Linux-Advocacy Digest #232, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 16:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linux, easy to use? ("kosh")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows98 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Rimrunner)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Jim)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Kelley)
Re: Windows98 (Tim Kelley)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (DeAnn Iwan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:29:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barry Thomas wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, but I'm sick of this kind of meaningless drivel.
> >
> > Tell me, what point is there in naming your volumes the *same*???
>
> Who said anything about *YOU* doing this?
>
> What, is it impossible for anybody else in the world to name one of
> their volumes the same as you've named one of yours?
>
> What happens when the two of you have to work together?
On a Mac, the same thing as happens when your hard drives have different
names. No problems at all.
What's so difficult about this?
------------------------------
From: "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:22:02 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> Imagine the following scene...
>
> Example I
> =========
>
> I insert the "Applications 2" CD into my Linux Mandrake 7.0 system and
> click on the CDRom Icon. I'm presented with a web style page of all the
> applications on the CD. Very nice.
>
> I pick one and am led to the RPM's directory. I install it, and... cor
> blimey guv'nor, where did it go? It apparently installed ok (well, I'm
> not absolutely sure about that), but I can't see it on the menu
> _anywhere_.
>
> I pick another one, and I click on something that looks remarkably like
> a shell script. Nothing happens. I click again... and nothing happens.
> I copy the shell script to a seperate directory, and click on it...
> nothing happens. I run up an XTerm and run the shell script... ah...
> checksum error. Hmm... checksum error on a CDRom?
>
> Now, when I clicked on the same file in kfm, nothing is reported. At
> least, not on the desktop. It _is_ reported but "underneath" X - if I
> switch to the console (CTRL-ALT-F12). X regularly reports all sorts of
> things, but to the process terminal that created it, and not to
> anywhere immediately useful!
>
> ACK!!!!
>
> This is how Linux is better than Windows?
>
> Even Digital UNIX deliberately put up a console Window so you could
> _see_ these rather important messages!
>
You will be happy to know that this was fixed with Mandrake 7.1 which I
installed recently. It places all gui items on your menus and many non gui
items items. It does this for both KDE ang Gnome at least.
Also with mandrake 7.1 many programs I try to run if they are not
installed it will prompt for a disk to install them since it knows what it
on the cds. You can also type urpmi program and it will install that
program with all deps. If that name is not correct it will give you other
possible names. You can also use rpmdrake. Everything is sorted and you
don't need the CDs in the machine. Clikc on the program you want to
install and it will prompt for the correct disk.
> Example II
> ==========
>
> KPackage is a nice tool to load RPM's. Unfortunaly, unlike the super
> user version of kfm, it doesn't prompt the user for the root password if
> it tries to do something that requires priv's. So, fire up an XTerm,
> su, then type xfm. Finally you get what you wanted.
>
> One of the file managers asks you for a password using a Console prompt!
> Nothing like a bit of inconsistancy there, huh?
>
> Pete
The easiest way to launch the super user version of kfm is there is an
icon for it in kde. I do not remember what menu it is in for Mandrake 7.0
since they redid the menus in 7.1. They make a lot more sense now.
One of the things I like about mandrake is they have learned from all the
problems you have had. Some things still need to be made smoother but on
the whole it is the best dist I have used. It also comes with reiserfs,
xf 4.0, usb support and many other nice features.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:31:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > Not elegant?
> >
> > MacOS doesn't care if you change the name.
> >
> > Here-let's put out a specific example.
> >
> > I have 3 partitions on my drive: System, Applications, VM. I create an
> > alias for the System and Applications drives and put them in my Apple
> > Menu. That allows me to access any file on those partitions with a
> > single click.
> >
> > Now, I change the name of all 3 partitions to: "drive".
> >
> > Everything still works. VM still works on the partition formerly known
> > as VM. The aliases still work.
> >
> > What could be more elegant?
>
> When did: "confusing the hell out of the user" get translated into
> "elegant"?
>
> I missed it . . .
What part of this is confusing?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:32:33 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:25:25 GMT, cubicdog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:11:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>That's ok. If Linux can prove it is better than Windows, or Mac, I
>>will use it.
>
>I know it is foolish of me to waste bandwidth on this, but
>I like being foolish now and again.
>
>Linux needs not *prove* it's self to you or anyone.
>It gains in market share through attrition and will continue
>to do so.
>
>Linux in the mainstream in five years is not only
>conservative but would also be difficult to stop
>simply due to the licensing issues.
>
>I don't know about the majority of home
>users. I am not clear on what a home
>user is exactly. I do know that everyone
>I know wants at home what they use
>at work. This is logical.
The "you must use our tool" mentality of Lemmings is both
annoying and costly. While the vast majority of novices
may not care for a "better interface", they can certainly
understand the cost of need to "be compatible". That is
going to bite vendorlock Robber Barons in the butt eventually.
