Linux-Advocacy Digest #341, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (David
M. Butler)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (dc)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Alan Baker)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James Stutts")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 02:13:53 GMT
In article <39d2a24a$0$30010$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "ostracus"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Woofbert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> > We need a guy like this to work at Infernosoft. Can I steal this sig for
> > a job description?
> > -
>
> I saw the sig in a Linux u.k. newsgroup. You might want to look around
> there to find ownership.
>
>
> (sig snipped to prevent duplication)
Hah! I got it the first time. }: )
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:39:41 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's all well and good saying that people perhaps ought to report, and
> give more accurate info on bugs, but who has time? If I reported every
> time win98 needed rebooting, I'd never be off the phone!
I've wondered for awhile now why MS doesn't have a semi-automatic bug
reporting tool. Have a safe process running in the background that grabs a
dump of whatever when the system crashes. Ask the user if they'd like to
automatically (and anonymously) email the bug to MS when the system reboots.
KDE has something sort of like that, although as the desktop isn't the
actual OS, it's probably a lot easier to implement. Still... MS has a few
billion dollars, I think they could figure out how to do it.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 21:40:38 -0500
Chris Sherlock wrote:
> Why the heck *shouldn't* he respond?
1). Because his responses before this post were to do nothing but waste my time by
trying to run me through the WinME install and troubleshooting.....after the fact
(ie-I already had WinME fully installed before I even started this thread.). I'm
not sure, but I hope he finally understood when I shouted at him that I didn't need
nor want the help!
2) IMO: As I've seen EF post in so many other trolling threads in c.o.l.a, EF
tries to downplay any posts critical of Windows by bogging down the thread in a
large discussion of items that end up being a gigantic Windows troubleshooting
session apparently in the hopes that the thread falls apart. IMO: He doesn't seem
to realize that all this does is make him look like the stereotyped self-proclaimed
Windows troubleshooter.....(ie: Blame the Hardware, Blame the Driver, Blame
anything other than the real problem....Windows).
3). IMO: EF is, unfortunately, not just a wintroll....He is a Windows disciple who
must defend MS right or wrong....Tolerance for any other OS not allowed. My opinion
is based on his large number of trolling posts in c.o.l.a.
Please Note: Nowhere did I ever say he couldn't respond.....All I've tried to make
clear is that I don't welcome his response. This applies to this post as well.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 02:42:27 +1000
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8qt3ej$rnk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:39d2080d$0$26550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Plus, a lot of networks have TCPIP *and* NetBEUI flying around them.
I'm
> > not sure which one Windows uses if both are installed and running, but
I'm
> > betting that in Win95 at least it's NetBEUI.
>
> Windows uses whichever one is selected as the default protocol first, and
> then tries the other protocols if it can't open a connection with that
> protocol.
Which is which one, by default, in Win95 ? I don't have any machines here
that old to check (in any case, all our machines are configured to only use
TCPIP).
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 03:09:07 GMT
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > My aim is that users learn as much as they want to learn about the OS,
> > and that they do so as easily and efficiently as possible.
>
> And what OS allows this?
None. And of course, that's the entire point.
> > are, how to make /all kinds/ of processes yourself, etc.
>
> And what OS does this?
> And what OS does this better than UNIX/Linux/BSD?
I'm not going to bother getting in the way of your worship, defense,
and apologetics of Unix beyond saying that you sound exactly like a
Windows zealot.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 03:10:05 GMT
"Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8qsu9q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> If you consider *SLASHDOT* or The Register to be conventional news
outlets,
> then there's no hope for you.
>
> Microsoft's modificiations consist of exactly ONE extra field that is
> utterly ignored by systems not supporting it, just as it should be. It's
> used for one thing, and one thing only.
To force people to pay client licenses for their server or do extra
work to maintain separate kerberos systems?
>Transferring MS-system-specific
> data over kerberos authenticated links.
It isn't necessary to imbed everything into the server to
use kerberos authenticated links.
