Thanks, Frank, but dmesg doesn't seem to show everything that happens at boot. specifically, mine stops after the entry showing eth0 is active. My initialization scripts run after that. But I did notice that RH 7.3 lists an option during the boot process to hit "I" to enter an "interactive mode". I did this, and then it allows me to step through. Using this, I could see the message, and detemined the script I copied in didn't have the executable bit set for it. I fixed this. Now the script runs and doesn't log anything. But vnc still isn't running when the box comes up. Any suggestions as to next step? Thanks! >From: Frank Mandato >As root run dmesg from the command line, that will give you all >the info >when you boot your system. You might want to use dmesg -less so >that you >can read it one screen at a time. >FrankM >On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 08:42, Scott Henderson wrote: > Downloaded the latest vnc, running it on RH 7.3. I can run the > "vncserver" script from the command line and it works, but when > trying to run it at boot, it fails. I can't find anything in > logs about a problem, but as I watch the scroll-by during boot, I > catch some long complicated error string, something to do with > permissions. I can't find any permissions problem. Anyone seen > this, or have a suggestion how I can freeze the screen to read > this message? Thanks! > > ----------------------------- > Tired of Microsoft Windows? > Visit http://www.lycoris.com! > > ________________________________________________ > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail. > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:01:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Alexander To: PLUG-AZ Subject: Linux and other online training courses Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us A coworker of mine found a site that has some pretty good online training courses. He's been going through the Linux courses and they're pretty good. There's also courses on quite a few other computer topics. Go here: http://mvulearning.mivu.org/e/eAccount/eAccountCreate.html Create an account (you just need a valid email address) and you're on your way. ~M --__--__-- Message: 5 From: slr To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us, geneous@bigfoot.com Subject: Re: That 2-headed (monster), err install, last Saturday Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:12:37 -0700 Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us On Monday 01 July 2002 06:49 pm, geneous@bigfoot.com wrote: > My first attempt at RPMing 1.0.8 called for .lib dependies. Two > itertions later RPM was satisfied with the collection of 5 or 6 .rpms I > downloaded from the ximian site. ok, it sounds like you handled the deps issue correctly. > I tried the debug run as suggested. Unfortunately, the times it got > as far as bringing up the main window, it instantly gave me this > message in the shell: > evolution-shell-WARNING **: CORBA exception > IDL:GNOME/Evolution/Shell/InvalidURI:1.0 when requesting URI -- > debug=tmp/evolve4.log is this a type-o in the email or did you forget the / in front of tmp --debug=tmp/evolve4.log ? this could be why there was no debug info file created. the path should be --debug=/tmp/evolve4.log. i havent personally this option, but you have to create an empty file first, as i do not know if the --debug option will create the file specified. i know i asked you not to run evolution as root, for debug reasons. because we wanted to see why evolution was failing for your user. but i would like to see if evolution will run as root, and if it does start as root then there may be a permission issue going on here. BTW your /home isnt a NFS share is it? slr --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:04:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Alexander To: PLUG-AZ Subject: Forum on Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for Maricopa County Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us Below is a message I received from the Deputy CIO of Maricopa County. I plan on attending and I hope many of you will let him know you're attending as well. ~M From: Paul Allsing - EGOVX You recently inquired about the County's use of Microsoft products and the manner in which we license their software. We appreciate your interest in the County's technology plans. To provide a forum in which to discuss our technology direction and address any questions you may have, we will have Information Technology staff members available to meet with citizens at 8:30 am on Monday July 8th. The meeting location will be the County Administration Building at 301 W. Jefferson in Suite 420. Please RSVP your attendance so we can ensure that adequate facilities are available for the meeting. Thank you for your inquiry, Paul Allsing Deputy CIO Maricopa County 301 W Jefferson, Suite 420 Phoenix, AZ 85003 --__--__-- Message: 7 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 10:23:49 -0700 To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us From: "Kimi A. Adams" Subject: Fwd: Forum to discuss and answer questions on Enterprise Agreement Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us --=====================_8499557==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Okay, here is an answer to my questions about a public forum and the approval of the Enterprise Agreement. PLAN TO BE THERE!!!! If you can attend, please RSVP to PAllsing@mail.maricopa.gov with your name. Thanks. Kimi A. Adams, V.P. Unity Wave, L.L.C. 602-375-5363 >Delivered-To: kimi@unitywave.com >From: Paul Allsing - EGOVX >To: "'kimi@unitywave.com'" >Subject: Forum to discuss and answer questions on Enterprise Agreement >Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:51:21 -0700 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) > >You recently inquired about the County's use of Microsoft products and the >manner in which we license their software. We appreciate your interest in >the County's technology plans. To provide a forum in which to discuss our >technology direction and address any questions you may have, we will have >Information Technology staff members available to meet with citizens at >8:30 am on Monday July 8th. The meeting location will be the County >Administration Building at 301 W. Jefferson in Suite 420. Please RSVP >your attendance so we can ensure that adequate facilities are available >for the meeting. > >Thank you for your inquiry, >Paul Allsing >Deputy CIO >Maricopa County >301 W Jefferson, Suite 420 >Phoenix, AZ 85003 --=====================_8499557==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Okay, here is an answer to my questions about a public forum and the approval of the Enterprise Agreement.

PLAN TO BE THERE!!!!  If you can attend, please RSVP to PAllsing@mail.maricopa.gov with your name.

Thanks.

Kimi A. Adams, V.P.
Unity Wave, L.L.C.
602-375-5363


Delivered-To: kimi@unitywave.com
From: Paul Allsing - EGOVX <PAllsing@mail.maricopa.gov>
To: "'kimi@unitywave.com'" <kimi@unitywave.com>
Subject: Forum to discuss and answer questions on Enterprise Agreement
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:51:21 -0700
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)

You recently inquired about the County's use of Microsoft products and the manner in which we license their software.  We appreciate your interest in the County's technology plans.  To provide a forum in which to discuss our technology direction and address any questions you may have, we will have Information Technology staff members available to meet with citizens at 8:30 am on Monday July 8th.  The meeting location will be the County Administration Building at 301 W. Jefferson in Suite 420.  Please RSVP your attendance so we can ensure that adequate facilities are available for the meeting.

Thank you for your inquiry,
Paul Allsing
Deputy CIO
Maricopa County
301 W Jefferson, Suite 420
Phoenix, AZ 85003
--=====================_8499557==_.ALT-- --__--__-- Message: 8 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 10:50:41 -0700 To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us From: "Kimi A. Adams" Subject: Fwd: Forum to discuss and answer questions on Enterprise Agreement Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us --=====================_10111764==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Okay, here is an answer to my questions about a public forum and the approval of the Enterprise Agreement. PLAN TO BE THERE!!!! If you can attend, please RSVP to PAllsing@mail.maricopa.gov with your name. Thanks. Kimi A. Adams, V.P. Unity Wave, L.L.C. 602-375-5363 >Delivered-To: kimi@unitywave.com >From: Paul Allsing - EGOVX >To: "'kimi@unitywave.com'" >Subject: Forum to discuss and answer questions on Enterprise Agreement >Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:51:21 -0700 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) > >You recently inquired about the County's use of Microsoft products and the >manner in which we license their software. We appreciate your interest in >the County's technology plans. To provide a forum in which to discuss our >technology direction and address any questions you may have, we will have >Information Technology staff members available to meet with citizens at >8:30 am on Monday July 8th. The meeting location will be the County >Administration Building at 301 W. Jefferson in Suite 420. Please RSVP >your attendance so we can ensure that adequate facilities are available >for the meeting. > >Thank you for your inquiry, >Paul Allsing >Deputy CIO >Maricopa County >301 W Jefferson, Suite 420 >Phoenix, AZ 85003 --=====================_10111764==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Okay, here is an answer to my questions about a public forum and the approval of the Enterprise Agreement.

PLAN TO BE THERE!!!!  If you can attend, please RSVP to PAllsing@mail.maricopa.gov with your name.

Thanks.

Kimi A. Adams, V.P.
Unity Wave, L.L.C.
602-375-5363


Delivered-To: kimi@unitywave.com
From: Paul Allsing - EGOVX <PAllsing@mail.maricopa.gov>
To: "'kimi@unitywave.com'" <kimi@unitywave.com>
Subject: Forum to discuss and answer questions on Enterprise Agreement
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:51:21 -0700
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)

You recently inquired about the County's use of Microsoft products and the manner in which we license their software.  We appreciate your interest in the County's technology plans.  To provide a forum in which to discuss our technology direction and address any questions you may have, we will have Information Technology staff members available to meet with citizens at 8:30 am on Monday July 8th.  The meeting location will be the County Administration Building at 301 W. Jefferson in Suite 420.  Please RSVP your attendance so we can ensure that adequate facilities are available for the meeting.

Thank you for your inquiry,
Paul Allsing
Deputy CIO
Maricopa County
301 W Jefferson, Suite 420
Phoenix, AZ 85003
--=====================_10111764==_.ALT-- --__--__-- Message: 9 From: "tickticker" To: Subject: Re: Forum to discuss and answer questions on Enterprise Agreement Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:54:29 -0700 Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C221B6.D6D960D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I just rsvp'd. I'm going to drudge up some articles on some linux = implementations on the local government level and in school districts, = but not all of them. Any body attending might want to as well since my = research won't be long or thorough. If they are taking this seriously = then case studies could help. I'm sure this will be discussed ten = million times this weak. If positive things can happen here then we = become the case study for others. :-) anthony ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kimi A. Adams=20 To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us=20 Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:23 AM Subject: Fwd: Forum to discuss and answer questions on Enterprise = Agreement Okay, here is an answer to my questions about a public forum and the = approval of the Enterprise Agreement. PLAN TO BE THERE!!!! If you can attend, please RSVP to = PAllsing@mail.maricopa.gov with your name. Thanks. Kimi A. Adams, V.P. Unity Wave, L.L.C. 602-375-5363 Delivered-To: kimi@unitywave.com From: Paul Allsing - EGOVX To: "'kimi@unitywave.com'" Subject: Forum to discuss and answer questions on Enterprise = Agreement Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:51:21 -0700=20 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) You recently inquired about the County's use of Microsoft products = and the manner in which we license their software. We appreciate your = interest in the County's technology plans. To provide a forum in which = to discuss our technology direction and address any questions you may = have, we will have Information Technology staff members available to = meet with citizens at 8:30 am on Monday July 8th. The meeting location = will be the County Administration Building at 301 W. Jefferson in Suite = 420. Please RSVP your attendance so we can ensure that adequate = facilities are available for the meeting. Thank you for your inquiry,=20 Paul Allsing=20 Deputy CIO=20 Maricopa County=20 301 W Jefferson, Suite 420=20 Phoenix, AZ 85003=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C221B6.D6D960D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I just rsvp'd.  I'm going to = drudge up some=20 articles on some linux implementations on the local government level and = in=20 school districts, but not all of them.  Any body attending might = want to as=20 well since my research won't be long or thorough.  If they are = taking this=20 seriously then case studies could help. I'm sure this will be discussed = ten=20 million times this weak.  If positive things can happen here then = we become=20 the case study for others. :-)
 
anthony
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Kimi = A. Adams=20
To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.pho= enix.az.us=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 = 10:23=20 AM
Subject: Fwd: Forum to discuss = and answer=20 questions on Enterprise Agreement

Okay, here is an answer to my questions about a public = forum=20 and the approval of the Enterprise Agreement.

PLAN TO BE=20 THERE!!!!  If you can attend, please RSVP to PAllsing@mail.maricopa.gov= with=20 your name.

Thanks.

Kimi A. Adams, V.P.
Unity Wave,=20 L.L.C.
602-375-5363


Delivered-To: kimi@unitywave.com
From: = Paul=20 Allsing - EGOVX <PAllsing@mail.maricopa.gov= >
To:=20 "'kimi@unitywave.com'" <kimi@unitywave.com>
Subject: Forum = to=20 discuss and answer questions on Enterprise Agreement
Date: Tue, 2 = Jul=20 2002 09:51:21 -0700
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service=20 (5.5.2655.55)

You recently=20 inquired about the County's use of Microsoft products and the manner = in=20 which we license their software.  We appreciate your interest = in the=20 County's technology plans.  To provide a forum in which to = discuss our=20 technology direction and address any questions you may have, we will = have=20 Information Technology staff members available to meet with citizens = at 8:30=20 am on Monday July 8th.  The meeting location will be the County = Administration Building at 301 W. Jefferson in Suite 420.  = Please RSVP=20 your attendance so we can ensure that adequate facilities are = available for=20 the meeting.

Thank=20 you for your inquiry,
Paul Allsing
Deputy CIO
Maricopa County
301 W Jefferson, Suite 420
Phoenix, AZ 85003=20
------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C221B6.D6D960D0-- --__--__-- Message: 10 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 13:40:27 -0400 From: Seth Johnson Organization: Real Measures To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us, m@netpro.to Subject: On: By Maricopa County rules, Microsoft not Qualified for Government Contracts Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us (Forwarded from Committee for Independent Technology Community Discussion list, C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org) -------- Original Message -------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:22:23 -0400 From: Seth Johnson (A thread from the Law & Policy of Computer Communications list, CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM. Discussion touches on State and Federal jurisdiction regarding the Commerce and Contract Clauses, click- and shrinkwrap licenses, UCITA, and migration to GNU/Linux. -- Seth) > From: George Toft via > Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 14:27:50 -0400 > > [As I read MC1-902.B.3, Microsoft (a Person), having been > convicted of a violation of Federal Antitrust Statues, > cannot be a County Contractor.] (original message snipped. -- Seth) -------- Original Message -------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 08:55:07 -0700 From: Bruce Hayden Apparently my fair county of Maricopa would violate its city policy if it signed a pending Enterprise agreement with MS. No matter how nice this sounds, I would suspect that the reality is that the county is not going to switch to Macs. I am of two minds here. MS is a convicted monopolists. But my tax dollars are at issue here, and I would suspect that there is already a large installed base of MS software in county offices. -------- Original Message -------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:34:34 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" Bruce Hayden writes: : Apparently my fair county of Maricopa would violate : its city policy if it signed a pending Enterprise : agreement with MS. : : No matter how nice this sounds, I would suspect that : the reality is that the county is not going to : switch to Macs. I am of two minds here. MS is a : convicted monopolists. But my tax dollars are at : issue here, and I would suspect that there is : already a large installed base of MS software in : county offices. Surely the solution is not to switch to Apple, but rather to Linux. The old installed base, which has been paid for, can be used as long as people want it. If for some reason it should become necessary to run Windows applications on Linux boxes I understand that WINE is getting pretty good and there is always Lindows. In the few cases where Windows is a necessity, Windows boxes can be purchased from an independent vendor like Dell, so the county would not be contracting with Microsoft, or copies of the software could be purchased directly from CompUSA or some such retailer. The biggest problem might well be finding a source of new computers that do not come pre-loaded with MSWindows. But the county can always avoid the Microsoft Tax by buying computers from Walmart and Dell will supply servers that are pre-loaded with RedHat Linux. The county would make the perfect plaintiff in an action to establish that when it acquired title to a computer, including copies of Microsoft's software from Dell or some other third party, it is not bound by Microsoft's purported ``clickwrap'' license agreement. An issue that, by the way, is purely a matter of state law. -------- Original Message -------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:11:21 -0400 From: John Noble At 1:34 PM -0400 6/18/02, Peter D. Junger wrote: >The county would make the perfect plaintiff in an >action to establish that when it acquired title to >a computer, including copies of Microsoft's >software from Dell or some other third party, it >is not bound by Microsoft's purported ``clickwrap'' >license agreement. An issue that, by the way, is >purely a matter of state law. Almost nothing is purely a matter of state law anymore. This case would raise dormant Commerce Clause and Contract Clause issues. And generally speaking, the Contract Clause scrutiny gets much more intense when it is a state or local government that is relying on state law to alter or avoid its ostensible legal obligations. -------- Original Message -------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:36:49 -0700 From: Drew Lehman - DigitaEye Designs >No matter how nice this sounds, I would suspect that >the reality is that the county is not going to switch >to Macs. I am of two minds here. MS is a convicted >monopolists. But my tax dollars are at issue here, >and I would suspect that there is already a large >installed base of MS software in county offices. Well, the easy way around this is to sign it for one more year, and in that time, begin migrating systems to non-MS platforms. They can even use Lindows! -------- Original Message -------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:59:52 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" John Noble writes: : At 1:34 PM -0400 6/18/02, Peter D. Junger wrote: : >The county would make the perfect plaintiff in an : >action to establish that when it acquired title : >to a computer, including copies of Microsoft's : >software from Dell or some other third party, it : >is not bound by Microsoft's purported : >``clickwrap'' license agreement. An issue that, : >by the way, is purely a matter of state law. : : Almost nothing is purely a matter of state law : anymore. This case would raise dormant Commerce : Clause and Contract Clause issues. And generally : speaking, the Contract Clause scrutiny gets much : more intense when it is a state or local : government that is relying on state law to alter : or avoid its ostensible legal obligations. Are you claiming that there is any law other than state law that governs the formation of contracts? It there is no contract, then there can't be a Contracts Clause problem. And how could the dormant Commerce Clause be awakened by a claim that in buying a computer from Dell or a CD from CompUSA one did not somehow enter into a Contract with one with whom one has no privity---like Microsoft? All the stupid and some not so stupid cases involving the validity of shrinkwrap and clickwrap agreements are federal cases, yet the issue is purely one of state law. It seems to me still that a state municipal corporation would be a very good plaintiff for a declaratory judgment in a state court; the only better one would be the State, itself; but procedurally it would seem rather odd for a state to seek such declaratory relief, nicht wahr? -------- Original Message -------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:08:55 -0400 From: John Noble At 2:59 PM -0400 6/18/02, Peter D. Junger wrote: >Are you claiming that there is any law other than >state law that governs the formation of contracts? >It there is no contract, then there can't be a >Contracts Clause problem. And how could the >dormant Commerce Clause be awakened by a claim >that in buying a computer from Dell or a CD from >CompUSA one did not somehow enter into a Contract >with one with whom one has no privity---like >Microsoft? > >All the stupid and some not so stupid cases >involving the validity of shrinkwrap and clickwrap >agreements are federal cases, yet the issue is >purely one of state law. It seems to me still >that a state municipal corporation would be a very >good plaintiff for a declaratory judgment in a >state court; the only better one would be the >State, itself; but procedurally it would seem >rather odd for a state to seek such declaratory >relief, nicht wahr? Wish I knew what 'nicht wahr' means. We agree on where contract law should be decided, but state law that "impairs" the enforcement of contracts in interstate commerce has to suggest Commerce Clause and Contract Clause arguments. I represent local governments in cases involving regulation of cable and telecom, and I regularly see arguments that franchise provisions -- traditionally a matter of state contract law -- violate the dormant Commerce Clause; and that local laws which alter or amend the obligations of franchisees violate the Contract Clause. A California "law" that imperils the nationwide mass-market distribution system that has evolved for software -- licenses terms imposed unilaterally -- would have significant collateral effects outside of the state. I'm not saying that it necessarily falls to a dormant Commerce Clause analysis, but it presents a tempting fucking target. The Contract Clause argument isn't as strong, but it's there. In any event, there is little question that Congress could preempt state law in this area, and I am afraid that the prospect of different rules in different states for shrinkwraps and clickwraps would persuade them to do exactly that. -------- Original Message -------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:09:50 -0700 From: Bruce Hayden With your Commerce Clause and Contract Clause points below, is there any way of using such arguments to invalidate UCITA laws passed by those few states? After all, the implementation of UCITA can arguably be seen as ex post facto changing the terms of software agreements - in particular taking shrink-wrap out of UCC II and making various terms that were arguably not enforceable now enforceable. John Noble wrote: > Wish I knew what 'nicht wahr' means. We agree on > where contract law should be decided, but state > law that "impairs" the enforcement of contracts in > interstate commerce has to suggest Commerce Clause > and Contract Clause arguments. I represent local > governments in cases involving regulation of cable > and telecom, and I regularly see arguments that > franchise provisions -- traditionally a matter of > state contract law -- violate the dormant Commerce > Clause; and that local laws which alter or amend > the obligations of franchisees violate the Contract > Clause. A California "law" that imperils the > nationwide mass-market distribution system that has > evolved for software -- licenses terms imposed > unilaterally -- would have significant collateral > effects outside of the state. I'm not saying that > it necessarily falls to a dormant Commerce Clause > analysis, but it presents a tempting fucking > target. The Contract Clause argument isn't as > strong, but it's there. In any event, there is > little question that Congress could preempt state > law in this area, and I am afraid that the prospect > of different rules in different states for > shrinkwraps and clickwraps would persuade them to > do exactly that. -------- Original Message -------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:01:06 -0400 From: John Noble Uniform codes probably undergird state law jurisdiction because they address the "patchwork of regulations" problem that is often pointed to in support of applying the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine to preempt local regulation. The Contract Clause argument might be invoked to protect pre-existing contract rights that were allegedly abrogated by enactment of UCITA, but wouldn't be a problem with respect to contracts/sales after enactment. At 2:09 PM -0700 6/18/02, Bruce Hayden wrote: >With your Commerce Clause and Contract Clause points >below, is there any way of using such arguments to >invalidate UCITA laws passed by those few states? >After all, the implementation of UCITA can arguably >be seen as ex post facto changing the terms of >software agreements - in particular taking shrink- >wrap out of UCC II and making various terms that >were arguably not enforceable now enforceable. ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@listserv.aol.com ********************************************************************** C-FIT Community Discussion List List Parent: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org C-FIT Home: http://RealMeasures.dyndns.org/C-FIT To Subscribe/Unsubscribe: ------------------------------------------------------------ Send "[Un]Subscribe C-FIT_Community" To Listserv@RealMeasures.dyndns.org --__--__-- _______________________________________________ PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss End of PLUG-discuss Digest ----------------------------- Tired of Microsoft Windows? Visit http://www.lycoris.com!