new interface...
Mark Eugene Crane
There's a new gruntle as well. It's exceptionally bitter sounding.
Johnny Favorite (it means "Morbidly obese or just big-boned?")
> So did everyone notice the cryptic new interface at jwz.org?
I wonder if you could re-assemble the "bytes" from the "hex editor" back
into a binary file and get anything useful. I don't see anything that looks
like a valid header there but I wouldn't put it past him.
edo...@cs.auckland.ac.nz
It's cool. It's retro. It's green.
I always thought that ripping the code from phospor and making a xterm
based on it would rock. retroterm... Transparency would even work pretty
well with it too I reckon.
> I wonder if you could re-assemble the "bytes" from
> the "hex editor" back into a binary file and get
> anything useful. I don't see anything that looks
> like a valid header there but I wouldn't put it past him.
It's about 3 million bytes into the file though -- check out the hex
numbers down the left. Probably Netscape for a file that big. Or maybe
emacs.
Lets face it, that was the whole point of the netscape project -- "I bet
you we can create a bigger gorilla than those emacs boys ever did", "But
they've got an entire language built into emacs", "Ha ha! We can do that!
Twice! Ha ha ha!", "And a mail reader?", "Duh...".
Cheers,
Edouard.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Adam Sjøgren
>> So did everyone notice the cryptic new interface at jwz.org?
> I wonder if you could re-assemble the "bytes" from the "hex editor"
> back into a binary file and get anything useful.
You could.
Zzzzwiiiuuiii,
--
"If you don't stand up for something Adam Sjøgren
You'll fall for anything" as...@koldfront.dk
Adam Sjøgren
> It's about 3 million bytes into the file though -- check out the hex
> numbers down the left. Probably Netscape for a file that big. Or
> maybe emacs.
Neither. Guess again.
:-),
Steven Hazel
as...@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) writes:
> > numbers down the left. Probably Netscape for a file that big. Or
> > maybe emacs.
>
> Neither. Guess again.
xscreensaver?
Helpful Hint: This is the part where you tell us.
Johnny Favorite (it means "Morbidly obese or just big-boned?")
> It's about 3 million bytes into the file though -- check out the hex
> emacs.
Also, I just noticed that the addresses are discontiguous. Every now and
then they make a big jump.
> Lets face it, that was the whole point of the netscape project -- "I
> bet you we can create a bigger gorilla than those emacs boys ever
> did", "But they've got an entire language built into emacs", "Ha ha!
> We can do that! Twice! Ha ha ha!", "And a mail reader?", "Duh...".
Personally I never got Emacs. Most UNIX projects I hear about sound cool
from a distance, then if when I actually try to use them myself they leave a
lot to be desired. Like any of the Linux GUIs, for instance. But Emacs,
well, that sounds stupid from any distance.
It's a text editor where the author didn't know when to quit. Now it's an
IDE for C, C++ and Perl, a word processor, a source control client, an
e-mail client, a news client, a programming language, a file manager, and
god knows what else. Now that's just STUPID. Yesterday I thumbed through
an O'Reilly book about it at the bookstore, hoping against hope that I'd
somehow see the Blinding Rightness of it all, but I went away more repulsed
then ever.
Navigator at least sounded cool in the beginning. It was the Internet's
"killer app," the one that caused everybody to jump on the bandwagon. So I
don't think it's quite in the same league as Emacs. And it may yet rise
again in the form of Mozilla.
Eazel is another example. It sounds really cool from what I've heard of it
so far. They've got all those Mac people working on it so hopefully it
won't be as butt-ugly as all the other Linux GUIs. So actually I hope it is
NOT yet another example, and that I don't find it underwhelming when I
actually get my hands on it. But I'm not holding my breath.
I'm trying really hard to get on the UNIX wavelength because, let's face it,
by continuing to use and develop with Microsoft products, I'm a tool of
Satan. But geez, those old UNIX geeks are not making it easy for me.
Adam Sjøgren
> xscreensaver?
No.
> Helpful Hint: This is the part where you tell us.
Wouldn't that be spoiling the fun?
Anyway "file" says that it's a stream. There, spoiled.