>Things like group ownerships and
> permissions, which are REQUIRED for a MS network to achieve full
> functionality, and which are UTTERLY MEANINGLESS to other systems. It
still
> works with other systems just fine. How the hell is Win2k supposed to
tell
> HP-UX what the group permissions are on its files? HP-UX doesn't even
know
> what that means, in the Win2k sense.
So if you already have a kerberos server, why shouldn't both ends of the
MS system that need to exchange information use the stock kerberos
authentication if they are going to use kerberos at all? They can then
exchange anything they want. But that wouldn't force people to
buy client licenses, would it?
> Now, you could argue that MS should have adopted a UNIX-like file
management
> model (chmod 744! yay!), but they didn't. What they did do was take an
> existing spec, modify it WITH HELP FROM THE ORIGINATORS OF THE SPEC,
WITHOUT
> BREAKING COMPATABILITY WITH OTHER SYSTEMS, and allow it to be more
> functional in a Windows-windows network.
If compatibility is not broken, you would be able use it with existing
servers - that's
pretty much the definition of compatibility. Can you?
> Would you rather MS not include kerberos functionality at all? Or that it
> be essentially useless in a pure MS network? The only reason MS excluded
> others from having knowledge of their modifications is that that knowledge
> is USELESS to anyone but MS.
Huh? Keeping that information from everyone else is going to make
them another fortune.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:22:10 -0500
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 02:42:27 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8qt3ej$rnk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:39d2080d$0$26550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> > Plus, a lot of networks have TCPIP *and* NetBEUI flying around them.
>I'm
>> > not sure which one Windows uses if both are installed and running, but
>I'm
>> > betting that in Win95 at least it's NetBEUI.
>>
>> Windows uses whichever one is selected as the default protocol first, and
>> then tries the other protocols if it can't open a connection with that
>> protocol.
>
>Which is which one, by default, in Win95 ? I don't have any machines here
>that old to check (in any case, all our machines are configured to only use
>TCPIP).
Win95? The default protocol installed at the time the NIC is
isntalled is probably NetBEUI....that's not quite the same as the
"default protocol" which would vary by box, but anyway...
Win95 is oolllddd....
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 20:39:48 -0700
In article <ScvA5.5644$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> You do realize that there are Mac POS systems, right.
>
>
>No, thereisn't any doubt that there are Mac POS systems...
>
>;-)
Be nice. <G>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:14:42 -0400
"James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One thing: why do have the people on Usenet post under a handle? Not
> willing to stand
> behind your statements?
In that case, if "standing behind your statement" is your reasoning. Why do
you ONLY post under a real sounding name. Prove who you are with each post
if you are under the illusion that it you to stand behind your statement.
Why not post your name as well as a scan of an official ID , personal
references, social security number, work number, photos, credit
report...etc... Or are you not willing to stand behind your statements?
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 23:36:33 -0500
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > One thing: why do have the people on Usenet post under a handle? Not
> > willing to stand
> > behind your statements?
>
> In that case, if "standing behind your statement" is your reasoning. Why
do
> you ONLY post under a real sounding name. Prove who you are with each post
> if you are under the illusion that it you to stand behind your statement.
Well, if I was posting from an admin account, I wouldn't use my name either.
;)
> Why not post your name as well as a scan of an official ID , personal
> references, social security number, work number, photos, credit
> report...etc... Or are you not willing to stand behind your statements?
A bit extreme, but point taken.
JCS
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:12:13 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>@That's nice. It's unfortunate they'd set it up that way.
@>
@> W2K, being as wonderous as it is, doesn't ask/warn/whatever//let you
@>know that cached profiles are useless in that case?
@
@Bryant, as I've been trying to tell you, every word out of my mouth is
@information based on how it *COULD* be set up! I don't KNOW how your
@admin staff has set it up. NT has a hundred different ways it can be
@set up; which did YOUR admin staff use? You're sitting right in
@front of the machine; why don't YOU tell ME how it works by unplugging
@a network cable, changing a file or two in your profile, and then
@logging in again? Wouldn't that answer at least one of your burning
@questions?
