Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #29 Sat, 7 Oct 00 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Drestin Black")
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Drestin Black")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Mark Hall)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: To all you WinTrolls (JoeX1029)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 21:40:12 -0500
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rojno$ef0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8rnmj2$jki$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Yep. The government is a troublesome servant and fearsome master.
>
> I don't really understand your remark. But I'll tell you, I'll take the US
> government over the Japanese one anyday. At least the US thinks that part
> of its job is protecting the citizens from the occassional excesses of
When you use the government against someone within your industry, you set
a precedent for their involvement.
> greedy businesses. (Firestone tires, anyone?) The Japanese government
> seems to think that citizens exist to be fleeced by large (Japanese)
> corporations.
>
> >>
> >> Even if I believed that, what has that got to do with the willingness
> >> of a court to listen to a case involving the "bundling" of third party
> >> free (as in GPL) software? Exactly zero, far as I can tell.
> >>
> >> >> download the whole thing for free anyhow, or easily switch to
> >> >> caldera, corel, slackware, etc.
> >> >
> >> > It isn't quite so easy, unless you enjoy reinstalling your operating
> >> > system.
> >>
> >> Isn't reinstalling the os one of Micro~1's favorite trouble-shooting
> >> techniques? And a major source of income for the company?
> >
> > Why would reinstalling something you already have cause you to buy more?
> > How could that be a source of income?
>
> I was refering to upgrades - from 3.1 to 95 to 98 to 98se to me, etc. They
> may not qualify as "full reinstalls" but it is still a lot of effort and
> expense.
That's not a "reinstall" and isn't required. I used Win3.1 until NT 4.0 was
out for a year.
Keeping up with the latest release isn't required.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Maybe you are unaware of this, but switching from one linux distro to
> >> another is simple - much easier than switching from Windows to Linux or
> >> Mac. It may even be easier than switching from Win98 to WinNT. Unlike
> >
> > Well, the switch to a Mac requires a hardware change.
>
> Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Do you agree then that switching from
> one linux distro to another is easier than switching from windows to
> non-windows?
Provided it runs on the same hardware.
>
> >
> >> Windows, Linux usually has (or should have) /home on a separate
> >> partition.
> >
> > You can (I do) have your work files on a seperate partition if you want.
> > Just like Unix.
>
> Yes, you can. If you go to the trouble to do it. See the above about
No trouble at all.
> installing various Linux distros. But I'll repeat part - Linux distros
> come with software to help you partition the drive(s) when you install
> the os. Windows does not - it requires the use of third party software
> after the os is installed.
Partition Magic is still the preferred software, no matter the OS.
>
> Also, I have heard many semi-advanced Windows users say that they don't
> partition their C:\ drive because then it gets too full when you add
Get a bigger drive.
> programs later. Also, the swap file defaults to the C drive. Certainly,
> linux systems can be poorly partitioned - resulting in a full /usr
You can put the swap file anywhere you want in either case.
<snip long problem that about not having enough hard drive space>
>
> >> No problem at all. Unless you really f**ck things up, you won't even
> >> have to touch your backups.
> >
> > You have to merge the /etc, among other things. There's far more too it
> > than you seem to think. I've been using Unix-based systems for ten
> > years. I used Slackware at kernel revision 0.99. I've been there
> > before.
>
> Again, see above about reinstalls. I have installed several distros and
> have never had to "merge the /etc" whatever that it.
You don't know what the /etc directory is? That's where most configuration
files are
for such things as DHCP and your networking settings. Do you even USE Linux
(beyond the pretty gui)? Those settings files are in different locations,
depending
on the distro. Not to mention, what moron came up with "user/linux".
That's
almost as bad as "usr/people" from IRIX.
<snip>
> Whether you accept them as fact or not is totally irrelevant. They are not
> facts as in the "facts" you find in a science book or an encyclopedia.
> They are the facts as proven to the judge during the trial through the
> evidence and testimony. As such they are considered the facts to be used
> in determining guilt or innocence. MS should have done a better job
> presenting its case.
I'm sure they will on appeal. The case if FAR from decided.
>
> Or maybe they are taking the Stormy Weathers approach (from some old law
> movie with Judd Nelson(?)): I can't win the case, I just want to draw it
> out long enough to cost him money. (Or something like that).
Since the other side is the US government and is using MY (and every other
taxpayer) money for the case, I doubt
they'll run out.
>
> Anyhow, the FoF are considered the true facts of the case until such time
> as some higher court overrules them (or whatever is legally necessary to
> change them into non-facts). Deal with it. (If MS ends up winning the case
> before I die, I promise to deal with it also).
>
> >
> >>
> >> The answer to your question - and this is in the FoF - is that Netscape
> >> Navigator threatened MS's desktop os monopoly by exposing non-Windows
> >> API's that programmers could use to write programs that would then be
> >> less dependent on the underlying os. They threatened to make the os
> >> less important. Remember, Navigator runs on far more platforms than
> >> Windows or IE does.
