Hi Jm!
Just a quick note to let you know I appreciate your emphasis on the
human side of our interactions. We need more of that in today's
disconnected and messed up world.
I also want to let you know I appreciate the interest you have shown
in ZAP and your willingness to examine the code. I have not yet been
able to study carefully all your recommendations but do plan to. I'm
trying to minimize major changes at this point but will implement as
much as I can.
Anyway I haven't said thank you (or least not enough) and wanted to do
that now. Not sure how a social list would work with all of us as busy
as we are, but I'd join. : )
Please continue to stay a part of PmWiki... I appreciate what you
have to offer, and it's needed.
Cheers
Dan
On 4/30/07, J. Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In many ways this has become an open letter to Pm. Read it when you have the
> time.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:41:40 -0500
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [pmwiki-devel] Announce: pmwiki-social
> >
> >
> > [The original post was sent to pmwiki-devel, which is not the
> > purpose of the pmwiki-devel list. Please send any followups
> > to pmwiki-users.]
>
> That's ok, I just thought the issue concerns anyone wishing to associate
> themselves with pmwiki more.
>
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:47:49PM +0000, J. Meijer wrote:
> > > We need a pmwiki-social list. That's a start to value our members and our
> > > community more.
> >
> > Decline. The pmwiki-users list can certainly double as pmwiki-social,
> > and has done so in the past. In particular, I have trouble imagining
> > posts that would be appropriate for pmwiki-social and inappropriate
> > for pmwiki-users.
> You want pmwiki-users to function better then? Or not lose value? Afraid
> people will start to ask questions "off-list"?
>
> Tegans response is to the point as far as I'm concerned.
>
> To me it is a product just as pmwiki is. Perhaps more valuable so.
>
>
> > > Like what's happening now with Dan isn't his fault, it is
> > > a consequence of a community lacking, forcing everything through the
> > > semantics of pmwiki-users!
> >
> > I disagree with this on several fronts.
> >
> > First, in some ways what is happening with Dan *is* his
> > fault, in that some of his posts go against open-source
> > community norms and expectations (likely unintentionally).
> >
> > - Open source communities consider forks to be a Bad Thing [1],
> > and for all intents and purposes ZAPWiki looks like a fork,
> > regardless of whether Dan chooses to call it one.
> >
> > - Open source communities don't like unsubstantiated claims.
> >
> > - Open source communities don't like misdirection (e.g., the
> > ongoing confusion between ZAP, Acme, ZAPEngine, ZAPWiki, ...),
> > false representations of identity, or other forms of "spin".
>
> Good list. But the list also holds when substituting "Open source
> communities" by "open source _users_". I.e. it is the users that dictate the
> norm. It is the developers group ('professional contributors') that orients
> my focus. They are a different bunch, my peers, having (and in some ways
> requiring) something more to offer.
>
> On the topic of forks: I am a fork owner myself. It is frustrating in many
> ways. Yet I have no *intent* of formally forking, that would require a
> _substantial_ additional effort. But yes it may happen and I see it as a
> *good* thing. Code demonstrated is better then code talked about. It is
> sometimes the only way to substantiate claims.
>
> So when freely shared and finding a place for oneself within the pmwiki
> developers/community, what could be the problem? Mild forks (not the ones
> created from flame wars) are good for open source, regardless if _users_ are
> somewhat confused. Confusion can of course be avoided. Developers on this
> list seem more than willing to do so.
>
> On the subject of misdirection, to me it seems Dan is pointing to common
> misdirections that have a personal effect on him. But when he turns the spin
> that is on him, he is suddenly guilty of 'spin'. Sure, you haven't commented
> on this thread, and as a father have let it go. I can see your point. Yet I
> don't like seeing it and I feel this is counter-productive and in some way a
> desire to see blood in order for to be passed on. I don't think that lesson
> is worth passing on. Doesn't this bring people down just for the sake of it?
>
> You know, communities aren't driven entirely by noble impulses. It is hard
> -if not impossible- to defend oneself of a sudden someone else interpreting
> you in a way you never envisioned, taking you by the balls so to say. It just
> isn't the right thing to do but it happens and it often happens with a
> majority vote. Doesn't make it right though.
>
> Of course, we mostly all operate on a best effort basis. But especially in
> this environment it helps _knowing_ who is who. Gush, I didn't know Hans is
> the silent pmwiki superman he turns out to be (though I did know about the
> value of his work)!
>
> A pmwiki-social effort would most certainly help bring the community in
> focus. That would help make pmwiki to become more visible.
>
>
> > In citing the above I'm not at all intending any sort of
> > personal attack on Dan, or to imply that he has suspect motives.
>
> True, neither am I. Nor can I affirm Dan, it's conjecture. For that matter
> people often like to read intent in my phrases. FWIW, often that intent is
> the opposite of what I knew to be my intent.
>
>
> > I'm simply saying that several of his actions, intentional or not,
> > can be reasonably construed to violate open-source community
> > norms, and it's both natural and appropriate that the community
> > expresses its discomfort with perceived threats to the community.
>
> This would be true if other avenues were available, i.e. a conviction only
> upholds if the defendant had a choice.
>
> Can we discuss the environment or the conditions we operate in? That is not
> really the perk of pmwiki-users, with its focus on code, isn't it? Neither is
> pmwiki-devel, though I think is less problematic.
>
> Now think of me discussing some relevant aspects of what's basically my life,
> within the pmwiki-users list. It is totally inappropriate! The thing is, that
> isn't that totally inappropriate! It all depends. But it is also public,
> which isn't at all the intent.
>
> And Dan, if I may use his example for the sake of the argument, is not a
> _threat_ to the community.
>
> I think you're putting the community here on a pedastal.
>
>
> > Second, I disagree that any of this is being "forced" through the
> > semantics of pmwiki-users. PmWiki-users is designed for discussion
> > about PmWiki, and that's what is happening.
>
> Pmwiki-users is is a format and therefore a force. The community is only
> allowed to talk pmwiki in order to comply with the format. There are other
> wider -social- needs, they are not addressed.
>
> I am pleased to see you talk about design. It is the design, though common,
> that is nevertheless flawed. Pmwiki-social will *not* resolve that, it is
> just a single tool required to bootstrap others yet to be developed.
>
>
> > In another perspective, Dan has commented several times that
> > he feels a forum is superior to a mailing list for answering
> > these sorts of questions. Taking Dan at his word, perhaps
> > everyone would be better served if there were a ZAP forum
> > somewhere, and then Dan could simply direct any questions
> > regarding ZAP, Acme, etc. could simply be directed to the forum,
> > without having to repeat his answers on the list.
>
> I'm not arguing Dan needs me to be a chaperone, nor do I wish to comment much
> on his actions (I think he does pretty well). Really this is about the
> community itself and how it is organized. So this is about Pm designing it.
> And as I understand you, this is no attack. I'm just trying to make you see,
> there is more to pmwiki than just code.
>
> We are human beings. We need to know where we come from. That brings about a
> constructive side. It can't be a public thing someone can google later on.
>
>
> > > So, _please_, stop treating Dan as some alien. Give him a place. His needs
> > > represent the needs of many *contributors*, by being of the unselfish
> > > category. [...] So I confront Pm with the (passive) suppression of
> > > social interaction.
> > I think I'm innocent on this charge, but I'll let my past actions
> > (or non-actions) speak for themselves.
>
> I have no intention to charge. I have the intent to highlight mechanisms that
> result in behaviour. That is a design and it is essentially within your
> responsibility, so I can only ask and pray for you or others to hear and
> understand me.
> In your case it is kind of unusual for you if you do. Because no other
> community has your level of capability behind it.
> For others on the list my words are just an appeal to reflect and see. Of
> course Dan in turn could resist the temptation and maybe he should. But it
> wouldn't be Dan right in the middle and animating pmwiki development :)
>
> > I'll also note that Dan's posts don't seem to make this claim --
> > he seems to feel that I've been sufficiently supportive of his efforts.
>
> I did not attack (or take aim on!) you, even if my words seem to imply this.
> You know, Pm is at the heart of things, even if he shouldn't be.
>
> On topic: could you summarize Dan's efforts? Do you think the disruptions on
> the list are just about code? No, you stated the problem is with Dan. Do we
> need to discuss this on this list?
>
> I know, even if you agree they are not about code, you stilll think that
> doesn't mean I am right suggesting pmwiki-social. Nor am I trying to say that.
>
>
> > > Again, we need to build more then pmwiki, we need to build a
> > > community. Let's be serious about this.
> >
> > We _have_ a community. Several people have commented about this
> > on the mailing lists. The community we have may not be 100% of
> > what everyone wants... but then that's the nature of an open community.
> > And any sort of argument or heated discussion is an indication that
> > people are taking it seriously.
>
> Yes!
>
> But the outcome what will it be? You know, before Neo there were several
> failed attempts and the Matrix was reset. Pm continues as usual?
>
> No I do not imply to lowly punch you in the stomach. There is a real interest
> rolling here and it has to do with identity. As I said:
>
> > > Open-source isn't all roses, especially for the international developers,
> > > as all credit and ownership flows to english-language users. Not only the
> > > code, but also the community itself.
> >
> > I'm not exactly sure where this is directed.
>
> I repeat I am not taking aim at anyone in particular. If I do, I apoligize.
> If it is directed at something, it surely must concern the Return On
> Investment (ROI) for any given contributor.
>
> I refer to international developers, because I don't see how to make an open
> source project successful without some legal basis in the US, and without
> some community support from the US (and other english-language speaking
> countries). The sum result is that anything produced outside of this gets
> sucked into US-based projects. Where particpants from this base tend to have
> a positive ROI, international developers have a much harder time: they need
> to invest more and get less ROI back. A simple matter of distance. They have
> a harder time and are more volatile. They depend more on the community.
>
> For example, when I make a recipy, the effort I have to make to make it
> available (publish) is substantially larger then anyone publishing it from
> the US. It begins with writing a translation for myself (a dread), where the
> US variant just puts $[..] around things. Then there's the publishing to an
> english community. It is harder to get a point across and there is mostly no
> way to protect one's rights. It is all "Pm". And then the recipy gets
> superseeded by something in the core we can't touch.
>
> And thank you for being open and responsive on this point of rights and
> contributions, including here, now. But I hope you see, you get some ROI. And
> is this really a case of me just being jealous?
>
> Also, in some cases, international contributors don't even have ADSL or a job
> in IT, so they need to fight just to keep the channel open.
>
> > > Regardless of any opinion on Dan with respect to him responding in
> > > _personal_ mode (a God given right if you ask me), he is a phenomenon and
> > > has a vision most others tend to hide. Please do not provoke or measure
> > > him to whatever standard, as he already lives by them. The very act is
> > > therefore provocative, yet you do not seem to understand this. Dan needs
> > > to respond in personal mode, there is no intent (there are only motives)
> > > to 'hammer' on his part.
> >
> > Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... this very post
> > seems to be asking that others refrain from expressing opinions
> > on pmwiki-users, or ascribing intent to what others have written.
>
> [...]
>
> I feel culturally invoked here, yet I don't know where you are taking me, nor
> do I feel I can respond. I take this is ad hominem then? You're undoubtedly
> smarter at this and have seemingly infinite memory.
>
> I recall Ben Wilson's quote: "Words are the only thing which will last
> forever" (Churchill) and I could take offense. Isn't it so that people who
> think so have a battle in mind? That battle must last forever then??
> Churchill be exempted, for he was in a seemingly(?) eternal battle.
>
> In the same manner I resent many battles and I resent a list that values
> battles. Technical developments indeed fill a need in resolving battles.
> Words then, don't mean a thing to me. Solutions and tools do. They are also
> words, on a metalevel.
>
> -
>
> If I ask anything, I ask it basically without authority. I can only hope to
> be heard and that what I say opens an eye. If there is an accusation, let it
> descend from heaven and not hell.
>
>
> > [The original post was sent to pmwiki-devel, which is not the
> > purpose of the pmwiki-devel list. Please send any followups
> > to pmwiki-users.]
> >
> > Pm----------------------------------------
> > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:41:40 -0500
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [pmwiki-devel] Announce: pmwiki-social
> >
> >
> > [The original post was sent to pmwiki-devel, which is not the
> > purpose of the pmwiki-devel list. Please send any followups
> > to pmwiki-users.]
>
> That's ok, I just thought the issue concerns anyone wishing to associate
> themselves with pmwiki more.
>
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:47:49PM +0000, J. Meijer wrote:
> > > We need a pmwiki-social list. That's a start to value our members and our
> > > community more.
> >
> > Decline. The pmwiki-users list can certainly double as pmwiki-social,
> > and has done so in the past. In particular, I have trouble imagining
> > posts that would be appropriate for pmwiki-social and inappropriate
> > for pmwiki-users.
> You want pmwiki-users to function better then? Or not lose value? Afraid
> people will start to ask questions "off-list"?
>
> Tegans response is to the point as far as I'm concerned.
>
> To me it is a product just as pmwiki is. Perhaps more valuable so.
>
>
> > > Like what's happening now with Dan isn't his fault, it is
> > > a consequence of a community lacking, forcing everything through the
> > > semantics of pmwiki-users!
> >
> > I disagree with this on several fronts.
> >
> > First, in some ways what is happening with Dan *is* his
> > fault, in that some of his posts go against open-source
> > community norms and expectations (likely unintentionally).
> >
> > - Open source communities consider forks to be a Bad Thing [1],
> > and for all intents and purposes ZAPWiki looks like a fork,
> > regardless of whether Dan chooses to call it one.
> >
> > - Open source communities don't like unsubstantiated claims.
> >
> > - Open source communities don't like misdirection (e.g., the
> > ongoing confusion between ZAP, Acme, ZAPEngine, ZAPWiki, ...),
> > false representations of identity, or other forms of "spin".
>
> Good list. But the list also holds when substituting "Open source
> communities" by "open source _users_". I.e. it is the users that dictate the
> norm. It is the developers group ('professional contributors') that orients
> my focus. They are a different bunch, having (and in some ways requiring)
> something more to offer.
>
> I am a fork owner myself. Yet I have no *intent* of formally forking, that
> would require a _substantial_ additional effort. But yes it may happen and I
> see it is a *good* thing. Code demonstrated is better then code talked about.
> It is sometimes the only way to substantiate claims.
>
> So when freely shared and finding a place for oneself within the pmwiki
> developers/community, what could be the problem? Mild forks (not the ones
> created from flame wars) are good for open source, regardless if _users_ are
> somewhat confused. Confusion can of course be avoided. Developers on this
> list seem more than willing to do so.
>
> On the subject of misdirection, to me it seems Dan is pointing to
> misdirections that have a personal effect on him. But when he turns the spin
> on him, he is suddenly guilty of 'spin'. Sure, you haven't commented on this,
> and as a good father have let it go. Yet I don't like seeing it and I feel
> this is counter-productive and in some way a desire to see blood in order for
> to be passed on. I don't think that lesson is worth passing on. Doesn't this
> bring people down just for the sake of it?
>
> You know, communities aren't driven entirely by noble impulses. It is hard
> -if not impossible- to defend oneself of a sudden someone else interpreting
> you in a way you never envisioned, taking you by the balls so to say. It just
> isn't the right thing to do but it happens and it often happens with a
> majority vote. Doesn't make it right though.
>
> Of course, we mostly all operate on a best effort basis. But especially in
> this environment it helps _knowing_ who is who. Gush, I didn't know Hans is
> the pmwiki superman he turns out to be (though I did know about the value of
> his work)!
>
> A pmwiki-social effort would most certainly help bring the community in
> focus. That would help make pmwiki to become more visible.
>
>
> > In citing the above I'm not at all intending any sort of
> > personal attack on Dan, or to imply that he has suspect motives.
>
> True, neither am I. People often like to read intent in my phrases. FWIW,
> often that intent is something the opposite of what I knew to be my intent.
>
>
> > I'm simply saying that several of his actions, intentional or not,
> > can be reasonably construed to violate open-source community
> > norms, and it's both natural and appropriate that the community
> > expresses its discomfort with perceived threats to the community.
>
> This would be true if other avenues were available. Can we discuss the
> environment or the conditions we operate in? That is not really the perk of
> pmwiki-users, with its focus on code, isn't it? Neither is pmwiki-devel,
> though I think is less problematic.
>
> Now think of me discussing my life within the pmwiki-users list. It is
> totally inappropriate! The thing is, that isn't that totally inappropriate!
> It all depends.