Possibly...if I could login. The error message: "Windows cannot log
you in because the profile cannot be loaded. DETAIL: there is not
enough space on the disk." Or something very close to it.
@>@>If it does, that's a horrendous waste of
@>@>disk space and should only be available if explicitly requested.
@>@
@>@If you don't want it, turn it off. But it makes perfect sense from a
@>@multi-user standpoint.
@>
@> No, it doesn't. From the miltiuser standpoint, n different profiles
@>being left on a machine, where n is the number of unique users logging
@>in, with no mechanism to free up space if too may profiles collect on
@>the system, makes no sense in a multiuser environment. In fact, given
@>that this is a network, with multiple clients, if a given machine is
@>down, it stands to reason that most of the time, there will be another
@>machine available, (note: my wschool is an exception) so cahcing is even
@>more pointless. Further, keeping a different version of a profile for
@>every single login from the beginning of time makes even less sense,
@>since all these versions can get completely out of synch in a worse case
@>scenario. In that case, finding out what version of your profile you're
@>going to be using is nearly impossible.
@
@So get management software that can automatically clean out profiles
@every six weeks, if it's THAT much of an issue for you. Frankly, I
@really doubt it is, but hey - the choice is yours.
The choice is not mine--I don't own/run the machines. Why does
Windows need a third party utility to do something that makes perfect
sense?
@> I can't see my C drive. So I can't see profiles, or %username%, or
@>any verwsion at all of my profile. Further, why should I have to resort
@>to cut and paste. Shouldn't the login prompt let me choose from a list
@>which profile I'd like to use? Seems like that would make more sense
@>than having a user muck around w3ith the directory structure.
@
@Users can't be depended upon to always make the right choice; it's far
@better to have a default choice that handles the decision that will be
@correct in the vast, vast, VAST majority of cases. Hardware profiles
@do exist, so if you have, say, a laptop with 2 NICs it's easy to
@switch between the two; that's the typical use of the login "Which
@setup do you want to use?" question. Bear in mind that's -completely-
@different from user profiles.
OK, you lost me here. Please explain in smaller words.
@>But, hey,
@>what do I know?
@
@Agreed. You have no or little experience with NT and managing a
@network.
Correct.
@>@All of this really, really depends on what your admin staff did. I'm
@>@telling you *one* way it can be done.
@>
@> Sorry, I thought you were telling me several ways it could be done?
@
@One way in that paragraph. If you only wish to be difficult, don't do
@it here. Instead, go see your desktop staff and ask them to fix it.
@I promise you it will get fixed a lot faster than just bitching in
@here.
I spend a fair amount of time bitching at them, thank you very much.
But I like to argue in here. It's relaxing.
@>@Do you not understand what "guessing" means? That's all I'm doing.
@>@You've essentially provided me with -zero- serious information; I am
@>@simply guessing as to what could be one of many hundreds of reasons.
@>
@> Right now I'm trying to figure out what you;re saying. This started
@>when you were trying to describe to me the way w2k handles profiles.
@>You went on to contradict yourself.
@
@How so?
I'm not doing your homework for you--reread the thread.
@>I'm trying to find out what you
@>really meant to say.
@
@I think it's been very obvious to anyone with even passing knowledge
@of 9x/NT.
Well, it's not.
@>@> And why are they saving copis of my password all over the place?
@>@
@>@Sigh. "Copis" of your password aren't being saved anywhere except the
@>@SAM database, a far, far more secure method than Win95's .pwl files.
@>
@> Sorry, tyop. What's a SAM database? Does each machine have one? I
@>would assume so in your "laptop" scenario.
@
@System Account Manager database. All NT boxes have 'em.
@
@If you really want to learn, read a book like ExamCram's Windows NT
@Workstation and Windows NT Server. They're small books, reasonably
@cheap, and they go over the topic in enough detail that someone
@familiar with computers already can learn quite a bit in a short time.
