Linux-Misc Digest #584, Volume #24 Wed, 24 May 00 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (Simone Paddock)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Dowe Keller)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (ggq15$[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (John Hasler)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Brian V. Smith)
Re: Installing from hard disk + complaints ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Photo-Quality printer? [was: HP DeskJet 930C PhotoREt III or (Frank Stulle)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Device file ownership (Colin Watson)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Praedor Tempus)
Re: Weaknesses of Red Hat? (Faheem Mitha)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Alexander Viro)
Re: How to install Mandrake over existing Red Hat installation? (Jordan Burke)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (Faheem Mitha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simone Paddock)
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 16:11:24 GMT
Sure, a discussion on that topic would have been most interesting.
(Like over in linux.advocacy indeed sort of happened).
But the post also intended to give Linux users a chance at a
free book - for those times, when they are forced to use Windows.
>Was the original posting trying to start a discussion on the topic (of the
>article, not of spam), or trying to drive traffic to some website (and sell
>books)? If the latter, look for an .announce newsgroup.
>
>--
>Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simone Paddock
O'Reilly & Associates
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.oreilly.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dowe Keller)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 24 May 2000 09:28:00 -0700
On 23 May 2000 13:07:01 GMT, David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake) writes:
>
>> ' Section 3b) (on modifications to QT)
>> ' When modifications to the Software are released under this
>> ' license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
>> ' initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification.
>>
>> The right is non-exlusive. That means everyone can get that right. I
>> think TrollTech is just trying to prevent forking of the Qt library
>> here.
>
>No, they are ensuring they can continue a revenue stream based
>on contributions from outside the company. They will take your
>modification and include it in QT Pro.
>
>> As I said previously, if you don't like the Qt license, you can
>> create your own library. There is no one to stop you. You can
>> also use one of the other available libraries.
>
>I was not arguing I should create a library. I was not arguing
>against QTs right to use whatever license they like. I was
>arguing that people should think twice before referring to QT
>licensing as substantially free or "open source". The right to
>fork is absent, the right not to have your contributions included
>in proprietary works (such as QT Pro) is gone, and QT gets a copy
>of EVERYTHING that even links to their code, even if it is not
>publicly available.
I agree about the right to fork, but several free software licenses
(the X-Windows, and BSD licenses come to mind) allow people to make
proprietary software incorporating thier code (IIRC this is exactly
what Sun did, and BSDI does). If I'm off track i.e. your talking
about something different, please clarify.
--
dowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
A formal parsing algorithm should not always be used.
-- D. Gries
------------------------------
From: ggq15$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 24 May 2000 08:23:01 -0700
In article <8ggq15$1650$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> The openness of Linux is a plus in this area,
>but the lack of a central and official repository for bug tracking
>and status is a big minus.
>
> Les Mikesell
we dont need no freek'ng central bug tracking for linux kernel. if
you have a problem, search the web or ask Alan Cox or post a question
on a linux news group (there are tones of 'em).
This is Linux, this is aint no stupied windows. If you do not like
it, go stick to your crappy windoz and leave us alone, we are
coding kernel stuff here, not some bloody user program.
bug tacking and testing crap system aint never gona be pushed down
our throats, get over it, I agree with Peter, this is how it always
was and always will. This is the Linux way.
got a problem, send email to Alan. This is our bug tracking system. period.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:42:12 GMT
Peter writes:
> Report an interesting bug, and it'll be fixed in a jiffy.
Known bugs are not interesting. It's hard to find out if a bug is known.
> Boring bugs indeed will be forgotten.
And then reported again by people who are not aware that they are known.
> I believe that's known.
If there was a kernel BTS you could easily know for sure.
> I believe that's known. I've seen several threads go past on the scsi
> problem in 2.3.99 and above. Doug's working on it. Ask him!
And waste his time with something you believe that he may already know
about? I expect I would just get a testy reply telling me not to send in
bugs with out researching them first.
I wrote:
> ...was a kernel BTS I'd research the problem there and either test any
> fix...
