Linux-Advocacy Digest #394, Volume #25 Fri, 25 Feb 00 19:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (J Bland)
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Barry Margolin)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Barry Margolin)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Barry Margolin)
Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet Censorship
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 25 Feb 2000 22:04:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:23:02 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 60,000 W2K copies x $150/copy = $9,000,000.00 vs. $29.95 for Linux CD
> w/manuals. Hmmmm...
> #1) $150 a copy? haha
So make that 40. Add in your office/business/whatever packet,
bought cheap. Add in upgrading 50% of the PCs, at least.
$150 per PC might be an underestimation, especially if you've got
memory-poor or older machines. Assuming your machines are 3 years
old, you can practically buy new ones. Even if you buy 30k of
them, you'll be paying $400, and that's on the dirt cheap end, if
I'm not sorely mistaken.
Linux does not need the hardware upgrade.
> #2) Cost to purchase Linux itself : $xx
> #3) Cost of Linux support contract: $xxxx/month
True, but s/Linux/NT/ or s/Linux/W2K/ ... and it's still true.
(For those not UNIX-enabled: s/x/y/ means "substitute x with y")
I venture that W2K and NT might be more costly since remote
administration (trivial with a unix) is not exactly their forte.
> #4) Cost to physically visit each machine and move personal data in
> preparation for conversion
Cost to physically get every second machine send in to upgrade
them.
Also: Users are not to store data on their work machines. They
are to use the servers. You know, whenever a machine develops
trouble, the ghosted image is slapped onto it again first. So
step 4 is a straw man.
> #4.5) Cost to install new OS and customize to work as a desktop or laptop
> machine
As you'd do with NT (ghosted image), you'd do with Linux. You
can easily install machines en masse from a server with a boot
disk ... or even a boot prom in your network card. That's
called FAI (Fully Automated Installation). On the same stint,
you can upgrade all clients remotely. See
http://www.informatik.uni-koeln.de/fai/
for more details.
Remember that under NT or W2K you'd still have to customise,
though. Even if that was choosing between 2 images :-)
> #5) Cost to train every user in entirely new way of doing things: $xxxx
Cost to train every user to do things in similar, but not quite
the same ways. $xxxx
Under Linux you can make the things look and work almost like
WinXX/NT/2k, if you like. So there's no advantage. Unless you
cannot get the business software you need.
> #6) Cost to install security system to prevent users from attacking IT
> personal when all their skills are made null and void and are forced to
> learn to use Star Office.
hahaha.
How about a suicide prevention training for the users when they
learn that W2K sucks in entirely new and unexpected ways?
As I said, if you need X, but X is not aviable on Win, you might
be forced to move to Linux.
> #7) Cost to convert all MS format documents to ... something else...
That's called vendor lock-in. The first reason not to choose
M$.
I hear Star Office does that job nicely.
> #7.5) Cost to perform conversion back to MS Format documents in order to
> communicate with the rest of the world
man html
man rtf
man semicolon/tab-separated
> #8) Increased calls to help desk, hiring new help desk personal, hiring new
> IT staff while firing many that have insufficient knowledge of Linux
And this does differ to W2K in which way? Knowing W98 doesn't
help you running WNT, really.
> #9) Cost to replace current CIO and pay for his golden parachute and options
> for early retirement
In the W2K case, cost for the shareholders to hire a hitman ...
for the CEO who approved an untested system for mission critical
business.
> #10) Cost of lawsuit when it's discovered servers participated in DDoS
> attacks.
FUD, and you know it.
However, costs of lawsuits when you find out that the EULA gives
you not even the right to publish benchmarks and you have no
recurse if W2K knowingly and gleefully continues to shred you
data and fsck your dog ... are very real.
> savings: sexual harrasment suits reduced as no one talks to IT nerds
> anymore.
Savings:
- You can really remote-administrate and upgrade all 60k clients
at once, without ever leaving your desk.
- Discovering a bug in NT, all your money won't get Microsoft to
repair it, nor allow your hired programmer to do the work
himself. In Linux, you either get it fixed for free, often
within hours, or your programmer can go straight to work.