[deletia]
Why bother with Windows when the local Lemming Fascist will
decry your use of a deviant Win32 word processor, nevermind
using an AltOS?
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:33:46 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<kfm difficulties snipped>
: ACK!!!!
: This is how Linux is better than Windows?
: Even Digital UNIX deliberately put up a console Window so you could _see_
: these rather important messages!
Linux already provides easy to *use* tools in the form of command-line
rpm, a shell and friends.
If you want tools that are easy to *learn*, perhaps gnorpm or some other
rpm manager would suit you better if the KDE ones do not. In any case,
how easy Linux is to learn has little or no bearing on how much
better or worse it is to accomplish tasks.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:37:55 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John W. Stevens) wrote in <3950F488.A4FCF052
@basho.fc.hp.com>:
>Using functionally similiar software, on identical hardware, loaded
>identically, Linux runs about 3 to 7 percent faster . . . however, by
>changing the load, file system utilization percentage, buffering and
>swapping parameters, Linux can be made to run about 13 percent slower
>than Windows.
>
>But . . . Linux will run 21 times faster than Windows on certain types
>of repeated operations (buffering, you see).
>
>Unfortunately, most "advocacy tests" are not valid, as proper lab
>technique is not used, and no attempt is made to make the compared
>systems as similiar as possible for the test conditions.
I tried to make them similar - I'm using a dual boot system - how similar
can you get. The only difference is that Linux is running on a bigger,
faster disk.
>In a real lab, doing fair tests, Windows 98 has a few specific
>applications areas where it will, in general, beat Linux: games that use
>DirectX, for instance.
That's what I thought. Since playing games is part of my job, as well as 3D
sound, I don't see myself moving to Linux any time soon.
>Also, on a standard install under standard configuration, Windows 98 GUI
>responsiveness when running a single GUI intensive task is higher than
>that of KDE or Gnome.
>
>However, since the X server, and Window Manager and GUI support
>processes normally run at the default priority level on Linux, while a
>great deal of the GUI of Windows is in "kernel space", this comparison
>is highly skewed. Linux, on the same hardware, will win hands down when
>the priority of the processes that make up the GUI sub-system are bumped
>up, especially when running multiple GUI tasks. Linux also degrades
>nicely under high load, while with Windows, you run the risk of an OS
>crash due to what appears to be some kind of timeout overflow or
>comparison problem ('course, to get this crash, we are talking a *VERY*
>heavy load).
Ah to get better performance you have to 'tweak' Linux a bit.
>And if Windows 98 is compared to a system running something like
>WindowMaker, or the old standby, TWM, Linux is much more responsive than
>Windows.
But then these are lite Window managers unlike KDE or Gnome.
[snip]
>Overall, if you have to run MS applications, or you are a total game
>freak, buy Windows 98 (NOT Windows 2K!). Otherwise, Linux may be a
>better solution on a cost/performance basis.
Actually Windows 2000 is better at running certain games than Windows 98
SE. Unreal Tournament seems to run much smoother on 2000 than 98.
>You wanna talk figures? First, specify context.
Well, well, finally I read a posting that makes perfect sense to me.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:40:42 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:37:10 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ok, some examples :
>
>1) Installation
>After installation of Redhat 6.2 / Mandrake 7.1 my Rockwell 56K modem is not
>properly configured, and my USB Epson 900 and Perfection 610 scanner do not
>work. Play around with pnptools and setserial to get the ISA modem card to
>work. No problem with W2k pnp. Another way is to set the OS to non-pnp in
>BIOS, but this is a hassle for W2k. Linux requires better pnp.
>Poor system configuration compared to W2k start>settings menu. Eg where in
>Linux is there a full and accurate list of detected/configured hardware,
>well-presented, which can be easily printed.
You might have tried the vendor's website.
>
>2) Presentation
>Fonts are ugly. I know it is an old issue (since I first tried Linux in the
Learn how to configure GUI applications. It's really not that hard.
You do it the same way you do under Windows when one if it's apps
defaults to something ugly or otherwise unsuitable for fonts.
>mid 90s). I understand that this is a patent X problem. Saw some paper on
>the xfree website to improve matters, but no real action. Won't be
>surprised if it takes another few years to solve this problem.
>
>3) Printing
>After getting my modem to work I browse the internet and read mail with
>Netscape 4.7. I open a page and then print it (thru /dev/lp0 as
>/dev/usb/usblp0 does not work). Guess what? It is not wysiwyg or even the
>same as the screen fonts, and looks ugly. Not even in colour. Compare the
That's strictly a Netscape problem. It does pulls the same crap
on Solaris too.
>printout to that produced by IE5. In Linux printing often do not match the
>app screen presentation.
You need to get around more.
>
>4) App setup
Who cares?
[deletia]
>5) Lack of apps
>In Linux I don't have access to powerful, industry standard, desktop
>applications. Do I need to elaborate here? The apps bundled with gnome/kde
Yes. The obvious would be that MSoffice isn't the the only
suitably sophisticated office suite in the world, or on Linux.
>are really very crude. For example, the newsreader where I cannot quickly
>find a particular newsgroup and the sorting is limited (compare this with
>OE).
>
>Can you provide me with a list of Linux apps to match the following in BOTH
>power and usability :
>
>Office 2k
Perfect Office 2000, StarOffice.
>Adaptec Easy CD creator
xcdroast. Both KDE and GNOME have their own variants as well.
>Adobe Acrobat
Adobe Acrobat.
>AudioCatalyst
>GetRight
>Windows Commander (an excellent prog, unlike mc)
>MS Bookshelf
>MS Money
>Napster
knapster, gnapster.
>Visio
>AutoCAD
Are you seriously trying to convince us that you are a
professional engineer AND interested in the rest of this
stuff (most notably, the very latest version of msoffice)?
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:42:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (kosh) wrote in <8ir4mc$imv$1
@peabody.colorado.edu>:
>You will be happy to know that this was fixed with Mandrake 7.1 which I
>installed recently. It places all gui items on your menus and many non gui
>items items. It does this for both KDE ang Gnome at least.
Excellent! Now, I'll keep an eye out in the shops for Linux Mandrake 7.1.
Downloading would cost me too much.
>The easiest way to launch the super user version of kfm is there is an
>icon for it in kde. I do not remember what menu it is in for Mandrake 7.0
>since they redid the menus in 7.1. They make a lot more sense now.
There were two - one put up a friendly prompt for the root password, the
other put up a console (yuk) and asked for the root password. Closing the
console instantly killed the file manager as well.
>One of the things I like about mandrake is they have learned from all the
>problems you have had. Some things still need to be made smoother but on
>the whole it is the best dist I have used. It also comes with reiserfs,
>xf 4.0, usb support and many other nice features.
Sounds kewl. I'll let you know how I get on with an upgrade from 7.0 to 7.1
when I get a copy.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:42:50 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:29:45 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Stevens"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Barry Thomas wrote:
>> >
>> > Sorry, but I'm sick of this kind of meaningless drivel.
>> >
>> > Tell me, what point is there in naming your volumes the *same*???
>>
>> Who said anything about *YOU* doing this?
>>
>> What, is it impossible for anybody else in the world to name one of
>> their volumes the same as you've named one of yours?
>>
>> What happens when the two of you have to work together?
>
>On a Mac, the same thing as happens when your hard drives have different
>names. No problems at all.
>
>What's so difficult about this?
This rather implies that MacOS is not infact using the volume
name as a unique identifier and that infact MacOS works much
more like Unix or DOS in terms of filesystems an you are merely
persuming the toplevel interface is how the underlying system
works.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:40:31 -0600
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> Which one?
>
> The task scheduler in something like Version 7 is completely different
> from the one in Solaris, which is completely different from the one in
> QNX.
Old tech . . . modern Unices have much more powerful (and, of course,
much more complicated) scheduling systems.
> A more interesting exercise would be for YOU to explain the VMS
> scheduler, which is much more complex (it has THREE types of jobs:
> real-time, batch, and interactive),
Somewhat similiar to what HPUX supports.
> and actually takes into account which
> resources are available and schedules processes accordingly.
*EVERY* operating system does this! (For God's sake, no OS will
schedule a process to run when it is sleeping on a resource!)
> It is much
> more involved than the Unix scheduler.
Which Unix scheduler are you talking about?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:44:12 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Doesn't matter, S/390, 9672, 3090 MVS/XA, ESA, VM all things that
> Linux may run with/on/under but things that the desktop people could
> care less about.
Desktops are starting to decline. The wave of the future is the
information applicance.
Oh, sure, there will still be desktops and workstations, but the future
is in small, simple appliances.
> Linux in the back room or in some geeks wet dream yes.
In other words, Linux will be *THE* operating system of the future, as
more and more servers are neccesary to support the proliferation of
info-appliances.
> Linux on the desktop in mass?
The desktop will soon be irrelevant. Linux, however, since it is not
tied to the desktop, will still be going strong.
>
> Forget it.
>
> .3 percent speaks for itself.
What is the .3 in reference to?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rimrunner)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:47:46 GMT
On 21 Jun 2000 19:21:56 GMT, Scott Dorsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Jesus, man, if you don't know how it works, how can you have any confidence
>that it will keep working?
True faith.
-g,
smartass comments 'r us
--
Murder of Crows @ http://www.murderofcrows.net
MP3s @ http://www.mp3.com/MurderOfCrows
"If you want to be who you want to be/You have to give up who you are."
