HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abuhr@ravl.rice.edu (Aaron Matthew Buhr)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: "Blame it on Windows"
Date: 13 Aug 1992 18:04:31 GMT
Organization: Rice University


    There's an interesting article in August 10 issue of Computer Reseller
News.  The article is entitled "Blame it on Windows."  Here are some 
quotes:  "Egghead Inc. last week blamed weaker-than-expected retail sales
of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows 3.1 for causing the software retailer's
fiscal first-quarter results to fall shy of expectations.
    "For its first quarter ended July 18, Egghead posted sales of 
$202 million, nearly $20 million below analysts' expectations." ... 
    "Egghead, Issaquah, Wash. attributed part of the shortfall to lower-
than-anticipated sales of Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft's Windows 3.1."
     It then goes on to say that part of the reason for the lower than 
expected demand is Microsoft's aggressive bundling practices.  I thought
the next quote was rather interesting:  "Jonathan Roberts, product manager
for Windows 3.1, said 'well over' 50 percent of the Windows 3.1 sold by
Microsoft is being bundled." !!!  That lends more credibility to the 
rumored "internal Microsoft" survey figures that in reality only about
30% of the copies of Windows sold are actually being used.


Aaron Buhr
abuhr@owlnet.rice.edu
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:02:32 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <SXMRP.13.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>Come on, every indication is that NT will be available in early 93.  Or maybe
>they could release a beta version in December of 92 without DOS or Windows
>16 or OS/2 1.3 support and just sell it as an LA release.  Then they could
>promise to have OS/2 2.0 support out in a month or two and delay it until 
>September.  :-o

....

>Remember, you were looking at a pre-beta release

So, when will the beta come out?  You said that there is 'every
indication" that NT will be available in "early '93".  I should hope
that they have all the features in beta form real soon or they're
going to end up releaseing a strip down form as an "LA" release.

Just to counter a few implications above:  IBM's LA release was not a
stripped down version.  It had every feature but seamless Windows.
And IBM never promised seamless Windows for the initial release.  On
the other hand, NT supporters here have been asserting (repeatedly,
with increasing fury) that NT will be available in its complete form
by the end of December (or January).

Again, maybe they can pull this off.  I don't know.  I'm not MS.  But
it doesn't seem likely from here.  Let's just wait and see.  If it
doesn't ship on time, we can all have some fun at MS Marketing's
expense.

-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:41:05 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug20.171233.20569@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>Why did microsoft stop making OS/2 apps for their flag ship
>applications?

      For the same reason Microsoft doesn't make applications for
the TRS-80.  The market was too small.  Yes, it is growing now - we'll
see if there are any OS/2 apps coming out of Redmond in a year or
so.  I don't rule out the possibility.


>Why did microsoft let os/2 development stall for 6-12 months
>until IBM decided that they better start their own tean lest
>the whole project dry up and blow away?

      Please show evidence to support this.


>Why does microsoft employ negative advertising against os/2,
>such as the windows apps time test?

      Because negative advertising works.


>Why is Steve Balmer so antagonistic towards OS/2?

     I don't know.  Maybe you should ask him?


>The only answer I can see is that a decision was made at the highest
>levels in microsoft to abandon the product.

      There was certainly a decision made to stop developing OS/2.
There was also a decision made to stop developing OS/2 apps.  I
don't know if I would call this abandoning the product (actually,
I probably would, but the negative connotation of the word 'abandon'
as it is being used here bothers me.)


>Why can't you just say that microsoft abandonded OS/2?

      Two reasons:  1)  It isn't strictly true.  2)  It would
give you too much satisfaction.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
Subject: Re: Number of users etc.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 07:37:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug14.105922.13684@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.235913.22546@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>> >And last but not least, is the number of NT betatesters (prerelease
>> >users) known? 
>> Microsoft just announced that 10,000 pre-release SDK's have been shipped.
>
>Do they send these to people who plan to use them? Or do they just pump them
>out to a mailing list? I get all sorts of guff coming across my desk from
>vendors trying to get me on board with respect to their products.....
> 
>Steve

I assume Microsoft sends out a few free NT kits for evaluation or to cerain
developers.  Mostly, though, Microsoft sends the pre-release SDKs to
people who buy them.  Also, people who go to MS development conferences
(who, presumably, plan to use them to do development) get them for free.

