Linux-Advocacy Digest #345, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 10:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (Brian
Langenberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:41:46 +0900
In article <8qrli1$fmv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Osugi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8qp2gf$6qu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8qj4rv$ric$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Actually, the better approach is to not use a home operating system
>> (Win98)
>> > in a corporate environment. NT was designed for this. While not
>> perfect, it
>> > is far more stable than Win98.
>> >
>> > JCS
>> >
>>
>> Why should a "home" operating system be inherently unstable? Less
>
> In this case, "home" is equivalent to "cheap". Commercial operating
> systems are expensive.
>
>> powerful and less feature rich would be understandable (home users
>
> In some ways, Win98 is more feature rich. Provided your primary
> interest involves games.
er>
>> don't usually need 2 gig of ram or support for 16 processors), but
>> stability should be a given. Unfortunately MS seems to have convinced
>> many people that stability is a feature that you have to pay extra for.
>>
>> BTW, isn't the typical home computer expected to work harder than a
>> business workstation? Games, scanners, digital cameras, printers, all
>
> A "business workstation" isn't primarily used for desktop apps. That
> would be a "PC". My Win2k "business workstation" has been used for
> everything from Monte Carlo simulations to CAD. Game graphics, while
> pretty, don't involve geometries with all that much complexity. The
> components available for the workstation line of a company like Dell are
> far more capable and expensive then their home line. Unless you really
> want to try to use an Oxygen GVX1 card for a game. Kind of a waste for
> a $1k graphics card...
>
>> hooked up to / running on one computer. Some business workstations
>> might use one of those, but prolly not all of them. A business
>> workstation just needs to be able to run Wordperfect Office / MS Office
>> and maybe some other generic software.
>
> Nope. You're thinking of something else.
>
> JCS
>
>
>
Maybe our definitions are different here. I am a teacher working for a
Japanese city at city hall. None of the dozens (I realize that that is not
a lot) of computers I have seen are ever required to do anything other
than Word, Excel, and Internet Explorer, and an occasional educational
program. I wonder, how many machines running NT in corporations around the
world are doing CAD or have $700 video cards? I would bet that your
"workstation" is less common than my "workstation". My definition of a
"business workstation" is more like "any computer used daily by employees
in a business for business purposes" (aka not a server). But by your
definition, a business that is just using a "pc" should use a "home"
operating system.
Also, are you claiming that your "workstation" has a printer, usb zip
drive, scanner, and digital camera attached to it? Many home computers
have at least that many extras. My office doesn't - it has separate
computers for scanning, network printers, no digital cameras, and no zip
drives.
Do people come around occasionally and install or delete random amounts of
complex software and even perhaps install new video drivers (for example)
on your "workstation", as can happen when a family is sharing a home pc? A
"home" os should be robust enough to deal with all this kind of stuff,
even in the absence of someone acting as a system administrator. Win9x is
not such an operating system.
Oh, and you failed to answer why a "home" os should be inherently
unstable. Cheaper, maybe, but what other company puts out a "cheap"
product that fails to do the very thing that it is intended to do? My
cheap VCR still plays tapes, my cheap paperback still has all the pages in
the story. My cheap jacket still keeps me warm. Why should a cheap os be
unable to run the computer without crashing? Cheap cars might not have the
best performance, but they don't generally die while you are driving them.
bye,
Osugi Sakae
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:46:30 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Richard wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:46:43 GMT, Richard wrote:
> > See the manpages for "magic" and "file". The fact that there doesn't
>
> magic and file (and I've known about them for maybe 5 years thank
> you very much) are a Rube Goldberg solution to a very, very simple
> problem. And as such, they are only available to programmers, not
> to users. No user can meaningfully use magic.
>
> > exist a command shell that automatically handles file types is due to the
> > fact that no one seems to want one. It's not a design limitation.
>
> One of the first things I noticed when I first got Linux was that
> there were no extensions, and that seemed stupid. When I asked about
> it, someone waved me at magic and file, and that shut me up. It wasn't
> for many years that I got the confidence necessary to believe that
> Linuxers don't know what the fuck they're talking about and are just
> being assholes. If users don't seem to want something useful, it's
> through intimidation of the kind you are using. If you actually cared
> to listen to user demands you would find their list is endless. And
> if you were being empathic towards those same users, you might decide
> that this endless list of demands is quite reasonable.
OK, I don't want to take this personally, but you are making it a little
hard for me not to. Take a look at where you are posting! You are
stating that "Linuxers don't know what the fuck they're talking about
and are just being arseholes." I personally think that I have been very
reasonable and encouraging of you and your plans, but if you're going to
spout crap like this then you're on your own buddy!
