Linux-Advocacy Digest #346, Volume #31 Tue, 9 Jan 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) (J Sloan)
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Ray Chason)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (ran5300)
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (David Dorward)
Re: KDE Hell (*)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Perry Pip)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: You and Microsoft... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant, but Windows is pure junk! (Ray Chason)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:11:32 GMT
Mart van deWege wrote:
> FYI, I haven't got the link handy, but it should be on the web
> somewhere. Building a fully functional UNIX clone out of Minix
> was *exactly* what Linus set out to do.
He was inspired by Minix, and wanted to do something similar,
but the design of Linux was radically different. For a short time
Linux made use of the Minix file system, but rapidly outgrew
those training wheels and discarded them.
Technically, Linus used "The design of the Unix Operating
System" by Maurice J Bach for his direction on Linux.
BTW the debate between Linus and Dr Tannenbaum, the author
of Minix, was famous - let's just say that the design philosophies
of Linux and Minix had deep and irreconcilable differences.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, time has proved Linus correct -
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:13:34 GMT
tony roth wrote:
> Peter,
> Our average server here contains over a terrabyte of info, the average
> file size is 1+gigs thats right gigs not megs and in three years not one
> server has bsod nor gone to 100% utilization without due cause. We have
> over 2k+ workstations and once again no bsods and no 100% utilization
> problems.
Your anecdotal tale is simply not beleivable to those of us
who see windows in action on an everyday basis.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:10:59 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Logitech Model M-Ba47 (on the bottom decal). Others in the Mandrake
>group have the exact same problem. Why do I have to select MS
>Intellimouse instead of Logitech? And why does it get identified as
>Unknown when there is a Logitech selection? And why does it die
>completely when Logitech is selected?
Probably because your mouse talks to the computer in the same fashion
as an MS Intellimouse, rather than as the older Logitech mice. As far
as XFree86 is concerned, your mouse is an Intellimouse.
My mouse: an MS Intellimouse Optical. Works fine with Linux/XFree86,
thank you very much.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: ran5300 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 01:13:46 -0600
I don't want to upset any ones apple cart or take sides in any ones argument.. I
was trained as a programmer and have worked as same.. I have seen on Unix on two
occasions Lock the big mainframes up tighter than a drum... none of the dumb
terminals worked and no one could do nothing, even the onsite unix or IBM gurus.
The entire system had to be shut down and rebooted... took about an hours time. I
personally have accumulated over the years 6 Linux editions.. 2 caldera, two
redhats, the latest mandrake, and the latest corel linux.. and at one time or
another I have had freezes, lockup.. they hang and there's no two ways about it.
That's like saying "I own a Cadallac and don't ever have to worry it not starting
or going cause with a Cadallac that just don't happen." If you own a computer you
can bet your hat that sooner or later it's going to hang, lockup, and even crash
no matter what kind of operating system you have on it...
>
>
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:21:01 +0000
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> Netscape 4.x : no
> Netscape 6.0: Yes (based on mozilla).
Netscape 6.0 is not beta, just beta quality becuase Netscape rushed it in
to production before it was ready.
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:20:12 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> All of a sudden,
> lots of Windows users jump on the bandwagon and say "I want to make
> Linux an OS my grandma can use", but they don't realise that it
> just wasn't designed for that
sooo.. erm. what was linux designed for?
and just to correct, as i see it, it isn't the windows users jumping on the
bandwagon - and that's quite a strong term for linux - as it is the
so-called linux advocates trying to force it down our throats.
then, through clenched teeth, we say -why do we want this when what we have
works so much better for us?
to which the linux advos say -what? you are just too stupid for linux that
is all.
ehh.
stopping before it gets ugly -kK
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:25:44 +0000
Matt Soltysiak wrote:
> I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
> enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
> Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
And now you're spreading your own. How nice.
> 1.)If I change an IP address in Win2k, order to join another network in
> another city, Windows 2000, upon boot up, crashes and pops up a nice blue
> screen with kernel and panic errors all over the place (you all know what
> that is). Just to change the IP address!!! Now, I do this all the time
> with Win 98 or Unix, and I never had problems like this.
I've changed IP address on Windows 2000 and it's never done this.
> 2.) If I copy a few files, Windows 2000 will simply lock up and nothing
> happens. At first, I thought it was just the slow byte-to-byte algorithms
> MS uses, so I decide to wait a few minutes...but, alas, it locked up cold,
> and I reboot.
I've copied 1Gbyte and it never locks up.
> 3.) When printing a document in Windows 2000 Professional, it simply locks
> up solid. This is with MS Office 2000. Just to print a document!!!
> Windows 2000 Server and Advanced Server fix these problems, however.