- Mike
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems
Date: 11 Aug 92 19:41:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <t#3m2rm.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:

[talk about remote login style networking deleted]

>So that more than one user can have kernel processes running on the big iron 
>that NT is going to run on. 
>
>Boy have MS done a good job brainwashing you into the belief that NT is the
>ONLY way to do things. Do you seriously think that people want to decicate
>large iron to users running purely client server. I am pretty sure they do not.
>
>Sometimes you make a little sense the rest of the time you make NONE. 
>
>Sorry to be harsh but to here this undiluted MS hype makes me realize that 
>there are still employees who will always tug the forlock and agree with the
>party line. 

Sticks and stones ...

I think you are missing the point here.  I don't believe that Pete is telling
us that remote processing is bad.  The whole architecture of NT seems to
me to concentrate on enabling exactly what you say, in a generic manner.

What Pete is saying (IMO) is that there are other, more interesting, ways to get
there from here.  Sure you can rlogin to a remote machine and execute your
processes there.  A distributed system would be much more interesting where
you log into the network and get transparent access to the remote machines
without having to rlogin to specific machines.  This mechanism wouldn't
involve connecting to a shell, but would be based on communicating processes.
You know, client/server.

People have said over and over that you can write a remote login function
if you want.  You don't consider it possible that MS could be working on
anything more advanced (taking a risk here!) than that?

-- Craig

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: OS/2 2.0 apps (was: I've seen NT...)
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:32:42 GMT

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> Once the OS/2 apps are available - and many already are - OS/2 will be the
> natural upgrade path for anyone who wants more than the rudimentary
> multi-tasking that Win3.1/DOS is able to provide.

This got me thinking ... where *ARE* all those OS/2 apps?  I dug up the list
I got from IBM in April, listing about 750 apps  and drivers that would be
available by second quarter of 1992 (never mind that I had never heard of
a vast majority of these apps or the companies...).

So, can someone point out whether some of these are actually out now that 
we're halfway into the third quarter?  I'll list some of the ones I actually
recognize from the 2Q92 list.  I've marked the ones I know are available
with a '*' in the first column...  (Oh, and OS/2 1.x apps don't count!)

APPS:
	Ant		Intermission
*	Borland		ObjectVision
	Brightbill	Hyperpad
	Corel		Corel DRAW!
*	Describe	Describe
	Faxgroup	Fax for OS/2
*	Hamilton	Hamilton C shell
	Imagesoft	Commonview
	Imara		File'n'Fax
	Ingres		Ingres
	Lotus		1-2-3/G
	Lotus		Freelance
	McAfee		Anti-virus
	Microformatic	FAX/PM
	Microway	NDP C/C++
	Microway	NDP Fortran
	Microway	NDP Pascal
	Oracle		Oracle
	Resicorp	Backup software
	SoftPert	AM/C++
*	Software Migr.	GNU C
	Spinnaker	PFS:Window Works
	Symantec	Zortech C++
*	Sytron		Sytos Plus
	VZ		Vizual C
*	Watcom		C/386
	Watcom		Fortran/386
	ZSoft		Publishers Paintbrush

DRIVERS:
	ALR		High-performance disk drivers
	AMI		SCSI drivers
	C&T		SuperVGA drivers
	C&T		8514 drivers
	Creative Labs	SoundBlaster driver
	Orchid		SuperVGA drivers
*	Trident		SuperVGA drivers

NETWORKS:
	Artisoft	LANtastic
	Banyan		VINES

How about it?  Has someone actually seen some of these?  (Oh yes, my main
OS/2 app is SAS, which is still a 1.x version...)

[ \tom haapanen    "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca                   "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software      "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: orville%weyrich@tnet.com (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: I've seen NT......and I'll take OS/2 2.0 thanks!
Reply-To: orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich)
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 09:32:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.194931.17023@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Aug15.142241.11149@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
>>If OS/2 supports Win3.1, then a good number of Windows 3.0 apps will no longer
>>run under Win-OS/2.......so it isn't a matter of deciding whether or not to
>>cut a finger off....it's WHICH ONE do you cut off.
>
>I've seen this claim made before.  I guess my question is why that is
>the case.  After all, WIN-OS2 will run Windows 2.X and 1.X, won't it?
>So why should it suddenly lose the ability to run Windows 3.0 just
>because it gains the ability to run Windows 3.1?

Best ask that question to MicroSoft -- they are the ones that produced
Windows 3.1 which will not run a number of programs that ran under Windows
3.0. (They eliminated UAE's though -- did they do that banning the execution
of "inconvenient" programs? I don't know).