- Once you get the fix, you don't have to walk to 60k machines all
over the country to run a service pack CD or a hotfix, you see
point 1 and just do it from your desk ... saving 20k man hours,
not counting the driving and flying costs.
Of course, that means firing a couple of people.
- Less manhours are lost, as the systems do not lock up as
often. Most machines that die have borken hardware now ...
Of course, that's the hope with W2K, too. It has been since
Win95.
- Since the TCO ist much higher in the long run than the
purchase costs, W2K sets a rather high lower bound. The TCO
with a properly done Linux (as opposed to a properly done
WinXk) is probably lower, too, especially since SP1 for W2K is
out already, IIRC.
- You can avoid vendor lock-in. See your #7). No vendor can hold
your data hostage. If your vendor dies tomorrow, where will you
be in a year? And remember that MS just might have to split
up. You want *that* for your mission critical stuff?
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J Bland)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 20:57:17 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:24:56 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:34:33 +0100, Mario Klebsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Mario Klebsch wrote:
>>>> >If your talking about an operating system,
>>>> >you should be calling it GNU/Linux, like i.e. Debian does.
>>>
>>>> Well, that probably would be Debian GNU/Linux, and there is RatHad,
>>>> SUSE, Caldera,... They all claim to be Linux, but in fact are
>>>> different OSes.
>>
>>>Nonsense, they all cater the diverse needs of various users. In my view
>>>that's the main point about the whole open source movement: CHOICE! It
>>>is good to be different!
>>
>>The absence of the ABI destroys the choice. If you are not running
>>RedHat or SUSE Linux, you really are in trouble, today. However, the
>>degree of trouble varies from distribution to distribution.
>
> No, you just need a package made for your particular iteration
> assuming that you are unwilling to build your own software or
> your distributor is incapable of doing it for you.
>
>>
Or just try to always avoid binary releases in favour of source ones. In my
experience with ARM Linux (a redhat derivative), various SuSE distros, an
oldish Debian and Solaris, most source code releases will compile if you have
the right libraries kicking about. Admittedly, the older setups have more
and more trouble but the major stuff compiles and works.
Things are changing and I expect to see an increased number of binary+source
or source-only applications. It is usually in everyone's interest to have a
release with the source.
Support source and try to avoid binaries I say. Most source tarballs only
need a ./configure; make; make install and this is hardly beyond even a newbie
to do.
I have a pipe-dream; that all companies and coders will make software that's
distributed by source and uses standard interchangable file formats. This
*must* happen to prevent the sort of absolute insanity that goes on today
with multitudinous fileformats, filters, "ABI"s, converters and emulators
and god knows what else we use to try to integrate various platforms and
their OSes.
Compatibilty goes both ways; why should I be compatible with closed-source,
constantly changing standards while they won't be compatible with my (often
superior) open-source and fixed formats? Why have only one package for one
platform and one cpu architecture when I can have the source and use it on
the majority of them? It just doesn't make sense (except to the people
making a killing out of doing so).
You can stick your ABIs as long as people are willing to give me their
source to compile on *my* platform.
Shrike (regularly using 3 hardware platforms and 5 OSes and fed up with only
being able to fully support 1 because of binary-only releases)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:40:06 GMT
On 25 Feb 2000 21:45:05 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:04:45 GMT, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>On 25 Feb 2000 19:29:55 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:19:59 GMT, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
>>>Repeat after me: "Free SPEECH, not free beer".
>>>
>>>The GPL is all about using restrictive licenses to keep the source free.
>>
>>However, in the above paragraph, I am not talking about the GPL. So what
>>you are saying is not in contrast.
>
>Then you didn't do such a good job at addressing my post, which is
>specifically about the GPL. Of course there are less restrictive free
>software licenses.
No, I didn't do a good job at addressing your whole post in the snippet
that you chose to quote. ;)
>>I didn't say anything about money. All I said was that the practice of
>>restrictive licensing and binary only software would not exist in a world that
>>is free of copyright.
>
>I agree that restrictive licensing, including the GPL, would not exist.
>I don't agree that binary-only software would cease to exist. If there is
>no copyright, there is no reason for anyone to release the source code
>of their software.