Peter writes:
> EH? Why don't you mail the maintainer?
Anyone who imagines that he has found a new kernel bug should email a
maintainer? How are the maintainers to get any work done?
> That's debian practice too!
Filing a bug via the Debian BTS does email the maintainer. Emailing a
Debian maintainer without checking the BTS first will often get you
directed to the BTS.
> As you know, you might get Alan's interest on that one too.
what makes you think I know any such thing?
> Make sure at least Doug knows about it.
If there was a kernel BTS I could do so in a few minutes. I'm not willing
to root about in an email archive, though: sound isn't that important to
me. And I won't risk irritating the maintainer by being the 130th one to
report a known bug.
Besides, I don't know who 'Doug' is or why you assume that I know that this
bug should go to him.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian V. Smith)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 24 May 2000 16:26:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|> David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|>
|> > If Windows is so great, why do you have to reboot when you change your
|> > IP address?
|>
|> You don't.
Of course you do! It forces you to and if you don't it doesn't use the new address
until you do.
--
===============================================================
Brian V. Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www-epb.lbl.gov/BVSmith
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
I don't speak for LBL; they don't pay me enough for that.
Check out the xfig site at http://www-epb.lbl.gov/xfig
To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the
glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big
as it needs to be.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Installing from hard disk + complaints
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 16:24:08 GMT
Compare apples to apples. Go out and spend $40 bucks for a CD and
install from the CD, Like you would your windows. If you are trying to
have both Windows and Linux on the same drive, I'll bet it's the Windows
that is giving your the problems. BTW do you have the install copied to
a Linux or Windows formated partition on your HD??? A windows partition
would NOT have a valid root.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Edgar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am new to Linux, but have used and repaired DOS-PC's for about 10
years.
> I tried to install first Caldera OpenLinux and, when that didn't work,
> TurboLinux from my hard disk. This was the most frustrating experience
in
> my life! I hate Windows because it doesn't work and it is very slow.
> After 10 (ten!) days trying to install Linux I am about to give up.
> * OpenLinux says: "Oops! No valid root!" Of course not, I just started
the
> installation program! It doesn't mater how my disk is partitioned, I
have
> tried installing with already formatted Linux partitions but nothing
helps.
> * TurboLinux seems not to be able to find the TurboLinux files on my
hard
> drive, Setup Installer says "Cannot find ../module/module..." (don't
> remember the rest, ends with .qz)
> Now I have Mandrake. No (!) problem to install - but the mouse doesn't
> work. NIC is found, configured and installed but doesn't work.
> (Initializaton failed during boot.)
>
> Using only the prompt & Midnight Commander, together with my book
"Using
> Caldera OpenLinux" I have tried to find out which files to edit, but I
> don't succeed.
> I must also say, I thought that Windows took a long time to start and
shut
> down - but more like the speed of light compared with Linux!
> Even though I am an MCP, I am a fanatic Windows-hater. Don't tell me
that
> this is the way it is with the alternative!
> Peter Haraldson, Sweden
>
> --
> Posted via CNET Help.com
> http://www.help.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Frank Stulle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Photo-Quality printer? [was: HP DeskJet 930C PhotoREt III or
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 18:41:37 +0200
Look at gimp-print.sourceforge.net
The driver is still under construction but seems to be very good.
Bye
Frank
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 24 May 2000 11:41:47 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Any serious administrator who reads this thread would have to discard
>Linux as a bad joke.
Except that it is better than the alternatives that go through
some of the right motions.
>The more I read the more I believe Linux advocates are nothing more
>than children who have found a new toy to play with.
You have been wrong about a lot of other things. What's one more?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Device file ownership
Date: 24 May 2000 17:14:10 GMT
Sandhitsu R Das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[This isn't a hardware problem; followups set.]
>I have RH 6.0 running on Athlon 650. The audio devices (/dev/audio* ,
>/dev/mixer* /dev/midi* etc.) as well as the CDROM device (/dev/hdc) are
>all owned by a particular user for some reason. and the permissions are
>600! As a result, other users cannot use the CD to play songs, for
>example, or cannot use the sound mixer. I changed things by hand and made
>a "chown root" and "chmod 644", but it's turned back again to the same
>user account! I have never seen a strange thing like this.
Welcome to the wonderful world of pam_console. :)
Red Hat has a PAM module [1] which ensures that console users have
appropriate permissions to do things like play games. This unfortunately
results in a certain amount of ownership and permissions weirdness, not
to mention a potential security headache.
If you want to disable it entirely, remove the pam_console line from
/etc/pam.d/login; if you want to fine-tune it, have a look at
/etc/security/console.perms and the files in /etc/security/console.apps.
For more information, see the pam_console(8), console.apps(5), and
console.perms(5) man pages.
[1] PIN number? ;)
--
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"Oh baby you're the only thing in this whole world / That's pure and
good and bright / And wherever you are and wherever you go / There's
always gonna be some light" - Meat Loaf, "Bat Out Of Hell"
------------------------------
From: Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:14:50 -0600
Dowe Keller wrote:
>
> On 23 May 2000 13:07:01 GMT, David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake) writes:
> >
> >> ' Section 3b) (on modifications to QT)
> >> ' When modifications to the Software are released under this
> >> ' license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
> >> ' initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification.
> >>
> >> The right is non-exlusive. That means everyone can get that right. I
> >> think TrollTech is just trying to prevent forking of the Qt library
> >> here.
> >
> >No, they are ensuring they can continue a revenue stream based
> >on contributions from outside the company. They will take your
> >modification and include it in QT Pro.
> >
> >> As I said previously, if you don't like the Qt license, you can
> >> create your own library. There is no one to stop you. You can
> >> also use one of the other available libraries.
> >
> >I was not arguing I should create a library. I was not arguing
> >against QTs right to use whatever license they like. I was
> >arguing that people should think twice before referring to QT
> >licensing as substantially free or "open source". The right to
> >fork is absent, the right not to have your contributions included
> >in proprietary works (such as QT Pro) is gone, and QT gets a copy
> >of EVERYTHING that even links to their code, even if it is not
> >publicly available.
>
> I agree about the right to fork, but several free software licenses
> (the X-Windows, and BSD licenses come to mind) allow people to make
And the right to fork is good because...? Because it is GOOD to
fragment
software and libraries so that apps fail to work nicely? So that if you
want app A to work, built on a forked library, you have to install yet
another version in addition to the original - or worse, replace the old
with the new, probably/possibly breaking all your software based on
the pre-forked libs?
I can't see the "right to fork" as a good thing. Forking is what killed
the unix baby early on. It is brought up as a fear of something that
could possibly kill linux (for general use...but then, there are
fascist,
elitist linux-users who would welcome this just so they can remain part
a silly "exclusive" club - barring anyone but themselves from using
their pet operating system).
I would like a nice, clear explanation of why forking should be
considered
good. Why is there a rampant, unreasoned hatred of standards?
Standards
make coder's lives easier, make user's lives easier. SOME things should
be standardized (the kernel is standardized and controlled thru one
point:
Linus...so is this evil and bad? Should the kernel not be allowed to
fork
to extremis?). Standardizing does NOT automatically mean stagnation or
crap. It simply means concerted, generally accepted measured changes at
intervals so that you KNOW that this or that API wont be broken on you
with each iteration/upgrade (M$ does this). MesaGL/OpenGL is also
standardized and doesn't go off on forking jaunts...so they are evil?
praedor
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Faheem Mitha)
Subject: Re: Weaknesses of Red Hat?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:18:06 GMT
On 23 May 2000 03:14:05 GMT, David M. Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 May 2000 02:22:10 GMT, Faheem Mitha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>3) Also, I thought they were far too commercialised.
>>
>>So, I started looking around for alternatives, and I settled on SuSE,
>
>You see SuSE as less commercialized than Red Hat?
Um, no. If you look at my post, you'll see I (carefully) avoided
saying that. I said that SuSE has Redhat beat on counts 1 and 2, where
I listed 3 as "commercialised". I do find SuSE a little less overtly
"in your face" than Redhat, but unfortunately they are fundamentally a
commercial organisation, seeing things in terms of money.
For example, I have submitted suggestions and bug reports to SuSE
several times. I have never got a single reply.
On the one occasion I wrote to KDE about a bug report (which I
shouldn't really have been doing, since the version I was using was
already slightly outdated), I got a bug report opened, the mantainer
of the package looked at it, determined it had already been fixed, and
sent me a polite message, and the report was closed, all in the space
of a few hours.
On the two occasions I have written to the FSF I got a reply both
times, and the second time, when the reply was delayed, the sender
aplogised.
I'm a fan of free software and its associated attitudes, no
question. I like SuSE engineering, otherwise I would probably use
Debian.
Faheem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 24 May 2000 12:19:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>' Just putting the code on the same machine is not a problem.
>' You must create a 'derived work', which has been commonly
>' described as code linked in a single process. Linking
>' GNU readline (GPL, not LGPL) into a database control
>' program that used a commercial client library would be
>' an example. While you can probably get away with building
>' such a program yourself, distributing it would be at
>' least questionable, especially if you redistributed a copy
>' of the GPL'd readline with it. Now for something even
>' more confusing, consider what happens if you have a
>' perl script that dynamically loads readline and also
>' uses DBI which can pull in an assortment of database
>' client libraries at runtime, including commercial versions.
>' If this ends up linking to (say) Oracle libs, does it
>' become illegal to distribute the script?
>
>I would think not. The dynamicly loaded modules are not part of the
>script, they are just used by the script.
But Richard Stallman has made threats against people shipping
anything that linked against GPL'd code that was not GPL'd
itself. However any claim of control over the run-time
derived work goes away if an alternative non-GPL'd library
could be used instead. In a generic perl/DBI case, this
would seem to apply, since DBI can invoke a number of
different database libraries. But, what if the specific
distribution contained oracle-specific routines in the
perl script and would not work with anything else? Perl
isn't a problem here because it has the artistic license
as well as the GPL - I was using a case of also linking
readline as the potential problem).
>' The GPL instead shackles any other code linked into a derived
>' work with its own restrictions, or in the cases where
>' other code already has different restrictions it makes the
>' combination impossible.
>
>I think the only code shackled by GPL is the code that is derived from
>GPL. In the case of linkage above, the top level code must be
>compatible with GPL, but the libs it uses does not have to be.
No, readline is specifically GPL instead of LGPL to encumber
as much additional code as possible. Or from the other point
of view to prevent actually using it as many places as possible.
>If I have GPL lib A and proprietary lib B and my code C uses A and B,
>then my code C is GPL. I can distribute my code without distributing
>A or B. My code may even be able to work without A or B with reduced
>or different functionality.
According to Stallman, you are forced to GPL your code if you
distribute it and it won't work without A. But you can't
GPL it if it won't work without B (motif being a borderline
exception over the years).
>OK, you say reusable components like libs are better off with a less
>restrictive license. That is fair. But if the lib is under a BSD
>style license, Microsquish can take that library, change it, and not
>release any of the changes back to the public.
Yes, which does nothing to damage the code that continues to
be available.
>Once you use an
>'enhanced' feature, you are tied to a non-free Microsquish library.
>You are at the mercy of Microsquish. If the code is at least LGPL,
>then the library code is still going to be free. Microsquish must
>make its changes available as source.
Unlikely. In the former case you will at least have working,
well tested code as the base and we won't have to deal with
a worse alternative. If the base code is not usable in a
proprietary product, the alternative is to re-invent it, usually
badly. Imagine where we would be if every vendor including
tcp/ip had re-written it from scratch because the bsd version
could not have been used. Microsoft and Linux both went this
route even though it wasn't required, and the world has gone
through several years of pain as a result shaking out bugs
that we really didn't need in the first place.
>Now if the library is GPL, then anything linking too it must also be
>GPL or GPL compatible. What about software that makes system calls in
>Linux? Must that also be GPL?
No, using the interface to the kernel has been specifically defined
as not constituting a derived work in the kernel COPYING file.
>Should I demand that Netscape ( now
>AOL ) release _all_ the code for Navigator? Surly all programs must
>make system calls at some level. Does the Linux kernel make
>commercial software for Linux impossible? Make that closed source,
>proprietary software. No Oracle or Sybase for Linux?
Without the exception that would be a possible interpretation
of the GPL.
>I guess that must mean running such software on *BSD instead. But
>what if the application uses networking protocols to link to other
>software? Is that linkage that GPL affects? How far does it go?
The usual interpretation is where the components are linked
into a single executable, but the line is pretty fuzzy in
these days of dynamic runtime linking, loadable modules, etc.
>Although I would prefere
>all software to be GPL, I do see the need to accommodate people who do
>not like the GPL.
There is also the issue of existing software components that are
not GPL'd and are under someone else's control. The GPL prohibits
anything that could be considered a derived work as a combination
with these.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 24 May 2000 13:24:07 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip'a'lot]
>make coder's lives easier, make user's lives easier. SOME things should
>be standardized (the kernel is standardized and controlled thru one
>point:
>Linus...so is this evil and bad? Should the kernel not be allowed to
>fork
>to extremis?). Standardizing does NOT automatically mean stagnation or
Kernel _is_ allowed to fork. RTFGPL and for $DEITY sake, get the fuck out
of c.o.l.d.system with that off-topic drivel, will you?
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: Jordan Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to install Mandrake over existing Red Hat installation?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:22:04 GMT
David, this seems like the problem I have been having with Mandrake. I
installed Mandrake 7.0 from CD without a bootdisk, and now I cannot
access the CD-ROM drive from the OS (actually it is a Plextor 8432 IDE
Burner). Is there anyway around this once it is install or do you have
to re-install it?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2000, J. J. Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I have access to a Linux-Mandrake 7.0 CD that my dad just got from a
> >Linux expo of some kind. Currently, I have a dual boot installation
of
> >Win98 and Red Hat 6.2, and I'd like to basically install Mandrake in
> >place of my Red Hat installation, mostly for the experience; I'd
like to
> >see what it's like to have the default X setup be KDE rather than
FVWM,
> >with a graphical login to boot. (When I first installed Red Hat, it
was
> >version 5.2.)
> >
> >What preparations, aside from of course backing up my data, should I
> >take before installing Mandrake in place of my current installation?
>
> One little peculiar thing is that you have to have the CD already in
the
> drive when the kernel boots because it tries to auto mount it, and if
that
> fails will not try that device again. So either make sure your
system is
> set up to boot from floppy first (not cdrom) and insert the CD before
> shutting down to start the install, or insert it quickly at the boot:
> prompt.
>
> I just installed it on my laptop this evening over RH 6.1 and it was
> effortless (I did a new install, not an update). I would suggest
Custom,
> Normal install. I tried Custom, Server on my desktop earlier and many
> programs I assumed would be there were not.
>
> --
> David Efflandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.de-srv.com/
> http://www.autox.chicago.il.us/ http://www.berniesfloral.net/
> http://hammer.prohosting.com/~cgi-wiz/ http://cgi-
help.virtualave.net/
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Faheem Mitha)
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:30:26 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 22:04:27 GMT, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Simone writes:
>> Nope, we certainly don't intend to spam.
>No one ever does. They still do it, though, and so did you.
>I'm working with Linux but nothing about Windows is of any use at all to
>me: I don't use it.
>I ran Windows on one box for a couple of months a few years ago because I
>needed to for a project, but I dumped it as soon as the project was done.
>I didn't care much for it. It felt like I was trying to repair a watch
>while wearing boxing gloves and peering through a knothole.
Well said! I have very similar feelings about Windows.
In any case, I am sad to see a reputable publisher stooping to the
use of cheap promotional gimmicks (leaving aside the issue of spam).
Faheem.
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
