Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #28 Thu, 10 Aug 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: And the winner is... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for the fish..... (Mike Marion)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for the fish.....
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And the winner is...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:39:13 GMT
The funniest part is that a joke has been played on ya'll for over 1.5
years, and the trap has just been sprung recently. The bait was taken,
"Hook Line and Sinker" and still, nobody has figured it out.
Claire
On 10 Aug 2000 21:49:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:16:55 +1000, Slava Pestov wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mikey
>
>>Actually, as far as I can tell, Tim Palmer posts from a different IP.
>>So it's not Steve.
>
>Besides, Steve's got a distinctive style of drivel that's visible a mile
>away. Usually a lot of whings about "fonts, soundcards, printers
>and winmodems", and something about how you need an "expensive postscript
>printer" to run Linux.
>
>Tim Palmer has his own unique style of sorry drivel.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for the fish.....
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:16:54 GMT
A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
> Oh, *LiveWare*.
> ^^^^
Oh yeah... sorry. :/
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Linux and other OSS advocates are making a progressively more credible
argument that OSS software is at least as robust -- if not more -- than
commercial alternatives." - Microsoft lamenting Open Source Software in
the
"Halloween Document"
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Aug 2000 16:27:03 -0700
>
> If calling functions in supporting libraries, plugins, operating
> systems, bios roms, etc. is ever interpreted as making a
> program a derived work of those other bits of code the entire
> concept of program ownership is going to change.
Don't confuse English with Legal Jargon. Governments are free to
define words any way they want. Silliness is no impediment.
It appears that the statute's use of "preexisting" might have been
unnecessary or even erroneous, but it's there. But I don't see that it
matters much in this discussion. A work is not subject to copyright
until it is fixed in a tangible medium and at that time all parts
must be preexistant obviously. If any of those parts is a work in
itself, then the whole is derivative work, as I read the USC. (My
definition would be different, but that's another subject.)
One shouldn't read those definitions real closely and without
considering other things, because doing so would lead to
inconsistencies. (Reading USC17 over-literally would have it imply that
any joint work is a derivative work, which I'm sure would not be a
useful (or common) inference even if it's a logical one.)
(I'm not sure USC17 should have even used the concept of "derivative".
I'd think it good enough to just worry about joint works and
compilations. I'd think they should be treated the same, though I'm not
sure if they are. And one can't prepare or distribute a derivative
without copying so there's little need for explicit derivation rights.)
Implications of the above theory:
If you legally copy a GPLed library into any part of your computer to
get use of the library ("program" in Legal mumble, as used by the GPL)
and do the same with some "GPL incompatible" (partial) application that
will use the library, then you can legally run the code as long as
feeding both codes through the CPU isn't considered an infringement. I
think it can't, since that copying will be considered necessary for the
use of each "program".
What you can't do is distribute a copy of a work formed by combining
the library and the application. I.E., static linking is a no-on;
dynamic linking is OK. Note that it is widely believed that the GPL
allows local use of modifications and derivatives if not distributed,
but even if that is not the case, either one of GPL sections 1 and 2
allow dynamic linking as I've described it above; dynamic linking does
not create a new work, but only copies two works around as needed to
use each work.
I agree with whoever implied that we must try to keep thinking about
software works as nothing but a glob of symbols (1's & 0's, A's-Z's,
etc.) just like most things which are copyrighted. Forget about
their construction; Software Engineering using code generators driven
by UML diagrams or Artist Creation by Joe Hacker are both considered
copyrightable works of authorship. Forget about its use as executing
software; USC 17 Sec 117a1 makes that moot. We only care about the
exercise of non-exclusively-licensed exclusive rights granted by law.
For software, that's pretty-much limited to "right to copy". (Remember
that I think that that includes "right to derive".)
Here's a far-out example which isn't quite analogous, but I thought
cute: I copyright a set of papers which you insert between certain
pages of someone else's copyrighted book. You can find the
"derivative" (English) book useful while nobody has copied the
original book or my papers and no infringement has occured as long
as you don't try to distribute the combination.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for the fish.....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:40:04 GMT
I keep screwing it up also.
I think it is because there was a comm program for OS/2 that I used to
use called Livewire. It was quite good..
Claire
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:16:54 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
>
>> Oh, *LiveWare*.
