Linux-Advocacy Digest #605, Volume #34 Fri, 18 May 01 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Playing Microsoft XBox ("Mad.Scientist")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Quantum Leaper")
How would you port this? (from RTOS to Linux) (Bill)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Aaron Kookis: over 340 posts in 6 days! (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mad.Scientist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Playing Microsoft XBox
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:08:06 -0500
In 2002, Square finally decides to release Final Fantasy X on XBox.
After 75 hours of total gameplay, you finally get to the final dungeon.
When you are ready to fight the final boss, weird characters start showing
in the text, so you cannot read what is being said. However, you are used
to this.
You finally are drawn into battle. You decide to use Bahamut against the
final boss.
As that happens, you get the blue screen of death.
You are annoyed by this, and decide to try again.
You push the reset button on XBox.
You begin to reload the game from the memory card.
Again, you get the blue screen of death.
When you restart it, scandisk comes on and corrects the errors on the memory
card.
However, at the end of it, the blue screen of death happens again, this
time, in the SCANDISK module.
You have to push reset again.
The game loads perfectly this time.
You get into battle with the final boss.
You try to use flare against the final boss, but it does not work because it
performs an illegal operation.
The spell has no effect, except that you lose MP.
You try other spells, but they also cause illegal operations.
All of your characters are at level 70.
Since your moves do not work, the villain has bought enough time to case
Level 5 Death on you.
Your party is helplessly annihilated.
But wait!! according to the $15 dollar strategy guide for the game, the
last boss does not cast Level 5 Death!! What's wrong?
You find out again that the OS of the system is bugged. So you connect on
your ethernet port that comes with XBox.
You download the fix, and it self-installes. Then the system resets itself.
This time, you try to load the game.
However, the fix is for fixing the illegal operations when casting spells,
not for memory card problems.
You get another blue screen of death while trying to load the save from the
memory, corrupting it.
However, scandisk, which blue screened earlier, is not working correctly.
But wait!! Your friend has an XBox. Maybe you can use his to scandisk.
But NOOO!!! When you tried that, the system denied you access.
Microsoft figured that this was a way to pirate saves, so each card was
system specific.
You are thoroughly pissed at this point, and call Microsoft.
However, they tell you that using your memory card in another machine voided
your warranty.
You then take your XBox and smash it with a sledge hammer, and throw it
around.
While doing that, you are shouting excessive obscenities that would offend
even a South Park fan.
Soon, your XBox is nothing except dust particles.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:43:37 GMT
In article <9e3t51$2cl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> If I could put the entire context of the thread in the subject, there
> would be no need for the rest of the post. Clearly you think this which is
> why you haven't read the post.
You could put "Linux beats Win2K in terms of scalability". Instead you
put the more inclusive version and added "again".
> And in case you hadn't notices, I was refering solely to *real* world
> scalability and price performance. This has nothing to do with the
> desktop. Clearly, you are unable to understand this.
But why the emphasis on *real*? What's the implication here? Are you
suggesting everything else is not real by that?
> Now, I don't care what you went ranting on about, since you have not shown
> how it is relavent to Linux thrashing Win2K in terms of scalibility or
> price/performance, which is what the thread was about.
OK, here's something on thread for you.
What's the biggest computer out there at the moment?
Is it one of your machines, the one you refer to in your original post?
No.
It's millions of desktop machines, 80% of which are running Windows of
one form or another. That's the *real* world.
And how many projects are taking advantage of this computer power?
Can you think of any?
I can think of two.
One by SETI.
A quote from their website:
"02/00 - As of February, 2000, SETI@home has grown to encompass
1.6 million participants in 224 countries. The amount of computing time
contributed since May, 1999 is equal to 165,000 years, averaging 10
Teraflops (about 10 times more than the largest supercomputer on the
planet). It is the largest computation ever done, and has attracted the
participation of 20,000 groups such as schools and private companies."
About ten times more than the largest supercomputer on the planet... how
interesting. Now this can be Linux or Windows or MAC. But remember, the
majority of the desktops out there are Windows.
Another by Intel.
A quote from their website:
"Program Uses the Power of Personal Computers and Peer-to-Peer Computing
to Create World's Largest 'Virtual Supercomputer' SANTA CLARA, Calif.,
April 3, 2001 - Intel Corporation and leaders of the scientific research
community today announced a new philanthropic effort to help combat life-
threatening diseases by linking millions of PCs to create the world's
largest and most powerful computing resource."
The world's lagest virtual supercomputer... all on the desktop.
And this package is... Windows only. Oops! No Linux package in sight.
> Now before digging yourself in to another deep hole, remember I set the
> context of the thread with the original post and it is *you* who has gone
> off at a wild tangent, after clearly not reading anything more than the
> subject line.
Yet you are the one who used the term *real* and (again) without
qualifying them.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:44:58 GMT
In article <9e3t6g$2cm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I was responding to the title "Linux beats Win2K (again)" and the
> > references to "*real* computing".
> >
> > The desktop is about as *real* as you get.
>
> So are supercomputers unreal then?
>
> YES or NO?
And is the desktop supercomputer real? Ask Intel or SETI. They'll tell
you - they've used it. Ten times bigger than any supercomputer you might
mention.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:44:59 GMT
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KqbN6.28551$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Developers don't need to care much about
> > > that.
> >
> > Well genius, why do you think there's not much app development going on
> > for Commodre 64/128, Apple II, Tandy Color Computer, Atari ST, etc?
>
> Well, The first 5 machines listed there are 8-bit
> computers- first generation PCs, and they really
> really really suck hard compared to even the
> original IBM PC.
>
I would rather have C64 then a IBM PC (which I have both currently). A
simple test was to program a print loop in BASIC and the C64 was 3/4 the
speed of the PC, even thought the CPU was less then 1/4 clock speed.
C64/128 still has programs being created, even the Atari 2600 has new games
or demos being produced.
> Really. The IBM PC won because it wasn't
> just better than its competitors at the time,
> it was a *lot* better.
>
C64 had the home market til the 90s, but Business market was ruled by PCs.
> It failed because it was too little, too late-
> and even more because Atari showed
> little commitment to it. Besides, it was
> a rather me-too-ish sort of computer. Why
> bother with it in the face of the Macintosh,
> the PC AT or the Amiga?
>
Atari and Commodore but had REALLY bad management teams, I still remember a
picture from INFO magazine showing Atari management as the 3 Stooges. The
problem was Commodore's was any better.
> On those old 8-bit machines, you pretty much
> had to develop anything significant in assembly;
> high-level languages would produce code that
> was just too big or just too slow (usually both).
>
Slow compared to modern machines but fast enough for the time and place.
> And assembly on a 6502 or a Z80 is not
> exactly a fun thing. 8 bit registers really,
> really bite. You pretty much always need
> bigger numbers than that, so you wind up
> having to play with carry bits and string
> arithmeitc operations together and...
>
A good compiler would do wonders when programming in assembly on the C64.
If I had to do floats, I would use built in BASIC from assembly. 8 bit
registers were almost never used in the 6502, it was mainly memory based,
with 16 bits.
> ... well, better you should use an abacus.
>
Haven't used one in about 2 weeks. ;) I use it more that a calculators
sometimes.
------------------------------
From: Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How would you port this? (from RTOS to Linux)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 17:42:10 -0400
I am new to the GNU/Linux world. I have a general system design
question. I am porting some existing software written for a Real Time
OS to GNU/Linux. I will give a brief description of my current system,
hopefully you can give me some design ideas for a GNU/Linux port.
I have a master program that reads several configuration files.
These files detail what tasks must started, both sequenced and event
driven. These tasks handle such things as network I/O, event handling &
logging, system monitoring, subsystem I/O, a text based user interface
console, and many other algorithms/tasks that interpret input from
external subsystems and make corresponding requests to these
subsystems. The master program creates all of these tasks and provides
an API for all of these other executable modules to run in. The master
program also provides a round robin scheduler for sequenced tasks. This
architecture has one interface to the user; from the console I am able
to determine the status of every task that is running, and
enable/disable run time debugging. The modular design of my system
allows components to be added and removed from the system by changing a
configuration file only, there is no need to change source code and
rebuild.
The RTOS I am using provides a great API, semaphores, mailboxes,
shared memory, processes, and threads.
I would prefer to emulate the same architecture in GNU/Linux, as
compared to running all of these tasks independently.