>
> And Dan, if I may use his example for the sake of the argument, is not a
> _threat_ to the community.
>
> I think you're putting the community here on a pedastal.
>
>
> > Second, I disagree that any of this is being "forced" through the
> > semantics of pmwiki-users. PmWiki-users is designed for discussion
> > about PmWiki, and that's what is happening.
>
> That is a force. The community is only allowed to talk pmwiki in order to
> comply with the format. There are other wider -social- needs.
>
>
> > In another perspective, Dan has commented several times that
> > he feels a forum is superior to a mailing list for answering
> > these sorts of questions. Taking Dan at his word, perhaps
> > everyone would be better served if there were a ZAP forum
> > somewhere, and then Dan could simply direct any questions
> > regarding ZAP, Acme, etc. could simply be directed to the forum,
> > without having to repeat his answers on the list.
>
> i'm not arguing Dan needs me to be a chaperone, nor do I wish to comment much
> on his actions (I think he does pretty well). Really this is about the
> community itself and how it is organized. This is about Pm. And as I
> understand you, this is no attack. I'm just trying to make you see, there is
> more to pmwiki than just code.
>
> We are human beings. We need to know where we come from. That brings about a
> constructive side. It can't be a public thing someone can google later on.
>
>
> > > So, _please_, stop treating Dan as some alien. Give him a place. His needs
> > > represent the needs of many *contributors*, by being of the unselfish
> > > category. [...] So I confront Pm with the (passive) suppression of
> > > social interaction.
> > I think I'm innocent on this charge, but I'll let my past actions
> > (or non-actions) speak for themselves.
>
> I have no intention to charge. I have the intent to highlight mechanisms that
> result in behaviour. That is a design and it is essentially within your
> responsibility, so I can only ask and pray for you to hear me. And it is kind
> of unusual for you if you do.
>
> > I'll also note that Dan's posts don't seem to make this claim --
> > he seems to feel that I've been sufficiently supportive of his efforts.
>
> I did not attack (or take aim!) on you, even if mywords seeem to imply this.
> You know, Pm is at the heart of things, even if he shouldn't be.
>
> On topic: could you summarize Dan's efforts? Do you think the disruptions on
> the list are just about code?
>
> I know, even if you agree they are not, you stilll think that doesn't mean I
> am right. Nor am I trying to say that.
>
>
> > > Again, we need to build more then pmwiki, we need to build a
> > > community. Let's be serious about this.
> >
> > We _have_ a community. Several people have commented about this
> > on the mailing lists. The community we have may not be 100% of
> > what everyone wants... but then that's the nature of an open community.
> > And any sort of argument or heated discussion is an indication that
> > people are taking it seriously.
>
> Yes!
>
> But the outcome what will it be? You know, before Neo there were several
> failed attempts and the Matrix was reset. Pm continues as usual?
>
> No I do not imply to lowly punch you in the stomach. There is a real interest
> rolling here and it has to do with identity. As I said:
>
> > > Open-source isn't all roses, especially for the international developers,
> > > as all credit and ownership flows to english-language users. Not only the
> > > code, but also the community itself.
> >
> > I'm not exactly sure where this is directed.
>
> I repeat I am not taking aim at anyone in particular. If I do, I apoligize.
> If it is directed at something, it surely must concern the Return On
> Investment (ROI) for a contributor.
>
> I refer to international developers, because I don't see how to make an open
> source project successful without some legal basis in the US, and without
> some community support from the US (and other english-language speaking
> countries). The sum result is that anything produced outside of this gets
> sucked into US-based projects. Where they tend to have a positive ROI,
> international developers have a much harder time: they need to invest more
> and get less ROI back. A simple matter of distance.
>
> As an example, when I make a recipy, the effort I have to make to make it
> available (publish) is substantially larger then anyone publishing it from
> the US. It begins with writing a translation (a dread), where the US variant
> just puts $[..] around things. Then there's the publishing to an english
> community. It is harder to get a point across and there is mostly no way to
> protect one's ownership. In a sense it is all "Pm".
>
> And thank you for being open and responsive on this point, including here.
> But I hope you see you get some ROI. I'm just jealous though ;)
>
> Also, in some cases, international contributors don't even have ADSL or a job
> in IT.
