Linux-Development-Sys Digest #794, Volume #6 Mon, 7 Jun 99 22:13:54 EDT
Contents:
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Christopher Browne)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Christopher Browne)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Christopher Browne)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Tools for reading LTP/COM ports (Xavier Plasencia)
Linux on Palm-PCs (Christian Kleitsch)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Darin Johnson)
Re: Linux development tools - new : download freeware compiler with IDE and
GuiDesigner for Linux & Windows (Martin Maney)
spawn fails in cron ("Kurt C. Anderson")
Re: glibc 2.0 or glibc 2.1 (Reinhard Foerster)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: Large CD-ROM file errors...? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:23:54 GMT
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:52:08 GMT, Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Fox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: I won't address all these points, but the following statements are
>: typical of your document. As far as I can tell they are all simply
>: statements of vague though laudable goals with no hint as to how to
>: begin to achieve them:
>
>: Viruses are impossible to contract on the system based on its
>: design.
>
>: Many common failures associated with existing OSes are impossible in
>: Tao due to stability features.
>
>: In Tao, the source of problems are always very easy to diagnose even
>: by an end user.
>
>: In Tao *everything* is *always* "plug-and-play". All hardware, all
>: software, everything. Anything can be connected or disconnected at
>: any time with the system handling it elegantly in every situation.
>
>: I must side with your detractors, I can find no useful design insights
>: here.
>
>they are design goals that are not usually recognized as
>key design goals. when a community of developers agrees these
>are the key design goals, other than the ones that are typically
>being pursued, which I contrast in the essay, the code will
>tend to follow. the essay is challenging philosophical prejudices
>of the widespread software community.
>
>the essay cannot create the OS. it requires ppl of similar
>vision to help put together the pieces.
You have merely made claims about what the visible results "should" look
like.
You have not provided any normative information about the design so as
to provide any justification for *why* Tao would satisfy these
requirements.
What people are expecting is to hear about architectural features that might
support the claims you make. Instead, all we hear are vague constraints.
>let me contrast exactly the items you quote, and show how
>I am challenging existing assumptions (btw, thanks for actually
>quoting the essay)
>
>: Viruses are impossible to contract on the system based on its
>: design.
>
>in win95 for example, because of poor design, viruses are ubiquitous.
>the designers did not design the system with the design goal
>of preventing viruses. hence it is virus ridden and extremely
>vulnerable/fragile. I am proposing that viruses can be prevented
>by the designers. java is an example of the direction of development
>along this line. I suggest future OSes will be far more virus
>proof.
Viruses are not ubiquitous on Win95 simply "because of poor design."
They are ubiquitous because of some particular areas of vulnerability.
In order to justify that "viruses will be prevented," you need to
provide some evidence that you are aware of the vulnerabilities, and
describe specific ways in which your system would *prevent* the
existence of such vulnerabilities.
>: Many common failures associated with existing OSes are impossible in
>: Tao due to stability features.
>
>in win95 again, typically the designers do not care so much about
>stability, instead the emphasis has been on constantly adding new
>features to the OS to support feature [x] rather than enhancing
>stability of the overall OS. the latter is a sort of meta-problem
>not related to adding functionality, hence designers tend to
>push it aside.
Again, the only reassurance you give is a vague "we'll design it to be
stable," as opposed to indicating that you understand *why* Win95 is
vulnerable to crashes, and describing the structural characteristics of
Tao that would resolve those vulnerabilities.
>: In Tao, the source of problems are always very easy to diagnose even
>: by an end user.
>this is not a design goal of win95 or linux. how many zillions of hours
>are spent where user calls up tech support in attempt to solve problem?
>vague error messages? it is all a large circle of hell we have all
>experienced. in linux, there is even more prejudice against the end
>user.. mostly everyone who uses it is presumed to be a programmer.
Again, you merely reassure us that "Oh yes, problems will be easy to
diagnose," but no information about what structures in the design would
be supportive of this.
