Linux-Advocacy Digest #423, Volume #29 Tue, 3 Oct 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Linux Sucks (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: The real issue (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:15:34 -0300
El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> At least history has a goal of discovering what happened, finding facts.
>> Psychohistory only cares about finding motivations.
>
>I would reverse that:
>At least psychohistory has a goal of discovering why things
>happened, finding motivations. History only cares about finding
>irrelevant "facts."
I suppose even you can see how without the facts, the motivations can't be
researched. Thus, if you believe psychohistory to be a worthy endeavour, so is
history.
>Have you ever heard the aphorism "Those who never learn from
>history are doomed to repeat it"?
I prefer, "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce" myself.
> Do you seriously believe
>that finding out tons of meaningless and unconnected "facts"
>constitutes learning?
Well, if you assume they are meaningless and unconnected, sure it ain't. Of
course you are just projecting your own judgement of value as truth.
> What would you say to someone who claimed
>that learning mathematics was rote memorization of unconnected
>theorems? Or do you seriously believe that because A happened
>before B is sufficient explanation for B?
And of course it's better to just guess.
>> Since they can't be proven
>> or disproven,
>
><rolleyes> Of COURSE they can be proven! If anything, it's the "facts"
>that can't.
You can prove why someone did something 200 years ago? Amazing.
>> what probably happens is that for every incident that they study,
>> you end with several "proposals", which change in popularity according to
>> fashion. Wanking.
>
>What *probably* happens?
If I know anything about the academic mind.
>Go ahead, condemn something without knowing the first thing about it ....
I know academics.
>> Sorry, did you say predicting the past?
>
>Great, now you've never heard of retrodictions before!
I did. It's just crap. Retrodictions have zero scientific value.
>When I study what happened between 200 and 300 years ago and I make
>a statement about what I'll find if I study what happened 500 years ago,
>that is a prediction.
Nonsense. Predictions are guessing what will happen, not what happened.
Predicting the past is trivial: you just keep fudging your guesses until you
hit a right one, then you stop.
>Superstrings predicted gravity because physicists working on it never
>put it into the theory, gravity *has* to be there for superstrings to be
>internally consistent.
This shows just what a mess your science is.Superstrings didn't predict gravity
because the people doing superstrings theory already knew gravity! Predicting
something you already know is kinda easy.
>> >Next you'll be saying that there is no such thing as the "business class."
>>
>> Well, I usually fly coach ;-)
>
>Which only proves that you're not part of the business class.
Or that I only fly short trips.
>> >White collar employees are slaves. This is exactly what people at
>> >the turn of the century believed and said before the giant American
>> >propaganda industry was invented.
>>
>> Whatever. Any slave would disagree, I believe.
>
>Next you'll be telling me that children who aren't beaten aren't
>"really" abused and that any person who grew up severely beaten
>every day would disagree with the statement that, say, extreme
>neglect and emotional abandonment constitutes child abuse.
Again, you are speaking in my behalf. Don't. Specially if you gonna say stupid
things.
>Don't speak on behalf of slaves, asshole; what they say might
>surprise you.
Do you know any real slaves?
>> >> every cell. Replacing every cell in a human body would cause a cease
>> >> of continuity, while the same thing doesn't happen in a corporation.
>> >
>> >Take some biology. EVERY cell, except for *some* nerve cells,
>> >eventually gets replaced.
>>
>> You do so. You will probably never grow a brain cortex cell after your 9th
>> birthday.
>
>And you believe that this fact means what? That humans have a "soul"
>that is housed in their brain cortex?
I am just correcting your quack biology.
>We were talking about the body. You claimed that if the human body
>replaces all its cells then there can't be any continuity.
Yup. Just try it. Do a brain implant.
> But obviously,
>there *is* continuity in the human body (and this continuity does not
>come about from people having an immutable cortex) and every human
>cell outside the brain *does* get replaced on a *regular* basis.
Considering that the brain is the physical basis for most cognitive behaviour,
it's kindof a large exception.
>> Prove it. I don't think you can, since proving anyone thinks is quite hard.
>
>If you can't prove that humans think then why the hell should I have
>to prove that corporations think? Lovely double standard there.
And viceversa. You expect me to prove corporations think, and won't prove
humans don't. I'd say we should agree that such proofs are not practical, and
agree to disagree.
>And if you do want me to prove it then start by defining corporation,
>thought, and thinking.
>
>I'll start with:
> thinking is the process of constructing thoughts
That is a silly definition. It has zero information in it.
>Now you have to rigorously define the artifacts of that process so that
>we can detect them unambiguously.