Not tried this.
> 4.) Simply running an FTP server for a week with Windows 2000 Server/IIS
> 5.0, locks up my machine. Only a week uptime!!! And this has happened
> more
> than once. Windows 2000 Advanced server lasted only a month. Just for an
> FTP server. Average users, 10 - 20 a week!!! That's nothing compared to
> modern Unices.
Not tried this.
> 5.) When writing an assembly program in order to interface with an
> external card reader (using an ATMEL microcontroller), Windows 2000 locks
> up, upon
> program execution. Now, this was my fault, and I corrected the bug. But
> an
> operating system SHOULD NOT lock up when doing this. Normally, I write
> this
> shit for DOS, and everything is A-OK. Even windows 98 works with the
> reader!!
What did you expect - you're fiddling with a device driver.
> 6.) Then there's some games I like to play (Unreal Tournament), and
> windows 2000 locks up, as usual... Though it's a driver issue.
I play many games as part of my job and any crashes are down to device
drivers. Otherwise, I play Unreal Tournament quite happily for hours on end.
> Now, I have tried to be patient with Windows 2000, and I've tried to give
> this shit more than one chance, hoping that maybe Service pack 1 would fix
> these problems, etc. But it always fails me - always. I can't afford
> shit like that, and nor can many people.
Whilst it "always fails you", it has never failed me.
> Now, as to usual application support and desktop usage, windows does kick
> ass. It's easy to use, convenient, etc. But I'd rather have a stable
> system than this. Windows NT has worked for me great, and so has OpenBSD
> (my current ftp server), as well as Linux. But Windows 2000 just plain
> sucks, no matter what the Windows advocates say.
Now we're back to your own brand of bullshit.
> P.S. I'm currently running Windows 2000 Server now, writing this, and I'm
> suprised it hasn't locked up or anything - shocking, absolutely shocking.
If you're that convinced it's bullshit, why are you still running it?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: 9 Jan 2001 07:24:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:22:05 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:57:36 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >> You will never see a Microsoft Windows Compiler installed
>> >> in your Windows product by default.
>>
>> >True, you need to buy one.
>>
>> Ahah, more $$$ for microsoft....
>
>GCC is available for Windows, and there are free compilers,
Free compilers ported from Linux of course. Why not just use the real thing??
>like Borlands
>5.5 compiler.
The free borland compiler comes with too few development libraries.
>> >> You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows via the
>> >> internet.
>>
>> >But you need a machine on the internet to install it in the first place!
>>
>> On Linux you can boot off a floppy on a bare system and download it
>> all.
>
>You can do the same for Windows. Just make a DOS boot floppy with network
>stack, download the files and go.
>
Over the Internet?? Are you tapping into warez sites again?? Shame on you.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:45:53 +0000
Tom Wilson wrote:
> > Neither will most people. Besides, why would anyone want to build a net
> > appliance?
>
> That's the direction the industry keeps wanting to steer towards. If
> you're a developer, it makes sense to be prepared and have tools on hand
> to accommodate.
That's a fairly small section of the population using Windows.
> Though I'm not Charlie, I'll field this too. Developing for Windows is
> something you have to do to be profitable. My personal dislike for the
> platform and the company doesn't enter into it. Business and personal
> don't mix. You can't ignore an OS that controls nearly all of the desktop
> market and expect to remain in business. The best approach is to use your
> Windows development to fund your non-Windows development. Our entire
> infra-structure, aside from the development stations, is purely nix-based
> and we intend to keep it that way. When the day comes to concentrate
> solely on a non-MS project, we'll be ready (and more than willing).
So what about all those UNIX jobs I've heard are out there? Aren't there
enough of those going around?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:36:53 GMT
Firstly, if you had bothered to read what you clipped, you'd note that this
was a response to KDE not being the "desktop" answer it's cracked up to be.
Second, "Linux not for the desktop" is a load of shit. Tell Linux.com to
openly admit that Linux isn't for desktop use, never has, and never will be,
and I swear I'll stop posting to ANY Linux newsgroup.
Finally, there seem to be more "blind men" in the Linux community than
seeing ones, because I've seen KDE be praised as everything from "the end to
all things Microsoft" to "the worst thing to hit Linux since Windows users".
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:44:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On 8 Jan 2001 21:08:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> >wrote:
> >And this is EXACTLY why Linsux is failing so miserably on the
> >desktop's of home users,
>
> Bullshit. Linux is not widely used by home users, because "being
> used by home users" is not one of its design goals. All of a sudden,
> lots of Windows users jump on the bandwagon and say "I want to make
> Linux an OS my grandma can use", but they don't realise that it
> just wasn't designed for that, and trying to force something to
> do what it wasn't designed to do is always an uphill battle.