Best wishes,
--
"The sun is beginning to shine on me Adam Sjøgren
But it's not like the sun that used to be" as...@koldfront.dk
Adam Sjøgren
> Also, I just noticed that the addresses are discontiguous. Every
> now and then they make a big jump.
Ahh, I hadn't noticed. That accounts for the skipping.
Marielle Fois
> Personally I never got Emacs. Most UNIX projects I hear about sound cool
> from a distance, then if when I actually try to use them myself they leave a
> lot to be desired. Like any of the Linux GUIs, for instance. But Emacs,
> well, that sounds stupid from any distance.
I beg your pardon? Emacs is one of the most powerful applications I
have ever used, and it allows you to do things almost as fast as you
think them. Do you write your code in Word? Just joking, but I've
seen people doing it. I have fought with many who think like you, and
it is always the same, you don't want to learn. It is very easy for
them to critic and laugh at emacs, but I always leave them with their
mouths open when they see what emacs lets me do.
Use emacs or xemacs, take your time, and you will not regret. Don't
throw it away because your are throwing away a relic. A lot for your
brain.
> I'm trying really hard to get on the UNIX wavelength because, let's face it,
> by continuing to use and develop with Microsoft products, I'm a tool of
> Satan. But geez, those old UNIX geeks are not making it easy for me.
That's what you think now, but when you'll learn to use (x)emacs, you
will think: "But geez, those old unix geeks are making it so easy for
me."
Regards,
Marielle
Johnny Favorite (it means "Morbidly obese or just big-boned?")
> I beg your pardon? Emacs is one of the most powerful applications I
> have ever used, and it allows you to do things almost as fast as you
> think them. Do you write your code in Word?
No, I don't, and my point is: Why would I WANT to?
How can it possibly make sense to bundle up all those disparate purposes in
one program? As a programmer I know the way to make something faster, more
streamlined, easier to maintain, and make more sense is to take as much
stuff OUT as possible. The trick is not to get sentimental about code
you've already got. If it's not needed anymore, toss it out!
Emacs seems to fly in the face of that accepted bit of wisdom. It's like
they're trying to create an entire operating system in what used to be a
text editor.
dbt
And you say this is a BAD thing?
--
David Terrell | "Instead of plodding through the equivalent of
Prime Minister, NebCorp | literary Xanax, the pregeeks go for sci-fi and
d...@meat.net | fantasy: LSD in book form." - Benjy Feen,
http://wwn.nebcorp.com | http://www.monkeybagel.com/ "Origins of Sysadmins"
Bill Lindemann
> edoua...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > <Smacks forehead>
> >
> > Those numbers aren't hex, they're octal. It's about 100K into
> > the file...
>
> Yes, I suppose they must be. There are no digits greater than seven. But
> that hardly seems fair, addresses in octal and bytes in hex.
That is and always has been what 'od' on UNIX spits out if you ask
for hex. Originally, I believe, both addresses and data were in octal
and you had no choice (thus the program name -- Octal Dump).
-Bill
Chris Sorenson
> Learn how to write Makefiles (that one is
> actually nessessary), and you're away laughing....
Actually, if you use automake you say goodbye forever to hacking in
makefiles ... :)
http://www.fsf.org/software/automake
Marielle Fois
> Emacs seems to fly in the face of that accepted bit of wisdom. It's like
> they're trying to create an entire operating system in what used to be a
> text editor.
And I've seen people who enter their unix account and use almost only
emacs. Read mail, emacs. Browse the web, emacs. FTP, emacs. Compile,
emacs. Shell, emacs. And it works, and you can take advantage of
having everything in the same system, that all the information is in
buffers and you can play between buffers as much as you want, that
the commands work anywhere you are, that you can customize emacs'
behaviour at your wish.
I have programmed in a very bad situation, being forced to log in a
unix account with almost no disk space assigned to me, with no mail
application, but I had emacs. And I could use emacs for my mail, and
store my files in another account and work with them through ftp. And
only with emacs I could get the work done. What you have said is just
unfair.
Marielle
edoua...@my-deja.com
> edo...@cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote:
>
> > It's about 3 million bytes into the file though -- check
> > out the hex numbers down the left. Probably Netscape for
> > a file that big. Or maybe
> > emacs.
>
> Also, I just noticed that the addresses are discontiguous.