Ah, but if there is no copyright, there is no reason for anyone to peddle their
binaries. So there might be binary free (as in beer) ware. But the software
industry as we know it is not based on binary free-beer-ware. (Other than
the occasional dumping being used to crush competition.) There is no revenue
from giveways maintain an industry. Since there is no revenue, there is no
incentive to start software projects with the aim to get revenue from sales of
binary copies in the first place, and there isn't much use in hanging onto
source.
>Moreover, I don't think we'd see an end to people charging for software. They
>would just use different means ( encryption keys, expirations, etc )
All of that can be cracked. Moreover, without copyright protection, it would be
legal to distribute the modified works. There would really be no point in
trying to do anything like this; the traditional software industry would just
fold like a house of cards, and all you would have left would be people
programming for fun, customizing software, or working for hardware companies.
>and most of those different means would make life difficult for customers,
>which is yet another reason why legal copyrights are a better idea than
>leaving the industry to develop their own means to protect software.
You can't protect software. If a CPU can run it, a cracker can trace it.
Moreover, the industry *has* developed means to protect software. They did
this because many people don't find copyright laws a big impediment to the
activities of copying. These methods have shown to be ineffective; there is
no reason to believe that these methods would vastly improve if copyright laws
were dismantled.
I don't advocate the dismantling of copyright laws. I'm rather in favor of
measures to make it illegal to distribute software without source code,
regardless of the licensing arrangements.
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:49:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:20:22 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>> This is hardly unprecidented. For example, Microsoft only
>>agreed to develop a new version of Office for the Macintosh as part of a deal
>>with Apple. The exact terms of the deal are cloudy, as it was part of a
>>patent settlement and a simultaneous investment by Microsoft in Apple, but it
>>was pretty clear to most observers that Apple was actually paying Microsoft to
>>develop the new Office.
>
>Yes, but still, the users of Office had to buy licenses from
>Microsoft, right ?
If they did, perhaps it's because MS is greedy (what else is new?). They
want to have their cake and eat it, too.
The Apple deal makes sense because Apple needs critical applications to be
available in order to make Apple's hardware useful. If the existence of MS
Office for Macintosh results in enough increased Macintosh sales, Apple can
justify paying MS to write it, and perhaps even structure the deal so that
MS can't demand fees from the end users.
The problem is that this is really only going to work for important
applications. Apple could hardly be expected to pay for the entire
Macintosh software industry.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:56:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:25:06 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>>Second, there are classes of products where consumers do not "try before they
>>buy."
>
>Yes they do. Shareware is based on this very idea. With other proprietary
>packages, it is often true that they have seen and used the package before
>they buy it.
While many end users don't personally try commercial software before they
buy it, they may do so indirectly. They often read reviews in magazines,
or learn about it by word of mouth.
>To put it bluntly, if your model is so darned good, should it not
>be able to replace the traditional model without dismanteling the traditional
>mdel entirely ?
Isn't that what the free software movement is doing? Free software
developers coexist with proprietary software vendors. It appears that each
model has strengths and weaknesses, and fill different niches. The
proprietary model works best for specialty software, while free software
works better for general-purpose software.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:14:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeffrey B. Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Have you ever heard of product placement? Sponsorships? We have free TV and
>radio, and in fact those are the dominant entertainment media of the past
>quarter century. What's the big deal here?
Here's an interesting question about that analogy: why are TV, radio, and
web pages paid for mostly by sponsorship, but theatrical movies and home
video paid for directly by the consumers? Currently, the traditional
software industry is apparently modeled after home video: you buy (or rent)
a copy, and you're not allowed to let your friends make duplicates. What
would it take to shift it to the sponsorship model?
To a small extent we're starting to see that, especially with web-based
computing. Some companies are shifting from selling software to letting
users run it via the web, and the ad banners pay for it. Others are
changing from selling software to selling web service; for instance, I
think that's how the TurboTax Web page works (and I think they offer it for
free to low-income people as a public service, although it probably still
has ad banners). And recently consumers have been given a choice of two
ways to get Eudora: pay money for the regular version, or get one with ad
banners for free.