- Guy Forsyth
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: 21 Jun 2000 15:50:33 EDT
In article <8ir4kk$eds$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I guess I didn't make myself clear earlier on -- I know CLI's
> >(or their tokens embedded in GUI operations) are more efficient
> >in some scenarios than a "pure" GUI. That's my whole point, in
> >fact, and in a previous post, I went into more detail about
> >_combined_ interface modes. But I have no problem with folks who
> >simply prefer to use a CLI for everything. I think they're
> >getting rare, outside the developer community, though, since it
> >doesn't seem likely that others are willing to make the
> >investment in learning that much about an OS.
>
> And this, in short, is a very bad thing, but not caused by GUI
> use. It's a systematic cultural problem in my opinion, and the
> reluctance for users to learn CLIs is merely a symptom.
If you meant to say "systemic," I quite agree.
> I don't think you should be given a driver's license without
> showing you know how to do routine auto maintenance either.
Wow -- the instant solution to traffic congestion!
> Jesus, man, if you don't know how it works, how can you have any
> confidence that it will keep working?
I'm not quite sure whether that's a rhetorical question or not. If
not, you shouldn't assume that I don't know how "it" works. I've
probably used a few more CLI's over the years than the average bear,
but that doesn't mean I have any false hopes that "it" will keep
working. ;-)
Cheers.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:47:52 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I insert the "Applications 2" CD into my Linux Mandrake 7.0 system and
> click on the CDRom Icon. I'm presented with a web style page of all the
> applications on the CD. Very nice.
>
> I pick one and am led to the RPM's directory. I install it, and... cor
> blimey guv'nor, where did it go? It apparently installed ok (well, I'm not
> absolutely sure about that), but I can't see it on the menu _anywhere_.
Well, if the rpm package didn't put a menu item in there it's the
packager's fault, but since every distro puts KDE or GNOME in a
different directory I don't see how this can be done other than
making separate rpm's for Red Hat SuSE, et. al.
At any rate, is it SOOO hard to look in the rpm package file list
(very easy with kpackage), determine where the binary is and then
make a short cut to it? Almost always for Red Hat it will be in
/usr/bin and others in /opt/kde/bin or whatever.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:54:28 -0500
James wrote:
>
> David,
>
> Even though Win98 is a much more usable desktop in many respects (including
> games) than Linux it is, agreeably, highly unreliable. Therefore your post
> in this NG will have no credibility, even though it deserves some. In the
> company I work for we run Win95 on most desktops (some 20000+) and of course
> experience the usual problems - mostly users corrupting their own systems.
> The company will in the next 2-3 years upgrade all desktops and backends
> (from Novell & GroupWise) to W2k. Linux, with its limited and crude desktop
> apps, its complicated man-machine interface (for average users), is simply
> not an option.
If all the apps you need are available in linux than linux is a
far better choice than any version of windows. The problem is
application availability. The UI available for linux are far
better than windows and give the administrator a greater amount
of control.
The wintrolls keep repeating this lie that windows "has a better
desktop" even though it is blatantly false ... when you press
them then you see what the problem always was: linux doesn't
have this program, doesn't run this game ... this has nothing to
do with windows being a "better desktop".
What features does the windows GUI have that you would like to
see in, say, KDE?
> Linux is for tinkering. W2k is for work.
Oh bullshit
------------------------------
From: DeAnn Iwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:58:26 -0400
peter wrote:
>
> I'm setting up two 486 linux systems, one will be a small web sever,
> firewall, and ip masq.
>
> The other will be a machine to write perl programs on.
>
> I have two 250 meg drives, I don't plan to install X, so which distro
> is out there that will allow me to do what i want to do on the 486's
> ???
>
Any major distribution will probably work. Note that how much
memory you have and whether or not you have a CDROM drive enter into
play here. The latest RH, SUSE, and other graphical interfaces like
lots of RAM (RH 6.2 will complain about 32 MB RAM, but will install,
etc.). I have been unable to get SUSE 6.1 or 6.4 to do an NFS install
from machines even with 32 MB RAM; they seem to get caught thrashing
between trying to load appriate parts of YAST, the install packages and
so forth and eventually freeze up. After 2 weeks, I've given up. (I
had done NFS installs with RH 5.0 very smoothly. I suspect it has to do
with distros taking advantage of the new kernels ability to preload one
kernel/OS and then finalize with another. If they are finalizing across
NFS and do not have enough local RAM/storage, then they tangle.)
Unless you have lots of RAM and a local cdrom, moving to Debian or
Slackware can be good. Both distributions allow you to install a small
Linux system from around a dozen floppies. You can then download the
rest of what you want via ftp, NFS, etc.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