>: In Tao *everything* is *always* "plug-and-play". All hardware, all
>: software, everything. Anything can be connected or disconnected at
>: any time with the system handling it elegantly in every situation.
>
>again, this is not a design goal of win95 or linux, and is not
>considered a priority currently, whereas I insist it is a crucial
>interest of the end user, which of course win95 is gradually
>acknowledging.
Great. It's a "design goal" for Tao. That's vastly reassuring.
You haven't told us anything about how you plan to store state
information about system configuration, or other such structures in the
design that would actually be supportive of this sort of functionality.
>you did a good job cutting out the most vague sentences in the
>essay devoid of the accompanying context of each that expands
>on my point.
>
>the essay, I acknowledge, is challenging basic philosophical
>assumptions or dogmas of the OS community. i.e. MEMES more than laying
>out lines of code (which hopefully is the ultimate end goal).
You don't necessarily need to provide "lines of code" in order to
support these ideas; there *are* useful things that could be said with
regards to each of the "design goals" that would provide some indication
that your claims are more than merely claims that "This or that would be
nice to have."
--
"UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because
that would also stop you from doing clever things." -- Doug Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:23:58 GMT
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:27:49 GMT, Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Vladimir, are you really *that* clueless? Do you seriously imply
>: that work here is done without design? Sigh... Look, there are several
>: criterions that should be met to get, erm, a positive attention:
>
>give me a design document that outlines the areas I have covered
>in mind, for Linux. I will look at it. I have not found such a
>document.
There are some "wish lists" kicking around, but no such "rearchitecture
document."
>where are these documents that fulfill all your criteria? unless
>you can SHOW ME THE DOCUMENTS all you have is a WISH LIST.
>hahahahha .. if you find some documents, the question is, why
>haven't you posted them before now?
There is no redesign effort taking place; those that are working on the
Linux kernel have a pretty good idea of what they intend to do, and
apparently don't feel the need to provide this documentation. Which is
fine, as they are making only incremental changes.
--
"Unlike computers, guns don't have Y2K problems..."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/oses.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:24:14 GMT
On 07 Jun 1999 00:28:48 +0100, Nix <$}xinix{[email protected]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri) writes:
>
>> ross reaffirms the idea that linux is "pasted together" and lacks
>> an overall vision/philosophy.
>
>POSIX, and common sense where POSIX goes too zany (and it does).
The "disconnect" occurs in that Linux is, strictly speaking, merely an
OS kernel.
Methinks that the "Nuri Vision" is, in a sense, sitting at a higher
level, with the requirement that the OS design be integrated with GUI
design be integrated with ORB design ...
If one regards Linux as "just a kernel," then it is quite sufficient to
say that it's POSIX-like, as much as makes sense.
But if you're building something from the "raw iron" on up to the GUI,
then it is fair to say that Linux simply *ignores* anything much higher
than POSIX.
There may be some valid criticism that UNIX systems represent a
combination of components "pasted together." Of course, if the "duct
tape" is robust enough, that process can provide you with pretty decent
results.
>> btw, I respect torvalds, but.. what is the vision for Linux?
>> support for parallel processing? ok, ok, great, but come on.
>
>Er, um, why does it *need* a `vision'? `Visions', IMHO, are something
>that big companies turn out by the boatload to justify high prices :)
>
>It seems to me that its simply aiming to be the best Unix-like OS that
>it can be. Not ambitious, perhaps, but it can't fail :)
With UNIX-like systems, OS kernel, X, Window Manager, and GUI libraries
are quite completely independent. I think what he wants to create is
something that integrates additional layers in as formal parts of the OS
that Linux eschews.
>> btw, I don't know if a new OS may have to defy linux founders.. I
>
>Hardly. You may have good ideas, if so we can reuse them in the
>kernel. (Of course, some good ideas don't fit in a POSIX-like system...)
If there's a need to have the low level bits of kernel depending on GUI
code, then that requires changes that effectively mandate starting a
completely new system.
>> can see it as possible. it is entirely possible that linux will
>> someday be eclipsed by something different enough that it doesnt
>> even resemble it anymore.