> >
> > Netscape exposed APIs? Netscape is a monolithic application. What are
> > you smoking? Netscape didn't produce Java, you know.
>
> I wish - don't you know drugs are illegal in Japan?
>
> It was quite clearly stated in the FoF that Navigator "exposed non-Windows
> API's". If that is false, then MS did an even worse job of arguing its
> case than I thought.
They used non-Windows APIs, but I never noticed that those were available
for anyone to use for free (until they open-sourced the thing).
>
>
> >>
> >> BTW, are you saying that a Linux programmer could use IE's "open
> >> framework" to write programs from Linux (say Red Hat for example)?
> >
> > Only if IE were ported to Linux.
>
> So let me see here. Navigator is a "monolithic program" that cannot (you
"Monolithic" refers to the nature of the application - one big file. If
that's
changed since I last used Netscape (on Solaris), then great for them.
> imply) expose API's. Internet Explorer, on the other hand is an open
> framework that can be used to write programs - which sounds to this
> non-programer like "exposing API's".
Anyone can use IE's web browsing and html rendering facilities within their
own apps.
>
> So, you expect me to believe that the FoF are totally wrong, and that
> Navigator in fact does _not_ expose API's while simultaneously admitting
> that IE does expose API's. You can see, I hope, where I would have trouble
> believing you over the FoF.
If you wish to believe an engineer over a lawyer, then that's your problem.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> With the market share that MS windows has, and the corresponding
> >> >> lack of competition, they have no incentive to include any software
> >> >> that they don't absolutely have to. (Also, my not including any
> >> >> extra software with
> >> >
> >> > If the had this level of market share, they could raise prices. They
> >> > haven't.
> >>
> >> I have no data one way of the other. But, are you trying to say that
> >> they aren't a monopoly if they don't raise prices? Do you see that that
> >> makes no sense? Higher prices are one way that a monopoly might be
> >> abused. IE and MS Office are other ways.
> >
> > IE is free. How is that harming the customer?
>
> You are switching the focus here. You said that they couldn't be a
> monopoly since they hadn't raised prices. Now you are asking how a free
> program could hurt the consumer. Are you admitting that a monopoly doesn't
> have to raise prices to be called a monopoly?
A "monopoly" is whatever the judge thinks it is. That can change with the
next administration.
Judges make plenty of mistakes and often have their own agendas.
>
> As (some) winvocated are fond of saying, "there is no such thing as a free
> lunch". The damage is not directly and immediately dropped upon the
> consumers shoulders, rather the damage comes later, in the form of what
> could have been. That free program was the club used to beat the
Netscape was the monopoly. They lost. It is interesting that at the start
of the
anti-trust proceedings, Netscape had a larger market share than IE. It is
also
interesting that anti-trust law, by definition, was designed to act against
"trusts".
A "trust" is a group of companies that agree to fix the market price.
> competition to death. Competition that could have brought innovative new
> products to market. Competition that could have done a lot of good for the
> industry and consumers, but did not, because MS killed them. MS killed
> consumer choice. Many people say that IE 5.0 and 5.5 are very good. But
> remember that in the time period we are talking about (2-3+ years ago), IE
> was not clearly superior to Navigator. Not at all.
>
> Read the FoF - it is quite clear that MS did not give away IE in order to
> help consumers. They did it to kill the competition and protect their
> monopoly. And that is illegal.
>
> >>
> >> >> windows proper, MS gives the OEMs a way to distinguish themselves
> >> >> from each other).
> >> >>
> >> >> And, with the market share that they have, almost any program they
> >> >> include
> >> >
> >> > A more accurate phrase would be "with the enemies they have".
> >>
> >> What enemies? Don't you mean competitors? I always thought MS didn't
> >> understand the difference between the two. Paranoid f**ckers, aren't
> >> they? If life is so rough, and their competitors are such meanies, why
> >> if it that MS has the bad reputation?
> >
> > By McNealy's own rhetoric, MS is the enemy.
>
> MS has a track record that makes that easy for people to believe. You
> never hear about any company saying "General Foods is our enemy!"
You've never read or listened to McNealy, have you?
>
> <snip>
>
> > They can't FORCE the world to buy the upgrade. I certainly didn't and
> > won't buy it. WinME is a toy. Win2k is actually pretty good.
>
> So, let's see. When did 3.1 come out? (I don't even want to think about
> pre-3.1 windows.) I recall using it around 1992, but don't remember
> exactly when it came out. For over 8 years, MS has touted their latest
> monstrosity as "faster, more stable, and better" (my words), and it is
EVERY company does this.
> only now, several oses later that they have one that you will concede is
> "actually pretty good". And their home version is "a toy". That doesn't
> inspire confidence.
I use what gets my work done. For the desktop, that isn't linux. For the
server,
that is linux or (better yet) a *BSD. I use Linux quite often.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 7 Oct 2000 21:44:06 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rldv5$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rfp69$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > But, see that "T" in TCO? It's not "CO" which is what your describing
> > here.
