Linux-Advocacy Digest #353, Volume #31 Tue, 9 Jan 01 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft releases Games console (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft releases Games console (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Ian Pulsford)
Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: kernel problems (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: KDE Hell (*)
Re: KDE Hell (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (*)
Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awful (chrisv)
Re: KDE Hell (*)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows 2000 (Peter Hayes)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE Hell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Microsoft releases Games console
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:57:48 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:58:14 +0000...
...and Richard Thrippleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Where's the Linux games console? Has anyone invented one yet? Linux is
> > quite capable of it - so why not? Why is it not even a starter?
>
> Hmmm. Linux might be good at and suited for a lot of things, but I
> can't see it being suitable for a games console. Software for games
> consoles doesn't have to peacefully co-exist with lots of other
> processes, so you can get the best results through just about every hack
> a coder can think of. Writing to the I/O ports directly, rather than
> going through some uniform abstracted driver system for example. And
> memory protection is just pointless for obvious reasons. Ditto for smooth
> multitasking.
Smooth multitasking (more exactly: multithreading), I/O that can
easily be programmed without bare-metal assembly hacking and memory
protection are good features for a gaming platform.
Why? No software is programmed as fast, as sloppily and under as much
pressure as games. More power to you if your platform offers easy
development, features that ease performance problems (such as the
Linux low-latency patches) and crash protection.
mawa
--
Contemporary American feminism's simplistic psychology is illustrated
by the new cliche of the date-rape furor: "`No' always means `no'."
Will we ever graduate from the Girl Scouts?
-- Camille Paglia, New York Times, December 14th, 1990, Op Ed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Microsoft releases Games console
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:54:56 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:59:42 +0000...
...and Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where's the Linux games console? Has anyone invented one yet? Linux is
> quite capable of it - so why not? Why is it not even a starter?
Indrema.
mawa
--
Contemporary American feminism's simplistic psychology is illustrated
by the new cliche of the date-rape furor: "`No' always means `no'."
Will we ever graduate from the Girl Scouts?
-- Camille Paglia, New York Times, December 14th, 1990, Op Ed.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:37:35 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
They're just hanging out for Bush jr. to take the reins.
tony roth wrote:
>
> MS has filed an appeal and is asking for a new trial! hmm they're saying
> the whole thing was a sham forget the sentance!
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:08:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mlw wrote:
> > (10) Never say it is easy to do, because it never is.
>
> Very true. If asked for a time estimate...multiply by a factor of 5x
> in case you run into problems...
I call that the Scottie method of engineering.
"Captain, I cannae possibly do it in less than 4 hours."
Multiply all time estimates by 4 or 5, and make yourself look like a
genius when you deliver it in half that amount of time. Use the
remaining time on training or posting to cola. :)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: 9 Jan 2001 17:23:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2001 05:32:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>And lots of time to lie about how much you understand about high level
>>sound engineering, of course.
> Tell us again mr . all about how VM is "sort of an operating system"
Ah, so it is you, claire.
Caught in yet another lie. How many sockpuppets are you going to
come up with this time?
You are a liar, you know nothing at all about computers, and the
absolute best you can do is to beg some dude to come in and write
your posts for you.
And even HE doesnt know what the fuck hes talking about.
Go on, enjoy your "soundblaster live" for "professional sound
engineering applications".
*smirk*
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 9 Jan 2001 17:25:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2001 16:32:03 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>What "standard" is it you are talking about? What "standard" says that
>>a PC from IBM, using an IBM VGA card and a 3COM NIC, is "nonstandard"?
> It's a Microchannel based IBM PS/2 with non standard hardware. The
> SCSI cables use IBM Proprietory mini 68 pin connectors (not the
> standard ones) and an abortion of an adapter on the internal one.
I see that guy is writing your posts again. Or at least, hes copying
directly from an old spec sheet.
Which is more than youre capable of doing, claire. Nice one.
=====.
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:27:01 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
> "*" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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?
>
> An open-source Unix clone aiming for Minix compliance.
> Grandmother unfriendly.
why does everyone insist answering 'what was linux designed for' with 'what
linux is' ?
so you are saying linux was designed for minix compliance? that's seems a
little modest..
> > 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.
>
> Keeping a closed mouth is a sure way to keep a throat obstruction-free.
cute. of course you didn't keep yours closed..
> > then, through clenched teeth, we say -why do we want this when what we
> have
> > works so much better for us?
>
> Then go to the Microsoft advocacy groups and extoll its' virtues there.
why, when i'm not using microsoft?
> If you want to argue and tweak noses, hang around here.
> Simple, really.
am i the only one that can see when a thread has been cross-posted?
you people need to pick your targets before you start shooting..
y'r pal -kK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 9 Jan 2001 17:28:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2001 06:14:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> wrote:
>>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.
> Sure looks like it is trying to be like Windows to me.
We've completely covered this and decided quite a long time ago that
thats because youre a complete idiot.
> If that were
> not the case why not just leave the gui as it was 4 years ago with
> fwvm and CDESim and such?
Because people want more. So they wrote more. People like asthetic
AND functionality.