I'll look into it. I'l bet there's a copy or two floating around the
library here.
@>@Sure. Now, do you typically have thousands of users logging into a
@>@single machine *locally*?
@>
@> No, just about thirty. Argument still holds, just with fewer users
@>and more data per user.
@> So, quotas don't help? Then why did you bring them up?
@
@Quotas help. Do you not understand how quotas help? What part of
@"quota" didn't you understand? Yes, too many profiles can overwhelm a
@hard drive, but that's not a likely scenario at all.
It seems to have happened. Yes, I understand quotas, but you implied
that they can solve this problem. They cannot.
@>@>@> So it can be configured to not accumulate shit on the local
@>@>@> machine?
@>@>@>
@>@>@
@>@>@Turn off caching profiles.
@>@>
@>@> You said it's off. Is it miracuously on again?
@>@
@>@How could I know? I'm -guessing- based on incredibly incomplete
@>@information that you've been completely unable to provide. I'm simply
@>@stating how it -can- work.
@>
@> I think I've been more than able to provide incredibly incomplete
@>information.
@> BTW, caching profiles, as you've described, is still insane.
@
@..to someone new to the concept, sure. There are a lot of things that
@are mysterious until you learn them and why they were made that way,
@and then you say "Oh! That makes sense!" once you learn why and how
@it works.
If you say so....
@>@>@>Why isn't that the default?
@>@>@
@>@>@Because it's a bad idea in a multiuser, multimachine environment.
@>@>
@>@> Why? This exact setup worked fine under win 95/98 with no cached
@>@>profiles. This is certainly a multiuser, multimachine environment.
@>@
@>@In a completely insecure manner, sure. Personally, I'd rather that
@>@other people -not- be able to trivially read my profile information,
@>@thank you.
@>
@> Did I say anything abnout security? Do I give a fuck about security
@>when I can't even access my profile? Probably not. Of course, when you
@>think about it, what could be more secure than a profile even the suer
@>can't access?
@
@Call your desktop support staff.
...a bunch of monkies.
@>@>@>It would make more sense. [i'm assuming
@>@>@>the "let shit accumulate" system is the default since the labs are
@>@>@>using
@>@>@>it]
@>@>@
@>@>@Let me guess - you've never run a LAN/WAN of over, say, 5000 users,
@>@>@have you? Or a LAN of any kind?
@>@>
@>@> Hmm, 5000 users. Let's see, I'm a college student......welll, NOPE!
@>@
@>@Do college students no longer have internships? Surely at least some
@>@students must run UNT's domain structures, right?
@>
@> Yes, they do, but they don't have a lot of power or responsibility.
@>A high esitmate of the number of w2k machines at UNT would be 1,000.
@
@So it's a small to midsize campus. That's fine; it's still a good way
@to get some experience.
Actually, we're pretty big--nearly 30,000 students. But mostly
commuters, and mostly music/theatre/art majors. Fair number of CS and
BC majors, but not a majority.
@>@>@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
@>@>
@>@> Yes.
@>@
@>@At what, exactly?
@>
@> My stuff. Net BSD on my IIci talking to my Quadra. Two machines.
@>Two users: root, and me.
@> Therefore, I have administrative experience.
@
@Not even close. You've set up a single BSD machine, something that
@typically takes about 30 minutes to a few hours and requires no or a
@very light technical skillset; administrative experience would be
@doing that for a job (say, during summertime) 40 hours a week, setting
@up 20 or 30 users a day and doing permissions, NFS, CIFS, YP, and
@other 'stuff' day in and day out.
@
@By that logic, one can be an administrator because he's set up OS X
@beta. That's silly.
You asked: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?" I
said, "Yes." Did I lie? Nope, you just asked a bad question. How am I
supposed to know you meant, "Do you have any administrative experience
that I would consider impressive?"
@>@>@No? Thank you. Please stop calling established systems' methods,
@>@>@essentially, "shit".
@>@>
@>@> Why? It isn't working. What we had before did. It's a big waste
@>@> of
@>@>space. It's slower. It's more goddamn money UNT pissed away. Some of
@>@
@>@1. It isn't working because DT Support hasn't fixed it. We don't
@>@know why - for all we know, the hard drive went bad and NT's superior
@>@disk management is shielding you from seeing the massive cluster
@>@failures on the disk. In short, every time you open your mouth,
@>@you're guessing.
@>
@> "NT's superior disk management...." What, w2k can't even report
@>errors in a sane manner? It has to tell me the disk is full, and that's
@>somehow preferable to telling me the disk is damaged?
@
@Are you the administrator on that machine? No? So there are some
@things you may not be able to see. Your hostile attitude has become
@annoying. I'm trying to give you some ideas of the many things that
@could have happened.
So, the system gives the users bad information. They relay this bad
information to the admins. The admins can't fix the problem. And this
is the fault of the admins? Sorry, but I don't see how this is a good
setup.
@> Didn't you say you were the one guessing?
@
@Yes. That is just a guess, but it is a (remote) possibility.
@However, given that you're unable to have desktop support look at it,
@that's about the best we've got.
Very true. I'm about to throw the machine out the window just to see
if THAT will get a response.
@>@2. Win98 and "working"? C'mon. I want privacy and security in a
@>@multiuser environment; Win98 doesn't offer that.
@>
@> I want to edit my report during class instead of 7:00 AM. To hell
@>with what you want.
@
@Then it looks like you'll have to talk to those desktop support folks,
@won't you?
I have, and I will continue.
@>@3. Waste of space? How so?
@>
@> It takes at least as much space as 95/98, but doesn't work.
@
@How do you know that? Are you prepared to guarantee that the machine
@is configured *exactly* the same way? No? Then stop guessing.
I didn't say anything about configuration--I said it didn't work.
@>@4. Slower? Sure, on machines without enough RAM. Otherwise, it's
@>@fine.
@>
@> WTF? It's logging into a server, showing a GUI, and running Word.
@>Just how much more memory would be reasonable?
@
@NT needs RAM. Boy...take a hint, and don't look at OS X anytime soon;
@you'll have a heart attack; it makes NT svelte in comparison.
Further, it's beside the point.
@>@>that money is/was mine. I can't get any work done in class. I have to
@>@>come in at odd times to do something I should be able to do in class.
@>@>But last semester, before this "upgrade" nobody had to deal with this.
@>@> So, since it's having a direct, measurable impact on me, I am more
@>@>than qualified to call it a piece of shit.
@>@
@>@No, you're more than qualified to call your desktop support staff
@>@'shit'. Since you have no idea what's wrong with the machine, any
@>@other analysis you could make would be silly.
@>
@> 1. My support staff IS shit.
@
@That, folks, is the root of the problem.
@
@> 2. They did just fine with 95/98.
@
@Immaterial. See #1.
Very material. 95/98--OK, w2k--failure. Staff hasn't changed,
hardware hasn't changed, usage hasn't changed, even the damn weather
hasn't changed. All that's changed is the OS.
[...maybe...]
@> Old profiles must be removed manually; there is no automated
@>mechanism in place for removing old/rarely used/small profiles, even
@>though that's perfectly OK since there's a server around with every
@>version of every porofile ever.
@
@Not in NT itself, but third party tools exist.
@
@> Quotas will not alleviate this problem as eventially it is possible
@>for so many profiles to accumulate that the machine still runs out of
@>space.
@
@See immediately above if that's an issue for you.
A failing of NT.
@> The local machine might or might not also host multiple versions of
@>profiles. From the info you've given, I would think so, but I don't
@>want to assume.
@
@You've ASSumed so much all along; why stop now? :)
Trying to make you feel better. (:
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://people.unt.edu/~bdb0015
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