Orville 
(proud owner of MS-Windows 3.0 "shelfware" and OS/2 2.0 "installedware")


--------------------------------------       **********************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                          Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                       POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                      Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer                Internet: orville%weyrich@tnet.com
--------------------------------------       **********************************
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca (Pat Duffy)
Subject: Re: Hands up! Who has deleted WinOS2?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:55:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.115216.21898@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.125406.2906@csc.ti.com> jdailey@dadd.ti.com writes:
>>
>> I have you both beat--I never installed WINOS2 at all!  I'm sure MS got some cash
>> for it even though it has never seen (and never will see) the light of day on
>> my computer (like 50% or more of the Win 3.0 and 3.1 "sales").
>> ---
>> Jim  jdailey@dadd.ti.com
>
>The company I work for sells PCs with MS software (Windows), bundled. A
>reasonable proportion of users only want the PC and make very limited use of
>the Windows software. They don't actually delete it in most cases. They just
>don't really USE it either. That isn't because they don't like it
>necessarily.....they just avoid it......
> 
>I am surprised by the number of people who find multitasking concurrently a
>conceptually challenging thing. They just want to do one thing at a time......
> 
>Nothing wrong with that at all.....but it proves there is still a market for
>the XT and DOS 3.3.
> 
>Steve
>
I find it surprising that friends of mine who have Win/3 on their 386-33/4MB
find it too _fast_ and don't want to upgrade to Win/3.1.  Anybody else know
people like this?
-- 
Patrick Duffy, duffy@theory.chem.ubc.ca 

May our nation continue to be the beakon of hope to the world.
                -- The Quayle's 1989 Christmas card. 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:18:32 GMT

In article <SXMRP.13.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
> 
> >Or you can run OS/2 2.0 on a 386sx/20MHz with 6 megs of RAM.
> > 
> >I saw NT today. *BOW WOW* If that's a desktop system, then MVS/XA is the next
> >step for the desktop!
> > 
> 
> Remember, you were looking at a pre-beta release
> 

Mike, I'm going by what the presenter said. He said - I wrote it down - you
*will* need a 486/33 with a minimum of 8megs just to run, 16megs if you want
to get any work done. he said that NT was NOT for the desktop,it is for a 
niche market. He said that the people who will be using NT will be the sort
of people who do not have hardware restrictions ( like home users have). The
presenter made it very clear that NT was NOT competition for Windows 3.1. He
*stressed* these points.
 
I have no reason to assume he was lying.
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: is NT really NEW technology?
From: jstewart@desire.wright.edu
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:28:34 EST
 <1992Aug14.193408.5614@novell.com> <1992Aug14.204102.17817@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: Wright State University 

> Over most Unix:
	...
> 	C2 level security.
> 	Base package contains peer-to-peer file and printer sharing.
> 	Global (i.e. combined I/O and VM) cache.
> 	Majority of kernel code pageable.
> 	Support for PC networks such as Novell, Banyan Vines.
> 	Remote booting.
> 	Remote installation and maintenance.
> 	Access Control Lists. *
> 	Internationalization support. *
> 
> * Repeated from above, but in the general case.
> 
> If you claim that I'm wrong about the list above and want to respond
> please restrict yourself to ONE existing, named, commercial version of
> Unix per message.
> 
> Brian
	Hmmm I could be wrong, but from cursory browsing of the Orange Book it
seems that a C2 rating can only be given to a combination of HW and SW and that
it takes quite a while to get.  So this is either a blatent lie or a gross
misinterpretation.

					John Stewart
From: bgm@cray.com (Bert Moshier)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM wouldn't pull support for OS/2, would it?
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:57:42 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1992Aug12.104654.1880@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen) writes:
>dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>: In article <1992Aug06.160209.9195@microsoft.com> gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>: 
>: It's a moot point.  Do you know ANYONE who was hurt by IBM's dropping
>: TopView?  Every company I know of didn't use it for anything more than
>: a curiosity - just like Windows 1.0.
>: -- 
>
>Hell Microsoft dropped Windows 1.0,2.x,and 3.0 and IBM dropped OS/2 1.3.
>
>All good things must come to en end or be superseded, but not before their
>time as MS did with OS/2.
>

When did IBM drop OS/2 1.3 support?  I'm still getting it.

Bert.
From: "robert fielder" <robert.fielder@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: ms gave up on os/2?
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:45:24 EST
Reply-To: "robert fielder" <robert.fielder@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems


BD>I'd call actively removing  support for OS/2 from  the C compiler to  be
BD>abandonment of OS/2,  wouldn't you? And  Bill Gates has  publicly stated
BD>that MS will  _not_ be developing  OS/2 apps, come  hell, high water  or
BD>snowdrift, unless two million copies are sold.

Bill:

Isn't Gates the guy who said the Microsoft would write for OS/2 as
soon as it sold enough copies?

I have to wonder why anyone give this guy any credibility....