>
>Indeed; Linus has said that this is not unlikely, and is probably
>desirable, in the long run.
Some years ago, he indicated that Linux was something of a "stopgap"
measure that would likely be replaced by Hurd. In retrospect, Hurd has
been *real* slow coming, and will likely never eclipse Linux.
>> ok,ok, "ultimate" is not a great word to use in the essay, it
>> pushes some buttons. but surely there is a way to have a "way-cool"
>> OS even better than what we have now. it surprises me how
>
>Er, yes. But a wish list does not a design document make.
Right.
>Anything which aims for ideals is good; but aiming for *all* the ideals
>at once, in *one* project, is very probably going to fail to even get
>close on any of them.
The UNIX Philosophy describes this as a "second system" syndrome, where
the second attempt to "get everything right" results in a system that is
incredibly unwieldy.
>> perhaps what I am proposing is not an OS but something
>> bigger than an OS, i.e. the next level of abstraction. I don't
>> really care what the low level details are.
>
>*bzzt* in design the devil is in the details. Low-level details can
>explode into things that wreck entire designs. You need to think about
>things at at least enough detail to get from the `it would be nice
>to...' stage to the `this would be a good way to implement...' stage, at
>least conceptually. Otherwise what you've got is not a design but a
>wish-list. And we've all got those. They generally make poor rallying
>cries compared to those projects already out there. (The operative word
>being `generally'.)
... And people that haven't built even their *first* OS are difficult to
take seriously when they claim they'll improve on what's already there.
I'll take the folks at Be reasonably seriously, albeit with skepticism
that BeOS is likely to be commercially viable, because they:
a) Were largely ex-Apple developers that Doubtless Have Some Clue, and
b) Have released beta editions.
In contrast, taking someone seriously when they have no track record at
implementing an OS, when they fairly clearly are unaware of recent OS
research, and can't clearly define "Object Oriented," is extremely
difficult.
>> part of the essay is suggesting the OS can be made more efficient
>> by revisiting the idea of the compiler. it seems to me that
>> the compiler is actually a basic part of the OS, and when this
>> concept is fully realized by the development community, far more
>> powerful/efficient OSes can be created.
>
>Er, er, this is called a virtual machine, if I understand what you
>mean. And a number of research OSes do this already. (I *think*
>Inferno/Limbo do this sort of thing, for instance. Not sure.)
It doesn't necessarily require using a VM; it is possible to embed
native code back into the OS. SPIN is a good example of such, and the
exokernel systems where the "kernel" merely multiplexes access to
libraries where the "real" work takes place would be another.
It's too bad that Vladimir seems to lack precision in what he says here
(which is about par for the course, of course); I rather doubt that he
actually means that the compiler would be "part of the kernel," per se,
but rather that it would be readily available "on demand." It looks like
he doesn't perceive a difference between "the kernel" and "the whole
system."
--
Incrementally extended heuristic algorithms tend inexorably toward the
incomprehensible.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:26:45 GMT
Christopher B. Browne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:22:06 GMT, Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: posted:
: >C++ introduced the idea of objects.
: I think that from this one line we can establish that you "lack clue"
: about objects.
introduced the idea of objects into mainstream programming..
prior object based languages failed to achieve the ubiquity
of C++. and I have little interest in this haggling over
trivialities.
: "C++ is a multi-paradigm language that supports Object-Oriented and
: other useful styles of programming."
trivial semantic hairsplitting. how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin? is c++ object oriented or not?
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
From: Xavier Plasencia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Tools for reading LTP/COM ports
Date: 07 Jun 1999 17:20:10 PDT
I am trying to write a Linux app that works with the HP OfficeJet Pro
However I wanted to know if there was an a windows tool that allowed
a one to read the data that was being sent through an LPT port?
Is there such a tool, preferably freeware?
--
Xavier Plasencia
------------------------------
From: Christian Kleitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Linux on Palm-PCs
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 15:48:39 -0700
Hello everybody!
