Linux-Advocacy Digest #617, Volume #30 Sat, 2 Dec 00 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Whistler review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Netscape review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Netscape review. ("Les Mikesell")
OS tree - SOUND OFF! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:10:54 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> However, with that said, I am willing to put up with these little
> nagging things until I get either a SUN machine or SGI machine. However,
> in the future, (hopefully :)) the distro's will make more of an effort
> to ensure not only compatibility, but complete application-OS
> intergration is made when designing a distro, whats the point of having
> 1500 packages, consisting of 5 editing tools, and each has it's only
> problem, hopefully, distro's will combine the source code of all five
> and create on complete editor, making life simpler for the user.
>
> kiwiunixman
In the commercial world, they usually combine the worst features of
all the previous entities when they give you something they think
is complete, making life miserable for the user. Disk space is
finally cheap - let's keep those choices.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 23:49:50 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>>>>> The only tests that 'demonstrated' superior speed on a Dvorak
>>>>>>> board were those conducted by Dvorak himself (1943, US Navy).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All other trials have failed to reproduce the results.
>>>>>> <http://www.som.syr.edu/facstaff/dvorak/blackburn.html
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Typing, Fastest. Mrs. Barbara Blackburn of Salem, Oregon can maintain
>>>>>> 150 wpm for 50 min (37,500 key strokes) and attains a speed of 170 wpm
>>>>>> using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (DSK) system. Her top speed was
>>>>>> recorded at 212 wpm. Source: Norris McWhirter, ed. (1985), THE GUINNESS
>>>>>> BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS, 23rd US edition, New York: Sterling Publishing
>>>>>> Co., Inc."
>>>>> Big fucking deal.
>>>> On the contrary, it represents a trial that did not fail to reproduce
>>>> the superior speed.
>>> There is NOTHING to indicate that she could not achieve the same
>>> speed on a QWERTY keyboard.
>> On the contrary, there is the 150 wpm speed, which is 20 wpm less than
>> the speed achieved with the DSK. That is something to indicate that she
>> could not achieve the same speed on a QWERTY keyboard.
>>>> It doesn't surprise me that you would try to downplay the significance
>>>> of evidence that contradicts a claim of yours.
>>> The choice of ONE PERSON proves nothing, dave.
>> On the contrary, it represents a trial that did not fail to reproduce
>> the superior speed. You claimed that "All other trials have failed
>> to reproduce the results." At best, you can now only claim "all but
>> one", until such time as additional results are provided about which
>> you may be unaware.
>>> The only way to determine which keyboard is better is to take
>>> two large groups of non-typists and put them through touch-typing
>>> programs on the two keyboards, where they have exclusive access to
>>> that keyboard configuration ONLY, with identicla keyboard time,
>>> ....and then see what happens.
>> That represents only "a" trial. You claimed that "all other trials"
>> failed to reproduce the results. It only takes an example of one
>> to eliminate the validity of the "all" claim.
>>> Dvorak claims to have done this...but in 55 years NOBODY has
>>> reproduced his results.
>> Mrs. Barbara Blackburn apparently did. Do you consider her a "nobody"?
> 1 person does NOT constitute a test group + a control group,
One person DOES constitute "a" trial.
> you IGNORANT FUCKING SHIT-FOR-BRAINS.
Still lacking a logical argument, you resort to invective yet again.
No surprise there.
> 12+ years of posting to USENET, and Dave Tholen still has yet to
> write an opinion based on rational thought processes.
How ironic, considering your response.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:25:02 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EF9W5.36243$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > Hadn't heard that one. Don't think they'll win in court over the
wrong
> > > serial number as long as proof of purchase is accounted for. Remote
> > > Installation services and the automated setup configs allow, even
> > recommend
> > > using common media for multiple installations now.
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2427307.html
> >
>
> <quote>
> Not so, says Microsoft, which argues that its customers and Gartner
> misunderstand the rights granted by its software licenses.
>
> </quote>
>
Yes, they claim that the customer misunderstands in thinking that
they should be able to use the license of the individually purchased
pre-loaded copy while actually executing the bits of their identical
version reloaded from the standard corporate configuration image.
The 'not so' was to the claim that the double charge is incorrect.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:26:56 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90belq$jr7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > > Hadn't heard that one. Don't think they'll win in court over the
wrong
> > > serial number as long as proof of purchase is accounted for. Remote
> > > Installation services and the automated setup configs allow, even
> > recommend
> > > using common media for multiple installations now.
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2427307.html
>
> In this article alone, they suggested three workarounds.
> Not buying preinstalled windows is the best one, IMO.