Robert

Entered on Wed  08-19-1992  21:17:05 from Brampton, Ontario, Canada
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #502  VMS++ == WNT
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: OS count, anyone?
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:43:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.155156.1466@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <BsL2Jo.3LH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mrspook@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (John Snook) writes:
>>
>>	So. How many OS's are coming out? New ones out? What the (expletive) is
>>DesqviewX, really?
>
>Let's see here.  Currently released OS's out are:
>    MS-DOS 5.0  (with or without Windows 3.1)
>    OS/2 2.0
>    OS/2 1.3 (it can still be gotten - for all you '286 owners who
>              want to use 16-bit PM apps)
>    Unix (many dialects from various companies)
>    Mach (with it's BSD unix kernel)
>
>"Coming soon" OS's:
>    Solaris (Sun-OS Unix for the 386)
>    MS-Windows NT
>    MS-DOS 6.0
>    NeXT Step

	There's DR-DOS.  It's just another DOS, though.

	There's GeoWorks, a small-scale Windows-like DOS extender.  Runs
better than Windows on slower machines.  Doesn't scale up as well, and
as far as I know only the original company can develop apps.

	I heard a long time ago about an operating system called TSX-32,
from S&H Computer Systems.  I don't know if it's still around.

	Real-time multi-tasking OS'es mainly for vertical systems:
OS-9000, QNX, Flex-OS, iRMX.

	There's a multi-user DOS whose name I can't remember.

	There are two *free* Unix OS'es, linux and 386BSD.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: bill.dehaan@canrem.com (bill dehaan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: hasta la vista, os/2
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:00:36 GMT
Reply-To: "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

In message <1992Aug17.143806.10701@umbc3.umbc.edu>,
cs611a10@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs611a10) writes:

CS>   Lets take a poll:
CS>        How many people have had OS/2 CRASH and TRASH??

[hand up]

CS>        How many people have had Windows CRASH and TRASH?? Sorry, that

[hand down]

Although Windows 3.0 and 3.1 often UAEd/GPFed on my system, I never  had
the type of hardware wipeouts I've  seen with OS/2. Of course, I  didn't
have HPFS under Windows, either.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
 ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ America never lost a war or won a conference.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems (was: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift)
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:48:25 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <t#3m2rm.msmith@netcom.com> msmith@netcom.com (Martin P. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Aug08.020623.25501@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>
>>If there is a "server" program running to connect "shells" up the the term
>>ports, then yes.  Would you find this useful?  What apps would you run
>>in these terminals?
>>
>>I suspect that if this is a really useful mode of interaction, someone,
>>maybe MS, will come up with this server.  Frankly, I wouldn't think
>>you would find this archaic mode of operation useful in NT.  Kind of 
>>like having front panel switches on your UNIX box.
>>
>>petesk@microsoft.com
>>My opinions.
>>
>>(I may sound a little harsh on this one, but gosh, why does everyone
>>seem to want to exist in the stone age.)
>
>So that more than one user can have kernel processes running on the big iron 
>that NT is going to run on. 

NT can do that. 

>
>Boy have MS done a good job brainwashing you into the belief that NT is the
>ONLY way to do things. Do you seriously think that people want to decicate
>large iron to users running purely client server. I am pretty sure they do not.

Boy has your jealousy of successful software companies brainwashed you into
believing that if it's from one of your current bigotry-targets, it can't work.

When you telnet into large iron, you're running client-server.  so do users
of big iron just want to hook folks up through the 2 serial ports on theback.
Most big iron is networked, and therefore runs client server for most apps.

What do you wan't on your big iron.  Chances are, NT will do it.  

>
>MArtin Smith
>msmith@netcom.com 

petesk@microsoft.com
Get PETE.EXE, and now PETE++.EXE
It'll obfsucate your arguments, too ;)
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: what crash...
Date: 21 Aug 1992 11:59:54 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug21.2712.3944@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>Not really. I have two  departments who just dropped using  OS/2 because
>of the  instability of  WPS. Their  systems crash  an _average_  of four
>times  a  day.  Given  that  a  reboot  takes  20  minutes,  this   cuts
>productivity by 75%! That's not meaningless at all.

I take it, then, that they don't know just to wait a minute or so and let the
WPS restart itself, then? And why in the world would a reboot take 20
minutes??! I got asked a week or so ago how long it takes my system to reboot,
so I timed it: 58 seconds. How much productivity do they lose when Windows
crashes and takes their hard disk out with it?

>Your statement would be correct, except  that there is no choice BUT  to
>use the WPS.

Ever heard of RUNWORKPLACE=CMD.EXE?

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy