release version 1 under any
license he likes...
Like I said, for a project of any size it is completely impossible
for the original author to reuse their own code in a non-GPL manner.
>snip<
: What it all boils down to, is the GPL *is* a political tool. If you want
: to make use of their code, you have to agree with their ideals (source
: should always be available). It creates a separate market where all the
: code is available, and none of it *can* be proprietary. If you don't
: follow those ideals, then their code is denied you, as yours is denied
: them.
Ah, but code isn't denied them. BSD code in a GPL work should cause
no problems.
: If you want your software to be part of the GPL market, then use the GPL
: and avoid the rest; if you want to be part of the 'commercial' market, use
: pretty much anything else and avoid GPL.
I want my code to be part of the "software market". Do what you
want, just don't sue me and spell my name correctly. If you make a
million bucks off it, more power to you; buy me a cup of coffee some
day to pay me back...but only if you choose to.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:47:36 -0400
Jason Bowen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JS/PL wrote:
> >>
> >> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
> >> > is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
> >> > our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
> >> > of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
> >> > detrimental impact.
> >>
> >> What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life on land and
> >> in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of fresh water?
> >> Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it kicks in the better :-)
> >
> >Actually...that's EXACTLY what the polar icecap record shows...
> >
> >Global warming PRECEDES rises in C02 levels...
> >
> >Warming produces more abundant plant life, which quickly suck up the
> >C02...stabilizing the temp.
> >
> >It's a VERY strong negative-feedback system.
>
> Oh if it were all that simple. You know I talked about a set of
> observations and some known facts. I didn't make an real predictions.
> You have your belief system and you don't actually have an experiment to
> point to that would support your belief, just a belief but spout it like
> truth. That fact is that CO2 levels are higher than they have been in
> 600k years and climbing. High CO2 levels don't result in more plant life,
Bullshit. They spike after every volcanic eruption, and then drop
sharply according to exponential decay.
> you're not going to have a forest sprout up on barren land. We are
> modifying the atmosphere and should pay attention to it. I don't know
> about you but I don't feel like waking up some day going, "damn how about
> that, my ideas were wrong but I was too fucking arrogant to think that
> there might be another answer". The fact is that we know about
> Milankovich cycles and can see atmospheric conditions from past natural
> happenings. We are modifying things though and to say, "oh fuck it, it's
> all good as long as I am fine right now" is sheer ignorance.
>
> >
> >-- >Aaron R. Kulkis
> >Unix Systems Engineer
> >ICQ # 3056642
> >
> >H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> > premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> > you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> > you are lazy, stupid people"
> >
> >I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> > challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> > between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> > Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
> >
> >A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
> >
> >B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> > method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> > direction that she doesn't like.
> >
> >C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
> >
> >D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> > ...despite (D) above.
> >
> >E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> > their behavior improves.
> >
> >F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> > adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
> >
> >G: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 07:29:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>but a program is *data*; the correct analogue for an operator is a
>process. A process is the result of another process (the execution
>server) applied on data (the program). So what I'm actually doing
>is making a sharper distinction between operators and data.
Not really. Operator is also data. Programs are
executable data. Other files can be executed, when
specified with behavior. The problem is that you
should give up the notion that "your" way of
looking at things is the only way to do so.
>I'm from a pure math background so I also like things to be consistent.
Which Unix is, in its own way.
>I'm also very used to dealing with abstract concepts of all kinds (math,
>physics, philosophy, you name it) so I'm very good at discerning incon-
>sistencies and also very critical of them. And I've spent years finding
>out the principles behind good OS design.
Yet you criticize an extremely simple and flexible
paradigm as being inconsistent and favor a far more
complicated and inflexible system.
>You'd type
>$list\ of\ songs.playlist
>and press [tab]
>then it would fill in the line with
>$xmms list\ of\ songs.playlist
>and if there was more than one option then it would display them all,
>just like filename completion
And why is this an OS issue again?
>> > In some OSes, the creation of a process
>> > from a program is done through a separate server process
>> > and the identity between opening and execution is obvious.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't follow.
>Many years ago, someone proposed for HURD (maybe it was VSTa)
>that a user could replace the standard execution server (the
>process that creates a new process based on a program) with a
>more complex server that understood different executable formats
>and maybe even the need to run a program under emulation.
And that's related to opening documents, how? Executables
are executed in one way. Documents can be handled in many
ways. There's only one sensible way to interpret an
executable that's submitted for execution. Such is not the
case for documents.
>have. This is correct, but all it proves is that the standard Unix file-
>system is broken and that it lacks the functionality that it should have.
If it doesn't have a functionality for a certain applicaiton,
it's broken? The file-system is supposed to be a low-level
abstraction that's flexible enough to build higher-level
abstractions on. If the low-level abstraction is too complex,
then other applications that don't rely on these become more
inefficient
>Unix counting on processes being one-off means that it's not possible
>to shut down the computer and retrieve the processes you had (with all
>of their state) after you reboot. By all rights, I *should* be able to
>reboot my machine right now and get back all of the machine state I
>left it in (including an open text editor window, and all the text I
>have typed in so far).
Why? Because you think so? Again, have you designed such
a system yourself? I'm as much a fan of orthogonal
persistence and SASOS, but just because I prefer a certain
other approach is not a reason to bash existing systems.
>Okay, we're getting into irrelevant semantics. My original concern is
>that the program->process conversion happen as little as possible. You
>can create new processes just by copying parts of the old one and I won't
>care, but if programs are constantly being converted into processes
>for no good reason and this is not transparent to the user (as indeed
>it isn't in Unix since internal state is not preserved across activations)
>then something is very wrong.
Again, it's not wrong just because you have another way
to conceive it that you happen to like it more.
