I assume the storage problems are only discussing paper resumes. And even those, I would suspect the ink costs and time being gobbled on the fax machine would be more important than storage. Even if 100% are snailmailed, a small box holds a lot of paper.
There's no way this could be a problem with emailed resumes, given today's storage prices. However, the act of moving them all into the system might be costly if there's no decent CMS system in place...
CMS.... *shivers* I'm still reeling from the bad memories the last CMS thread produced.
So we obviously have a huge problem here. It won't poke you in the eye, but now we risk the computer flying away into the night. While it could create a nice artistic shot as it passed before the moon, at just the right angle so we could see the silouhette, we risk our machines flying away.
This is the problem I've always had with Apple. They're so shortsighted that they don't think about the needs of users - all they care about is artistic aesthetics of their computers. My PC will never fly away, because I can do anything I want to it. I don't have to install wings if I don't want to, and I can put the horn on the back and sides to avoid injury. Once again, Apple screws all of us by creating a pretty machine that doesn't work the way we want - e.g., it flies away without any control by the user.
Steve Jobs is really losing his mind. First the iMac, now this. Seriously, we need to boycott Apple. I think all of the Slashdot crowd should collectively work toward this goal, and make it a priority one item. This is where our focus should be - stop the flying macs. This is absolute absurdity. Once the Slashdot crowd puts their minds together and stops bickering - and we've demonstrated in the past a strong ability to stop the flamewars and put our differences aside to work toward a single goal - there's no telling what we can do! We could get Steve Jobs fired, and all macs returned to their non-flying status!
I noticed this too, but only because I went into mad-tweak mode earlier and forcefully disabled dozens of services I didn't think I needed (like Crytographic Services. I ain't encryptin' nuttin!) At one point, I think I was running XP with only 6 or 7 services running.:)
Turned out Windows Update needs a slew of them to work, but it's too dumb to tell you that "Hey, I need Services X, Y, and Z to continue, and they're disabled. Go turn them on jerky!" Instead, it fails to install updates, and continually requests that you install them.
I wonder about all the sites out there that already collect tax. Are they paying it to the government? Probably not, since they don't have to. Hell, I'd keep it too.
At least now all these sites that charge tax will now actually give it to the government, putting it (ultimately, partially) back into the hands and control of the people, rather than pocketing it.
I'm planning to start a new project on SourceForge. It's called "a", but the bastards at SourceForge won't give up:
http://a.sourceforge.com..for my project. In the meantime, visit my "a" homepage:
http://www.MyProjectIsCalledA.com
The lawsuit against a.com is underway. I believe 37 lines of script code as good as "a" deserves exclusive rights to that letter of the alphabet for all eternity.
Apache, watch out! You're trying to dilute my project name twice!
I have 25 other projects under development. More info soon!
Sincerely,
root
PS: Anyone developing or using machines as my name are subject to lawsuits. I highly suggest you change any usernames you happen to have that match mine immediately.
I'm not sure why more people don't consider Mozilla COmposer
I'm looking into it. My first impression is that it's very unfriendly. FrontPage is a damn fine product - it's better for editing general documents than OpenOffice is - as far as ease of use is concerned. But, I'm still looking, and until I find a suitable WYSIWYG HTML editor, I'll use KATE myself.
It's just amazing that after so many years of HTML being the standard, and so many HTML pages out there, and so many servers running Linux/Apache, it's nearly impossible to actually manage HTML pages as easy as MS has made it.
What's a host? What's a port? I just want to open http://servername and edit that site. How do I do that? I have to use a separate application to connect? What? I can just run a script? What's a script? So where is the editor I use to connect to http://servername? It'll still have the checkin/checkout thing, right?
That is the mentality of my users that I must accomodate.
IIS w/FP w/SRVEXT is very easy to set up and solves all of these problems. I *know* I can create a great solution on Linux - which is the beauty of it - but it means solving all of these issues *for* the users rather than just snidely quipping to them that "there's a way to do it, you just don't know how, idiot."
Everyone knows that, it's a given. My current impression is that they are hard to set up for an average windows-guy like me. I'm "migrating", not "done migrating." I'll be trying them out for certain.
