Linux-Advocacy Digest #600, Volume #32 Fri, 2 Mar 01 17:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (false analogies, and purposeful
misuse.) ("JD")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: [OT] .sig (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: [OT] .sig (Aaron Kulkis)
KDE or GNOME? ("Martigan")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:09:19 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donovan Rebbechi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2001 22:38:01 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>: Try reading the post again. It fails on machines that can't save
>>: their state to disk. (but doesn't necessarily fail on all multitasking
>>: machines)
>>
>>Okay, so just how many systems can actually do that? It strikes me
>
> Not many. Someone claimed that Solaris could do something like this.
I claimed that. They definitely can: they have standby switched on the
keyboard. If you press them, they power down. If you switch them on
again, they come back exactly where they were.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:20:18 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> You'll often hear about the GPL being free with lots of spin that
>> morally justifies it. But no matter what, because of the
>> contstraints, it isn't free.
>
> Of course, the GNU sound byte, "Think 'free speech'" is sufficient to
> show that describing the GPL as "free" fits common usage of the word,
> i.e. something different from "without any constraints."
Only in the minds of those already convinced.
Find someone completely virgin of FSF propaganda.
Tell him "this program is 'free as in speech' software" and ask him to
explain to you what such a thing means.
If you get anything remotely similar to the GPL, I'll buy you a pizza[1]
[1] That is not a real bet. Ok, I *will* pay a cheap pizza, if such a thing
is properly notarized.
--
Roberto Alsina (disrespecter of followup-to's)
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:22:30 +0000
> Think of it like this: GPL is free sort of like our Income Tax is
> 'voluntary.' In fact, our Income Tax isn't 'voluntary', and GPL isn't
> free. Another common misusage (by almost all parties in the US) is that
> the US is a Democracy, which technically it isn't. In fact, the misusage
> of the term 'Democracy' has often caused confusion.
Representative Democracy?
> If GPL is a license of free software, then you wouldn't have multiple
> rules and redistribution encumberances. A few, simple, non costly rules
> wouldn't be important, but the GPL is a multi-page license with
> significant redistribution requirements.
>
> You'll often hear about the GPL being free with lots of spin that
> morally justifies it. But no matter what, because of the contstraints,
> it isn't free.
There is no such thing as completely free in an abstract sense. Simply
put, something that is free for one person is not free for the next.
I'll use the BSD license as an example of another free license because
there are fewer restrictions on redistribution.
The BSD license has fewer restrictions, so the software could be
considered more free (for the person redistributing it) than the GPL.
However, for teh person receiving it, it is a different picutre. If the
person distributing it under the BSD license chose to distribute it
closed source, then it would be considerably less free or the person
receiving it.
You could argue that people are free to download the origional sources,
but for a large amount of software, this is not fesiable to thise without
unmetered or broadband access.
I suppose you could argue that there is no such thing as free software
because it will never be completely free to everyone under all
circumstances. However, this would be of limited use because then you
would need another term to describe it.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:26:35 +0000
>> > Bullshit. You couldn't buy a MS OS "off the shelf" in 1985. MS
>> > didn't start to retail MS-DOS until Dos 4.0, which came out around
>> > 1989, and Windows did not become an OS until Windows 3.0 (possibly
>> > Windows 2/386,
>>
>> It is debatable that Win3x (or even 9X) is an OS.
>>
> No it�s not. Win3x was never an OS. It was an app which mimicked an OS.
> But under OS/2 it did this just fine (much more stable than win95)
I was being polite :-)
It's really an OS extention, since it provides missing OS features but it
can't run on its own (whereas the thing it is extending can run without
it).
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:42:30 -0300
Edward Rosten wrote:
> The BSD license has fewer restrictions, so the software could be
> considered more free (for the person redistributing it) than the GPL.
> However, for teh person receiving it, it is a different picutre. If the
> person distributing it under the BSD license chose to distribute it
> closed source, then it would be considerably less free or the person
> receiving it.
Excuse me, but you make no sense here ;-)
A writes a program, licenses it under the BSDL.
B gets it from A, under the BSDL.
Noone can say B has less rights than if he got it under the GPL, so for all
purposes, the BSDL is more free so far.
Now B relicenses it under the EPL (Evil Proprietary License).
B gives it to C under the EPL.