> Every now and then they make a big jump.
<Smacks forehead>
Those numbers aren't hex, they're octal. It's about 100K into the file...
> Personally I never got Emacs. Most UNIX projects I hear
> about sound cool from a distance, then if when I actually
> try to use them myself they leave a lot to be desired. Like
> any of the Linux GUIs, for instance. But Emacs,
> well, that sounds stupid from any distance.
Actually I kindof like Helix Gnome. KDE I find ugly though. But it works
well. Ex-windows users generally end up using it very happily.
> It's a text editor where the author didn't know when to quit.
> Now it's an IDE for C, C++ and Perl, a word processor, a
> source control client, an e-mail client, a news client, a
> programming language, a file manager, and god knows what
> else. Now that's just STUPID.
That's what hackers want. That's why Visual Studio 6 is the beast it is.
The problem is that the average user doesn't much want that amount of
crap in their products. They put up with it because there isn't any other
choice. They have to use Word at work, or it comes pre-installed at home.
All programmers should be made to do user-testing on ordinary users just
to get some idea of what a pigs breakfast they make of most UI issues.
www.asktog.com should also be mandatory reading too...
I use vi (well, gvim) -- it doesn't have a mail reader built-in, it just
does everything one needs for programming. I have nothing against emacs
users though. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
> Navigator at least sounded cool in the beginning. It was
> the Internet's "killer app," the one that caused everybody
> to jump on the bandwagon. So I don't think it's quite in
> the same league as Emacs. And it may yet rise again in
> the form of Mozilla.
The original browser was the killer app of the '90s. Then it got
everything else bolted onto it. And MS started to compete. Frankly I
think HTML was the problem -- lets hack interactivity into HTML by bolt-
on javascript inside comments. Again, only a hacker would think of a
solution that ugly. And that would be fine if it was only used by
hackers. But it's not. Tog has a good article on that too: http://
www.asktog.com/columns/028WebStealers.html
> Eazel is another example. It sounds really cool from what
> I've heard of it so far. They've got all those Mac people
> working on it so hopefully it won't be as butt-ugly as all
> the other Linux GUIs. So actually I hope it is
> NOT yet another example, and that I don't find it underwhelming
> when I actually get my hands on it. But I'm not holding my breath.
All the screenshots so far are looking unpleasent. At least they are
trying the component approach from the file browser up. It's been tried
before in the past and always failed, but that's no reason not to keep
trying. Eventually someone will get it right and we'll all be better off.
> I'm trying really hard to get on the UNIX wavelength because,
> let's face it, by continuing to use and develop with Microsoft
> products, I'm a tool of Satan. But geez, those old UNIX geeks
> are not making it easy for me.
Get a Linux box, start with a RedHat 6.2 installation, install Helix
Gnome. Try some programmers editors -- gvim and xemacs are UNIX hacker
favourites, but there are plenty of other ones that ex-Mac and Windows
users can relate to much easier -- nedit is a simple but good start.
Install DDD to do debugging. Learn how to write Makefiles (that one is
actually nessessary), and you're away laughing. GTK is a fine, if not-
too-complication GUI toolkit. It's easy with only a little bit of help.
Johnny Favorite (it means "Morbidly obese or just big-boned?")
> <Smacks forehead>
>
> Those numbers aren't hex, they're octal. It's about 100K into
> the file...
Yes, I suppose they must be. There are no digits greater than seven. But
that hardly seems fair, addresses in octal and bytes in hex.
>> I'm trying really hard to get on the UNIX wavelength because,
>> let's face it, by continuing to use and develop with Microsoft
>> products, I'm a tool of Satan. But geez, those old UNIX geeks
>> are not making it easy for me.
>
> Get a Linux box, start with a RedHat 6.2 installation, install Helix
> Gnome.
Tried it, really really really didn't like it. Linux is just perverse.
Nothing should ever have to be that hard for any reason. It's hard in
places where easy would have been simpler to implement.
No, I'm hoping I can make a go of BeOS. It has a UNIX-like file system,
shell, and utilities, including gcc and g++. It's not that difficult to set
up and the GUI is pretty. I think all Linux-heads are thick for not signing
on.
Johnny Favorite (it means "Morbidly obese or just big-boned?")
> And you say this is a BAD thing?