> Why are the improvements to Linux mostly in the gui area?
They arent. You have no idea what youre talking about. At this point,
youd better go get that guy who occasionally writes your posts for you
and ask him to copy something out of "linux for dummies" that makes
you look intelligent.
> No. You may hope that Linux is not trying for that market but the
> movers and shakers with the money riding on Linux sure are hoping it
> is.
Linux developed nicely without the movers and shakers, and continues to.
The problem with the "movers and the shakers" is that they believed that
they could make money from something which was already being given away
for free. They were quite mistaken; that business model does not work
at all. And now they know it.
And at this point, for a good chunk of applications, linux is as good as
any other useful unix-ey operating system. AND it doesnt cost anything.
=====.
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:35:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >then there's your ridiculous assertion that drivers of either car are
> >limited to what they do - like it takes any skill to drive a
> >beetle. like you're always hearing of beetles flipping
> >over. umm. this is simply not true. the McLaren driver could not only
> >drive their McLaren, but they could also drive your beetle. and
> >almost certainly better than you.
>
> I would seriously doubt it. There are very few areas in human life where
> experience can't make up for a heck of a lot of theoretical knowledge.
i don't understand. you are saying that the driver of the McLaren doesn't have
experience? this may sound a little stupid. and i could be completely wrong.
but. generally speaking. if you drive a McLaren. it probably wasn't your first
car.
> Last time a friend of mine wanted to drive my Beetle, she couldn't even
> get it started. She did all the right moves, but nope, no start. We swapped
> seats again, started first time. I don't know what I did different, so
> I couldn't even teach her how to do it.
wow. you'd be suprised how many people couldn't even start my honda! (you have
to hold down the clutch natch..) and it was a '90!
> And ever wondered *why* you don't see Beetles flipping over all the time?
> Well, first of all, most of the people driving them have driven them for
> a while, and thus know how to handle them. And those who are new to the
> Beetle are generally clever enough to *know* that they don't know how it
> handles, and thus tend to err on the side of caution. Going through a
> corner too slow doesn't hurt you --- doing it too fast does, and you end
> up being even more late for your date..
why are you stating the obvious and thinking that somehow it helps prove your
point, when you have no point?
ehh. -kK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:32:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's one of the best programming FAQ's I've seen in awhile. One
disagreement, though. If you are building applications on linux, say
web apps, you are often okay agreeing to pre-paid hourly maintenance
contract. Very little tends to go wrong because of the OS and tool
stability, and it is a nice way to pad your income without spending much
time.
IMO, NEVER agree to a fixed estimate that does not involve an hourly
charge for additional work be it maintenance or specification changes.
EVER.
> Minimum wage for a programmer is out of the question do not take it.
> You'd be better off making more money at McDonalds.
Absolutely. Minimum wage for an inexperienced beginner is in the high
30's or low 40's per annum in Los Angeles. In NoCal, it's 50-60k. I've
seen posts by an experienced ( 15+ years )C++ programmer saying that he
can only get $10/hour in Arizona, which seems criminal.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:46:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C) wrote:
>There is *no* "standard" screen resolution. 640x480 just happened to be the
>maximum graphics resolution mode for the early VGA (not SVGA - that came
>later) cards. It was made that size to fit nicely onto 12 inch colour
>monitors. It was *far* better than the CGA and EGA cards which were
>available up to that time. With time it has become the accepted minimum
>graphics resolution which the user is likely to use.
Which is why CrapWindows, err I mean XWindows defaults you back to
320x200 if you get ANYTHING wrong (I had the gall to use X
configurator to actually try and make a standard PS/2 mouse work).
Sheesh.
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:48:40 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> 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.
so linux was designed for students? well that makes sense..
i guess one thing i'll concede.
Linux has a good foundation. and makes a fine, though not fautless, server. and
has potential to become a viable desktop platform. in time.
Windows on the other hand has a bad foundation. it makes a terrible server. and
although it controls the desktop market currently, if it loses that, where will
it go?
of course nothing is as simple as just that. i make no predictions. and i still
have my doubts that linux will ever mature to the level it needs to be.
> 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.
hmm. i thought it was Microsoft that was forcing Windows on everyone..
and how is the linux user being persecuted, other than what they do to
themselves using a platform with limited software support at best..
> 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)
not if you work with them. they're worse then born-agains..
> >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.
but they sure are fun!
y'r pal -kK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 9 Jan 2001 18:00:09 GMT
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:46:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 9 Jan 2001 06:14:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>wrote:
>Sure looks like it is trying to be like Windows to me. If that were
>not the case why not just leave the gui as it was 4 years ago with
>fwvm and CDESim and such?
>
>Why are the improvements to Linux mostly in the gui area?
They are not. Maybe the improvements that *you* have taken notice
of are "mostly in the GUI area". But the statement is not at all
accurate. Compilers and development tools have improved, the text
editors have improved, the kernel has improved, the database
servers have improved, apache and the web development tools have
improved.
>No. You may hope that Linux is not trying for that market but the
>movers and shakers with the money riding on Linux sure are hoping it
>is.