As far as I know, a Linux version for the Palm Pilot and even one for
the Atari Portofolio has been already developed. Did anybody start to
develop a 'Pocket Linux' for Palm-size PCs? (I mean this devices running
now WinCE)
If not, I would like to know if there is a way to synchronize
(appointments and to-do list would be enough ;) such a device with a
Unix-box.
Thanx,
Christian
_______________________
| _____________________)
| |
| | |
| | | o
| | |___ ___ _____
| | | | | | (_____
| | | | | | _____)
| | //
| |___oo_0 0_oo_________
|_________U_____________)
------------------------------
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 07 Jun 1999 18:24:30 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri) writes:
> I acknowledge this .. but a wish list that people agree on is a
> CONSENSUS.. a direction!!
Off topic, but I dislike "consensus". Besides being yet another
trendy business word, there's an implied meaning of "unanimous
consent". Thus, I've heard of several groups who wanted to operate
via consensus, and they ended up shouting down members who disagreed,
or even getting rid of them. I've heard of other groups who never
achieved unanimous consent on some issues, and thus never resolved
those issues. So when I hear groups (business, political, or
technical) talking about having achieved consensus, I get very wary.
--
Darin Johnson
"Particle Man, Particle Man, doing the things a particle can"
------------------------------
From: Martin Maney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux development tools - new : download freeware compiler with IDE and
GuiDesigner for Linux & Windows
Date: 8 Jun 1999 00:43:54 GMT
Max Reason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure how you came to those conclusions, but you are mistaken.
By looking at your web pages, Max. The "notes.txt" document in particular
seems to be quite clear, although from what you say perhaps it is clear but
no longer accurate:
This release of XBasic MAY have the following
limitations, most of which are also limitations
on the commercial "standard edition", but not
the commercial "professional edition":
1: You can run any XBasic program in the
development environment, you cannot
convert them to standalone executables.
2: You cannot successfully import or call
functions in dynamic link libraries not
built into the development environment.
3: You cannot rebuild the development
environment to include new libraries.
> available as freeware. You can download the full, unrestricted, non-demo
> professional edition of Linux XBasic and/or Windows XBasic, and yes
> you can make standalone executables. For information and downloads,
> see http://www.maxreason.com/software/xbasic/xbasic.html .
You might want to review your pages. The statement that it is free, at
least in the beer sense, must be well-buried under what reads like it is
promotional hype for a commercial product. Perhaps you could lose the bulk
of that, rewrite notes.txt, and generally make it look less like a
commercial product that has to convince us to part with our cash by tossing
buzzwords about? Or just add a clear statement early on that "real" Xbasic
is now free, not just the restricted demo version.
> I moved on to other projects years ago and simply decided to make XBasic
> available for anyone who would enjoy having it. That is the current situation.
(discussed later; kept for reference)
> Though I know a majority of Linux programmers wired C and C++
> years ago and will not be much interested in *anything* that has the
> letters "basic" associated with it, I also know that some others will
> appreciate an integrated program and GUI development environment
> that is easier to learn and quicker to program than C.
Yeah, "basic" is something of a dirty word (don't ask me about writing
business apps in AlphaBasic, please), and there's no shortage of other
"simple[r]" languages in the Unix world. But maybe there's a place for a
basic variant with a graphical GUI designer... I might even guess that there
probably is. Any world that can include rabid Perl fans... :-)
> Anyway, bottom line is - XBasic is just another free resource for Linux.
At this point it's "freeware"; I gather that you're willing, in principle,
to open it up, but I'm not sure if you're willing to open it to the point
that most Linux developers would call "free" (unqualified). This would be a
real concern if I were seriously considering doing any substantial work with
it. I don't know, Max: the language may not be a toy, but it seems as
though that's what you're releasing it as. You say it's no longer an active
project, so we can't count on support from you, but there's no source, so no
one else can do anything. This is really the worst of both worlds
(commercial/closed vs open source) for a serious tool.