>
>
>> >Circular definitions are not in the nature of formal language.
>>
>> But they are in the nature of human language. We can only define words using
>> words, and we refuse to not define any.
>
>This is complete nonsense. You might get away with it for loose and
>fuzzy (ie, informal) human thinking but not here and now.
Are you engaging in formal human thinking or informal inhuman thinking?
>Your claim that "we refuse to not define any [words]"
>is utter bullshit. Most humans are utterly incapable
>of rigorous definitions and "informal" ones don't count.
Says who? Even though most men can't define words, they all expect the
definitions to exist.
>Words denote concepts and many concepts are not defined in terms
>of other concepts. The concept "blue" is an abstraction of the PERCEPT
>blue. Same with any other sensory concept. Abstract set theoretic
>concepts are merely further abstractions of the resulting concepts.
The color blue can be fairly precisely defined in electromagnetic terms.
[snip]
>> >Incorrect. All of the internals of corporations are available to
>> >humans.
>>
>> I don't think so. Assuming your own analogy of employees as cells, we don't
>> know how the cell works, and some cells take decisions important to the whole.
>>
>> So, we would only know how a corporation works if we knew how a man works, and
>> we do not.
>
>This is irrelevant because how corporations think is irrelevant.
You said that "All of the internals of corporations are available". They are
not. The internal reason why the CEO decided to sell asset A instead of asset B
is not available to us. The process he uses to reach such a decision is unknown
to us.
> The only
>question is whether they do or do not think. If all corporate thought were
>reducible to individual humans then you could claim that corporations
>don't think at all.
Which is my position.
> In order to show that corporations think, one has only
>to show that 1) corporate thought arises from human thought, and 2)
>that it is separate from human thought.
Go ahead.
>It is in fact possible to know that the behaviour of organs is different from
>the behaviour of individual cells without knowing how individual cells work.
>One only has to know what individual cells *do*.
The behaviour of organs is not comparable to the behaviour of cells, yet the
behaviour of organs can be decomposed into the behaviour of its cells.
>> > This is far better than humans, for whom the Solipsist
>> >game is disgustingly effective (*). If corporations don't express
>> >thought and you can't find any from looking at the internals,
>> >then it doesn't have any thought.
>>
>> If the corporations'thought is the thought of the humans within (as I believe),
>> the two problems are equivalent.
>
>No, moron. If corporate thought is merely the thoughts of the humans
>within in, then you've just proved that corporations don't think. In no
>case are the two problems equivalent.
Since we still lack an operational definition of thinking, I was leaving ample
room for interpretation. I, in fact, believe corporations don't think in a
meaningful way, that is, in a way that is in any way different from the
thoughts of the humans within.
If you want to call that thinking, the problems are equivalent, and you are
wrong.
If you don't want to call that thinking, then corps. don't think, and you are
still wrong.
>Your position is completely incoherent and beyond idiocy.
Whatever.
>> >You *still* haven't defined a corporation it so I'll do it for you;
>> >a corporation is a dictatorial decision-making structure that
>> >transcends its slaves and other assets.
>>
>> Sorry, politics don't make for philosophy. By that definition, the army is a
>> corporation.
>
>My definition is inclusive, not exclusive. Armies *are* beings.
>Anything I can prove from a weak definition of corporation I
>can certainly prove from a stronger definition!
A corporation with negative management (a management that is more ineffectual
than the sum of the corp's members) would not be a corporation according to
your definition, yet some corporations manage to be that way.
>> >Corporations have will by definition. QED.
>>
>> That's a copout.
>
>No, your not defining corporations, or anything else for that
>matter, in anything resembling a rigorous manner and then
>demanding that I do all of your work, THAT is a copout.
Defining "corporations are entities that don't think" would have been as
rigorous as your definition.
>> >If you don't like a definition then show how it 1) includes a concept or
>> >situation that it should not include, or 2) excludes a concept or situation
>> >that it should include. The burden of proof rests on you.
>>
>> Ok, a computer program makes decisions. It uses its value system (the program)
>> to make decisions about its input, and print them as output.
>
>> I don't believe a definition of will should include computer programs.
>
>Great, another moron who believes that Artificial Intelligence is not
>"truly" intelligent. (Or should I say, an idiot who doesn't think about
>even the simplest consequences of his statements?)
You seem to miss how simple a program needs to be to match your definition of
will:
if input <7:
print "small"
else:
print "large"
You call that an artificial intelligence with will? Allow me to cal you a
crackpot.
>Primitive computer software possesses will to the same extent that
>animals with primitive brains possess will. If a fly has will then Unix
>certainly does.
Sorry, I can't debate while I laugh.
>> >It doesn't work that way because physics is not restricted to within
>> >the boundaries of a hurricane. The human mind is restricted to the
>> >boundaries of the human brain. The value system has to be integral
>> >to the being, it can't lie /under/ the being because then it isn't
>> >part of the being in any meaningful way.
>>
>> Are you saying that "Survival, Domination and Power" are integral and
>> restricted to the boundaries of the corporation?
>
>I was going to bash you for this because this is not what I said
>and there is an obvious way to resolve this non-problem, but
>considering this is the first thing you said that resembles a
>valid objection ....
Well, whatever.
>The value system that consists of ONLY "Survival, Domination
>and Power" (ie, the typical corporate value system) does not
>extend beyond the boundaries of the corporation. Caring for
>survival isn't the same thing as caring ONLY for survival.
>Nearly all humans care about power but only psychopaths lack
>the empathy that mitigates their desire for power! A strict
>subset of a set is not the same as that set.
You didn't say the corporate value system consisted ONLY of that. You said "that
and little else", IIRC. You are changing horses midriver.
>You proposed a hurricane as a being with the laws of physics
>as its value system. Fine, but the laws of physics inside of
>a hurricane are *IDENTICAL*, not merely a subset or superset
>of, the laws of physics outside of a hurricane. This difference
>is crucial.
If the ony beings in the world were corporations, then the system would be
universal, and thus corporations would stop being beings? I can't swallow that.
>As a trivial example consider that almost every human being
>likes children, but corporations do not like /any/ children,
>not even the children of employees.
Corporations can't like, so they don't dislike either. You are still
antropomorphizing the corporation, and then holding against them that they fall
short of your arbitrary measure.
>> >> Nonsense. That is a constraint on humans imposed by laws created by humans to
>> >> be applied to humans.
>> >
>> >So the fact that cars cannot go through dense underbrush is a law?
>>
>> Yes, it's called impenetrabilty of solid objects.
>
>And of course, this is a *HUMAN* law, right?
As I said below, it's human laws, and physics. I assumed you would take the
inviolavility of physics as a fact. I see not.
>> >What about that cars cannot ride elevators or go up stairwells?
>>
>> Cars do that all the time around here. Elevators, not stairwells.
>
>Then I clarify myself: human-sized elevators.
I have never seen an elevator the size of a human.
>[endless examples]
>
>> >murders a pedestrian? Are all of these things laws mandated by
>> >human beings?
>>
>> And physics.
>
>Physics does not mandate laws, it *describes* them!
>Anyone who does not understand this most basic and
>fundamental fact should never mention physics.
Then "laws immanent to the universe on which the car exists", O pedantic one.
>> >Single neurons *don't* *think*! If you don't believe this,
>> >take a biology course or talk with a very patient biologist
>> >who doesn't have access to a firearm, or knives or blunt
>> >weapons, or anything that can be used as a weapon in any
>> >way, shape or form. Preferably in a padded room ....
>>
>> Indeed they don't think. That's another reason why your analogy of "humans as
>> corporate cells" is flawed. You are equaling parts that have no separate
>> existence (cells) with parts that do (humans).
>
><rolleyes> Individual humans don't have any separate corporate
>existence! An individual is not a corporation and is not capable
>of corporate thought.
separate existence. Not "separate corporate existence". You change my words and
then debate what ever comes to your mind. That's stupid and a waste of time.
>You're trying to mess up the analogy by applying it selectively.
You claim the analogy to be an abstraction. If it were a good one, it would
resist it.
>And btw, a perfect analogy between X and Y is understood to
>mean implicitly constructing an abstract concept and then
>proving that it applies to both X and Y. So you can indeed prove
>things by analogy, just not /formally/ prove them.
In that case, I would agree that what you do is abstraction. Since there are
obvious places where the analogy breaks down, the analogy is not a valid
abstraction.
>> >A "manager" without a corporation is the equivalent of a
>> >single neuron. He is utterly incapable of any corporate thought
>> >or corporate decision-making.
>>
>> I disagree. His decision-making is scaled-down, but it exists.
>
>No, it does not. And anyone who says he does is denying the
>patently obvious.
He can buy or not buy the corporation's products. He can buy or not buy stock
of the corporation. Both things are corporate decision-making, and he needs not
be part of the corporation to do so.
>> >A person within the corporation that successfully mimicks
>> >the signals of a manager unit is able to engage in corporate
>> >decision making and is infinitely more of a "manager" than
>> >the "genuine" manager outside of a corporation.
