Well, apparently, there are a lot of people who disagree with you, as Linux, licensed under the evil GPL, has evolved, and continues to evolve quite successfully. Free/Net/OpenBSD, however you want to measure their success, have not matched the level of Linux's acceptance by a long shot.
Now, there are many complicated reasons for this, but what I am trying to say is that the number of people who have a big problem with the GPL is relatively small. Most would be developers who wish to use others' work in their own proprietary work.
You may define freedom as including the ability to restrict the freedom of others, but not everyone does.
I use software that is GPLd, BSDd, X11d, and proprietary. I even am currently maintaining a program that has a (ugh) non-commercial-distribution license. But, I prefer the GPL, whereever suitable, because it discourages forking, and keeps software free. And quite a number of people seem to think they can make money from GPLd software, regardless of the views of a few rabid proprietary developer advocates.
I guess my view would agree with Linus'. If you didn't write the software, you have no right to bitch about the license.
But what it really boils down to is this: the user/customer will, in the end, determine what licensing schemes are successful. If the user prefers GPLd software, that is how things will tend to be licensed in the future. All the pissing and moaning in the world isn't going to change that reality.
Re:This should be displayed somewhere where PHB's
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 2
I work with an NT machine that has IIS a FoxPro backend. The longest this machine has ever stayed up is about 4 days. Some days, it stops responding to http requests 3 or 4 times in a single day.
*Microsoft* was unable to solve the problem. Their ultimate answer (after having a ticket open for six months) was that FoxPro is not designed for this kind of use!
No FUD. No bullshit. Just the facts. Microsoft software sucks.
I have *never* seen a UNIX or Linux box behave similarly.
People seem to often confuse fairness with equality of outcome. Fairness only means that you view the objective reality, and don't ignore it because of your biases. That something is seen to be of poor quality does not necessarily reflect bias.
Presumably, most of the people here have had to deal with NT (I certainly have), and they know what's good, stable and flexible, and what's not. That is not bias; it's experience.
Certainly, Astroturfers will want to paint it as bias, but it's no more biased than reporting the baseball scores. What is, is.
I know from personal experience that I can set up a Linux box, and apart from occasional updates, leave it be. I have never been able to do that with an NT box for more than a couple months at a time, and NT machines have this nasty habit of suddenly becoming flaky for no apparent reason, depending on load and the particular software/services you're running. And service packs are a crapshoot (remember NT4 SP2?).
So, it's a great article because it is confirming the experience of most of the people here who have actually used both Linux and NT to any significant extent.
The inevitable decline of the Great Beast has indeed begun. This is a strong signal. Microsoft is realizing that with the very real threat of Linux, they can no longer play around with unimportant (as Microsoft sees them) platforms such as Alpha or PPC. They must concentrate on their core products/platform.
BTW, what happened to all the Astroturfers that were posting yesterday about how the Compaq decision was of little importance, because 64-bit NT Alpha development was going strong?
Whaddya think, everyone? Exit Cutler? Or is Merced going to keep him happy?
In his brief, Bubb suggested that Smith may not be the only defendant ultimately prosecuted in the "Melissa" case, saying that the investigation is centering on figuring out the amount of harm inflicted by the virus and determining if anyone else was involved.
Other involved parties:
Microsoft
People (namely IS managers) clueless enough to use Microsoft software
People who habitutally send files through email, instead of using FTP
Plug in that SCSI hard drive -- and mount it in Linux -- no fidling at all.
Now, I'm as excited about low-cost PPC boxes as anyone, but...fair is fair...
That's a feature of SCSI, not of CHRP or PPC.
Plug in a SCSI hard drive on a x86 box that has SCSI, and it's about the same. Let's not forget that new Macs (and Sun Ultra 5s and Ultra 10s -- insert Homer Simpson's girlish scream here) have IDE peripherals, along with all the baggage that entails.
And even then, who's to say that setting SCSI ID and termination jumpers is really easier than setting IDE Master/Slave jumpers?