C is not getting it under the BSDL, so this transaction is unrelated to the
freeness of the BSDL. You COULD say the EPL is less free than the GPL
(maybe).
C can still get the software from A under the BSDL, so the software is
still more free than it would be under the GPL.
Just in case I'm missing something: give me an example where someone gets
software under the BSDL and because of it, he has less rights than under
the GPL, and you have a case.
> You could argue that people are free to download the origional sources,
> but for a large amount of software, this is not fesiable to thise without
> unmetered or broadband access.
The exact same thing could be said about GPL software.
I get it. I will not give it to you unless you give me $50. You can't
download it because of whatever. How has the GPL made you more free?
I can't relicense it under a EPL, but I restrict access to it anyway. Since
the hurdle to acquisition under the BSDL and the GPL would be the same
(download cost), the GPL buyed you nothing.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (false analogies, and
purposeful misuse.)
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:48:30 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97p0gv$ejs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> :> You'll often hear about the GPL being free with lots of spin that
> :> morally justifies it. But no matter what, because of the
> :> contstraints, it isn't free.
>
> : Of course, the GNU sound byte, "Think 'free speech'" is sufficient to
> : show that describing the GPL as "free" fits common usage of the word,
> : i.e. something different from "without any constraints."
>
> : Nonetheless, there seems to be no end of people who call the rest of us
> : liars for not using their own, more narrow definition of "free".
>
> Actually, if this is the same JD guy I rememeber arguing with months
> before, his beef isn't with the speech/beer difference of 'free'.
>
Actually, it is based upon the lie that it is free. When it was understood
that is the basis of misunderstanding by me A LONG TIME AGO, and that
I didn't really care about the GPL itself, the matter became clear.
Any real negative judgements against GPL are silly AS LONG AS IT ISN"T
CALLED 'free'.
You apparently haven't carefully read and absorbed the context of the
argument. I publically admitted that when the notion of 'free' is seperated
from the GPL, the GPL becomes YET ANOTHER LICENSE. All is okay then,
if such lies aren't espoused.
Numerous individuals have been 'taken in' by the lie about it being free, and
joy has even been expressed by individuals on this newsgroup when individuals
or projects have been taken in by the misusage. Not all individuals believe that
it was 'nice' that a few had been caught. There have been cases where
the term 'free' had mislead individuals into using GPLed works in non-complying
situations, and careful review of the license is necessary to realize that the
term 'free' is inconsistant with the terms of the license.
All licenses should be carefully read, and the misuse of the term free (especially
using incorrect analogies) make it VERY important to carefully read licenses. It
does show malice to purposefully misuse a term so that it will be misleading in
any case. It does show that the term 'free' is used purely for misleading marketing
reasons, like Joe Iszuzu (sp).
Who cares if someone takes a copy of the software and stashes it somewhere?
Free software is still free, no matter what someone does with a copy of it, and
gives it to someone else with no strings attached. Non-free software attaches
strings, and GPL has such strings.
People who try to control every copy of a piece of software, and apply copy
restrictions
to it, are little different than other people who do so, under different terms. Trying
to distinguish oneself by hijacking the term 'free' actually shows malicious intent.
John
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:47:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Did you or did you not RTFM? If you did, how come you missed the snippet
> I pasted? If you did not, /me thinks my conclusion was right.
> Either way, the answer to your question is right there in the GUM. It is
> the first thing you should refer to if you encounter a "problem" with
> The Gimp. Everyone should RTFM first, even Joe Sixpack lusers.
You missed the point here. I'm not whining about having to RTFM, as I
said before.
> I only agree with you that the default as set by *Mandrake* was
> incorrect. This is not a Linux oopsie, nor a Gimp oopsie. It is a
> Mandrake oopsie for setting the wrong default and a Pete Goodwin goofup
> for not R-ing TFM.
So what, then, is Linux?
No, it's not my goofup, it's a Mandrake oopsie.
> >I'm also rather surprised that any modern OS would still have multiple
> >drivers for a printer -
>
> Go back to my previous post, reread it carefully and discover why this
> is a *feature* (I handpicked my .sig this time). Re-iterating your
> goofup isn't going to make it right.
I repeat, I'm surprised any OS would have multiple drivers for a printer.
> >this is something the OS should be doing, not each application.