>
> >When I put exec kwm at the end of .xinitrc file I get kde. Looks like
>
> No you don't. You get kwm.
>
> >a Windowmanager to me...It puts Windows that look different than if I
> >put exec wmaker there instead.
>
> Well of course it does. That's because kwm is a window manager.
>
> But kwm is not the same thing as KDE. You can use KDE applications
> without using kwm, and you can use kwm without using other KDE
> applications.
>
> kwm is not KDE any more than kwrite or khexedit is KDE.
>
> I think the parable of the three blind men and the elephant is applicable
> to the misconceptions about what KDE is. One blind man thinks KDE is a
> development environment (he sees kstudio). One man thinks it's an office
> suite (after someone shows him koffice). Another thinks it's a window
> manager.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:32:56 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> This is precisely how you'd do it. The software is here:
>
> http://www.simtel.net/simtel.net/msdos/tcpip.html
However, that's not much use if you've got ONE blank machine, an MSDOS boot
disk and a Windows CD.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:37:55 +0000
JM wrote:
> >Now this is a flat out lie. Hell, Windows 98 can stay up for weeks at a
> >time.
>
> As long as you maintain it to fuck and don't run any programs.
We left our web server alone for two months before rebooting. That's no
maintenance at all.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:38:58 GMT
Windows NT 3.51, maybe.
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I am saying that you have a dinosaur of a machine that is rife with
> >non-standard hardware, that was even non-standard when it was built.
>
> But I thought Windoze was supposed to run on everything.
>
>
> --
> --------------===============<[ Ray
Chason ]>===============--------------
> PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
> Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant, but Windows is pure junk!
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:48:27 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>While the Linux people actually like compiling kernels, writing
>scripts and hunting the net to figure out how to customize their
>systems, we normal users prefer to use our computers and enjoy not
>having to jump through hoops to make things work.
The gist of your argument against Linux seems to be that it doesn't
play well with unsophisticated users. This, I grant.
Windoze, however, has the opposite problem. When Windoze is good,
it's very good; but when it's bad, it's a holy terror, and the
sophisticated user has only limited means to fix it. Typically this
involves uninstalling and reinstalling something, and "something"
may be Windoze itself. Windoze lowers the sophisticated user to
the level of the unsophisticated user. We sophisticated users don't
like that very much.
For instance, I've had hardware upgrades that went very smoothly in
Windoze, and upgrades that were major jobs taking a couple of days
to get right. In Linux, a typical upgrade procedure is install the
driver, oops, something isn't right, search the Web, oh, I have to
add this to /etc/foobar, there, now it works. Not as smooth as
Windoze at its best, but not as frustrating as Windoze at its worst.
You're not a sophisticated user? Very well. No one is forcing you
to use Linux. Bill Gates, OTOH, is doing his damnedest to force me
to use Windoze.
The weakness of Linux is that you have to fool with it.
The strength of Linux is that you *can* fool with it.
Oh, and I don't much appreciate your use of "normal" as if those of
us who actually know how our computers work are "abnormal."
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:53:35 +0000
Terry Porter wrote:
> Each install took about 3/4 hr I suppose, but I redid the install from
> scratch several times and tried a few different things, including the
> Reisfer File System (journalled) which I'm now using.
Any particular reason you're relying on ReiserFS which I've heard is still
in Beta? You trust your files to a beta test file system?
> My sound card is a $20 el cheapo, pci ess1688 I think.
Mine cost me around the same price.
> >What edge? I can't see anything on Linux running faster than on Windows.
>
> The Free Software edge of course.
"Free Software" is hardly an edge. Sure, in terms of price, but in terms of
quality?
> >Response on X seems sluggish at times.
>
> X does so much more than Windows tho, theyre NOT the same.
So much for the edge then.
> Then excuse us if we ignore your exaggeration ?
Certainly. I'll ignore you're claim that Linux has the edge then, too.
> >The basics are there but there's more work to be done to be "the Edge"
> >compared to the desktop on Windows.
>
> Not to me. Imho Windows cant hack it, lacks resources, stability, and is *
> closed software*.
Ahah, depends what you're doing doesn't it. Are you a CLI user, and don't
care much for GUI's?
Windows being *closed software* and Linux being *open* sounds like a dogma.
Thou shalt use no closed software before me.
> Thats why I havent used Windows since 1997. Linux supplies all my software
> needs, and life without buggy Windows software, really has to be tried to
> be believed.
That's convinced me you're a CLI user.
> I'm a believer.
Definately dogma!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:58:43 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> I was just flying over in my Potato noticed something down and
> to my 3 and read this message.