>>
>> So what? Or rather, that is yet another way on which your analogy is flawed.
>> Cells in a body are not interchangeable, while humans in a corporation are.
>
>So an engineer is interchangeable with a janitor?????
In function? Yes. In performance? No. The manager can mop the floor, just not
well, and the janitor can run the corporation, but not well.
If you put a brain cell in the liver, it will just not do the job, and
viceversa.
>Just what the fuck are you talking about now?
>You're engaging in spurious and selective thinking.
At least it's thinking.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:42:28 -0300
El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El vie, 29 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> >If my OS is 10 times too slow to be practical, I'll just wait 5 years for
>> >the hardware to catch up.
>>
>> But what if it's a million times too slow?
>
>Even Prolog was never that slow.
You are not designing prolog either.
>And it doesn't matter cause it all comes down to the fact that I'm
>building an end-user platform, not a server, so I don't need to be
>"fast" as commonly understood.
You would be surprised just how cranky end users get.
>> If the internal API doesn't matter, neither does the MK API. No programmer
>> programs against it, except hardware drivers, filesystems and such.
>>
>> So, in the worst case, it would be neutral.
>
>It doesn't work that way. If an API exists then it counts.
The internal API of the monolithical kernel exists. Ask any device driver
writer. So it counts. So replacing it with a bettter API is an improvement. So
you were wrong.
> If it
>doesn't exist then the system may not be complete or properly modular
>and then *that* counts. The only way out of it is to modularize the
>system without adding more APIs.
By definition, the more modules you have, the more APIs you have.
>> >And if I thought that acting like a racist would end this discussion any
>> >sooner (which it obviously wouldn't) then I might be tempted to try it.
>> >IOW, you're not giving me any incentive to be a nice guy.
>>
>> Well, this paragraph really paints you in a whole new light. Go ahead, insult
>> my blackhood, if you dare.
>
>LOL. "Go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot, if you dare." I'm perfectly
>content with the size of my genitals; I'm not going to do something stupid
>out of wounded ego.
See? I knew I could get you to say something about your genitals. Took a bit
longer than expected.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 15:42:42 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Jim Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>Richard Y. Hertz
>
>: I should take serously the advocacy of somebody claiming to be called
>: Dick Hertz? Shouldn't you be out making crank phone calls or
>: something?
>
>I was so certain he was about to ask me if my refrigerator was
>running, but instead it turned out to be more anti-Linux gibbering.
>So who'd like the honor of figuring out which troll this one is?
>
Well, I haven't really tried very hard, but since most
trolls are simply sock puppets of one person with multiple
personalities (not to mention sexes), my bet would be
Steve/Simon/claire/whatever.
Having said that, the first things said troll will do is
pop up and say, "not me".
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:45:11 -0300
El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> Sure have. Now, we have, on one hand, a science that studies the dynamics of
>> group behaviour. On the other hand, we have a science that studies the mind of
>> individuals. Oh, yeah, let's just apply both and say it's a duality!
>
>And where the fuck do you think group behaviour comes from?
>And you claim that corporate behaviour is reducible to human
>behaviour?? Try to be consistent some of the time!
You are a confused person. There is no contradiction. For example: the tool to
predict the behaviour of a molecule is not the right tool to predict the
behaviour of a gas. Yet, the behaviour of the gas, is reducible to the
behaviour of the molecules.
What is foolish is applying the wrong tool to the task. Just like the gas has
no spin, the groups are not psycopaths.
>Group behaviour and individual behaviour are *not* *seperable*.
>(For matters of study only since it's separable for matters of
>conceptualization; which is why there is a duality!)
>
>> So what? When Joe Blow is driving his car, he is part of the car-driver
>> conglomerate, when he is reprimanding his daughter, he is part of the family
>> compound, when he is eating at McDonalds, he is part of the consumers class.
>>
>> That's not a smart way to look at things, IMHO.
>
>And your opinion matters because you're a sociologist, right?
No, but neither are you, right?
>> He's Joe Blow all the time, he
>> is *doing* things, though.
>
>Oh and "doing" "things" has some kind of magical connection somehow
>with one's identity? If someone shovels shit then their identity is
>a shit shoveler?!
Being a shit shoveler is part of his identity, indeed.
>Joe Blow the employee is not the same as Joe Blow the person.
They are the same person. Are they not?
> Maybe
>you can't wrap your mind around the millenia old concept that one's
>identity is not dictated by what one does, but that only proves the
>poverty of your imagination.
One's identity is only perceived by what one does. If you want to assume the
existence of a soul that dictates the actions of the others, go ahead.
>> >And that's the key to everything. You /claim/ that the actions of a
>> >company are actually the actions of its employees, but how the hell
>> >could this be the case if there isn't even a bijection between the two?!
>>
>> Why do you require a bijection? All actions of a company are actions of an
>> employee, that's good enough for me to say that the actions of the company are
>> the employee's.
>
>Equivalent to: All actions of cars are actions of atoms, therefore cars
>do not exist as individual objects.
I don't say corporations don't exist, so it's obviously not equivalent.
>Or even better: Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not
>exist since it's separated into different pieces that were proved by
>completely different people over the years.
Nonsense. You should read what I write, instead of listening to voices in your
head.
>You're a bleeding idiot. I can tell you never took a philosophy course
>because with that kind of reasoning, they'd have failed you on principle.
>
>(And all actions of a company are NOT actions of some employee.)
Such as?
>> >Empathy is /not/ what you just described. Empathy is knowing exactly what
>> >someone is feeling to the deepest core of your being because you have the
>> >exact same emotional capacity as they do. Psychopaths can figure out what
>> >people feel from anthropological studies, but they aren't 'connected' to any
>> >other human beings.
>>
>> I don't think anyone has empathy by that definition.
>
>And we know this because you are a psychologist, right?
I am not. I am giving a laymen's opinion. However, I am willing to bet you are
not a psychologist either, and that the definition you gave was not written by
a psychologist, was it?
>What a reversal; first we were building a lengthy list of topics you've
>never heard about and now we're on our way to building a lengthy list of
>subjects you're an expert in!
I am an expert on nothing.
>> >Alright, to be precise, corporations do not choose to /become/
>> >corporations anymore than psychopaths choose to suffer extreme
>> >neglect, child abuse and/or brain damage. Once they /are/
>> >corporations they specifically choose *not* to be any other
>> >way.
>>
>> Could a corporation decide not to be a corporation?
>
>In theory? Yes, it could decide to become a cooperative. In /practice/
>this is not possible.
I don't think that's even legally possible. And no, I am not a lawyer.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:51:15 -0300
El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >You're a bleeding idiot. I can tell you never took a philosophy course
>> >because with that kind of reasoning, they'd have failed you on principle.
>> >
>> >(And all actions of a company are NOT actions of some employee.)
>>
>> Of course they are, you moron.
>
>Automated stock trading system, you nitwit.
Trading the stock of a corporation is not an action of the corporation, unless
the corporation is selling or buying. If the corporation is selling or buying,
some employee of it took the decision to use a certain algorithm to do so. The
selling and buying is an action of that employee.
>Assembly line full of robots doing spot welding.
Someone programmed the robots, someone designed the robots, someone decided "we
need a lot of robots welding things". All those someones cause the robots
welding. The welding is an action of them.
>Email support. Web sites On and on and on..
Again, easily reducible to human actions. Because the effector is a tool, it
doesn't mean the tool is the actor. When you hammer a nail, you are hammering a
nail, not the hammer.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 16:00:45 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8rajoo$hclfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >Perhaps, but probably not anything based on Linux.
>> >
>> > Have you ever actually tried either gnome or KDE, both of which are
>> superior
>> > to windows and will both be even better in their next major release.
>>
>> I doubt that even the Gnome or KDE developers would admit to that. Unless
>> of course you mean that "superior" means "not made by MS"
>
> If you have seen KDE version 2. I highly doubt you would be saying that.
>KDE2 is just downright fantastic. The look feel and operabilty is considerably
>better than version 1.1.2 and IMHO is far superior to any version of windows.
>Yes I run w98 but it is just for games. Linux does everything else.
>
I will agree whole-heartedly with you on that one. I just
picked up SuSE 7.0 over the weekend and it was the first
chance I had to really work with KDE 2. My god, I can't
believe the differences between the 1.x series and the 2.x
beta. I really like the themeability and the fact that
they have made some nice UI changes that aren't directly
related to 'make it look, act, and feel like Windows', but
instead are more based on what would make sense to a
non-Windows user.
I don't know if this is the default on all versions of KDE
2, but the SuSE version takes care of one of my biggest
pet peeves of all time (in Windows and the original KDE
defaults). They moved the close button to the opposite
side from the minimize and maximize button. No more
slipping onto the wrong button and losing your place in
documents! Of course, in the 1.x series you could change
that, but it's nice to see it as the default. I could go
on, but until you see KDE 2 yourself, you probably
wouldn't believe how much of an improvement it is.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