It's just unfortunate that I have to use the FrontPage extensions on Linux at all - it's a real throwback to MS and I want to avoid this, using built-in Linux solutions - thusly, my point is, the stuff available for Linux (like using a Quanta or Bluefish or SCREEM or Kate or Emacs) and diving into a samba share isn't as good as FP/SRVEXT with built-in versioning.
I'm migrating the IIS setup to Apache and I see a few differences.
With samba shares, it's almost as easy to open a site for editing (\\server\site) but not as intuitive as FrontPage extensions (http://server/site).
Samba shares aren't accessible over the Internet without a VPN. People like editing sites at home the same way as at work.
Previewing in FrontPage works great since you're editing the same place you're browsing. With Samba, the relationship is broken and you must manually preview everything in your browser yourself, typing the full URL or navigating.
A great feature for Intranets/frontpage is source-control of the site, with checkin/checkout and ability to roll back a file from VSS to any prior version. It's all supported by the FrontPage client.
These are serious issues that I'm finding take a lot of time for "users" to deal with when the setup changes. What, you mean "http://server/site" is edited at "\\server\site"? What the hell is \\? Where am I? Did I leave the iron on?
I've considered the sourcesafe issue for my situation, and realized that a daily CVS would work fine, rather than every single check-in. Especially since most people wind up checking out and forgetting to check in. But for more version-sensitive documents, this could be a problem.
Not to mention the lack of a single decent WYSIWYG HTML editor in Linux, forcing the clients to continue to use FrontPage. If I'm wrong, PLEASE guide me to it.
You're right. We're a huge group of nerds! We have the power! Collectively, we could do anything, if we only had a little direction and organization to guide us toward a goal! Sure, we all disagree a little on things, but surely a noble cause could be the target that sets a huge nerd tidal wave into action, toppling this oppressive regime! We can do it!
PLEASE. You'd have better luck organizing the sand of an entire beach into a nice tidy pile using a rake.
The only thing hackers can do to change the world is hack. We have to use extreme measures to get anything done in this world. Go shut down the Internet for a few days by ruining ICANN and maybe the government will take notice.
I'll set up a Linux firewall, it's the only reasonable option. It's fast, easy, free. I won't buy new 2K licenses to deal with this - I'm definitely not upgrading six NT servers, buying a new version of our $10,000 accounting software to work properly with Win2K, or upgrading Exchange 5.5. I just won't - not because of this, anyway.
MS will never see another nickel from me for as long as I live. I understand the EOL issue, but EOL doesn't exist with open source, and MS simply can't compete with that concept.
Heh, ya, he really went nutso on that one, didn't he. I have to reread it much more carefully, but I see his approach. I always say, sometimes you have to take things to extremes to help others understand them.
How many times have you helped someone to understand a simple computer concept by exaggerating it somehow to where their mind was forced to recognize how the subtle differences add up, creating a mental distinction for them?
Will still work. These three paragraphs should be reread:
The important thing is that we're adding a generalized type system to Perl. Let us begin by admitting that it is the height of madness to add a type system to a language that is well-loved for being typeless.
But mad or not, there are some good reasons to do just that. First, it makes it possible to write interfaces to other languages in Perl. Second, it gives the optimizer more information to think about. Third, it allows the S&M folks to inflict strongly typed compile-time semantics on each other. (Which is fine, as long as they don't inflict those semantics on the rest of us.) Fourth, a type system can be viewed as a pattern matching system for multi-method dispatch.
Which basically boils down to the notion that it's fine for Perl to have a type system as long as it's optional. It's just another area where Perl 6 will try to have its cake and eat it too.
Larry's losing it. He's going to snap at any moment. Nobody can keep this up for long. If you're near him, grab a raincoat, he's going to explode at any second.
Seriously though, Larry, you're a genius.
Do not read the paragraph below:
This comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. So I did, by adding this paragraph, hoping to throw it off.
I don't think you get it. He's talking about throttling down the bandwidth of all incoming mail based on it's spamminess. It doesn't care where it comes from. He's not talking about Open Relay directly at all - he's not suggesting you open up your server as an Open Relay then Tarpit the outgoing spam that you allow spammers to send from it. That would just be moronic.
He's speculating that if every incoming spam was slowed down, it would make spam less economical in general.
Further, the suit claims that people who don't accept the terms of the agreement cannot return software to the stores.