He's finally cracked. He's flying a potato!
> >>Response on X seems sluggish at times.
> >X does so much more than Windows tho, theyre NOT the same.
>
> Geeze. X slow. Not my X. I run Debian.
"I'm the man from UNCLE". Everyone stops, drops to their knees and starts
worshipping him.
> I'm sitting here with 2.2R2 Debian {Potato} installed and listening to
> some Simon & Garfunkle on my SB Live card - Mrs. Robinson....
I'm running Linux Mandrake 7.2 and my sound card doesn't have a driver that
doesn't hang KDE2.0
> The difference between Debian and Windows is best compared said as
> the difference between an F15 and a Greyhound bus.
Where Windows is the F15 and Linux + KDE2.0 is the Greyhound bus.
> Then when you realize that Debian your using was downloaded over the net
> with a floppy or two as an assistant, you wonder why anybody is so stupid
> as to run Windows.
Not on my 56k modem and not here in the UK. There are no free phone calls
here yet.
> I can be playing my Napster, downloading ftp from 3 sites, compiling a
> kernel have a spreadsheet open, a word document open, and by typing this
> message back
> and this thing just doesn't skip a beat. You can't even dream of doing
> shit like this with Windows.
I've done this, so what dream?
> If every business in North America were running Debian we would have far
> fewer problems with distributed procesing power that we currently do with
> Windows, we would have far less licensing problems, we would have far less
> problems period.
And everyone would be using the CLI 'cos the GUI components you can get are
so far behind Windows. Let's all stay in the '70's.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 9 Jan 2001 07:56:34 GMT
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:20:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> All of a sudden,
>> lots of Windows users jump on the bandwagon and say "I want to make
>> Linux an OS my grandma can use", but they don't realise that it
>> just wasn't designed for that
>
>sooo.. erm. what was linux designed for?
It was originally lightweight PC UNIX for students (or a student) It still
is an excellent operating system for CS students. It's also grown in
stature as the PC hardware has become more powerful and it's become quite
an effective server OS, which is hardly suprising given its UNIX origins.
>and just to correct, as i see it, it isn't the windows users jumping on the
>bandwagon - and that's quite a strong term for linux - as it is the
>so-called linux advocates trying to force it down our throats.
A lot of the anti-Microsoft zealots do not even use Linux, though
they bash Windows. None of the people who are trying to "ram it down
your throat" have done anything of merit in Linux development.
BTW, I thought it was the WIndows crowd who rammed windows down everyone
else's throat. It's the Linux users who are constantly persecuted for
not running Windows, not the other way around.
The only way to get bugged by "Linux zealots" iis to go out of your way
to look for them (by going to COLA for example)
>then, through clenched teeth, we say -why do we want this when what we have
>works so much better for us?
To that I'd say "if you're happy with what you've got, use it".
>to which the linux advos say -what? you are just too stupid for linux that
>is all.
Sweeping generalisations are rarely either correct or fair. I'd agree that
there are some idiots on this group (I mean, this is *the* newsgroup
for the operating system theologists) but that doesn't justify tarring all
with one brush.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 9 Jan 2001 08:03:02 GMT
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:20:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> All of a sudden,
>> lots of Windows users jump on the bandwagon and say "I want to make
>> Linux an OS my grandma can use", but they don't realise that it
>> just wasn't designed for that
>
>sooo.. erm. what was linux designed for?
It was originally lightweight PC UNIX for students (or a student) It still
is an excellent operating system for CS students. It's also grown in
stature as the PC hardware has become more powerful and it's become quite
an effective server OS, which is hardly suprising given its UNIX origins.
>and just to correct, as i see it, it isn't the windows users jumping on the
>bandwagon - and that's quite a strong term for linux - as it is the
>so-called linux advocates trying to force it down our throats.
A lot of the anti-Microsoft zealots do not even use Linux, though
they bash Windows. None of the people who are trying to "ram it down
your throat" have done anything of merit in Linux development.
BTW, I thought it was the WIndows crowd who rammed windows down everyone
else's throat. It's the Linux users who are constantly persecuted for
not running Windows, not the other way around.
The only way to get bugged by "Linux zealots" iis to go out of your way
to look for them (by going to COLA for example)
>then, through clenched teeth, we say -why do we want this when what we have
>works so much better for us?
To that I'd say "if you're happy with what you've got, use it".
>to which the linux advos say -what? you are just too stupid for linux that
>is all.
Sweeping generalisations are rarely either correct or fair. I'd agree that
there are some idiots on this group (I mean, this is *the* newsgroup
for the operating system theologists) but that doesn't justify tarring all
with one brush.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