What kind of experiences have you had with this type of
architecture? Do you recommend any other type of design?
Thanks for any comments and experience you can provide,
----Bill Rooney
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:50:49 GMT
In article <9e3ti2$2jv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I question your use of *real* world. How is it the *real* world when it
> > is a very small market?
>
> It is the real world because it is a real market, not some cooked up
> benchmark. You will realise that I was quoting an example of Linux
> thrashing Win2K in scalability and price/performance after a glut of
> trolling about TPC (ie not a real world application) from the wintrolls.
>
> If supercomputers aren't real world scalibility then what is? A TPC
> benchmarking machine, perhaps?
How about the desktop supercomputer by SETI and Intel? Hmmm? Ten times
bigger, hmmm... now if the desktop is predominantly Windows, that means
this supercomputer is mostly Windows.
The Intel one is of course Windows only.
> > If you said "And in the world of scalability"... your use of *real* is
> > as kind of 'hook', implying that anything else is somehow 'unreal' or
> > maybe even inferior.
>
> No, I was trying to keep the discussion on the original topic posted,
> something which you are clearly unable to do.
By avoiding the question?
> > In the real real world, everywhere.
>
> In the real world of scalibility (ie not a benchmark setup) windows is no
> where to be seen.
Really? The biggest computer in the world is Windows dominated, and you
say it's nowhere to be seen?
> Now:
>
> The original thread was about real world scalibility, which was posted to
> counter laods of trolling about benchmarks. Please stop trying to throw
> it completely off topic just to show I'm wrong about something I'm
> not[1]. If you care so much about the issues you keep raising which are
> irellevant in this discussion, then start a new thread about it.
I'm not trying to show you're wrong - except for the biggest
supercomputer I've mentioned - only that your use of the certain words
has led me to question you - and you've not exactly answered any of my
questions.
> [1] You have not given me any indication of how Win2K beats Linux in
> terms of real world scalibility and price/performance. Remember, if you
> read the OP, you would realise that is what I started talking about.
> Hint: this has nothing to do with desktops.
Windows (not Win2K) appears to be the biggest supercomputer out there in
the *real* world. And it's all on the desktop.
Scalability? How many machines is this supercomputer? 100? 1000?
1,000,000 (SETI) and 500,000 (Intel).
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:51:16 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <9e1dea$gip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Almost forgot:
> >
> > Chad, Jan, Ubertroll, Todd, etc, what do you have to say to this:
> >
> > In the real world (ie not benchmarks) Linux is near the top in terms of
> > price/performance and scalibility. Win2K doesn't put in a single showing.
>
> And in the *real* world of desktops, where is Linux, pray tell?
>
> Absolutely... nowhere?
Except on my desktop.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:53:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> It would appear that you've never sat down next to an auto mechanic or
> a grey-haired granny while they tried to install Windows themselves
> (why do you think MS wants it to come pre-installed?) or tried to
> teach them how to chase down registry corruption after one too many
> application installations.
I've watched my brother struggle with Windows and my father. I dread to
think just how much _more_ they would struggle if it was Linux. I can
just hear my brother say "What's this password cr*p?".
> I also disagree with the rest of the user-bashing parts of this
> thread. If Joe Sixpack buys a computer to surf the web or manage his
> home-business, then he wants to spend his time surfing the web and
> managing his records - not wading through a stack of computer manuals.
Precisely what I've heard others say about Linux. They want to use the
machine, not get bogged down in working out how to configure it.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:54:03 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> The desktop is about as *real* as you get.
I think the guys who use computers to do number crunching
(e.g. on Crays) would disagree.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:55:47 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > For many people, Linux is more than good enough of a desktop system. If
> > it doesn't please you, then just run Windows.
>
> For anyone who wants stoneage computing maybe.
Or a great compiler, superior networking, reliability,
and much better security. Or a heritage of modular
tools to which Microsoft can only aspire to.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:59:00 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > It's remarkable that Microsoft would, for instance,
> > put OLE into the OS for anyone to use rather
> > than making it an Office specific feature. They didn't
> > see WordPerfect or Lotus as a threat;
>
> They damn well DID see WordPerfect and Lotus as a threat, or they wouold
> have been busy with all those bundling licenses the DOJ busted them for
> the first time.