> Since you will delete the computer's content anyway, why pay twice?
They omitted the best workaround. Don't buy preinstalled windows,
and don't install windows. Why do business with a company
like that at all?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 05:19:17 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Simon Palko wrote:
> > > >
> > <trimmed>
> >
> > >
> > > What part of "UNDOCUMENTED" do you not understand???
> > >
> > > There are entire BOOKS covering undocumented Lose32 APIs.
> > >
> >
> > Anyone else see the irony in this post???
>
> If the book isn't written by Microsoft, then it's undocumented.
Did you even checked?
http://mspress.microsoft.com/findabook/default.asp?SearchString=windows+api
http://mspress.microsoft.com/findabook/default.asp?SearchString=api
And there is always the mansterous 11MB+ CHM file that contain all the API
calls.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
Date: 3 Dec 2000 03:29:37 GMT
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:26:18 -0500, jtnews wrote:
>How come Dell bundles Windows with every PC?
They don't. http://www.dell.com/linux
>Same goes for all the other manufacturers.
http://www.aslab.com
http://www.penguincomputing.com
http://www.thelinuxstore.com
....
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
Date: 3 Dec 2000 03:31:47 GMT
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:55:07 -0500, jtnews wrote:
>but, the trouble is every single one of those machines are the more
>expensive
>models. Look at their cheapest Dell Dimension series, all Windows, with
>no
>option to buy them without Windows, at an even cheaper price.
The Dimension is available with Linux.
You can't get the ultra-cheap models because the ultra-cheap
machines tend to use crap onboard components that aren't Linux
compatible.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
Date: 3 Dec 2000 03:35:28 GMT
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 19:30:30 -0500, jtnews wrote:
>But I believe you should only pay for what is necessary.
>Clearly bundling things like Microsoft Works or Microsoft Office
>along with Windows ME, forces users to buy software they do not
>want. All I want is a Dell Dimension with a service contract that comes
>with
>a diagnostics diskette that's certified to run Linux without any other
>software.
You can have a dimension with Linux.
Dell's diagnostic software doesn't require any operating system to be
installed last I checked -- you boot from the disk.
I don't understand what your complaint is.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:39:40 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90at4a$ghie$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > Win2k handle the biggest site in the world, and the second most
popular.
> >
> > With help from load-balancing equipment that hides the dead ones,
> > protects them from pings, and the like.
>
> If you linux on those machines, would they be able to do the same without
> load balancing equipment?
No but they generally don't need to hide the dead ones and a fairly large
scale
site can run on a single machine if you don't expect it to crash. For
example
ftp.cdrom.com (aka ftp.wcarchive.com) has claimed at times to be the largest
single source of data going onto the internet. This may no longer be true
but
it probably was a couple of years ago. The site was powered (and may
still be) by a single freebsd server.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:52:59 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZD9W5.36230$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > > Win2k handle the biggest site in the world, and the second most
popular.
> >
> > With help from load-balancing equipment that hides the dead ones,
> > protects them from pings, and the like.
>
> Firewalls aside, the loadbalancing is handled by the OS. Check out
theWLBS
>
http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/ntserverenterprise/exec/overview/Clusterin
> g/CompeteOverview.asp
I'm in the process of specing out a replacement for WLBS on some of our
machines.
It seemed like a good idea for a couple of servers starting out, but on
Win2k
you have to buy Advanced Server to get it (so add $2k per box...) and it
works at the IP stack level, not application connection level so if the box
is
alive but the app died it will let the connections fail without detecting
the problem.
I suspect MS isn't using it as the only mechanism for Microsoft.com, and
probably not at all since it would expose the failing IIS programs for as
long
as it takes for some other test to detect them and remove them from the
cluster.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:57:38 GMT
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 19:30:30 -0500, jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But I believe you should only pay for what is necessary.
I agree, but all I am saying is that last time I looked, it was a
better deal (hardware+software wise) to buy a Windows machine and then
run Linux on it.
>Clearly bundling things like Microsoft Works or Microsoft Office
>along with Windows ME, forces users to buy software they do not
>want. All I want is a Dell Dimension with a service contract that comes
>with
>a diagnostics diskette that's certified to run Linux without any other
>software.
They have Dimension models that run Linux.
claire
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:55:07 -0500, jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >but, the trouble is every single one of those machines are the more
>> >expensive
>> >models. Look at their cheapest Dell Dimension series, all Windows, with
>> >no
>> >option to buy them without Windows, at an even cheaper price.
>>
>> Better yet, look at the pre-loaded software you get with the Windows
>> machines compared to the linux machines. Professional, Commercial
>> quality software, not free wannabe MS Office clones that even Windows
>> users don't use.
>>
>> If you compare models, feature for feature (difficult on the site),
>> the Windows machines are much better deals. This may have changed
>> since I looked a couple of months ago, but at that time it looked like
>> a better deal to order the Windows PC and if you want to run Linux,
>> install it yourself.
>> There was hardly any reason to order a Linux pre-load, in fact
>> considering Linux is free, it was simply a ripoff.
>>
>> claire
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:57:43 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dy9W5.36188$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>
> > It works now, but in the recent past the page did not display at
> > all under Netscape, either windows or linux. I don't think anyone
> > is going to admit whether this was intentional or they just used
> > their own tools that encourage that to happen.
>
> I've never had that problem. In fact 15 months ago I posted a code snippet
> from the Microsoft home page showing where they scripted different
displays
> for different browsers.
The time I noticed it was within the last 2 months, and I don't know how
long it lasted. I don't visit there often... But, since someone else
brought
the issue up I know it wasn't just me.
> > > If you had done some advance HTML-authoring (java-script, dhtml, css)
> you
> > > would realize that it is a nightmare to try to do it for netscape.
> >
> > You mean using the MS tool set that only works right when viewed
> > with IE?
> >
>
> IE works better, period.
If you don't mind the virus exposure, the non-standardness, and the limited
platform where you can use it. Netscape probably could do as well if
they replaced most of the system dlls like IE does.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 04:01:17 GMT
"bob_more" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> just on observation, of all the reviews I've heard about netscrape 6, be
it on
> windows, mac or linux, it sucks. I just would like to point out the one
thing
> that has changed since earlier versions, the rather unsavory influence of
aol.
>
That is just a side effect. We all know the real reason Netscape has not
been a viable company since about 1994 when Microsoft was legally
constrained from bundling a browser with their OS but chose to
ignore it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 04:01:52 GMT
The last thread I started concerning the current OS
your using is very interesting reading and it's
still getting attention.
I thought it would be interesting reading and
refreshing to see your PC history's revealed here.
So from the time you first got any kind of PC forward,
SOUND OFF.
>From mainframe land we found the
VIC 20. A commordore based machine with 256K of ram I think.
Then it was a VIC 64.
Radio Shack Color computer.
Radio Shack Model 4.
IBM clone 8088 running MS dos.
IBM clone 80286 running Windows 3.X
IBM clone 80386 SX running Windows 3.x again.
Same IBM clone using Linux slackware version 1
for a year then Debian /F for a year.
Portable 486 running Windows 3.x again.
Same portable running Win 95.
A Pentium class machine running various experiments.
Redhat 5.2, RedHat 6.0, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0,
Suse 6.2, Suse 6.4, Mandrake 6.5, Mandrake 7.0, Mandrake
7.1, RedHat 6.1, FreeBSD 3.2, FreeBSD 3.3, FreeBSD 3.4,
I like all these operating systems but they couldn't
hold my attention. They all had some nice traits
and they had some problems I just couldn't get along
with.
RedHat has a large collection of software but the
dependency problems and the broken parts of the
distribution eventually just DROVE me away from
RedHat.
Slackware. No upgradability. Hardest to set up.
Slackware was just an erector set for me. But
it had the best documentation in their book of
any of them.
Windows NT. I like NT at one time. It was
certaintly nicer than the other Windows products
at the time. But it had that system registry
and NT bluescreened and it was expensive.
The cost of playing Windows and it's quality
just drove me away. I kept asking myself,
if this is the BEST Microsoft has to offer
then I need to just keep being a mainframe
programmer. This sucks.
Suse. Suse has a really nice distribution
but don't attempt to grap RedHat RPM's for
upgraded products and intall it on your
Suse box. It won't work well. And Suse
seems to have this ANTI FTP site thing.
Their entire distribution is not available
for free download like Redhat's is.
And these two issues DROVE ME AWAY.
Mandrake. Here's a REDHAT improvement OS.
Very nice. I like it probably the best of
the RPM distro's. But it is RPM based and
suffers from the same disease that Redhat
has of poor dependency checking.
You take a RedHat RPM and put it on here and
it's the same story with Suse all over again.
While they say they are RedHat compatible
they really aren't.
Suse, Redhat and Mandrake seem to work fine
so long as you don't cross polinate them
with RPM's from each distribution.
Redhat is our chevy while Suse and Mandrake
are agruably the pontiac and buick of the line
up.