>
> No, it's not. The OS is for the hardware handling. Even with "-o raw"
> there is no way to bring down the Data Stobe line without passin through
> the kernel. *That* is what the OS should be doing. What *you* call the
> "Epson drivers" are just a couple of GhostScript filters that run in
> userspace and which you can trivially bypass.
And what may I ask are device drivers doing? Handling devices? I.e.
hardware?
> >Now I'm hearing The Gimp doesn't do this - yet it overrides the system
> >selected printer instead! DOH!
>
> Only when *you* tell it to (with -o raw). 2^(DOH)!
I didn't tell it to, I picked the default which by any reasonable
assumption would _do the right thing_, but it didn't. D'oh!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:48:34 -0500
Joona I Palaste wrote:
>
> Ian Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled the following
> on comp.lang.c:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>I am using my right to free speech for my purpose.
> >>
> >>If that annoys you, so be it.
>
> How typical of trolls to think free speech is some godly power that
> allows them to do whatever they please and and then refuse any
> criticism.
I really don't give a shit if you criticise me.
I'm just telling you that I will change my .sig when *I* feel it
is an appropriate time.
>
> --
> /-- Joona Palaste ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---------------------------\
> | Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
> | http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
> \----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
>
> "There's no business like slow business."
> - Tailgunner
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:54:51 -0500
Ian Woods wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I am using my right to free speech for my purpose.
> >
> >If that annoys you, so be it.
>
> And your hugely impressive Usenet-convention-overriding and worthwhile
> purpose is what?
Keeping the kindling wet so that a royal flame-fest doesnt arise.
Look, you guys have NO idea of the amount of garbage I had to
put up with before I composed the .sig.
I really have absolutely NO FUCKING DESIRE to repeat the experience,
let alone to subject you to all that crap.
With Dejanews, it is VERY easy to find out EVERY newgroup in which
someone posts. That's what I was dealing with...shitheads who
followed me around all over USENET, to spew their lies.
At this point, I really don't give a fuck whether *YOU* think
my actions are wise or not...
You haven't had to deal with it.
I did.
The .sig was my solution, and it worked
If you can't accept that, then you can go fuck yourselves...
and that means every last one of you
Comprende?
If not, too fucking bad.
>
> Ian Woods
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:58:59 GMT
I have used both, but for me Gnome seems better, Well haven't tried KDE
2.1 yet but what does every one else think? Why is one better than the
other? I'm not looking for Windows similarity!
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:59:14 +0000
>> I mean, ignoring the obvious and inane, like "run 32 bit apps" or
>> "click the start button", assuming you haven't installed any apps at
>> all, what bonuses does ME give you over 3.0?
>
> I'm not really sure what you're looking for. What can you do in Red Hat
> 7.0 that you couldn't do in 6.2? What can you do in MacOS 9 that you
> couldn't do in 8?
Why do you post time and time again without doing any research. By
comparing the package lists, RH7 has 55 more packages than RH6. I can't
be bothered to find out which ones they are, but you are free to look if
you choose.
>> I can really only think of Internet Explorer (or perhaps I should say
>> Internet related software, so as to include DUN).
>
> Well, there are many new applets. ME does include a Windows Movie
> Maker, Wordpad, HyperTerminal, disk defragmenter, Windows Media Player,
Win3.11 had Write and a disk defragmenter (under DOS which was required
for Win311) and IIRC it included hyperterminal too.
> Personal Web Server, Plug N Play, Thousands of devices that WIndows 3.x
The personal webserver is not worth the disk space its on. The thousands
of devices didn't exist when win311 was around so I don't think that
current drivers are a fiar comparison. Besides, given a driver disk,
those devices would run under Win311.
> can't use, such as Winmodems and the like, DirectX, etc...
Win311 can use winmodems given the correct drivers.
Also, you're doing a very unfair comparison.
You were comparing RH7 to RH6 and WinME to Win311. So what coan WinME do
that Win98 can't?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:59:38 +0000 (UTC)
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
:> Of course, the GNU sound byte, "Think 'free speech'" is sufficient to
:> show that describing the GPL as "free" fits common usage of the word,
:> i.e. something different from "without any constraints."
: Only in the minds of those already convinced.
: Find someone completely virgin of FSF propaganda.