They don't seem to have seen them as much of a threat.
> > their core
> > business isn't office suites. It's development tools.
>
> Their "core busines" is first, window$, second, window$ apps.
That covers virtually their entire product line;
not exactly "core".
[snip]
> > Yeah. Very definitely.
> >
> > This .NET thing is not just some spasm; Microsoft
> > has been losing developers to Sun. They want them
> > back.
> >
> > *This* is the real threat to Microsoft's buisness
> > model. As long as they have the developers, Windows
> > cannot fail, and that gives Microsoft great influence.
>
> As long as micro$oft has a desktop monopoly, window$ cannot fail.
If I understand what you mean, you are saying that
as long as Windows does not file, Windows won't
fail.
I'm tyrying to tell you *why* it's so firmly
entrenched.
> > But if they lose the developers, then Windows
> > is at *most* a bunch of (no doubt very stable :D )
> > device drivers.
>
> If developers could figure out a way to develop an OS that was
> "compatible" with window$, thy would. That is what's scaring m$.
Oh, come now. That'll a sure-fire losing strategy, as
IBM discovered with OS/2 2.0.
Being "Windows, only not from Microsoft" just
means you are perpetually behind MS, since they
are hardly going to give you a stationary
target.
It buys you nothing.
[snip]
> > > And if they cant "buy" them or get them to "license" their p[roducts
to
> > > m$ at a rediculous price, m$ kills them.
> >
> > I don't know why you put the scare quotes around "buy"
> > there; they very definitely do buy out their competitors
> > sometimes.
>
> And if they cant buy them they kill them. Or at least try.
Ah, no scare quotes now. Much better.
> > You may not like it, but you aren't the one getting all
> > that money.
> >
> > MS also has been known to compete straight out,
> > and sometimes they win. But sometimes they lose;
> > and developers know this.
>
> They have never won on competition alone.
Hmmmmmm. I know you see virtualy anything
they do as nefarious, but I'd be surprsied if
there was *no* counter-example to your claim.
How about Visual Basic? What is the dirty trick
with that one?
[snip]
> > > > But it's still true that companies have
> > > > been able to successfully compete with Microsoft
> > > > in the past, even so.
> > >
> > > Name 5.
> >
> > Intuit.
> >
> > MS seems to have given up on this one. This
> > is the most clear cut example you could ask
> > for.
> >
>
> The FTC made m$ give up on this one.
Yes. They couldn't beat them so they
tried to buy them; MS is like that.
They couldn't even manage that, as you
note, so they seem to be stuck.
> > AOL.
> >
> > Even the supposedly all-powerful trick
> > of putting an MSN icon on the desktop
> > couldn't unseat AOL. Not that we aren't
> > all rooting for MS on this one. :D
>
> There was a 5 year deal where m$ agrreed to put an AOL icon on the
> desktop if AOL used IE. AOL is getting ready to bundle Communicator as
> its default browser. We'l have to see what roadblocks m$ puts up.
AOL is kicking MSN's butt. Sure, it may be
dirty pool to have played on Microsoft's
fears to do so. But it worked.
> > Oracle.
> >
> > MS is having real trouble getting database
> > customers to believe in SQL Server. But
> > they keep on plugging.
>
> SQL has not been a core businees for m$.
You didn't say anything about "core" in your
original question. I would say that SQL
Server is closer to their core business than,
say, Office is. But certainly it isn't as
important as Windows is.
> And it will stay difficult as
> long as GPL SQL stuff is out there.
No way. There are no GPL SQL databases
that don't suck and suck hard. Not to put
too fine a point on it.
> Oracle startes out in the enterprise
> arena on mainframes and minis. This has alsno not been m$'s area. This
> is not a good esample of direct competition.
Sure it is. Oracle and SQL Server are direct
competitors, and Microsoft has been pouring
on the effort to try to catch up.
Oracle *is* multi-platform, and SQL Server
is not- advanage Oracle that- but that does
not mean as much as you probably suspect.
People buy computers *just* to run these
programs and nothing else.
> > IBM.
> >
> > Notes remains *the* groupware product;
> > Exchange may have a user interface that
> > doesn't make you want to kill yourself
> > quite as violently as Notes does, but it
> > just isn't customisable in the same way.