So it seems like the Internet is providing the means to allow
experimentation with new software distribution models. Sponsorship may not
work for traditional software distribution because it's too hard to get
enough sponsors (would anyone be willing to sit through several minutes of
commercials when trying to start up a program?), and static ads in the
background would get out of date quickly. But the net allows flexibility
that could make it work. Does anyone know how well the ad-based Eudora is
doing?
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet
Censorship
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:19:13 GMT
Why don't you tell them about the URL where you talk about how to use
"double condoms" or Female condoms during anal intercourse to avoid
the transmission of aids?
Need a reference?
http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=403525553.1&CONTEXT=951376200.236126226&hitnum=1148
This is highly off topic, but it needs to be exposed.
Whether you practice a gay lifestyle or not is not the issue here, you
support, by your own thousands of messages, the lifestyle. And you
support "exposing" first grade students to this sickening, deviant
lifestyle, by your own signature in the original post.
IMHO of course, and I am pretty much middle of the road you see, you
on the other hand ,are a sick perverted individual if you condone
sticking your d*** up another man's a$$.
It's deviant. It's un-natural and it is a form of sick behavior.
I did my internship at BeekMan hospital in NYC which is just south of
Greenwich Village and let me tell you that Friday night and Saturday
night's were entertainment par-excellance.
You would not believe, or maybe you would, what some "folks" try to
fit up their rectum's in order to achieve sexual fulfillment.
Ever see a man's d*** stuck in a cast iron free weight?
how about a fluorescent lightbulb that imploded in another "mans"
rectum? Not a pretty sight.
Vacuum cleaners? I've seen them all.
Dil** that seem to get "lost" in there.
It get's boring after a couple of weeks.
To appreciate this you have to understand the clientele of the
hospital I worked in..
"The Village" says it all. If you are from NYC you know. If not, ask
someone who is.
Sorry Bilk. The lifestyle you condone is a sickening, pile of steaming
excrement and is backed up by facts on how many sexual partners a gay
man has in a typical year. The num ber is in the hundreds.
No wonder they are dying of aids..Good riddence.....and no loss.
Soddam and Gomorrah (sp?) fell as did the sick Rome of Caligula (I'll
bet you loved THAT movie), and so will the US.
Read your bible bilk and learn something.
It's open season on you Bilk, and we intend to use all your tripe
against you.
BTW, why are there so many canceled posts in your history?
All seem to be Mindspring?
Looks like we have to investigate this some more.
Sleep tight Bilk and stay away from that Amyl and the vacuum cleaner.
mcswain
I don't like Linux, but I am sickened by this PC garbage. And yes, I
would still speak my mind if it were a Windows supporter. Does not
matter.
To see what sewerage Bilk is up to today I suggest Altavista.
He claims we are getting paid? Take a look at the multipage septic
shit he posts. How long does that garbage take to generate. I supspect
Bilk is being paird by the Left Wing, wacko folks.
On 24 Feb 2000 22:50:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Drestin Black wrote:
>>> Mark S. Bilk ... Go screw yourself OK?
>>
>>I'm certain he has,,, many times. With light bulbs, po-go sticks,
>>plungers, gerbils and other devices.
>>
>>Take a look at :
>>http://x42.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=493570751&CONTEXT=951347144.1067122696&hitnum=0
>>for details.
>>
>>Steve
>
>That URL goes to an article I posted about a PBS documentary
>on kids being taught not to hate gay people. This is the
>correct URL, found by using the DejaNews power search
>and clicking on "view for bookmarking":
>
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=493570751
>
>Imagine what sort of mind Steve must have, to read about
>teaching children kindness, tolerance, and civil rights, and
>to associate that with the bizarre, bigoted, sadistic sexual
>fantasies that he posted.
>
>He also assumes that anyone who feels that homosexual people
>shouldn't be persecuted, and should have the same civil rights
>as everyone else, must themselves be homosexual. In other
>words, Steve hates gay people so much that he takes it for
>granted that all other non-gay people hate them too.