This is the crux of the matter. She, and many others, don't want the bundled Windows software, and want to install Linux (or perhaps a pirated version of Windows.) Furthermore, they want cash money forked over for returning the unused product to the store.
Funny how it has value when they want to charge you for it, as part of the product, but when you want to return it, it's basically worthless since they buy it for virtually nothing, it's not easily re-wrappable, and the overhead of dealing with it at all is more than it's worth, in fact, they probably take a loss. Obviously they'd take a loss on such returns - if not, they'd probably allow it to make customers happy. But they don't, and here we are.
So, while the EULA of the items says they can return it, I recall that CompUSA trumps it with another agreement that says you can't return part of the product (IE, just the software, not the computer.) This is indeed a scheme to ensure that:
1. They can charge you for the software you don't want 2. They don't have to take returns on worthless items and issue refunds
While this makes sense business/cost-wise, it's not very good from a customer service angle.
But then again, customer service has been degrading to the point of absurdity for years.
I'm trying to determine where on their site it establishes whether it's OK to mirror the x86 ISOs.
http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/bc l. html
That BCL license seems to be in full effect, even on the x86 version, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. There's a big round-robin on the site navigation when you attempt to find the license (without registering anyway.)
I think it's pretty clear why they're charging $20.
It may not cost $20 to download the Solaris stuff to one person (say on a company T1 that they already have), but I think they knew that the release of this information would incite rioting in the form of Slashdot-like attention. Which it did.
They didn't want to look like Valve/CS and be caught with their pants down, so they ramped up their servers and bandwidth. They had to pay for all this, before anyone downloaded it. They just want some of it back.
It's free, but costs $20 to download it. You're compensating them for their costs of distributing the free product to you.
After you have it, it's free for non-commercial use. However, the license terms under which they are distributing it haven't been fully dissected yet, so...
One other thing - if you need to ask the community a question, and you don't do it in the right place (such as asking about distros on a website under a topic about Solaris x86 news) you'll generally get no answer.
For best results try newsgroups, or sites dedicated to helping people (experts-exchange?)
You read something about better fonts in Redhat. Keep in mind the Linux community is fanatical about their favorite distributions and will argue the finer points of them until their dying day, with no resolution. Don't listen. Pick a distro and spend some time with it.
Should you return Suse for RedHat? No. But not because SuSe is better. I haven't even tried it. I say NO because you need to stick with the one you have, and spend some time with it. Don't get caught up in this nonsense. I switched distros about 6 times before I realized it was a never ending cycle. I was switching for the wrong reasons - to get some feature the other had. If you spend some time with it, and learn it, you'll usually find that any feature on one distro can be had on the other, if you spend some time with it, and learn how to install it yourself.
You prefer to buy a packaged distro. Good, your investment will discourage you from switching distros once a week.
Which is the best distro? You're better off not asking this question. It's like asking "Which is the one true faith?"
I haven't used Slashcode but I'd imagine it works with Apache, and Apache works with everything.
You *might* want to read some of the distro comparisons that you'll find on Google, but don't spend too much time on this - it will never end. Pick one, stick with it. Only switch if your existing system collapses and you're itching to try something new, BUT you're comfortable with migrating your data and dealing with the quirks of the new distro.
You said you prefer to buy a packaged version, but you didn't say why. The only reasons I can see is that you get the manual, or you don't have the bandwidth or a CD burner. You'll really want to get decent bandwidth to download stuff, you'll learn faster. If you don't have a CD burner, that's understandable, neither do I (at home anyway.) If it's for the manual, you will find that searching online documentation is more efficient.
It's hard to learn Linux and linux apps from a book, by reading it start to finish (unless you're extremely disciplined.) More often than not, you're just trying to get something to work and need some specific information. Searching online documentation (or/usr/share/doc) is usually better.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume the storage problems are only discussing paper resumes. And even those, I would suspect the ink costs and time being gobbled on the fax machine would be more important than storage. Even if 100% are snailmailed, a small box holds a lot of paper.
There's no way this could be a problem with emailed resumes, given today's storage prices. However, the act of moving them all into the system might be costly if there's no decent CMS system in place...
CMS.... *shivers* I'm still reeling from the bad memories the last CMS thread produced.
50 million? Sounds like you just need a few scripts. I'll do it for $20,000. Seriously
What's an "Interprise?"
So we obviously have a huge problem here. It won't poke you in the eye, but now we risk the computer flying away into the night. While it could create a nice artistic shot as it passed before the moon, at just the right angle so we could see the silouhette, we risk our machines flying away.
This is the problem I've always had with Apple. They're so shortsighted that they don't think about the needs of users - all they care about is artistic aesthetics of their computers. My PC will never fly away, because I can do anything I want to it. I don't have to install wings if I don't want to, and I can put the horn on the back and sides to avoid injury. Once again, Apple screws all of us by creating a pretty machine that doesn't work the way we want - e.g., it flies away without any control by the user.
Steve Jobs is really losing his mind. First the iMac, now this. Seriously, we need to boycott Apple. I think all of the Slashdot crowd should collectively work toward this goal, and make it a priority one item. This is where our focus should be - stop the flying macs. This is absolute absurdity. Once the Slashdot crowd puts their minds together and stops bickering - and we've demonstrated in the past a strong ability to stop the flamewars and put our differences aside to work toward a single goal - there's no telling what we can do! We could get Steve Jobs fired, and all macs returned to their non-flying status!
Let's get to it!
I noticed this too, but only because I went into mad-tweak mode earlier and forcefully disabled dozens of services I didn't think I needed (like Crytographic Services. I ain't encryptin' nuttin!) At one point, I think I was running XP with only 6 or 7 services running. :)
Turned out Windows Update needs a slew of them to work, but it's too dumb to tell you that "Hey, I need Services X, Y, and Z to continue, and they're disabled. Go turn them on jerky!" Instead, it fails to install updates, and continually requests that you install them.
I wonder about all the sites out there that already collect tax. Are they paying it to the government? Probably not, since they don't have to. Hell, I'd keep it too.
At least now all these sites that charge tax will now actually give it to the government, putting it (ultimately, partially) back into the hands and control of the people, rather than pocketing it.
Really? I'm #3 on this page (445 day uptime on NT): http://tuxtime.dk/index.php?page=top10&os=Wind ows
And that's a real box. On the Internet. With IIS, SQL Server, MySQL, FrontPage Extensions, and Perl, and used daily.
Would have lasted longer if we hadn't moved...
I'm planning to start a new project on SourceForge. It's called "a", but the bastards at SourceForge won't give up:
..for my project. In the meantime, visit my "a" homepage:
http://a.sourceforge.com
http://www.MyProjectIsCalledA.com
The lawsuit against a.com is underway. I believe 37 lines of script code as good as "a" deserves exclusive rights to that letter of the alphabet for all eternity.
Apache, watch out! You're trying to dilute my project name twice!
I have 25 other projects under development. More info soon!
Sincerely,
root
PS: Anyone developing or using machines as my name are subject to lawsuits. I highly suggest you change any usernames you happen to have that match mine immediately.
I'm not sure why more people don't consider Mozilla COmposer
I'm looking into it. My first impression is that it's very unfriendly. FrontPage is a damn fine product - it's better for editing general documents than OpenOffice is - as far as ease of use is concerned. But, I'm still looking, and until I find a suitable WYSIWYG HTML editor, I'll use KATE myself.
It's just amazing that after so many years of HTML being the standard, and so many HTML pages out there, and so many servers running Linux/Apache, it's nearly impossible to actually manage HTML pages as easy as MS has made it.
What's a host? What's a port? I just want to open http://servername and edit that site. How do I do that? I have to use a separate application to connect? What? I can just run a script? What's a script? So where is the editor I use to connect to http://servername? It'll still have the checkin/checkout thing, right?
That is the mentality of my users that I must accomodate.
IIS w/FP w/SRVEXT is very easy to set up and solves all of these problems. I *know* I can create a great solution on Linux - which is the beauty of it - but it means solving all of these issues *for* the users rather than just snidely quipping to them that "there's a way to do it, you just don't know how, idiot."
Everyone knows that, it's a given. My current impression is that they are hard to set up for an average windows-guy like me. I'm "migrating", not "done migrating." I'll be trying them out for certain.
It's just unfortunate that I have to use the FrontPage extensions on Linux at all - it's a real throwback to MS and I want to avoid this, using built-in Linux solutions - thusly, my point is, the stuff available for Linux (like using a Quanta or Bluefish or SCREEM or Kate or Emacs) and diving into a samba share isn't as good as FP/SRVEXT with built-in versioning.
I'm migrating the IIS setup to Apache and I see a few differences.
With samba shares, it's almost as easy to open a site for editing (\\server\site) but not as intuitive as FrontPage extensions (http://server/site).
Samba shares aren't accessible over the Internet without a VPN. People like editing sites at home the same way as at work.
Previewing in FrontPage works great since you're editing the same place you're browsing. With Samba, the relationship is broken and you must manually preview everything in your browser yourself, typing the full URL or navigating.
A great feature for Intranets/frontpage is source-control of the site, with checkin/checkout and ability to roll back a file from VSS to any prior version. It's all supported by the FrontPage client.
These are serious issues that I'm finding take a lot of time for "users" to deal with when the setup changes. What, you mean "http://server/site" is edited at "\\server\site"? What the hell is \\? Where am I? Did I leave the iron on?
I've considered the sourcesafe issue for my situation, and realized that a daily CVS would work fine, rather than every single check-in. Especially since most people wind up checking out and forgetting to check in. But for more version-sensitive documents, this could be a problem.
Not to mention the lack of a single decent WYSIWYG HTML editor in Linux, forcing the clients to continue to use FrontPage. If I'm wrong, PLEASE guide me to it.
You're right. We're a huge group of nerds! We have the power! Collectively, we could do anything, if we only had a little direction and organization to guide us toward a goal! Sure, we all disagree a little on things, but surely a noble cause could be the target that sets a huge nerd tidal wave into action, toppling this oppressive regime! We can do it!
PLEASE. You'd have better luck organizing the sand of an entire beach into a nice tidy pile using a rake.
The only thing hackers can do to change the world is hack. We have to use extreme measures to get anything done in this world. Go shut down the Internet for a few days by ruining ICANN and maybe the government will take notice.
I'll set up a Linux firewall, it's the only reasonable option. It's fast, easy, free. I won't buy new 2K licenses to deal with this - I'm definitely not upgrading six NT servers, buying a new version of our $10,000 accounting software to work properly with Win2K, or upgrading Exchange 5.5. I just won't - not because of this, anyway.
MS will never see another nickel from me for as long as I live. I understand the EOL issue, but EOL doesn't exist with open source, and MS simply can't compete with that concept.
I hate this business sometimes.
Hey, we're twins!
Heh, ya, he really went nutso on that one, didn't he. I have to reread it much more carefully, but I see his approach. I always say, sometimes you have to take things to extremes to help others understand them.
How many times have you helped someone to understand a simple computer concept by exaggerating it somehow to where their mind was forced to recognize how the subtle differences add up, creating a mental distinction for them?
Then don't. The types are optional.
$x = 1;
Will still work. These three paragraphs should be reread:
The important thing is that we're adding a generalized type system to Perl. Let us begin by admitting that it is the height of madness to add a type system to a language that is well-loved for being typeless.
But mad or not, there are some good reasons to do just that. First, it makes it possible to write interfaces to other languages in Perl. Second, it gives the optimizer more information to think about. Third, it allows the S&M folks to inflict strongly typed compile-time semantics on each other. (Which is fine, as long as they don't inflict those semantics on the rest of us.) Fourth, a type system can be viewed as a pattern matching system for multi-method dispatch.
Which basically boils down to the notion that it's fine for Perl to have a type system as long as it's optional. It's just another area where Perl 6 will try to have its cake and eat it too.
(Bold added by me.)
my %pet is Hash of Array of Array of Hash of Array of Cat;
which might really mean:
my %pet is Hash(keytype => Str,
returns => Array(
returns => Array(
returns => Hash(
keytype => Str,
returns => Array(
returns => Cat)))))
or some such.
Larry's losing it. He's going to snap at any moment. Nobody can keep this up for long. If you're near him, grab a raincoat, he's going to explode at any second.
Seriously though, Larry, you're a genius.
Do not read the paragraph below:
This comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. So I did, by adding this paragraph, hoping to throw it off.
I don't think you get it. He's talking about throttling down the bandwidth of all incoming mail based on it's spamminess. It doesn't care where it comes from. He's not talking about Open Relay directly at all - he's not suggesting you open up your server as an Open Relay then Tarpit the outgoing spam that you allow spammers to send from it. That would just be moronic.
He's speculating that if every incoming spam was slowed down, it would make spam less economical in general.
Put it on Kazaa as "Britney23489023.mpg" and just publish the filename. :)
Just use both.
Further, the suit claims that people who don't accept the terms of the agreement cannot return software to the stores.
This is the crux of the matter. She, and many others, don't want the bundled Windows software, and want to install Linux (or perhaps a pirated version of Windows.) Furthermore, they want cash money forked over for returning the unused product to the store.
Funny how it has value when they want to charge you for it, as part of the product, but when you want to return it, it's basically worthless since they buy it for virtually nothing, it's not easily re-wrappable, and the overhead of dealing with it at all is more than it's worth, in fact, they probably take a loss. Obviously they'd take a loss on such returns - if not, they'd probably allow it to make customers happy. But they don't, and here we are.
So, while the EULA of the items says they can return it, I recall that CompUSA trumps it with another agreement that says you can't return part of the product (IE, just the software, not the computer.) This is indeed a scheme to ensure that:
1. They can charge you for the software you don't want
2. They don't have to take returns on worthless items and issue refunds
While this makes sense business/cost-wise, it's not very good from a customer service angle.
But then again, customer service has been degrading to the point of absurdity for years.
I'm trying to determine where on their site it establishes whether it's OK to mirror the x86 ISOs.
c l. html
http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/b
That BCL license seems to be in full effect, even on the x86 version, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. There's a big round-robin on the site navigation when you attempt to find the license (without registering anyway.)
I think it's pretty clear why they're charging $20.
It may not cost $20 to download the Solaris stuff to one person (say on a company T1 that they already have), but I think they knew that the release of this information would incite rioting in the form of Slashdot-like attention. Which it did.
They didn't want to look like Valve/CS and be caught with their pants down, so they ramped up their servers and bandwidth. They had to pay for all this, before anyone downloaded it. They just want some of it back.
lol man, that's cruel.
It's free, but costs $20 to download it. You're compensating them for their costs of distributing the free product to you.
After you have it, it's free for non-commercial use. However, the license terms under which they are distributing it haven't been fully dissected yet, so...
One other thing - if you need to ask the community a question, and you don't do it in the right place (such as asking about distros on a website under a topic about Solaris x86 news) you'll generally get no answer.
For best results try newsgroups, or sites dedicated to helping people (experts-exchange?)
Happy to answer it.
/usr/share/doc) is usually better.
:)
You read something about better fonts in Redhat. Keep in mind the Linux community is fanatical about their favorite distributions and will argue the finer points of them until their dying day, with no resolution. Don't listen. Pick a distro and spend some time with it.
Should you return Suse for RedHat? No. But not because SuSe is better. I haven't even tried it. I say NO because you need to stick with the one you have, and spend some time with it. Don't get caught up in this nonsense. I switched distros about 6 times before I realized it was a never ending cycle. I was switching for the wrong reasons - to get some feature the other had. If you spend some time with it, and learn it, you'll usually find that any feature on one distro can be had on the other, if you spend some time with it, and learn how to install it yourself.
You prefer to buy a packaged distro. Good, your investment will discourage you from switching distros once a week.
Which is the best distro? You're better off not asking this question. It's like asking "Which is the one true faith?"
I haven't used Slashcode but I'd imagine it works with Apache, and Apache works with everything.
You *might* want to read some of the distro comparisons that you'll find on Google, but don't spend too much time on this - it will never end. Pick one, stick with it. Only switch if your existing system collapses and you're itching to try something new, BUT you're comfortable with migrating your data and dealing with the quirks of the new distro.
You said you prefer to buy a packaged version, but you didn't say why. The only reasons I can see is that you get the manual, or you don't have the bandwidth or a CD burner. You'll really want to get decent bandwidth to download stuff, you'll learn faster. If you don't have a CD burner, that's understandable, neither do I (at home anyway.) If it's for the manual, you will find that searching online documentation is more efficient.
It's hard to learn Linux and linux apps from a book, by reading it start to finish (unless you're extremely disciplined.) More often than not, you're just trying to get something to work and need some specific information. Searching online documentation (or
PS: Mandrake is the best distro.
I meant:
Erik's Revised HTML Specification
1. All sites start and end with <PRE> and have no other tags.
-eof-