------------------------------
From: "Kurt C. Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,linux.redhat.devel,linux.redhat.development
Subject: spawn fails in cron
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:29:25 -0500
i am writing a script to automate telnet session using expect. it runs ok
from the command line, but fails when i use cron to start the script. i
understand that this is because cron does not set an env variable for term,
but i can't get the syntax correct.
in the bash shell
#! /bin/expect
set env TERM=vt100
spawn telnet 192.168.xxx.xxx
.....
yada
yada
yada
or is it something like
set env(TERM)vt100
advance thanks for help
kurt c. anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reinhard Foerster)
Subject: Re: glibc 2.0 or glibc 2.1
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:07:24 GMT
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:23:50 +0200, "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi there,
>
>can anyone tell me how I can find out which glibc (2.0 or 2.1) is installed
>on a system ?
ls -l /lib/libc*
Reinhard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:59:01 GMT
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:26:45 GMT, Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>Christopher B. Browne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:22:06 GMT, Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>: posted:
>: >C++ introduced the idea of objects.
>
>: I think that from this one line we can establish that you "lack clue"
>: about objects.
>
>introduced the idea of objects into mainstream programming..
>prior object based languages failed to achieve the ubiquity
>of C++. and I have little interest in this haggling over
>trivialities.
Computers are finicky machines that do not understand what you mean,
but rather do precisely what they are told to do.
If you think that having at least a modicum of precision is "of little
interest," then that nicely establishes, with *great* certainty, that
you will never get your project completed.
>: "C++ is a multi-paradigm language that supports Object-Oriented and
>: other useful styles of programming."
>
>trivial semantic hairsplitting. how many angels can dance on the
>head of a pin? is c++ object oriented or not?
The quotation above is Stroustrup's response to this direct question.
He refuses to give the straightforward answer "Yes" to this oft-asked
question.
C++ certainly *includes* OO features, but Stroustrup's comment clearly
indicates that objects are not forcibly pervasive in C++.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:09:23 GMT
Tim Doffing ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > as for the traffic on the subject, its parly because I enjoy
: > fanning flames<g>.. also people tend to look more at
: > actual threads because they represent activity, so I like
: > to do my part.
: You sir, are a braver man than I. It seems that discussions of this type
: always revert to the lowest common denominator, i.e. name calling. Seems
: that when people come to the point where their intellect no longer serves
: them, they resort to personal insults and vulgarity.
in a the weird cosmic order, I almost feel better sometimes when
I am flamed by someone with a low IQ, versus no reaction
whatsoever.. the latter of which was close to my first experience
in posting the essay.
perhaps what I need to emphasize, and others might understand,
is that some people write code to run on machines, and other
people write memes to run in other peoples brains!!! and the
latter objective can be achieved sometimes *better* in the
face of controversy.
in my experience, dead silence either means that people totally
agree with a post (it is stating the obvious or something everyone
already agrees with) or they have totally ignored the post.
in intermediate stages, where people flame a post, I think
is where the greatest amount of "powerful new memes" are evident.
so I tend to take flames as a compliment. people to do not
vehemently challenge that which they do not believe has
inherent power.
btw, I hope none of my posts have "resorted to personal
insults or vulgarity" that you mention.. its a fine line
huh?
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Large CD-ROM file errors...?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:57:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I got a friend to burn the StarOffice 5.1 download onto a CD-R for me
>
> On getting home, I booted up Linux (2.2.9, with full CD support
> including Joliet compiled in) and tried to copy the 70.6MB file.
> However, Linux could only see the first 16MB or thereabouts.
(Please pardon if this is posted twice, deja.com is new to me)
I had similar problems, my /var/log/messages file showed these errors
when accessing the offending directory:
isofs_read_level3_size: More than 100 file sections ?!?, aborting...
So I patched fs/isofs/inode.c in two places (search for More) to use
10000 instead of 100 as the limit on retries. It seems at least some
CD-R's have many more file sections than the isofs author anticipated.
Can anyone confirm this is the correct solution?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