FreeBSD. These people know how to write
an excellent unix system. FreeBSD is the
FASTEST UNIX system in the world for PC's.
FreeBSD is just a bolt of lightning.
Problems I had with FreeBSD was the entire
desktop they had was borrowed from Linux
and about 80% of it actually worked because
of this. Things like resource monitors didn't
work at all. If you wanted to examine the
CPU usage or Memory usage, the Linux bound
desktop which was designed to work with Linux
would see nothing from the FreeBSD kernel.
Lack of sound support also irritated me.
And from Slackware thru FreeBSD all these OS's
suffered from the 4 month update problem.
You have to wait 4 months to see results of
new code with these systems. Their releases
occur in large upgrades.
After having searched for what I would consider the
BEST OS for MY NEEDS, I stuck with Debian.
Debian 2.2 Potato and now 2.3 Woody.
Debian stable is absolutely bullet proof.
It costs zero money to download, similar to
the others but the CD's are like $6. Not $89.
Good documentation. If you want to ride
the edge like I do, you can get fresh code
every night via Woody riding in unstable.
Excellent hardware support. More QA testers
than any other Linux distribution.
While Redhat is a market leader in Linux,
Debian is absolutely the Linux STANDARD for
quality and stability.
>From my 6 years of observation, Debian Stable
is the BEST stable of all the Linux's.
Debian Stable is comparable to FreeBSD stable.
Debian has the quickest security fixes also as
many of the Debian group work closely with
FreeBSD and OPENBsd also.
Debian has the largest footprint of the Linux's
supporting sparc, Power PC, Amiga, IBM, and other's
I've never heard of.
The UPGRADE business.
With Windows inorder to upgrade your system
you are stuck waiting for a massive service
pack or a new release and the wait's can
be quite LONG! Especially is you NEED something
fixed.
FreeBSD is 5-6 months in upgrades and to install
new software on FreeBSD reminds me of my slackware
days. It can be done but, you have to play
with it to get it to work out right.
RPM based distributions are also on a 4-5 month
cycle of releases with bug patches inbetween.
The problem I have with RPM based distro's is
if you want to install a NEW package you end
up finding this NEW package from the distro
you've chosen to use, you have little luck
cross matching them. #2 problem is if you
need a library the name which is reported
as a dependency missing is often not the
same name of the actual RPM which contains
the library you need. So you have to search
for it. It's a pain the butt to track down
all that and can take a lot of time from
your evening needlessly. I understand
they are working on this issue, but they
have yet to resolve it.
Debian's Dselect system is a breath of fresh
air over these other systems as when you
pick a new debian package to install,
the dependencies are automatically selected
for you, the packages are then downloaded
from their FTP network, they are unpacked,
install scripts are run asking you parameter
questions, and the packages are then installed.
RPM doesn't ask parameter questions during
install, they just install and you set it
up afterwards. That's a pain in the butt
also.
Deb based distro's have solved the cross
pollination problems also. If you want
to run Helix Gnome, you can point your
APT-GET to their ftp site and install
it sucessfully. All the Deb based
distro's are engineered to work with
base Debian!
If RPM based distro's could base all their
work on just REDHAT they would have solved
this problem also.
Despite all of this and my opinion being
that Debian is superior to all the Linux
distributions, people running Slackware
thru Mandrake are having better luck
with their OS's than running Windows.
With Windows you have blue screens and
low uptime. Slow performance.
Linux distro's are high uptime and
excellent performance.
And FreeBSD is not untennable either.
Performance.
FreeBSD has the best performance of
any system I've ever seen. Nobody
can even come close to catching it's
blinding performance.
Of the 2.2 Linux's,
I'm going to give Debian the #1 slot again.
While Mandrake is pentium compiled, it
just doesn't seem to walk away from standard
Debian. Redhat would be #3. And Suse
would be #4.
They are all faster than Windows NT and
run away from Windows 2000 in performance.
Of the 2.4 Linux of December.
I'm running a 2.4 kernel and it's getting
closer to FreeBSD performance but it still
can't beat FreeBSD or keep up with it.
But when you compare 2.4 to Windows 2000,
it's like comparing a nissan Maxima to
some 4 banger ford put out. Linux
is tremendous performer compared to
the very slow Windows 2000.
People who love FreeBSD just can't
even stand to touch Windows 2000 because
of the dogged performance they receive.
It un-nerves them terribly.
The average Linux 2.2 kernel user
notices his sports car is much
peppier than Windows 2000.
The Linux 2.4 kernel user views
Windows 2000 as a sad joke. We can
see the license tag on the car as
we wiz by and laugh.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