>Unix maintains a sharp divide between users and programmers (so does
>every other OS I know of but that's not the point)
Then write an operating system yourself. Simple as that.
If your approach really is that much better (it's nothing
that I haven't seen addressed elsewhere, and nothing
those programmers who are involved in the design of modern
OSes aren't aware of)
>and one of the
>consequences of that divide is that the GPL is pretty meaningless
>to users. Well, I'm interested in winning this class war for the
>users and if the other side gets hurt in the process, I don't care.
>What's interesting to note is that programmers, as individuals,
>hurt themselves by waging this war against users and maintaining
>their, collective, superiority towards users. Programmers are sadled
>with an OS that's horrible to use and program for just so they can
>scare away users.
Again, this class division is not apparent to anyone but
yourself. What's funny is that all these radical approaches
to make computers easy are only apparent to programmers,
and lose meaning by the time they reach users. Hell, someone
influential enough in MS thought dancing paperclips are
great.
>You see, interfaces are actually languages. Not "like" languages
>but *are* languages. When you learn an interface, you're actually
>learning idioms in some language (what scrollbars do is an idiom
>in a graphical language) that lets you express thoughts. Well, one
>of the most important roles of language is to include some people
>and exclude others. And that's what programmers do on a regular
>basis. Now here's the important part: I don't give a shit about
>exclusion or inclusion, I just want the language to make sense, to
>be powerful, to be elegant, et cetera. And "powerful" to me refers
>to what *users* can do with it, not what a clique of programmers
>can do with it.
Your idea is sensible in principle, but it remains that the
standard Unix system presents a more consistent interface
than what I can infer from your posts the system you have in
mind. Then there's all those compatibility problems.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:49:23 -0400
Jason Bowen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JS/PL wrote:
> >>
> >> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
> >> > is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
> >> > our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
> >> > of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
> >> > detrimental impact.
> >>
> >> What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life on land and
> >> in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of fresh water?
> >> Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it kicks in the better :-)
> >
> >Actually...that's EXACTLY what the polar icecap record shows...
> >
> >Global warming PRECEDES rises in C02 levels...
> >
> >Warming produces more abundant plant life, which quickly suck up the
> >C02...stabilizing the temp.
> >
> >It's a VERY strong negative-feedback system.
>
> Oh if it were all that simple. You know I talked about a set of
> observations and some known facts. I didn't make an real predictions.
> You have your belief system and you don't actually have an experiment to
> point to that would support your belief, just a belief but spout it like
> truth. That fact is that CO2 levels are higher than they have been in
> 600k years and climbing. High CO2 levels don't result in more plant life,
> you're not going to have a forest sprout up on barren land. We are
> modifying the atmosphere and should pay attention to it. I don't know
> about you but I don't feel like waking up some day going, "damn how about
> that, my ideas were wrong but I was too fucking arrogant to think that
> there might be another answer". The fact is that we know about
> Milankovich cycles and can see atmospheric conditions from past natural
> happenings. We are modifying things though and to say, "oh fuck it, it's
> all good as long as I am fine right now" is sheer ignorance.
>
You know...a GOOD university education teaches the student that there
is much that he does not know.
In your case, it is quite evident that the educational process has been
a failure.
I suggest you apply for a refund.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:50:08 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS/PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
> > > > is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
> > > > our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
> > > > of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
> > > > detrimental impact.
> > >
> > > What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life on land
> and
> > > in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of fresh water?
> > > Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it kicks in the better
> :-)
> >
> > Actually...that's EXACTLY what the polar icecap record shows...
> >
> > Global warming PRECEDES rises in C02 levels...
> >
> > Warming produces more abundant plant life, which quickly suck up the
> > C02...stabilizing the temp.
> >
> > It's a VERY strong negative-feedback system.
>
> Here's an idea...
>
> Take that polar icecap and shove it up your ass!!
> Ohh wait...that won't work...your heads in the way!
You write like an illiterate loser.
Why is that?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:54:38 -0400
Jason Bowen wrote:
>
> In article <39c5a255$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 09/17/2000 at 11:05 PM,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> >
> >> >No one has provided any irrefutable scientific proof which is universally
> >> >accepted that CFC's have cause any climatic changes. There are theories
> >> >put forth by some scientists which are not accepted by others with equal
> >> >prominence.
> >
> >> Which is why things are called theories and studied. Dismissing
> >> something because there is a disagreement is the sign of stupidity.
> >
> >Taking radical action based on an unproven and disputed theory is totally
> >wrong. To ban a whole family of products because some whacko
> >pseudoscientists like you think it might cause harm is foolhardy at best.
>
> What is radical action? Define it. What action have I said we should do?
> You're getting ahead of yourself.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >You on the other hand are too stupid to recognize valid analogy when you
> >> >read it. Sad, sad, sad. About what one expects from liberals like you.
> >
> >> You're analogy was very poor. There is proof that CFC's are by-products
> >> of certain aerosols, simple chemistry shows that. CFS's also destroy
> >> O3, plenty of proof for that.
> >
> >There you go again. Stating as fact disputed theory. You are the type of
> >asshole who persecuted Copernicus because he said the earth and planets
> >revolved around the sun.
>
> Sorry asshole that is fact. Your really need to learn that, take chem101.
>
The Ozone "hole" is caused by the fact that all gases DISPERSE...and
additionally, ozone breaks down...PLUS during each poles' winter months,
that section of atmosphere is shielded from the sun's ozone-FORMING
Ultraviolet rays.
Wield fantasies about heavy concentrations of C(x)-F-CL(y) molocules in
the upper atmosphere...are...inane.
You know how large rocks sink in the water...it's kind of like that.
CFC's have very heavy molecular weights...they fall to the
ground...asshole.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
