Linux-Advocacy Digest #664, Volume #30 Tue, 5 Dec 00 11:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is awful ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What does KDE do after all (Donovan Rebbechi)
LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS ("PowerPC")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (JM)
Re: Linux is awful (JM)
Re: Linux is awful (JM)
Re: Linux is awful (JM)
Re: Linux is awful (JM)
Re: Windows review (JM)
Re: Windows review (JM)
Re: OS Installation Help? (JM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 15:32:58 GMT
"Tim Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >My point is that vi seems to be unique in its default "every letter
> >is a command" design approach. That uniqueness is what makes vi
> >not intuitive. I did ask whether there are any other screen editors
> >that use that design approach, besides vi clones, of course (such as
> >elVIs or steVIe), but so far nobody has mentioned any, so I have no
> >reason to change my statement about vi's uniqueness in that regard.
>
> If you want to get pedantic, emacs is that way, also, but the command
> bound to each letter is the command to insert that letter into the text,
> so you don't notice you are running a command. :-)
>
> If you don't limit yourself to screen editors, then most old editors used
> that approach. E.g., teco, ed, qed. I think vi was aimed at people who
> used such editors.
>
> When I edit a document with vi, my mental state is that I am using vi.
> When I edit a document using a good GUI editor, my mental state is that
> I am working on my document. That's pretty unclear...basically, with a
> good GUI editor, the document somehow seems to be the focus, whereas
> with vi, the editor is the focus. (If anyone understands what I'm
> trying to say, and can restate it more clearly and coherently, please
> jump in!)
No, you pretty much hit the nail on the head...
>
> --Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 10:36:39 -0500
Tim Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 14:44:07 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Put a computer in front of a person from a remote village which
> >> >has no electrical service, and let's see how "intuitive" the
> >> >power switch is.
> >>
> >> OK, now you are getting silly. Give those villagers electricity, and
> >> all the usual electrical applicances other than computers, and let them
> >> become comfortable with them, THEN give them a computer. The power switch
> >> on the computer will be intuitive to them.
> >>
> >> You are confusing "intuitive" with "instinctive".
> >
> >
> >http://www.asktog.com/papers/raskinintuit.html
> >
> >Jeff Raskin, "Intuitive Equals Familiar", Communications of the ACM,
> >vol 37, no 9, Sept, 1994, pg 17.
>
> I'm confused. I'm not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing. I'd say
> the power switch on the computer is intuitive, because anyone who is
> likely to be using a computer is very likely to have experience with
> power switches on other things.
Translation: Anybody with a computer is likely to have previous
experience with power switches from other electrical appliances.
> "Intuitive" is not an absolute, but
> must be interpreted relative to the general background of the user.
> That seems to agree with Raskin's article (although I only skimmed it).
Intuitive implies "you know how to use it because it's function
is obvious from the first time you encounter it"
However, the use of power switches are NOT obvious.
For example...a WAGON is intuitive... you don't need instructions
nor to witness examples of other people using it to quickly figure
out how to use a wagon to transport goods.
On the other hand...the power switch on many electronic devices
(especially stereo equipment), that it is NOT immediately obvious
to the uninitiated what it's function is. Especially if the
label "power" or "on/off" were removed from the vacinity of
the power switches on many pieces of high-end audio equipment.
Many of them have front panels with so many controls that even
people with a "first-world standard of living" are bewildered
by them. If you were to remove all of the labels from this
equipment, the average american would take a couple of tries
to even determine which switch is, in fact, the power switch.
Additionally, if it were not for labels, the power switch
and the reset switch on most computers look identical.
If two IDENTICAL switches have non-identical behavior, then
how can the function of the switch itself be "intuitive"?
>
> (Of course I mean desktop computers...laptop designers seem to enjoy
> trying to hide the power on mechanism).
>
> --Tim Smith
--
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 (C) 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 10:38:56 -0500
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, liberals are more socialist than communist. But, let's no
> split
> > > hairs, eh?
> >
> > I doubt that anyone can cite a single definition of "liberal" that
> > would match the various definitions that people have in their heads.
> > The definitions seem to range from "willing to give a little" all
> > the way to "spawn of Satan/Stalin/Hitler".
>
> Labels are fun, aren't they?
>
> I used Socialist because it indicates their view of government's role in
> things. (Pervasive)
>
> I also view them as merely short-sighted. Liberals are the type of people
> who think in terms of "Can I do this?" as opposed to "Should I do this?"
> They seem to live in a world where consequences don't exist.
Then they want the government to come in and clean up the mess...
And then they want the government to make laws that they can't
do the things they shouldn't do.
And finally, they bitch and whine and complain that they life in
a fucking fascist police state.
>
> >
> > The word has become a meaningless hot button.
> >
> > Anyway, it does hook a little into why RedHat chose the name <grin>
>
> 'Twould explain a lot ;)
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Registered Linux User #194021
> http://counter.li.org
>
> >
> > Chris
--
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 (C) 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 10:41:52 -0500
Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > How about setting your monitor refresh rate?
> >
> > Not even an option under MS LoseDOS, so why are you bringing this up?
>
> Depends on your video drivers and monitor drivers. Bash Windows all you
> want, but keep it to the things you are sure of.
With the same equipment, I have the option under Linux, but not under LoseDOS.
Why is that?
>
> --
> Francois Labreque | It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it
> flabreque | is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
> @ | the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a
> videotron.ca | warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
> | motion.
> - Stolen from Badger's .sig file
--
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 (C) 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: 5 Dec 2000 15:52:42 GMT
On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 09:24:53 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>SwifT - wrote:
>>
>You must be joking.
>
>Sockets are merely an inter-machine generalization of pipes, and
>nobody has called them limited.
>
>Maybe your problem is that you don't have enough communications
>and information processing theory to properly organize whatever it
>is that you want to send down a pipe.
>
>if you define your syntax properly, then within the context of a
>single machine, you can do ANYTHING with pipes.
Corba does more than simple IPC, it is a distributed object system.
Of course one could do the same using sockets, but this would be
kind of silly since you'd have to essentially rewrite CORBA or something
similar to CORBA (unless you didn't want to reuse, but this seems to be
the sort of thing where reuse is justified).
IMO, implementing ad-hoc throwaway pseudo-OO simluations are simply
not worth it. You end up with a tangled mess of code in very little time.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "PowerPC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:51:46 -0500
yeah linux rocks forever!!!!
and micro$oft Winbugs is a big shit
and Bill Gays is a son of the bitch !!!
well, that 's all folks !!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:13:43 GMT
On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:51:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)) wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 22:23:36 GMT, JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Now, they may have finally come around and fixed W2K to finally
>>>> allow people to adjust network settings without rebooting the
>>>> box, but you are not going to feed anybody here this line of
>>>> crap about having to reboot Linux to adjust or just turn off
>>>> TCP/IP. That's just total bullshit and your not going to
>>>> get away with it.
>>
>>>*REMOVE*, not *TURN OFF*. Enhance your reading comprehension skills
>>>Charlie.
>>
>>Why "*REMOVE*" when you can "*TURN OFF*"?????
>
>
>Fukenbusch! You are full of shit!
>By this argument your actually trying to sell the crowd
>that there IS a way to REMOVE TCPIP from Windows 2000
>and not just TURN IT OFF!!!!
>
>You need a bone marrow transplant to the BRAIN Fukenbusch!
>
>Who is going to listen to this 3 year old shit!
>
>Get off COLA!
Are you talking to me?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:13:44 GMT
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 01:27:37 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:k_ZW5.152190$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:vMXW5.1336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > That's just off the top of my head, I can list dozens of tasks that are
>> much
>> > much harder under Linux than Win 2000. Which tasks are easier under
>> Linux?
>> >
>>
>> Keeping a stable box.
>
>Strange, I get that without any effort at all. Getting my Mandrake box to
>work with the tseng ET6000 card is a diffent story. It freezes the entire
>system for minutes at a time. Can't telnet in when it's frozen, it's not
>accepting connections, then suddenly it comes back. There's nothing wrong
>with the card, since it worked fine in Mandrake 7.1, but not in 7.2.
>
>> Looking at the source code.
>There you go. In the highly unlikely event that 99% of the general computer
>population needs to look at the source code, Linux wins.
The source code obviously IS useful, otherwise no-one would bother
supplying it.
>> Using my machine the way I want to use my machine.
>I have no problems with that either.
So you use Linux too?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:13:45 GMT
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 04:52:56 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9M0X5.624$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Or how about turning on ultra DMA? Windows will often figure out if the
>> > drive supports it and enable it. If it doesn't, it's a matter of right
>> > clicking the drive in device manager and changing a dropdown box. With
>> > Linux, it's figuring out a 20 parameter long hdparm string and figuring
>> out
>> > where in the startup scripts to put it.
>>
>> A simple switch added to lilo.conf does it.
>
>Perhaps on some distros, but no longer on Mandrake 7.2, and since Mandrake
>is so heavily RH based, I would guess Red Hat as well.
>
>Which is really the point. You can't even always rely on experience you may
>have learned from another distribution to get you up to speed on a new one.
>You end up doing trial and error for a few days until you get things working
>right.
>
>> > What about installing TrueType Fonts? Dozens of steps in Linux, while
>> it's
>> > just a matter of dragging them to your font folder in Windows.
>>
>> Mandrake has an X utility that imports them quite well. Just select and
>> click. The vast majority of the fonts I use under Linux are Windows
>> TrueType.
>
>Hmm.. I haven't found this utility yet. It's certainly not available from
>any menus or in the DrakConf.
>
>> > How about setting your monitor refresh rate?
>>
>> Editing one line in XF86Config, in my case. Didn't even need a man file.
>It
>> was pretty self explainitory.
>
>As opposed to click a drop down box in a GUI? You honestly think messing
>with config files is simple for someone that doesn't know how to set their
>VCR?
If you can't set your VCR, then Linux isn't for you. I can't remember
where I heard that.
>> > That's just off the top of my head, I can list dozens of tasks that are
>> much
>> > much harder under Linux than Win 2000. Which tasks are easier under
>> Linux?
>>
>> If easy is all you're after, stick with Windows then.
>Why do you insist on changing the subject. The subject was Aaron claiming
>that Linux is only more difficult on things that you can't do in Windows.
>That's patently not true.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:13:45 GMT
On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:13:42 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Graymalkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Who the fuck cares about what is going on inside of the computer, thats why
Knowing what's going on inside a computer makes it MUCH easier to do
things with.
>we use them and don't try to do a bunch of mathematical computations by
That's EXACTLY what Linux is for: so we have to use pen and paper to
do calculations.
>hand. A system that is easy to use is not automatically weak which is a
>relative term anyways. A CLI is very weak at doing graphical work. If you
Isn't that was graphical interfaces are for?
>want to make sure a system is not prone to excessive error you reduce the
>number of input windows and streamline the arguments. If you want to use
>some Unix command to find out what processes are running and save it to a
>file you have to type out a fairly long piped argument into the shell. This
Fairly long?
ps > hello
Wow: that was long. All of 10 characters. Entire seconds wasted.
>puts a good deal of responsibility on the user not to fuck up said command.
And it would be so easy to fuck up such a l e n g t h y command.
>Why not just have a command that automatically puts the output of a process
>report into a text file (do this as you wish, either a compiled program or
Why don't you? Who's stopping you?
>script). The system is now easier to use; is the system any less powerful or
>extensible? I write perl scripts all the time that make my life easier by
>automating tasks I have to do often (read making my system that much easier
As is quite common with Linux.
>to use). Does this make me stupider or smarter than you? Your car most
>likely has some form of power assist braking and steering, would you rather
>not be abstracted from the task of stopping your car or steering it on the
>freeway just so you'd get a more in depth understanding of how it worked?
It would help if you did have a deep understanding of how it worked in
a number of circumstances. However, computers involve a lot more
complex operations than a car does, that's why a deep understanding is
EXTREMELY useful.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:13:46 GMT
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:59:05 +0530, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Sourav Laskar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Hey why nobody's talking about partition management.
>MS way of maintaining drive letters and the devils godown "REGISTRY" has
>cost me a reinstall of my workplace system yesterday. Has anybody tried
>partition management in window @#$@#%@#!?>?$%@$%$%
>
>As for unix system of a single root -- I have swapped components, drives,
>partitions blah, blah and what not -- I don't even need to touch one single
>configuration file (except maybe for /etc/fstab), because I can mount the
>new partition at exactly the same place as the old partition was.
Nah: I love the fun involved when Windows play musical chairs with the
drives. Once when I made a new partition, I had to go back through ALL
my shortcuts changing them to the new drive letter.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:13:47 GMT
On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 22:32:42 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>"Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:4gVV5.4168$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <908cgh$96a7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "SuperGumby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:6iNV5.676$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> I'm a Windows diehard, but if you want me to run win9x on a 386 with a
>> >> GB
>> > of
>> >> RAM you can keep dreamin'.
>> >
>> > Those are the minimum requirements, it would install and work on such a
>> > machine.
>> >
>> I may not personally like Windows, but I'm not particularly biased. If
>> anyone thinks that Windows will run well on a 386, he or she is crazy.
>> Windows95 on a 386 is beyond unusable, as is X on a *nix.
>
>You can get more work done on such a machine in 95 than in any Linux distro
>of the time.
>
>
>True; RAM is dirt-cheap today (I personally recommend 128 MB as a "floor")
Cheap? What planet are you living on? It's extremely expensive!
>and likely won't get much (if any) cheaper.
Looks like I'll be staying with 28MB then.
>However, the problem isn't RAM or even CPU power when comparing Windows (any
>version) to Linux.
>It's the learning curve of Windows (or lack of one) compared to the learning
>curve for Linux.
Because there is less to learn for Windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:13:48 GMT
On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 19:06:52 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You can get more work done on such a machine in 95 than in any Linux distro
>> of the time.
>>
>> True; RAM is dirt-cheap today (I personally recommend 128 MB as a "floor")
>> and likely won't get much (if any) cheaper.
>>
>> However, the problem isn't RAM or even CPU power when comparing Windows (any
>> version) to Linux.
>>
>> It's the learning curve of Windows (or lack of one) compared to the learning
>> curve for Linux.
>And what does one "learn" on Windows in the first place?
You 'learn' that it's best to save your work every 10 minutes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Subject: Re: OS Installation Help?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:13:49 GMT
On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:48:42 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>I'm expecting to get a new hard drive in the next few weeks :) Let's
>say it's an 80 gig drive.
Jesus Christ! How much is that going to cost?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