>> ^^^^
>
>Oh yeah... sorry. :/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 10 Aug 2000 23:52:46 GMT
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:33:43 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Not necissarily. The sad thing is (in this case it's sad) if enough
>people bitch about anything in the Linux world, it eventually does get
>listened to.
Not by the volunteers, it doesn't. Because volunteers don't like being
bossed around by users ( even though they're willing to listen, they
don't take orders )
>clone and it will happen. In fact, Corel is doing it already, and I'm
>sure there are others thinking about it.
Corel is a company. They're doing it because they have guessed that
there are going to be a lot of idiots who want "Free Windows" and they
know that the volunteers won't write it.
>way (and a corporation can hire people to make Linux a Windows clone
>without having to code themselves) to do it,
As long as they don't hire away the good developers, that's just fine.
It doesn't appear as though Corel have hired away anyone important.
>Us that 'know better' shouldn't just sit at the sidelines saying nothing
>because "they can't hurt us" but should speak up when we see them say
>something that sounds ridiculous to us. It's only right that we do.
Well speaking for myself, I don't mind if some idiot wants a windows clone,
but I'd squeal if I thought that KDE, GNOME, Redhat and Debian started
going in that direction. If a newcomer wants to make their own
"stupid Linux" distribution, that's fine by me, as long as they don't
ruin it for the rest of us.
> As long as the base system isn't
>warped, I'll be happy. I just want to be sure that I make plenty of
>noise about it so that if it is warped nobody can say, "Well you should
>have said something earlier".
I don't think Redhat, Debian, KDE or GNOME are going to "warp" the
base any time soon.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 10 Aug 2000 23:59:19 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm not asking you to prove it. I'm merely asking where you learned that
>>WinNT itself crashed, and following up your offerings asking if you have
>>anything that is not guesswork based on other people's guesswork.
>
> There is nothing but heresay on either side of this story. The heresay
> that NT is responsible for the problems on the Yortown much more
> credible in my *opinion*. Your opinion may differ.
Thank you, and you are correct in that I prefer the "heresay" of the chief
engineer on board the ship at the time, the people who built the system
and admit their error, and the news agency that originally broke and
followed up on the story.
>>I'm not trying to prove WinNT did or did not crash.
>
> You have dogmatically insisted on serveral occasions that this
> incedednt was only an application crash i.e. NT did not crash, and
> that if another OS was used the problems would still have
> occured. Whenever I asked you to prove it you snipped it out your
> next reply.
Not really. I've mentioned on multiple occasions that my understanding is
that a server application corrupted a database and a client application
that controlled equipment required data from this database. With the bad
data the client application crashed and failed to control equipment that
made the ship go. Such a naive design would fail regardless of the OS
running underneath.
>>> Find a *credible* refernce to WinNT not crashing. Face it Anthony,
>>> neither of us can fully prove it either way.
>>
>>You claimed it did, it's your burden of proof.
>
> I said I can't prove it, but that I am inclined to believe it did.
> You have insisted it didn't, and in doing so that's your burden of
> proof.
I previously provided references to the cheif engineer on the ship at the
time, the people who built the system and admit their error, and the news
agency who broke and followed up on the story. You basically dismissed all
of these as liars with no evidence to support such a claim.
>>I just want to know if your
>>opinion is an informed one or one of the typical polticial and/or
>>religious ones.
>
> My opinion is based on my experience working directly with the
> Government, my experience with military spec fualt tolerant embedded
> systems, my experience with both Unix and Windows NT, and my
> assessment of the information avialable to me about this incident. I
> am perfectly entitled to my opinion ...
OK, you've shown where your political and religious views originate. As
for information of the incident you seem to merely embrace "heresay" that
supports your politics/religion and reject what disagrees even though this
information comes from the chief engineer on board the ship at the time,
the people who built the system and admit their error, and the news agency
that originally broke and followed up on the story.
> ... Even some hard core windows
> advocates have said on this NG that NT is a bad choice for the
> Yorktown.
A general purpose computer running WinNT is a bad idea, just as a general
purpose computer running Unix would be a bad idea. A custom embedded
solution where you apply power and the system is there in a second or two
is a better solution.
>>Also, you are asking me to prove a negative, I remember
>>something from a math class about ...
>
> You mean the math class you struggled with?? Their is nothing unsound
> about proving a negative in mathemetics, and in fact it is very common
> in mathematics. For example, how would prove that the square root of 2
> is irrational?
You confuse proving mathematical properites with proving the existence or
non-existence of a real world human/mechnaical/electronic event.
>>You have offered no evidence of such political maneuvers covering up for a
>>WinNT crash being responsible for the incident.
>
> Why did it take several months for the revised stories to come
> out? They would have known right away if NT didn't crash.
Ignoring the fact that your "would have known" statement is incorrect,
this is your evidence?
>>He also does not say WinNT crashed and contributed to the incident.
>
> But he is clearly saying that NT has resulted in failures and
> shutdowns on the Yorktown. And no one has refuted his claim.
There's no info regarding what there incidents were, unlike the actual
incident being discussed.
>>Bad guess, previously you offered evidence of WinNT being able to crash in
>>a completely unrelated incident as evidence against it in this particular
>>incident.
>
> Are you suggesting the NT4 is as reliable as UNIX?? I am not even going
> to begin to discuss that. You can believe what you want.
No, reread.
>>Another politically self-serving guess on your part? :-)
>
> Uh..hum...all of your guesses aren't politically self serving?? You
> transcend all that, of course.
No, I'm just giving greater credibility to statements made by the chief
engineer on board the ship at the time, the people who built the system
and admit their error, and the news agency that originally broke and
followed up on the story and disconfirmed the "early speculation", again
"speculation" not a "known".
>>Why not? I often refer to my NT-box doing this job, my Linux-box doing
>>that job, my Mac doing some other job.
>
> And when the job crashes you say your box crashed??
Sometimes, depending on the level of detail I'm conveying to a person. The
name only refers to a machine performing a task not the OS itself.
>>>>> "an NT system blew up"
>>>>
>>>>System, not OS, see earlier arguments, and again you greatly distort
>>>>things. This is a reader's general characterization of the incident.
>>>>This same reader starts his email with:
>>>
>>> Again, why not "Pentium Pro system blew up", or "Database
>>> system blew up", or just "system blew up". Why do they
>>> keep saying NT??
>>
>> Not "they", "he".
>
> I can see you struggled with math, but don't you even know how to
> count? There are two accounts above of people saying "NT". There were
> others that have been snipped out. That's "they", not "he". And "they"
> also includes all of the Newspaper reports and television news reports
> as well as the Internet press. They all singled out NT as the culprit.
In your posting one person used the phrase "blew up". I was responding to
this one statement since this was a reference where the writer stated his
knowledge of the incident: "I don't know a lot about the specific
incident". Your offering of this article seemed to speak of the level of
evidence you require when an article supports your views. Your snipping
distorts the meaning of my statement, here's the original:
Not "they", "he". "He said ..." Why he said "an NT system blew up",
well maybe his also saying "I don't know a lot about the specific
incident" is a clue.
>>The big money and politics against Microsoft would probably have uncovered
>>an actual coverup regarding WinNT itself.
>
> Nonsense. The U.S. government is extermely large and
> decentralized. There are plenty of government officials kissing Bill's
> ass and getting away with it.
Amusing, you find it unthinkable that DOJ would not learn of such a
coverup, a coverup that you see so easily. Let's not forget Larry
Ellison's private investigators looking for dirt. Make up your mind, do
you see a coverup or not?
>>> And GCN is interested in protecting their readership: Government
>>> officials.
>>
>>Then it doesn't make sense to protect WinNT. Government officials seem to
>>be against Microsoft. Politics is not as one sided as you suggest. :-)
>
> You don't seem to know very much about the U.S. government ...
Untrue, I know they are not very good about covering up things.
> ... Are you
> even from the U.S.?? The U.S. government is extermely large and
> decentralized. There are plenty of government officials that are
> pro-microsoft. And the Navy certainly provides GCN alot more
> readership than the DOJ.
I'm from a part of the US where the black helicopters do not fly.
>>OK, but there was no suggestion that manual controls or commanding was
>>missing at all. The missing backup systems referred to were electronic in
>>nature, and reported to be missing only because it was a test platform.
>
> Reported where??
In the articles you offer. Remember a guy named Redman you cited a few
times, he says:
Although the Yorktown did not have backup systems, Redman said that
future Smart Ships will have systems redundancy to ensure that ships
can continue to operate.
There were other statements regarding this issue in the articles you
offered, and/or their links. I suggest you read your own offerings.
>>the room was emptied
>>as part of a fully automated test, not any sort of standard procedure or
>>practice.
>
> And this is cheaper than towing the Yorktown to port?? And where's the
> report that says the room was emptied.
Go read your previous offerings, Pournelle IIRC. The above test was not
part of the Yorktown incident, the article was discussing automated
control of a ship. The crew was onboard, just not in the engine room
during a fully automated test.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:24:32 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > >
> >
> > If people had not had "my" reaction, humans would never have
> > achieved modernity.
>
> Well, technically Galileo was already part of modernity, but I digress
> ;-)
>
> You act the way you do because you were born in the late 20th century.
> Ethically speaking, in principle, you hold no higher ground from a
> cannibal,
> or a crusader, or a member of the inquisition.
>
I've never eaten anyone, I've never killed anyone over religion, and
I've never tortured anyone for his or her beliefs. So how am I ethically
equivalent?
>
> Modernity didn't spring fully formed out of some enlightened
> man's head.
>
> > The men of the Church knew that the Greeks did not have an
> > Inquisition, and that the absence of one contributed to the
> > brilliance of Greek philosophy.
>
> Well, on the other hand, it could be said that slavery had
> a great influence in the brilliance of greek philosophy, too.
> Are you advocating slavery on that basis?
Funny how the other ancient civilizations with slavery never
had such philosophic achievements.
>
>
> For a medieval, or renaissance, devote christian, the choice between
> greek philosophy and the will of god was obvious, and there was
> only one moral and ethical choice. Which we, of course, don't share,
> but we are not them.
>
Nope, if they must blind themselves and others in order to maintain
their faith, then they are evil.
>
> > Intellectual freedom is of crucial importance to humans. Any
> > society which denies it is worthy of censure.
>
> I am having problems explaining this, I see.
>
> Censure all you want. As long as you understand that the human
> beings you are censoring were not more evil than you in most
> (any?) meaningful way, and that, yes, they were wrong, but
> error is (IMHO) not a basis for censure.
>
Threatening someone with torture over an astronomical
issue is more than an error.
>
> Being "right" in the way you are now would have been
>
> a) Unthinkable.
No. The Venetians, for example, would never have tortured
anyone over such a dispute. Galileo had lived in Venice,
but didn't like his teaching duties there.
>
> b) Immoral.
Only by a flawed morality.
>
> c) Unethical.
How is this different from immoral? Or are you being redundant?
>
> d) Inconvenient (because they would go to hell!)
>
Then the Church deserves censure for brainwashing.
>
> Why censor them, then?
>
> The difference between martirdom and justice is often one
> of perspective.
>
One may as well say that about Auschwitz.
>
> > > Again, try to consider the church's point of view many centuries ago.
> > > There were many religions, conflicting. If noone stood for the
> > > word of god (and they honestly believed they did, and that word was
> > > infalible and true and right), that would have been a sin of omission.
> > >
> >
> > Well, forget Galileo, then. How many people died in the Crusades
> > and religious wars to satisfy the "moral" demands of such priests?
>
> A hell of a lot less than died in the muslim offensive that took place
> a few centuries later, and for the exact same reasons. What point
> are you trying to make?
>
I'm not saying that the Church is more guilty than Islam, I'm only
saying that in terms of human life, the Crusades were more
destructive than the persecution of Galileo.
>
> > > That was a sin against GOD, who they believed would condemn them to
> > > hell. They believed NOT burning the heretics was immoral!
> >
> > And what basis did they have for such beliefs?
>
> Beliefs often lack adequate rational basis. They wouldn't
> be beliefs otherwise.
>
Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis for their
beliefs and give them weapons and political power.
>
> > > Galileo's trial, no matter how awful it seems from our porspective,
> > > was really a honest mistake
> >
> > > A terrible one? Sure. But was the church
> > > acting unethically? Probably not. Illegally? Surely not.
> > >
> >
> > Of course not illegally, as secular governments generally
> > went along with the church.
>
> Ok. Now, was it unethical? Keep in mind that most theories of ethics
> require you consider only the coherence of the actions against
> the value system of the person commiting the action.
>
Yes. One is responsible for one's value system, and if one's
value system demands such censorship, then such a
system is wrong.
Hitler's "value system" demanded the extermination of the Jews,
and his actions were coherent with it. Should he be held blameless?
>
> A murder can be ethical. That's why cops have guns.
>
No. In that case it isn't murder, but only killing.