Personally, I know of some very smart and very nice Linux users. One of
them I know is on the Sydney Linux Users Group team and he is an active
participant of the Gnome UI mailing list. In my opinion he is trying to
assist the Gnome Foundation with their work by helping make life easier
for users. Another guy I know works as a network administrator and he
has always taken the time to assist me with my questions/problems
relating to Linux.
Plenty of Linux developers care about the user. Look at Gnome and look
at KDE. Look at Enlightenment. Look at the Linux Documentation Project.
Look at the kernel developers team (you may not agree with me about
this, but they have made a very stable and reliable kernel!)
If is *not* reasonable for you to come into c.o.l.a. and tell us that we
are all clueless because we are not using your non-existent O/S! I say
good luck with your O/S, if it works out then you may be very
successful! But I think that if you want to convince other people to
assist you then you are not going about it the right way.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, my intent is not to flame you, but when
you make statements like the one above I really feel that I must say
something.
Chris
> > There is no such functionality in the command shell -- again, I
> > suspect that this is because no one cares. You are the first
> > person I've heard dream up such a thing, and I've been hanging
> > around several Linux forums ( user and developer ) for the last
> > three years or so.
>
> Well, I've only been thinking about what should be possible in a
> good operating system and what should not (and how to design an
> OS that accomplishes *everything* in the first category and allows
> for *nothing* in the second) for the last five years, off and on.
> And I can tell you that to dream the big dream, it's simply not
> good enough to know the principles behind Unix. Try Plan 9, VSTa,
> Grasshopper and Smalltalk *for a start*.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:46:33 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:46:54 GMT, Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >KDE or Gnome or even Motif. (ie, I use xterm/rxvt in
> >preference to newer things, xemacs/vi, xfig, etc)
>
> Then use gtk or qt equivalents. There is a gtk
> port of xemacs, likely a gtk port of vi and quite
> likely a drawing program to replace xfig in GNOME
> or KDE.
A gtk version of vi???? Doesn't that go against everything that vi is? I
love vi the way it is, there aren't any buttons that you need, it has
syntax highlighting already (OK, so that's vim) and I can do
*everything* in vi without using a mouse (this is why I love it so
much!)
There is a graphical version of vi called gvim, but I really can't see
the point.
As for a Gtk version of xfig, try dia
[snip]
>
> Ever notice that the word "therapist" breaks down into "the rapist"?
> Simple coincidence?
> Maybe...
Don't usually comment on sigs, but have you seen Experts Exchange? the
web page address is http://www.expertsexchange.com (get it, http colon
forward slash forward slash www dot expert sexchange dot com)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:53:29 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Richard wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:43:06 GMT, Richard wrote:
> > >One of the first things I noticed when I first got Linux was that
> > >there were no extensions, and that seemed stupid. When I asked about
> > >it, someone waved me at magic and file, and that shut me up. It wasn't
> >
> > The point is that there's some typing functionality, and that your
> > shell is actually something that someone could write in LInux. It's
> > not a design limitation.
>
> That's alright, there are plenty of other limitations (many
> of them because of design) in Unix.
>
> > It'd be an interesting project. Like I said, I don't think that it didn't
> > get implemented because of "nasty programmers". I think that it's not
> > the kind of thing that anyone thought of doing.
>
> There is an attitude common among programmers that users are
> supposed to make the effort to learn the system. So if a user
> overwrites /etc by accident because they wanted to restore
> /home from backup then that is Their Fault, and not the fault
> of the protection scheme that let them have write access to
> /etc even when they never asked for it. Programmers accept the
> limitations of software, forgetting that any such limitations
> exist only because they put them there. And when users fail to
> make the effort to learn all of these arbitrary limitations
> (and why should they?), many programmers start bashing them
> as lazy or stupid.
This isn't a user job. This is the job of an admin, and any admin that
does what you just said isn't worth his salt.
> > It's worth mentioning that a lot of these obnoxious types are not
> > the same people who are contributing actual code to any project.
>
> Point well taken. Though, I find it hard to believe that the
> pervasive mythos of the Hacker versus the Luser isn't widely
> present among contributors.
>
> > > If users don't seem to want something useful, it's
> >
> > The users certainly want a bunch of useful things.
> >
> > >through intimidation of the kind you are using. If you actually cared
> >
> > "intimidation" ? Sorry, I was having a bad day, and then you came
> > on the usenet having the nerve to bash people who give their time to
> > writing free software, and I got pissed off.
> >
> > Try being less obnoxious and you'll find the "evil programmers"
> > will be more receptive. No one is going to be nice to you when
> > you hurl abuse at them.
>
> Usually it starts because I'm seriously pissed at Linux for
> doing something completely stupid. So I'll plead a bad day
> as well. :-)
>
> > >to listen to user demands you would find their list is endless. And
> >
> > Well, the KDE project allow users to make feature requests, though there's no
> > gaurantee that a feature will get implemented.
> >
> > Personally, I work closely with users to develop software which solves their
> > problem. The software I write is written to the users specifications.
> > If the user wants something I can't do, I say "sorry, I don't know how
> > to do that".
>
> This assumes they will admit their needs to you. Two of the biggest goals
> any user has are:
> 1) to not feel stupid
> 2) to not make unrecoverable mistakes
>
> When a user can wipe out everything with rm -rf, this is a failure of #2.
> When they can't delete anything without a stupid confirmation box, this
> is a failure of #1. The only acceptable solution is to have a logging FS
> that allows users to easily undo any operation (move, delete, overwrite,
> anything). And you're not going to find this in any spec, because creating
> such a specification would require more self-knowledge and self-worth than
> most people possess.
Try the recover utility. I think that their is even a gtk front end to
it.
> You can read more about user's real goals at:
> http://www.cooper.com/articles/drdobbs_goal_directed.html
> and for a concrete example,
> http://www.cooper.com/articles/vbpj_ban_the_bomb.html
>
> > Sometimes, a user will have conflicting demands. For example,
> > software should be compatible and well designed. Or from a
> > developers point of view, a toolkit should be high performance,m
> > and "safe", and "object oriented".
> >
> > The demands are reasonable things to wish for, but implementing a
> > solution is near impossible, and the end result is usually an attempt
> > at a "best compromise".
>
> Not to be trite, but I believe there is always a way to resolve such
> conflicts if you think <swallowing distaste> outside of the box. In
> the case of Smalltalk, I know there are ways to speed it up so you
> get the best of both worlds: advanced compilers, native compilers,
> (probably automatable) techniques to systematically fuse objects and
> destroy boundaries, et cetera.
>
> And in the case of rm -rf, Linuxers are remarkably quick to assume
> that making a user feel stupid, and allowing unrecoverable errors
> are an either-or proposition. They don't seem to work very hard at
> thinking up ways to avoid both of these intolerable situations, and
> that's probably the biggest reasons why I believe that programmers
> despise users.
I truely can't understand why you think that free software programmers
despise users. Some of them do, maybe, but to make a blanket statement
that all programmers hate all users is ridiculous!
> > Well here we go again with compatibility vs good design. UNIX is a
> > shining example of the former. The things you mention are not, though they
> > are a fairly good example of the latter.
> >
> > Compatibility seems to be winning for better or worse. And the reason that it's
> > winning is because the users demand it.
>
> I don't know that compatibility has had any serious competition yet.
> Plan 9 doesn't give the end user any compelling reason for adoption,
> nor does VSTa, and Grasshopper is a research OS so I don't think it
> gives even programmers a compelling reason for adoption. And despite
> what Alan Kay claimed, Smalltalk is /not/ an OS (unless something as
> insecure as DOS qualifies).
>
> Besides, there can be peaceful coexistance between OSes. I use Linux
> for VisualWorks Smalltalk; Windows for games, media, and burning CDs;
> and I want to roll my own for everything else.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:58:06 -0400
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Americans actually save very little to none of their income, even when
> : we have more disposable income to spend. We are a greedy, consuming
> : society that really only cares about how much stuff we can attain.
> : Take a look at the chart here. You'll need to assemble the URL.
>
> [snip]
>
> Depending on the "stuff" in question, though, buying "stuff" can be
> a form of investment. Money sitting in a bank is wasted.
True. Yes, the average american household is in debt...but, it's
for the purpose of paying of real estate.
This is different than, say, going into hock to play the horses
for another week.
--
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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
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
her 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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:17:42 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, Chris Sherlock escribió:
>Richard wrote:
>> > > > There are no two sides and you are charging head first at a
>> > windmill.
>> > >
>> > > But then, who'll be my Sancho?
>> >
>> > Your who?
>>
>> Sancho Villa (?) was Don Quixote's sidekick. :-)
>
>Oh. I wasn't aware of that!
You do well not to. He is mixing Sancho Panza and Pancho Villa.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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 19:22:41 +1000
"dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 02:42:27 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >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...
NetBEUI is installed by default. If you then install TCPIP, which is what
most people will do, what is the default protocol afterwards ? TCPIP or
NetBEUI ?