Imagine having to decide between: XXX Software for Redhat Linux on x86 XXX Software for Redhat Linux on SPARC XXX Software for Redhat Linux on Alpha XXX Software for Redhat Linux on PPC XXX Software for Debian on x86 XXX Software for Slackware on x86 XXX Software for Corel Linux on whatever chips they'd use XXX Software for Linux PPC
No problem:
./configure make make install
commercial != proprietary
If it's proprietary (closed), I'm likely not all that interested anyhow.
But you are using an Intel box, no? So, why would the problems be any worse on a non-Intel box?
FWIW, I haven't had any major problems with hardware support in the 5 years I've been using Linux (only full-time in the last 1-1/2 years).
I use Linux at work on a P200; at home on a Celeron 300A (@450).
I have just now gotten my hands on a PowerMac and have LinuxPPC on it. I have to say: it has been mostly a pleasant experience (only problem is trying to run a custom kernel I built; it panics on boot. I'll figure it out, though). The machine is quite responsive, even though it's an older machine. It seems less jerky than an Intel box.
I'm definitely considering a PPC motherboard for my next box, if the price is right.
anyway I hate the idea of linux which is usually a do it yourself thing having "problems" with anything (meaning it is basically broken except to Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein).
Someone said "now I don't have to code the GUI by hand." I just wanted to point out that there are already free tools available that help in that regard. There is QtEZ, a very basic GUI builder for Qt development, and KDevelop, a GUI buider and IDE for KDE.
Well, I'd rather not be part of a group of people that have an exclusionary and/or elitist attitude.
You *did* say that you were considering FreeBSD, didn't you?:-P
But seriously, running an operating system doesn't mean you have to be part of any particular group. You just use it, and get on with your life.
I just don't get it when people say, "I won't run , because advocates are jerks. In case you haven't noticed, advocates of all OSs are mostly jerks (probably including myself). So, by your standard, you'd have to go back to paper and pencil.
Who cares what people who advocate Linux say? Measure it by its usefulness, not by its advocates.
If you prefer Windows, that's fine. I'm certainly not going to tell you that it doesn't suit your needs; it just doesn't happen to suit mine. As others will no doubt point out, X has no interface, since it is a protocol. There are various interfaces that you can use via X, including GNOME, KDE, WindowMaker, fvwm, and, of course, twm. KDE 2.0, slated for early next year, will probably be the most advanced UNIX desktop environment to date. Check it out when it's released. In the meantime, save often.;-)
I wouldn't recommend switching operating systems based on what members of the "Linux community" (whatever that is) have to say. It seems to be to be a pretty dumb way to choose an operating system.
What I did was install Linux (many different times). When it got to the point where I found it more useful than OS/2 (around 2.0.29), I switched.
If it works for you great. If not, oh well. But, really, when it comes right down to it, who really cares what ESR, RMS, or anyone else has to say? (Don't get me wrong: I think they have interesting, valuable things to say; I just mean that their writings don't have much effect on your productivity.)
Put another way: I don't use Windows, not because of anything Gates or Ballmer have to say, but because it's a steaming pile of dog shit.
Now, don't get me wrong; I think StarOffice is a pretty good piece of software. In fact, I got my company to buy it for me.
That said, I will be switching to KOffice as soon as it is ready. Why? I just don't like using proprietary software. I will use it, if there is not a reasonable free substitute. But, my goal is to use all free software ASAP, for a number of reasons, including:
Platform independence (try running StarOffice on linuxppc lately?)
Multiple sources for bugfixes
Extendability/Customizibility
Sense of community
License flexibility/ability to share
Reasonable cost
The draconian laws the proprietary software vendors are getting passed (see the WaR3Z d00d smack down story)
And, while I certainly have some hesitation, for ethical/moral reasons to do business with proprietary software vendors, for the most part, it's the practical reasons above that make me prefer free software. The only proprietary software I envision myself using next year will be a couple of Linux games. And, I believe that will resolve itself in the not too distant future.
it's crystal clear that making a living requires me to be doing fully commercial software, either for someone else's company or starting my own.
Good luck trying to sell it, as the breadth and scope of free software continues to expand. Perhaps if you do niche software; otherwise, you end up competing with either free software or Microsoft.