Oh, heavens no. Also, later this afternoon, I plan to run over my feet with
a lawn mower.
P.S.: Thanks for the cross-post! You're like a holy war instigator, right?
Does it pay much?
Robert P. Krajewski
Marielle Fois <im99...@nada.kth.se> wrote:
> And I've seen people who enter their unix account and use almost only
> emacs. Read mail, emacs. Browse the web, emacs. FTP, emacs. Compile,
> emacs. Shell, emacs. And it works, and you can take advantage of
> having everything in the same system, that all the information is in
> buffers and you can play between buffers as much as you want, that
> the commands work anywhere you are, that you can customize emacs'
> behaviour at your wish.
This is true, text-based applications built with Emacs (or really, whatever
Emacs itself is built with) can have the same consistency of use that a GUI
enforces in Windows and Mac applications have.
By the way, Emacs is not a "Unix program." The canonical version and the
perhaps the most powerful versions ran on the PDP-10 (ITS, Twenex) and the
Lisp Machine.
dbt
Some people describe it as a "labor of love."
:)
Johnny Favorite (it means "Morbidly obese or just big-boned?")
> Johnny Favorite wrote:
>> P.S.: Thanks for the cross-post! You're like a holy war instigator,
>> right? Does it pay much?
>
> Some people describe it as a "labor of love."
So, I wonder why they didn't bite? If there is really an alt.religion.emacs
then they are probably some of the most rabidly devoted people in the world.
I suppose they are giving me the benefit of the doubt, in my ignorance.
Lars Balker Rasmussen
> So, I wonder why they didn't bite? If there is really an alt.religion.emacs
> then they are probably some of the most rabidly devoted people in the world.
> I suppose they are giving me the benefit of the doubt, in my ignorance.
We're just playing "ignore the heathen".
Damn, I lost!
--
Lars Balker Rasmussen "Woo hoo!?"
Johnny Favorite (it means "Morbidly obese or just big-boned?")
> We're just playing "ignore the heathen".
>
> Damn, I lost!
Well, you'll love this then:
> The importance of compilers was one reason I chose to license Linux under
> the GNU Public License (GPL). The GPL was the license for the GCC
> compiler. I think that all the other projects from the GNU group are
> are for Linux insignificant in comparison. GCC is the only one that I
> really care about. A number of them I hate with a passion; the Emacs
> editor is horrible, for example. While Linux is larger than Emacs,
> at least Linux has the excuse that it needs to be.
Wow! What sort of Philistine could have written THAT? Why, it's none other
than Linus Torvalds, from an essay called "The Linux Edge," taken from a
book called "OpenSources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution," edited by
Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, O'Reilly, 1999.
Lars Balker Rasmussen
> than Linus Torvalds,
So? All religions have holy men, but they're seldomly shared among
religions.
But this is small change for Linus. He'll burn in hell for his
C-style alone.
Marielle Fois
> > The importance of compilers was one reason I chose to license Linux under
> > the GNU Public License (GPL). The GPL was the license for the GCC
> > compiler. I think that all the other projects from the GNU group are
> > are for Linux insignificant in comparison. GCC is the only one that I
> > really care about. A number of them I hate with a passion; the Emacs
> > editor is horrible, for example. While Linux is larger than Emacs,
> > at least Linux has the excuse that it needs to be.
>
> Wow! What sort of Philistine could have written THAT? Why, it's none other
> than Linus Torvalds, from an essay called "The Linux Edge," taken from a
> book called "OpenSources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution," edited by
> Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, O'Reilly, 1999.
Have you read this?
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-06/lw-06-vcontrol_1.html
Maybe you'll find a guide to what to use to program under linux, at
least. I still don't know what you meant with the above, I like Linus
Torvalds but that doesn't mean that if he hates emacs I will do so
too. Larger or smaller, it is the best thing I have ever used that
can edit my files.
Regards,
Marielle
Johnny Favorite (it means "Morbidly obese or just big-boned?")
involved any flying spittle. Not terrible, especially considering it's the
weekend, but it doesn't exactly qualify me to go out and have a Troll Man
cape made, does it? I'm disappointed.
Maybe if I'd actually cared more. I don't like Emacs myself but I couldn't
really care less if other people use it. And it is at least in the right
ballpark, it's not Windows we're talking about, after all.