>
>Steve is one of a gang of spammers* who's been flooding the
>comp.os.linux.advocacy newsgroup for most of a year with
>thousands of pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda articles
>(and he's used a lot of fake names to do it -- teknite77,
>steveno, sewer_rat99, skagg71, time2leave, theman, etc.).
>
>It may be relevant that about a year ago, an article in the
>San Jose Mercury noted that "Microsoft execs spend time at
>the Heritage Foundation." That's one of the largest Right-
>wing propaganda organizations in the US. Of course, it is
>opposed to civil rights for homosexual people.
>
>Did "Steve" (or whatever his real name is) learn to hate
>homosexual people, or to spout the particular kind of venom
>quoted above, at the Heritage Foundation? Probably not.
>But since Bill Gates is sending his executives there for
>political/cultural/economic indoctrination (that's what they
>do there), it wouldn't be surprising that some bigot in Micro-
>soft's PR department would employ a bigot like Steve to fill
>the c.o.l.a newsgroup with Microsoft's anti-Linux propaganda
>and thousands of garbage posts, to intimidate people so they
>drop the newsgroup and don't learn about Linux. It's a ques-
>tion of what type of political culture exists among Microsoft
>executives, and training at the Heritage Foundation pretty
>much guarantees the type that it's going to be.
>
>It's interesting to think of the pro-Microsoft spammers like
>Steve and "Drestin Black" madly searching through every arti-
>cle I've ever posted to Usenet, looking for something they
>think would embarrass me; maybe they'll learn a thing or two
>if they actually read them. Apparently it hasn't occurred to
>these creatures that if I had written something I was ashamed
>of, I probably wouldn't have published it in a place where
>millions of people all over the world could see it, forever!
>Oh well, nobody ever accused these guys of being overly bright.
>
>I'm beginning to think that something I previously wrote
>has touched a nerve; probably it was this:
>
>] "Drestin Black", one of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propa-
>] ganda spammers, has been posting dozens of articles to
>] c.o.l.a yapping that some Linux folks here don't know much
>] about SCSI. Presumably he's doing it because he's been
>] instructed to trash up the newsgroup with as many useless
>] posts as possible every day, so that people who come here to
>] find out about Linux, and who don't use a threaded news-
>] reader or put him in the killfile, will get frustrated and
>] go away without learning about Linux and so will stay with
>] Microsoft Windows.
>
>It's pretty clear that this is one of the spammer gang's major
>tactics; certainly it's one of the most obvious characteristics
>of what they do. "Drestin Black", Stephen Edwards, "Sponge",
>"S", "Steve"/"teknite"/etc., "Chad Mulligan" -- all of them
>have posted thousands of articles containing no real content
>whatsoever -- often followups quoting an entire previous arti-
>cle and adding one vicious insult. A casual reader encounter-
>ing this flood of garbage and nastiness might easily reject the
>entire newsgroup, and thus not be exposed to Linux advocacy.
>Of course, this is exactly what Microsoft wants to happen.
>
>Incidentally, Microsoft has just adopted another strategy to
>deal with the huge amount of criticism it's getting in Usenet:
>It's eliminating Usenet access for all the customers of its
>MSN division -- a major Internet service provider.
>
>Power corrupts, and Microsoft has far too much of it.
>
>
>* The list of pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda spammers
>operating in comp.os.linux.advocacy, present and past (includ-
>ing multiple fake names used by the same person). Some of
>them post at a rate of nearly 500 articles per month, each:
>
>"Drestin Black", Chad Myers, Stephen Edwards, Jeff Szarka,
>Steve/"teknite"/keymaster/keys88/"Sewer Rat"/etc., "Sarek",
>"mcswain", Erik Funkenbusch, "Chad Mulligan", "S", "Sponge",
>Steve Sheldon, "piddy", Brent Davies, Boris, "Cuor di Mela",
>"ubercat"/"Odin", "Xerophyte"/Kelly_Robinson, "boobaabaa",
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED](newsguy.com)", etc.
>
>Is Microsoft behind most of this high-volume pro-Microsoft/
>anti-Linux propaganda barrage? There are good reasons to
>think so:
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-121243.html?tag=st.cn..
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/991018-000017.html
> http://www.opensource.org/halloween
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