You see, it's not really up to you, the programmer. It's ultimately up to the user/customer. They're the ones that will decide what licensing terms they prefer. And if they choose free software, well, I suggest you find a way to make money from it.
You are operating under a false assumption; that the only way to make money from software is to collect a fee for shipping a binary. As we are finding out, that is not the only way to bring in income; in fact, it may not even be a viable way today; just ask Netscape.
There are people who are making money from free software, but they are not trying to do it under the traditional model. If they did, they would be doomed to failure.
You may find it difficult to make money in this market, but that's not really something that is under your control. Adapt or perish.
As someone else pointed out, shrinkwrap software accounts for something like 5% of all programming jobs anyhow.
It's probably because many people have to deal with NT that would rather not have to, and have come to resent the shoddy crap that emanates from Redmond.
The reason I'm awake right now is because a flaky NT server stopped responding, and I got paged at 5:20 AM. Rrrr.
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, NT *does* suck?
P.S. Thanks to VNC, I didn't have to drive downtown, and sit at the console to recover. Why didn't Microsoft think of that?
At the end of the article, someone suggested having a Beer Hike in the U.S., where there are many microbreweries.
I would obviously recommend that this be somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. Humboldt County, California has a few very good breweries, and magnificent scenery with the Coast Redwoods.
Portland, Oregon supposedly has the highest per-capita concentration of breweries on the planet, and nearby there is Mt. Hood, the Columbia River Gorge, and many other very good hiking areas.
If Seattle is preferred, perhaps it could be a bike trip through the San Juan Islands. I don't know if there are many breweries up there, though.
Finally, across the Strait of Juan de Fuca (I just like to say that out loud), there is Victoria, B.C. on Vancouver Island. There are some good breweries, and many excellent pubs, and the island has many recreational opportunities.
I couldn't make it to Germany (although I would have liked to), but I could definitely attend a Beer Hike in any of these places.
Sure, Solaris and their big systems are great products, overpriced, but great products. And Sun will never make it to the desktop like Linux has. The only thing Scott has done is instilled a hatred for MS products into Solaris users, and created an army of elitist arrogant sysadmins.
Now, I'm a pretty big Linux advocate, but...
There are free (or low-cost) licensing programs available for Solaris, UnixWare and SCO Open Desktop.
Linux still has scalability shortcomings compared to these UNIX(tm) operating systems.
It'd be my guess that most Solaris sysadmins also use (or at least) tinker with Linux and/or the free BSDs.
I've heard a lot of bad things about SCO's UNIX(tm) operating systems. Having never had the opportunity to use any SCO stuff, I can't speak to its quality. I have worked with Solaris for several years, and know that it is a solid product (I hope I'm not too elitist or arrogant:-)). I generally like free software better, for many reasons, but I have to admit that there are still some advantages (perhaps not for much longer) to the commercial UNIX(tm)es.
Well, I suppose there's really no point in discussing this any further. People such as yourself are so obviously convinced that Americans are dolts, and of your own infallibility, that no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise.
I can tell you that in twenty years of reading about libertarianism, discussing the philosophy with others (worldwide) via FidoNet, Usenet, etc., that the mainstream usage of "libertarian" is indeed that of someone opposed to using coercion to achieve political goals. Certainly, the meaning differs around the world; outside the U.S., libertarians are less purist. The main difference I've seen is that "Euro-libertarians" don't care much for firearms, as most Europeans seem to be hoplophobic.
Socialism, by definition, involves the use of coercion. If it didn't, it wouldn't be socialism; it'd be charity. So, I maintain that a definition of libertarianism that includes any type of socialism is an oxymoron. Capitalism, or more accurately, the free market, *may* involve coercion, in the form of force or fraud. That is why libertarians are not anarchists; we believe that government must exist for the sole purpose of policing force or fraud.
Once you decide that the free market is the problem, and that some sort of governmental body must step in to achieve goals that the free market is not achieving, and use coercion towards those ends, you cease being a libertarian, and begin being a statist.
Y'know, "liberalism" doesn't mean what it once did either.