IOW, when you install a new protocol, does it make itself the default ?
> Win95 is oolllddd....
Not really. It's still on most office machines I see. That or NT4.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:26:48 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, Donal K. Fellows escribió:
>In article <00092712401800.25712@pc03>,
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> El mié, 27 sep 2000, Donal K. Fellows escribió:
>>> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Why do you want an icon to have focus? To delete it pressing DEL?
>>>> If you gonna click it, you may as well drag it to trash, or
>>>> Ctrl-click it.
>>>
>>> I thought Ctrl-click was (related to) the standard way of forcing a
>>> copy of an object. Or is KDE ravingly different from the rest of the
>>> world in this matter?
>>
>> That's ctrl-drag.
>> Ctrl-click does the same thing on every GUI I know: selecting the icon.
>
>So why were you mentioning it in relation to deletion, so confusing
>this bear of little brain...?
The original question is "why KDE uses single click? I can't select an icon".
To this, my standard answer is "why do you want to select an icon?".
It's really not a very useful operation, after all. The only things I know
for which you need to do it is to, for example, delete the icon by pressing
"del".
To select icons, on double-click-GUIs, you need to click to select the first,
and to ctrl-click to select the 2nd and later.
On KDE it's just consistent: ctrl-click to select the first, and any other.
>From my POV, it makes no sense to waste the easier action (click) on a not
often used operation, does it?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 28 Sep 2000 13:22:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My position is that,
> the purpose of programming languages is to communicate with human beings
> /about/ computers. That computers actually do anything is a side-effect.
That's complete bollocks. The purpose of a programming language is to
tell a computer what to do in such a way that a person can understand
it too. English is *not* a programming language, and yet it can be
used (and used effectively) to communicate with other human beings
about computers. Hence, you're wrong.
> Since the human perception of beauty and order (which follows universal
> laws) is of primary importance to the ability to communicate effectively
> with human beings, it is clear that programming languages must be elegant
> in order to be effective.
If only. :^(
> The fact that the human perception of beauty
> does follow universal laws implies that programming languages can be
> objectively judged as beautiful or ugly and hence predictions about their
> effectiveness can be made ahead of time.
Naturally, you claim to comprehend what these laws of beauty are? And
the fact that there are plenty of people arguing with you is not
indicative of anything?
> In particular, Smalltalk and ML are elegant while C++ and Java are
> massively ugly. Does this correspond with maintenance problems?
Having done program development and maintenance in SML, it is quite
capable of being a complete pain-in-the-backside. What makes for a
good programming language is not necessarily what you *think* makes
for a good programming language. There isn't even (IMHO) a universal
solution to the problem.
C++ is awful though. :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but Sun are not the only
sellers of Unix. -- Anthony Ord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:39:50 -0300
El mié, 27 sep 2000, Aaron R. Kulkis escribió:
>Aaron Ginn wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:43:36 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >What do you pay in taxes? Take 8% of that. Ask yourself if it's worth
>> > >that amount to prevent millions of children from starving to death.
>> >
>> > NO...it is NOT.
>> >
>> > If the child's own parents have no interest in feeding their own
>> > offspring...why should I?
>>
>> Maybe they do have an interest in feeding their kids, but can't for
>> some reason or another.
>
>Being a lazy crack addict, perhaps...
>
>> Some people are legitimately unable to
>> provide for their families.
>
>Private charities can handle the few who are LEGITIMATELY unable to do
>so.
>
>The rest...fuck them...they made their beds..they can lie in them.
>
>> Not everyone is a leech living off of
>> your income as you seem to think.
>
>Please explain why %40 of the federal budget goes to welfare-leeche
>programs.
>
>
>>
>> Exactly how much of you income do you feel is a fair amount to tax,
>> and what services do you deem tax-worthy?
>
>10% maximum
>
>>
>> > You see...YOUR method means STEALING MY RESOURCES so that they will
>> > be used for the benefit of the progeny of some lowlife scum sucking
>> > welfare whore and her equally contemptable alcoholic "boyfriends"
>>
>> I hope your loved ones don't feel the same way when you are unable to
>> care for yourself someday.
>
>Ever hear of saving for retirement?
>
>No???
>
>NO wonder you advocate Nanny State policies and programs.
I really hope this temper of yours doesn't cause you a brain vascular accident.
You would find that whatever you saved for retirement will be gone much faster
than you believe possible.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: 28 Sep 2000 14:01:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [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.
<snip!>
I can see the headline now:
"Microsoft Hit By Distributed Denial of Service Attack"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