>
> > > Who knows what of what we do today will make us monsters in the eyes
> > > of the 25th century?
> > >
> >
> > I'll take that chance.
>
> Ok, how about this: we may be destroying the world for the future
> generations.
> In a way, that's a genocide much larger than anything in the crusades or
> whatever, since it may destroy ALL humanity, and no human moral system
> that I know of considers that evn remotely ethical.
>
We may be, and if we are, we deserve such censure.
Unlikely to destroy all of humanity, but yes much more than the
Church did.
>
> > "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
>
> Blah. Preparing to be judged does nothing about the possibility
> of judgement, or the outcome of the judgement.
Except that one does not perform acts likely to lead to censure
in the first place.
> It's useless
> except to keep you comfortable. It's almost navel gazing.
>
And not making moral judgment is any less navel gazing?
>
> And who are you to judge people you don't know, on facts you know
> only through the haze of history 400 years later, who acted based
> on a morality you don't share.
>
I am a human being. Who are you to apologize for the Church?
>
> That's, let's say, a tad messianic.
As opposed to being militantly ignorant?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:28:59 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Change that as Nobel prize winner García Márquez suggested, and
> > you have spanish with phonetic spelling, no sweat, no information
> > lost.
>
> Russian is even more consistant, with it's use of the Cyrillic
> alphabet, but still, there is ambiguity
>
> When you hear the sound like "ee" in Engish is it
>
> "i" (actually written as a backwards "N") or the character
> that looks like 'bl'
>
And the gamma looking letter sounds like English hard g,
except when it sounds like v.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:39:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yep, you are right. We sure could control unmanned space probes with paper
> and pencil. Who can't remember all the great photorealistic 3D images the
> were made from paper and pencil? And then there are all the special effect
> in the movies and on T.V. that were made with paper without the need for
> physical models. Then there are the mathematical models that take millions
> or billions of calculations that were done easy as pie with just paper.
The only valid point there is weather prediction. Space probes? I don't give
a shit. And I'm sure that special effects in movies have led to a better
standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants, right? And it's hardly
like special effects and animation were never done before computers came
along; my favourite is still by far "L'homme Qui Plantait des Arbres" and
it was *hand* *painted* by a single artist!
As useful as email is, it's not a *new* use for computers. As useful as
a reliable modern phone network is, it's also not a new use for computers.
Can't you see the difference between the Romans using concrete to build
lots and lots of walls/roads they could've built using brick and stone
versus using concrete nowadays to build things that *can't* be built
using brick and stone? And there's a world of difference between "doing
billions of calculations faster" and "running a model of the atmosphere",
only the latter is something /new/; Kepler may have had a hard time of
it using only quill and paper but how many calculations do you think he
had to make? If you can't understand the difference then you have too
much of an engineering mindset; just realize that the world *isn't* run
by engineers, let alone /for/ engineers!
And here's the kicker; the vast majority of the *advanced* countries'
populations aren't ever affected by a supercomputer doing weather or
quantum chromodynamics modeling. In fact, I can only recall a single
time when I used the results of weather prediction in the past decade
so this is NOT a way that computers have personally affected me. I'd
put climate modeling as having had more impact than weather modeling
and like QCD models, this isn't something that ordinary people are
ever exposed to.
A "faster, better, cheaper" way to do the Same Old Shit is NOT a *new*
use for any technology.
> If you can not see the errors in your article then you are no prometheus,
> antemetheus would be a better account name for you.
I can just imagine you jumping up and down in excitement over a huge 2-ton
monstrosity of shining steel and plastic while a skeptic asks you "what's
it FOR?" and you respond "it's a coffee-maker". Ever hear of Rube Goldberg?
And here's what I think of the rest of your argument:
> Then thanks to the development of the moveable type press, with plates
[....]
> be melted for casting more type when it is needed. Finally it was possible
> to mass produce books and it was a revolution.
Thanks to the invention of fire .... then it was possible to cook food
and fire pottery and it was a revolution.
> Books as a result have become a commodity and has lead us to the point that
> many today take literacy for granted.
And as a direct result of the invention of fire we have the heat-resistant
ceramic tiles used in the space shuttle program.
Do you have any idea what the literacy rate was in the Roman world? Mass
schooling had a fucking lot more to do with it than books!
Have you ever considered questioning the holy icons of your culture?
Can you stop worshipping technology long enough to make an objective
assessment of its usefulness?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