But I'm an American, so I'm obviously a dim-witted hick who doesn't possess your superior intellect. So, fine, I give up. "Believe what you wish," indeed.
I suggest you read some of the materials I have suggested. Your "libertarian socialist" concept is an oxymoron, and in no way representative of any common-sense, modern definition of libertarianism.
Capitalism is beside the point. If that's what you want to call organic economics, so be it. Libertarianism is quite obviously opposed to any form of coercion by government fiat. Any type of socialism is 100% in opposition to libertarian philosophy.
Ayn Rand, for your information, was never a libertarian, and was quite opposed to libertarianism. Her objectivist followers are harsh critics of libertarian philosophy to this day.
Having read quite a bit about the years leading up to WWI, and the (tragic) march towards statism and the 20th century, I am quite aware of "anarchist socialism" in the late 1800s/early 1900s. It may have been associated with the term "libertarian" at some point, but that was not, nor espcially is it now, a mainstream usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, there are many complicated reasons for this, but what I am trying to say is that the number of people who have a big problem with the GPL is relatively small. Most would be developers who wish to use others' work in their own proprietary work.
You may define freedom as including the ability to restrict the freedom of others, but not everyone does.
I use software that is GPLd, BSDd, X11d, and proprietary. I even am currently maintaining a program that has a (ugh) non-commercial-distribution license. But, I prefer the GPL, whereever suitable, because it discourages forking, and keeps software free. And quite a number of people seem to think they can make money from GPLd software, regardless of the views of a few rabid proprietary developer advocates.
I guess my view would agree with Linus'. If you didn't write the software, you have no right to bitch about the license.
But what it really boils down to is this: the user/customer will, in the end, determine what licensing schemes are successful. If the user prefers GPLd software, that is how things will tend to be licensed in the future. All the pissing and moaning in the world isn't going to change that reality.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
This makes me suspect that there is no actual Amiga product, after all, at least not in the forseeable future.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
*Microsoft* was unable to solve the problem. Their ultimate answer (after having a ticket open for six months) was that FoxPro is not designed for this kind of use!
No FUD. No bullshit. Just the facts. Microsoft software sucks.
I have *never* seen a UNIX or Linux box behave similarly.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Presumably, most of the people here have had to deal with NT (I certainly have), and they know what's good, stable and flexible, and what's not. That is not bias; it's experience.
Certainly, Astroturfers will want to paint it as bias, but it's no more biased than reporting the baseball scores. What is, is.
I know from personal experience that I can set up a Linux box, and apart from occasional updates, leave it be. I have never been able to do that with an NT box for more than a couple months at a time, and NT machines have this nasty habit of suddenly becoming flaky for no apparent reason, depending on load and the particular software/services you're running. And service packs are a crapshoot (remember NT4 SP2?).
So, it's a great article because it is confirming the experience of most of the people here who have actually used both Linux and NT to any significant extent.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
BTW, what happened to all the Astroturfers that were posting yesterday about how the Compaq decision was of little importance, because 64-bit NT Alpha development was going strong?
Whaddya think, everyone? Exit Cutler? Or is Merced going to keep him happy?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Yup. Those Matchbox cars can be pricy these days.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Other involved parties:
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Now, I'm as excited about low-cost PPC boxes as anyone, but...fair is fair...
That's a feature of SCSI, not of CHRP or PPC.
Plug in a SCSI hard drive on a x86 box that has SCSI, and it's about the same. Let's not forget that new Macs (and Sun Ultra 5s and Ultra 10s -- insert Homer Simpson's girlish scream here) have IDE peripherals, along with all the baggage that entails.
And even then, who's to say that setting SCSI ID and termination jumpers is really easier than setting IDE Master/Slave jumpers?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
XXX Software for Redhat Linux on x86
XXX Software for Redhat Linux on SPARC
XXX Software for Redhat Linux on Alpha
XXX Software for Redhat Linux on PPC
XXX Software for Debian on x86
XXX Software for Slackware on x86
XXX Software for Corel Linux on whatever chips they'd use
XXX Software for Linux PPC
No problem:
make
make install
commercial != proprietary
If it's proprietary (closed), I'm likely not all that interested anyhow.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
FWIW, I haven't had any major problems with hardware support in the 5 years I've been using Linux (only full-time in the last 1-1/2 years).