>
> > > Regardless of any opinion on Dan with respect to him responding in
> > > _personal_ mode (a God given right if you ask me), he is a phenomenon and
> > > has a vision most others tend to hide. Please do not provoke or measure
> > > him to whatever standard, as he already lives by them. The very act is
> > > therefore provocative, yet you do not seem to understand this. Dan needs
> > > to respond in personal mode, there is no intent (there are only motives)
> > > to 'hammer' on his part.
> >
> > Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... this very post
> > seems to be asking that others refrain from expressing opinions
> > on pmwiki-users, or ascribing intent to what others have written.
>
> [...]
>
> I feel culturally invoked here, yet I don't know where you are taking me, nor
> do I feel I can respond. I take this is ad hominem then? You're undoubtedly
> smarter at this and have seemingly infinite memory.
>
> I recall Ben Wilson's quote: "Words are the only thing which will last
> forever" (Churchill) and I could take offense. Isn't it so that people who
> think so have a battle in mind? That battle must last forever then??
> Churchill be exempted, for he was in a seemingly(?) eternal battle.
>
> In the same manner I resent many battles and I resent a list that values
> battles. Technical developments indeed fill a need in resolving battles.
> Words then, don't mean a thing to me. Solutions and tools do. They are also
> words, on a metalevel.
>
> -
>
> If I ask anything, I ask it basically without authority. I can only hope to
> be heard and that what I say opens an eye. If there is an accusation, let it
> descend from heaven and not hell.
>
>
> > [The original post was sent to pmwiki-devel, which is not the
> > purpose of the pmwiki-devel list. Please send any followups
> > to pmwiki-users.]
> >
> > Pm
>
>
> I appeal to PmWiki Philosophy :) "In general PmWiki features are implemented
> in response to specific needs, rather than because someone identifies
> something that "might be useful".".
>
>
> You know what typically happens? The messenger gets shot for being an indian
> and then the feature gets implemented.
>
> Back in pmwiki 1 I suggested _please_ get rid of the line-number system that
> underlied the markup sequence. You did and created the fabulous Markup()
> function. But I got a negative response. But you know just as well as I do,
> that I got a positive response!
>
> Yet at some point it seems smarter to be an american and not the indian. As
> far americans are concerned an indian should simply known that it is against
> the law to be an indian. But I can only say: well thank you.
>
> I say: make a home for the community and let it rule itself. Lots of good
> people, don't need you chaperoning. Pmwiki community is essentially
> self-moderated. But this doesn't mean there is no need. Instead, see the
> community you 'created' thrive. It may just about be the *most important
> thing* to come "out of" PmWiki.
>
> [+That should be just about the major thrill anyone can get out of life+]
>
> So that's it Pm, this turns to you. It is a wonderful chance at the birth of
> a community. That basically doesn't care about Pmwiki. It so just happens
> that it does. Don't think that I'll start some pmwiki-social fork here. It
> just doesn't work.
>
> The presence of a pmwiki-social means that, on the pmwiki-users or devel
> list, we can do a rescheduling event, take a topic from the users list and
> out of a certain thread and reschedule it in the background.
>
> Reply only if you must, 'cause I'm still eagerly awaiting your forms
> processor. With it PmWiki will surely make a quantum leap in the scope of the
> applications feasible. Pmwiki.org will soon be like metadata
>
> Again, here you see, two different sides exist. Why should one suffer the
> other by definition? Coding is one side, life itself is another. It is
> incompetence in my mind to not live and just code. I look forward to having
> people I know and value sometimes moderately private share some of their
> insight. And I hope free speech will live, with no need for moderation. We
> have a focus don't we?
>
> Think about this: we are a special community. We make a collaboritive
> authoring tool. It can be applied to ourselves and help reward and support
> contributors. No not just financially, but with support and by empowering.
> Pmwiki is to grow from a collborative writing tool to a community support
> tool. Syntax-wikis may well be near the end of their life-cycle anyway. For
> Pm it is just a smart move.
>
>
>
> Maybe the caveman is really Pm ;)
>
> Peace be with you, sincerely.
>
> This maybe me leaving the list.
>
> /jm
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Discover the new Windows Vista
> http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
> _______________________________________________
> pmwiki-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
>
_______________________________________________
pmwiki-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