: Tell him "this program is 'free as in speech' software" and ask him to
: explain to you what such a thing means.
When one thinks of living things ("Joe Cracker is free",
"My parakeet is free"), the freedom definition is assumed.
But when unliving objects are referred to ("My beer is free",
"My ISP is free"), the cost definition is assumed in its place.
That's just the nature of the english language. One does not
"set the trash free" prior to the garbage man's arrival.
And, while software is a very remarkable product, it hasn't
reached the point where people can readily anthropomorphize it.
Thus, it takes a bit of mental effort to get the "free software"
definition into FSF mode. Often a bit too much effort.
So, seeing that the purpose of language is to convey meaning,
and since "open source" is only two syllables longer than "free"
(and considerably more self-explanatory), that's the term I
prefer - if only to save on explanations.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 02 Mar 2001 15:03:42 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > There is no doubt that Microsoft software prices have not tracked
> reduced
> > > > hardware costs.
> > >
> > > Nor should they? What is the price of Adobe Photoshop in 1992 versus
> today?
> > > What is the price of PageMaker? Illustrator? Quark Express? FreeHand?
> > > Novell Netware? OS/2?
> > >
> > > I think you'll find all these are roughly the same prices they were in
> 1992,
> > > if not more expensive today.
> >
> > Actually, Photoshop is substantially cheaper now than back then. In
> > the past you needed very expensive computers to run it, but now the
> > bargain machines from the department store can easily do it. It
> > followed the classic market of scale model: more people buy it, the
> > price goes down.
>
> Nice dodge. You know that's not the point, so stop trying to twist it.
>
> The price of the software is roughly the same.
I think this debate is silly anyway; it's pretty obvious that
Microsoft charges more than they need to, look at their enormous
profits. They have every right to do so, but denying that Windows
costs more than it should is silly.
> > Windows does not follow that same rule, for whatever reason. More
> > people buy it and the prices go *up* (ie, Windows 2000 is more
> > expensive than Windows for Workgroups was -- regardless the price scale
> > you use).
>
> Windows 2000 is a workstation class OS, not a consumer OS. Windows XP will
> be available in a consumer version that is the same price as Windows 9x/ME
> today.
Windows XP is the same thing as Windows 2000; they use the same NT
core that NT4 and NT3 did.
Windows ME isn't much cheaper than Windows 2000.
> > PageMaker, Illustrator and Quark Express are all niche applications
> > that will probably never have a growing market; the same people use it
> > today as used it in the past.
>
> I think that's a far stretch. Electronic Publishing has gone through the
> roof. The markets for these software packages are orders of magnitude more
> than they were 10 years ago.
Yes, but most people use Microsoft Word and not professional tools.
> > For a better comparison, look at WordPerfect's price over time.
>
> That's not a better comparison. WordPerfect became a failure in the market,
> and was sold from company to company. They sell it for a fraction of the
> cost because nobody will buy it at it's full cost.
Because it's not *worth* that much for a word processor. Microsoft
gets away with it because they have enforced compatibility (IMHO).
This is the reason why the monopoly is a bad thing for consumers, and
is the core of the argument.
WordPerfect, in short, *can't* compete because the market isn't fair.
I know you're going to disagree, but that's the heart of the argument
as described by Orin Hatch (R-Utah), 18 states' attrouney's general,
the US Department of Justice and the very conservative judge Jackson
(appointed by Ronald Reagan).
Who's right, who's wrong? We'll just have to wait and see. Microsoft
isn't doing so hot right now... perhaps they'll avoid being broken up
because the economly has gone in the tanker, but perhaps not.
I don't really care anymore, personally. I like Microsoft's good
products enough, I just wish they were under more friendly
management.
> > > > The reason should be self-evident. The PC hardware market is extremely
> > > > competitive, but there is no competition in the PC OS market, due in
> the
> > > > main to Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive and monopolistic
> practices.
> > >
> > > Then how does that explain OS/2 hasn't dropped in price? How does it
> > > explain that Netware hasn't dropped in price?
> >
> > They are both niche markets.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that they're PC operating systems. WordPerfect
> is also a niche market today, yet it's price has gone down by your own
> assertion.
A word processor is not a niche market.
> > Windows is not.
>
> Try being consistent.
No. Windows is not the same thing as Pagemaker. They are
*in*consistent products.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