I use Linux at work on a P200; at home on a Celeron 300A (@450).
I have just now gotten my hands on a PowerMac and have LinuxPPC on it. I have to say: it has been mostly a pleasant experience (only problem is trying to run a custom kernel I built; it panics on boot. I'll figure it out, though). The machine is quite responsive, even though it's an older machine. It seems less jerky than an Intel box.
I'm definitely considering a PPC motherboard for my next box, if the price is right.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
anyway I hate the idea of linux which is usually a do it yourself thing having "problems" with anything (meaning it is basically broken except to Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein).
Then, you say:
Proud Debian GNU/Linux Slink 2.1 (modified) user.
Huh?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Someone said "now I don't have to code the GUI by hand." I just wanted to point out that there are already free tools available that help in that regard. There is QtEZ, a very basic GUI builder for Qt development, and KDevelop, a GUI buider and IDE for KDE.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
+I won't run (os), because (os) advocates are jerks.
Tried to use angle brackets. Arrgh.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
You *did* say that you were considering FreeBSD, didn't you? :-P
But seriously, running an operating system doesn't mean you have to be part of any particular group. You just use it, and get on with your life.
I just don't get it when people say, "I won't run , because advocates are jerks. In case you haven't noticed, advocates of all OSs are mostly jerks (probably including myself). So, by your standard, you'd have to go back to paper and pencil.
Who cares what people who advocate Linux say? Measure it by its usefulness, not by its advocates.
If you prefer Windows, that's fine. I'm certainly not going to tell you that it doesn't suit your needs; it just doesn't happen to suit mine. As others will no doubt point out, X has no interface, since it is a protocol. There are various interfaces that you can use via X, including GNOME, KDE, WindowMaker, fvwm, and, of course, twm. KDE 2.0, slated for early next year, will probably be the most advanced UNIX desktop environment to date. Check it out when it's released. In the meantime, save often. ;-)
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I'm not sure why, but I never had to do that. make install took care of everything for me.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
This is what worked for me:
make xconfig /etc/lilo.conf&
make bzImage
make modules
make install
make modules_install
xemacs
lilo
YMMV. HTH. HAND.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
What I did was install Linux (many different times). When it got to the point where I found it more useful than OS/2 (around 2.0.29), I switched.
If it works for you great. If not, oh well. But, really, when it comes right down to it, who really cares what ESR, RMS, or anyone else has to say? (Don't get me wrong: I think they have interesting, valuable things to say; I just mean that their writings don't have much effect on your productivity.)
Put another way: I don't use Windows, not because of anything Gates or Ballmer have to say, but because it's a steaming pile of dog shit.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
That said, I will be switching to KOffice as soon as it is ready. Why? I just don't like using proprietary software. I will use it, if there is not a reasonable free substitute. But, my goal is to use all free software ASAP, for a number of reasons, including:
- Platform independence (try running StarOffice on linuxppc lately?)
- Multiple sources for bugfixes
- Extendability/Customizibility
- Sense of community
- License flexibility/ability to share
- Reasonable cost
- The draconian laws the proprietary software vendors are getting passed (see the WaR3Z d00d smack down story)
And, while I certainly have some hesitation, for ethical/moral reasons to do business with proprietary software vendors, for the most part, it's the practical reasons above that make me prefer free software. The only proprietary software I envision myself using next year will be a couple of Linux games. And, I believe that will resolve itself in the not too distant future.--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Good luck trying to sell it, as the breadth and scope of free software continues to expand. Perhaps if you do niche software; otherwise, you end up competing with either free software or Microsoft.
You see, it's not really up to you, the programmer. It's ultimately up to the user/customer. They're the ones that will decide what licensing terms they prefer. And if they choose free software, well, I suggest you find a way to make money from it.
You are operating under a false assumption; that the only way to make money from software is to collect a fee for shipping a binary. As we are finding out, that is not the only way to bring in income; in fact, it may not even be a viable way today; just ask Netscape.
There are people who are making money from free software, but they are not trying to do it under the traditional model. If they did, they would be doomed to failure.
You may find it difficult to make money in this market, but that's not really something that is under your control. Adapt or perish.
As someone else pointed out, shrinkwrap software accounts for something like 5% of all programming jobs anyhow.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
The reason I'm awake right now is because a flaky NT server stopped responding, and I got paged at 5:20 AM. Rrrr.
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, NT *does* suck?
P.S. Thanks to VNC, I didn't have to drive downtown, and sit at the console to recover. Why didn't Microsoft think of that?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I would obviously recommend that this be somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. Humboldt County, California has a few very good breweries, and magnificent scenery with the Coast Redwoods.
Portland, Oregon supposedly has the highest per-capita concentration of breweries on the planet, and nearby there is Mt. Hood, the Columbia River Gorge, and many other very good hiking areas.
If Seattle is preferred, perhaps it could be a bike trip through the San Juan Islands. I don't know if there are many breweries up there, though.
Finally, across the Strait of Juan de Fuca (I just like to say that out loud), there is Victoria, B.C. on Vancouver Island. There are some good breweries, and many excellent pubs, and the island has many recreational opportunities.
I couldn't make it to Germany (although I would have liked to), but I could definitely attend a Beer Hike in any of these places.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Now, I'm a pretty big Linux advocate, but...
- There are free (or low-cost) licensing programs available for Solaris, UnixWare and SCO Open Desktop.
- Linux still has scalability shortcomings compared to these UNIX(tm) operating systems.
- It'd be my guess that most Solaris sysadmins also use (or at least) tinker with Linux and/or the free BSDs.
I've heard a lot of bad things about SCO's UNIX(tm) operating systems. Having never had the opportunity to use any SCO stuff, I can't speak to its quality. I have worked with Solaris for several years, and know that it is a solid product (I hope I'm not too elitist or arrogant--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
True, Linux and the free BSDs are not UNIX(tm), but Solaris is.
I have a hard time believing that SCO has a userbase five times as large as Solaris/Intel.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I can tell you that in twenty years of reading about libertarianism, discussing the philosophy with others (worldwide) via FidoNet, Usenet, etc., that the mainstream usage of "libertarian" is indeed that of someone opposed to using coercion to achieve political goals. Certainly, the meaning differs around the world; outside the U.S., libertarians are less purist. The main difference I've seen is that "Euro-libertarians" don't care much for firearms, as most Europeans seem to be hoplophobic.
Socialism, by definition, involves the use of coercion. If it didn't, it wouldn't be socialism; it'd be charity. So, I maintain that a definition of libertarianism that includes any type of socialism is an oxymoron. Capitalism, or more accurately, the free market, *may* involve coercion, in the form of force or fraud. That is why libertarians are not anarchists; we believe that government must exist for the sole purpose of policing force or fraud.
Once you decide that the free market is the problem, and that some sort of governmental body must step in to achieve goals that the free market is not achieving, and use coercion towards those ends, you cease being a libertarian, and begin being a statist.
Y'know, "liberalism" doesn't mean what it once did either.
But I'm an American, so I'm obviously a dim-witted hick who doesn't possess your superior intellect. So, fine, I give up. "Believe what you wish," indeed.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Capitalism is beside the point. If that's what you want to call organic economics, so be it. Libertarianism is quite obviously opposed to any form of coercion by government fiat. Any type of socialism is 100% in opposition to libertarian philosophy.
Ayn Rand, for your information, was never a libertarian, and was quite opposed to libertarianism. Her objectivist followers are harsh critics of libertarian philosophy to this day.
Having read quite a bit about the years leading up to WWI, and the (tragic) march towards statism and the 20th century, I am quite aware of "anarchist socialism" in the late 1800s/early 1900s. It may have been associated with the term "libertarian" at some point, but that was not, nor espcially is it now, a mainstream usage.
No, sir; it is you that have some reading to do.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page