Then they're riding on false hopes. BTW, I think they're more interested
in the corporate market than they are Joe-Home-Luser.
--
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 18:02:47 GMT
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:15:09 -0500, MH wrote:
>Parable, smarable. I don't think KDE is any of the above.
>If essence, it's a windows clone designed to bring just those 'desktop
>users' you claim are not the target of the linux-distro developers to the
>Linux fold.
No, KDE is not a "Windows clone", and if you were a competent programmer
you'd know this.
KDE is not designed to bring "new" desktop users. It's designed to meet
the demands of the existing user base.
--
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 18:05:50 GMT
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:27:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Tom Wilson wrote:
>
>> An open-source Unix clone aiming for Minix compliance.
>> Grandmother unfriendly.
>
>why does everyone insist answering 'what was linux designed for' with 'what
>linux is' ?
It's not "Minix compliant" any more, it's gone beyond this.
>so you are saying linux was designed for minix compliance? that's seems a
>little modest..
Most succesful projects start with modest goals (as opposed to projects
that loudly declare that they will save the world, and then fizzle into
well deserved obscurity, because the announcers have no idea how to
implement their bold plans)
And yes, this was originally what Linux was trying to do. You can read
his original usenet post on my webpage.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:07:55 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 05:20:29 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93c4i8$oki$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <ZXX56.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:939ehr$cdm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> The "secret API's" have been admitted to in court. Who are you to
> > >> accuse Microsoft executives of perjury ?
> > >
> > >No, they have not been admitted in court. All the evidence is online,
> > >please post a link to this supposed evidence.
> > >
> >
> > Since this is far down in the link I have included a part here
> > for you. I think that keeping information hidden qualifies
> > even though they did not use the actual word "secret".
> >
> > The link is:
> > http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
>
> That's about a Windows 3.x VxD which made Windows run faster when used with
> MS-DOS, that was not a "hidden API" used by Windows applications to make
> them run faster.
Same difference.
Next case
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:47:09 GMT
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 03:42:21 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's the WHOLE point of the movie ANTI-TRUST, which hits theaters
>this month....
>
Isn't that the movie that has video clips in QT4 format so Linux users
can't view them?
Check out MGM website for details :)
Ironic.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
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 18:54:31 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >Win2k doesn't require you to reboot to change the IP. Of course, if
> >you'd actually used Win2k, you'd know this.
> >
> >Strike 1
>
> NO! It's not STRIKE 1 MORON. This is something Windows can't do.
> You don't strike a guy because your fukin operating system is a
> peice of shit. Sorry pal.
Charlie demonstrates he can't read. You say Windows, he said Windows 2000.
--
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 18:58:09 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you have an NT server just try:
>
> Start->Programs->Adminstrative Tools->Network Client Administrator
>
> You can make a boot disk to install Windows 95 from an NT server - it
> even launches the setup program from the NT share. If your card isn't
> listed you simply need to put the NDIS driver on ths boot disk.
Yes I've done this one - however, it's not the Internet, as in TCP/IP.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:57:22 GMT
On 9 Jan 2001 17:23:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Ah, so it is you, claire.
What are you talking about?
>Caught in yet another lie. How many sockpuppets are you going to
>come up with this time?
Are going to enlighten us on why VM is "sort of" an operating system
or not?
>You are a liar, you know nothing at all about computers, and the
>absolute best you can do is to beg some dude to come in and write
>your posts for you.
At least I have the correct answers.
How about your other comment that SBLive hasn't been around for years?
Another one of your ridiculous, and incorrect statements.
Better check out the Creative website
>And even HE doesnt know what the fuck hes talking about.
Doesn't look like you have been doing too wel lately. I suggest some
research before you post completey inaccurate comments.
Have you been drinking again? (another one of your classic posts).
>Go on, enjoy your "soundblaster live" for "professional sound
>engineering applications".
Never said that. You took it out of context. I have a MIDIMAN Delta,
like I have told you a hundred times already, not that it matters
cause you wouldn't be able to hear the difference anyway.
>*smirk*
Idiot...
>
>
>
>-----.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:58:06 GMT
On 9 Jan 2001 17:28:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>We've completely covered this and decided quite a long time ago that
>thats because youre a complete idiot.
yawwwnnn
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 19:03:37 GMT
On 9 Jan 2001 17:25:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>I see that guy is writing your posts again. Or at least, hes copying
>directly from an old spec sheet.
>
>Which is more than youre capable of doing, claire. Nice one.
You just have a difficult time accepting that most people have a far
better understanding of computer history than you have, mostly because
they have lived through it and you are in all likely hood some pimple
faced, kid wannabe who never had the opportunity to be a part of
history. Like the PS/2 model 80/85, which is a piece of history in and
of itself.
Would you like me to tell you about the model 70?
Or how about the model 25?
What made the model 25 different than the others?
What do you need to get into Advcanced Diagnostic mode on a PS/2 and
why did it upset many people?
Go ahead idiot...I'm waiting?
If you have all of this experience you say you do you will be able to
easily answer those questions without scouting the net for the
answers, but that is what you will do anyway because you don't have a
clue.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