>
> You are using Lotus as an example as a company that survived competition
> with m$? Are you crazy?
Lotus didn't; but IBM has, and you can't tell
me MS played gentle with IBM. And Notes
continues to be entrenched.
> > Apple.
> >
> > However I may personally feel about it,
> > Quicktime remains very popular as a
> > media distribution format. I dunno if its
> > the Sorenson codec or the API or
> > what.
>
> Apple is not competition for m$.
Sure it is, in *several* markets.
> Quicktime competes agains window$'
> media (gag) and real networks stuff.
Yeah,
> But m$ says it will soon
> "integrate" window$ media into the OS. We'll have to see if the other
> stuff survives, or goes the way of Netscape.
Windows Media has *always* been integrated;
it is an OS component. Quicktime likewise on
the Mac. Both have been around for awhile.
This is why Quicktime works rather less well
on Windows, and Windows Media Player
works rather less well on the Mac. You can't
really do these thigns properly inside an
application like that.
[snip]
> > Well, okay, you *should* have meant their lawyers. And
> > in some cases not even that; Digital Research didn't
> > sue; Caldera did.
>
> Noorda pushed it. It was supposedly a large topic in the buy out talks.
Yes.
> And Digital DOES stand as an example of what happens when you compete
> agains m$. They had a viable OS alternative to m$'s. m$ killed it
> through immoral, unethical, illegal means.
Through a better product, Windows.
DR-DOS was horrible compared to what we have now,
thanks to Microsoft. Being *slightly* better than MS-DOS
is simply no complement at all.
[snip]
> > > Tell that to Go Computing. Tehy were nimble. And micros$oft knofed
them
> > > in the back. Dame with Stac.
> >
> > No; Go Computing wasn't nimble. Not as nimble as MS,
> > anyway, which was able to put together a credible
> > pen-computing platform in a very big hurry.
>
> Have you lost touch with reality? When m$ announced pen window$, the
> demos was smokle and mirrors. m$ sent an employee (Wink Thorn) to
> videotape GO's demo to the Boston Computer Society. The another
> employee (Marlin Eller) wrote code that would duplicate the demmo, pkus
> a few things, but it wasnt real working pen code.
I suspect this isn't true. For one thing it would be very
silly indeed; PenWindows big selling point was that it
would use the same API as Windows did, so it would
be easy to port apps or find programmers.
Making it appear to be a clone of Go would have
been very foolish.
> m$ then pre-annonced
> pen windows and froze the market. They didnt have a thing. and when pen
> window$ came out, it sucked. I know. I tried to use it. Did you?
Oh, I know it sucked. I read the reviews. All the others
sucked too, Go included, and in pretty much the same way:
the handwriting recognition technology was just not
good enough.
> > Stac was plenty nimble. They out-nimbled Microsoft
> > and bought the better patent. I may not approve
> > of nimbleness-by-lawyer, but it should be acknowledged.
>
> Which m$ infringed.
Painting Stac as one of MS's helpless victims is
very silly. They won.
They were plenty nimble enough.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Aaron Kookis: over 340 posts in 6 days!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 May 2001 21:55:05 GMT
On Fri, 18 May 2001 13:00:08 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So fuck em. There you go buddy.
>
> Really? A quick google usenet search, ( you may have to hunt and peck a bit
> for that option - the google toolbar only runs under I.E. 5 or better. )
> Returns over 6000 posts each for:
>
> You
> Porter
Well I have been posting since about 1995, thats only 20 posts a week.
I also dispute your total, it looks like a big guess to me, kinda like
your Windows Advocacy.
> Gardiner
>
> I couldn't keep going on through the list to see if they were *all* from the
> colaZealots above.
Yeah you always had a short attention span, or maybee its that OS you use ?
> However, pages up till 10 on each name were still listing cola posts from
Hey if you want that, you'll have to actually sit down and type, be patient,
you'll get there Winboy.
> these LinPerts.
> You guys must really fast typing fingers, or you stay on here all damn day!
Simple maths, 20 posts a week is easily done, is that too hard for you
to comprehend?
>
> Now, what was that you were saying?
Yeah its the short attention span.
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