I'm a little further into the OpenSources book, to an essay by Tom Paquin
and some other mozilla.org people about what a bold, daring, racy, edgy move
it was to release the Communicator source code, and because Netscape was
such a great pioneering shining beacon of all that is right and good, how
could you really expect any less from them? I bet his arm has since fallen
off from patting himself on the back so hard.
To add insult to injury he credits the Mozilla name to one "Jamie Zawinsky."
Of course, nowhere in the essay does he mention that IT DIDN'T WORK.
Netscape was crushed by a big bad closed-source competitor, and Mozilla
itself has so far been no more successful. It's like, what, two years now
and they've got nothing but mildly interesting betas.
Nix
(Linus Torvalds wrote, once upon a time:)
> > I think that all the other projects from the GNU group are
> > are for Linux insignificant in comparison. GCC is the only one that I
> > really care about. A number of them I hate with a passion; the Emacs
> > editor is horrible, for example.
>
> Wow! What sort of Philistine could have written THAT? Why, it's none other
> than Linus Torvalds
Yes, and what's ironic is that a *lot* of regular GCC contributors use
Emacs. I wouldn't venture to say `most of them', but a large proportion
use Emacs-based mail or news reading tools to read the GCC mailing
lists, so it a fair guess that they hack GCC with it too :)
--
`I am of the belief that catnip arrived on the planet in the same spaceship
that delivered cats. It is the only thing they have from their home
planet. Tuna, chicken, sparrow-brains, etc., these are all things of our
world that they like, but catnip is crack from home.' --- Bill Cole
Andrew Ducker
big-boned?")) wrote in <8n6tqh$8...@dispatch.concentric.net>:
>Maybe if I'd actually cared more. I don't like Emacs myself but I
>couldn't really care less if other people use it. And it is at least in
>the right ballpark, it's not Windows we're talking about, after all.
I like Windows.
:->
Andy D
Marielle Fois
> Of course, nowhere in the essay does he mention that IT DIDN'T WORK.
> Netscape was crushed by a big bad closed-source competitor, and Mozilla
> itself has so far been no more successful. It's like, what, two years now
> and they've got nothing but mildly interesting betas.
As far as I remember, what you wanted at the beginning was to change
to a unix system, but you were complaining of the editors, and of
linux. I thought you were seeking for something usable. But what you
really wanted was to lead an old fight.
I don't know the others, but I think it would be a shame to do of
this newsgroup a place to discuss what the open source achieves or
stops achieving. I just wonder if this is the right place.
Marielle
Johnny Favorite (it means "Morbidly obese or just big-boned?")
> As far as I remember, what you wanted at the beginning was to change
> to a unix system, but you were complaining of the editors, and of
> linux. I thought you were seeking for something usable. But what you
> really wanted was to lead an old fight.
Will you for god's sakes SHUT UP ALREADY? And stop e-mailing me all your
replies, also. It's quite enough seeing them in the newsgroups.
Marielle Fois
Ha! This has ended up turning funny. I wonder who you think you are
to shout at me on that way. Don't bother replaying to this, I think
things have reached a point where further responses need a bit more
privacy. If you want to tell me something more, write me. If I
receive your apologizes maybe I will allow you in a future to date
me.
I sent you my replies because they are responses for you.
Marielle
Juliusz Chroboczek
In His great magnanimity, Emacs will tolerate it, and some day He
might bring true enlightenment to you.
(Emacs decided to restrict the followups.)
J.
Shyamal Prasad
"Johnny" writes:
>> license for the GCC compiler. I think that all the other
>> projects from the GNU group are are for Linux insignificant in
>> comparison. GCC is the only one that I really care about. A
>> number of them I hate with a passion; the Emacs editor is
>> horrible, for example. While Linux is larger than Emacs, at
>> least Linux has the excuse that it needs to be.
Johnny> Wow! What sort of Philistine could have written THAT?
Johnny> Why, it's none other than Linus Torvalds, from an essay
Damn! He isn't as smart as I thought he was....
;-)
--
Shyamal Prasad
The views expressed above are mine, not that of Ericsson.
Andrew Ducker
<dh3itt2...@remote.dcs.ed.ac.uk>:
>AD> I like Windows.
>
>In His great magnanimity, Emacs will tolerate it, and some day He
>might bring true enlightenment to you.
Hurrah!
When is Emacs going Wysiwyg, btw?
Andy D
Lars Balker Rasmussen
> When is Emacs going Wysiwyg, btw?
Why should It? As it is, you're getting far more than you see.
Alex Schroeder
> When is Emacs going Wysiwyg, btw?
It is! He is! The Mighty Emacs is WYSIWYG -- can you hear Emacs?
No, just a beep. Can you feel Emacs? No, just the keyboard. But can
you see what you got? Of course!
Andrew Ducker
<wkd7j9l...@balker.org>:
>And...@ducker.org.uk (Andrew Ducker) writes:
>> When is Emacs going Wysiwyg, btw?
>
>Why should It? As it is, you're getting far more than you see.
I can't believe someone actually replied to that.
Andy D
Per Abrahamsen
> Wow! What sort of Philistine could have written THAT? Why, it's none other
> than Linus Torvalds, from an essay called "The Linux Edge," taken from a
Linus is an interesting case. He like to think of himself as an
anti-Emacs bigot, for purely philosophical reasons. Yet, the editor
he uses himself is Emacs, in one of its lesser incarnations. He would
like to use vi, again for purely philosophical reasons, but in practice
it simply sucks too much. In order to be productive, he has to use an
emacs (if not the Emacs) for editing.
It shows how we Emacs zealots can afford to be passive, the Truth is
on our side, and will prevail in the end.
Kai Großjohann
> Yet, the editor he uses himself is Emacs, in one of its lesser
> incarnations.
What does he (Linus) use?
kai
--
I like BOTH kinds of music.
Jean-Philippe Theberge
> On 16 Aug 2000, Per Abrahamsen wrote:
>
> > Yet, the editor he uses himself is Emacs, in one of its lesser
> > incarnations.
>
> What does he (Linus) use?
MicroEmacs
-jp
Alex Schroeder
> On 16 Aug 2000, Per Abrahamsen wrote:
>
> > Yet, the editor he uses himself is Emacs, in one of its lesser
> > incarnations.
>
> What does he (Linus) use?
According to one of the links posted: micro emacs
Johnny Favorite
> Linus is an interesting case. He like to think of himself as an
> anti-Emacs bigot, for purely philosophical reasons. Yet, the editor
> he uses himself is Emacs, in one of its lesser incarnations. He would
> like to use vi, again for purely philosophical reasons, but in practice
> it simply sucks too much. In order to be productive, he has to use an
> emacs (if not the Emacs) for editing.
Let's see yer cite. I looked further up in the thread but if it's there I
couldn't find it.
Richard Hoskins
> And...@ducker.org.uk (Andrew Ducker) writes:
>
> > When is Emacs going Wysiwyg, btw?
>
> It is! He is! The Mighty Emacs is WYSIWYG -- can you hear Emacs?
> No, just a beep.
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/raman/emacspeak/emacspeak.html
--
party naked
Lars Balker Rasmussen
> Let's see yer cite. I looked further up in the thread but if it's there I
> couldn't find it.
Look further, heathing.
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-06/lw-06-vcontrol_1.html
Alex Schroeder
> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/raman/emacspeak/emacspeak.html
Wow, the 708k pic takes like 5 min to download...
--
http://www.geocities.com/kensanata/emacs.html
Alex Schroeder
> Alex Schroeder <a...@bsiag.com> writes:
>
> > No, just a beep.
>
> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/raman/emacspeak/emacspeak.html
Should I try and install it? Would be interesting, somehow I can't
believe that it really works. Call me an unbeliever if you want.
Jean-Philippe Theberge
> Richard Hoskins <rhos...@apk.net> writes:
>
> > Alex Schroeder <a...@bsiag.com> writes:
> >
> > > No, just a beep.
> >
> > http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/raman/emacspeak/emacspeak.html
>
> Should I try and install it? Would be interesting, somehow I can't
> believe that it really works. Call me an unbeliever if you want.
>
> Alex.
I tried installing it but you also need to install IBM via voice, a
commercial package and I can't find a linux demo.
Someone have this?
-jp