> >> > Sure, it cost $0 "CO" for the open sores(tm) version versus >$0 "CO"
for
> > the
> >> > MS solution but you asked about "TCO" - TOTAL cost of ownership.
> > Ahhhhh...
> >> > see, after you've got these stacks of CDs sitting there and it comes
> > time to
> >> > actually install, configure and use these items does the "T" portion
> > kick
> >> > in. Try sharing those star office files with anyone, what's the
> > performance
> >> > of that MySQL database? Need replication? Transactions? full SQL-92
> > support?
> >> > stored procedures worth a damn? Did you want security? Compability
with
> >> > everything? Support for everything? I argue that Windows is much
easier
> > to
> >> > install, configure and use than Linux. It's the "T" portion of TCO
you
> > need
> >> > to focus on, the "CO" part is easy. Remember, Linux (et. el.) is only
> > free
> >> > if your time is worth nothing...
> >>
> >> I need a database that is starts at 1.5 terabytes and is growable to 35
> > terabytes
> >> with no tweaking, and is also capable of handling 70,000 transactions
per
> >> second. What would you suggest for hardware, software and OS?
>
>
> > Hmmm ok, how about something that does more than that?
>
> >
http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Compaq/compaq.pl8500.00100601.
> > es.pdf
>
> > Posted today. It beats the previously posted IBM DB2/W2K TPC-C record
and is
> > cheaper. It has 43 terabytes of storage ... big enough for you boyo?
Guess
> > what - it's the new king. I don't see Sun or *nix even remotely close...
>
> 43TB? Thats it? DB2 has no limit. AIX. Sorry about that.
Limit? What limit? Did I even remotely suggest that 43 tb was ANY sort of
limit? again, you are twisting the words out of desperation.
>
> And lets see, according to this document, the measurement interval was 30
> minutes. The number of transactions completed in this interval was
> 33,811,291. Thats with a "ramp up time" (sorry, I work with platforms
that
> dont use these sorts of terms) of 48 minutes, and a rampdown time of 40
> minutes.
Translation: I have no idea what these terms mean, why they would be used,
how they impact the numbers and what I've gotten myself into
>
> But lets be fair: 33,811,291 transactions in 30 minutes. 30 minutes
would
> be 1800 seconds, which would give us a grand total of 18,784 transactions
> per second.
So, instead you decide to try to play with your calculator and come up with
some random figures ...
>
> Which is about 25% of what I asked for. I asked for 70,000. And thats
AFTER
> "ramp-up" time.
and since you didn't define "transaction" you of course have no ruler
whatsoever for comparision and hence are not even remotely in the ballpark
for discussion. If you knew what a TPC-C transaction entails you'd know it
wasn't a single operation of any kind, instead, an entire unit of multiple,
atomic steps.
>
> And do you realize that compaq is charging over NINE MILLION DOLLARS for
> this product?
which beats the hell out of the $14,232,696 that IBM charges for it's lower
performing attempt.
>
> I could buy 4 IBM machines/licenses/software bundles which could EACH do
what
> I asked for for that price.
Since you didn't define what you wanted to do - who knows what you are
asking for. And since we'll be riding on the backs of flying pigs the day
IBM (or sun) charges less than Compaq I think it's fair to say that you are
again wrong.
>
> Again, I think its sweet and kind of funny that compaq/microsoft believes
it
> can compete in the heavy server market.
you are into this sweetness thing aren't you? your boyfriend buy you a new
toy or something? Sun Tzu has a LOT to say about underestimating your enemy.
I encourage you to continue to laugh at compaq/microsoft's first attempt.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: 7 Oct 2000 21:48:07 -0500
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rlf4p$2t0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Drestin,
>
> > You are right - you need the Server edition (not Pro) to create RAID
> > volumes. Sorry about that. I use server on just about everything (I
> > advocate pro for end-users but I run server myself ("cause I want to")
> > and didn't think before typing.
>
> That's OK. I had wanted to do it with NT4 WS and at that time I found
> Microsoft had disabled the feature.
Not "disabled," "never included" is accurate.
>
> Unfortunately I believe this is characteristic of Microsoft's respect for
> my data: In this case Microsoft has gone out of its way to make sure that
> I can't use a system of data protection that would save my data in event
> of one of my hard disks failing. Why? Because they're not happy with me
> just paying for a business OS for my computer.
oh, excuse me? so, you believe that ANY OS that doesn't provide RAID
natively demonstrates a lack of respect for your data? Does your
equipment/OS fail you so regularly that the lack of RAID built-in to the OS
is such a concern? wow... given that only someone looking to get by cheaply
would use software raid, only someone who has just a passing care for their
data and performance would use software raid. So, you are more concerned
that an OS include RAID built-in and to hell with performance and features -
rather than spending a few bucks and doing it properly in hardware? So this
is your complaint? Gee Adam... sorry 'bout that. Guess MS just ain't
perfect. Maybe you should save your lunch money, buy a cheap promise IDE
controller and use the 30 minute patch to convert it to their RAID
controller and mirror your cheap IDE drives instead. Won't cost you anything
more than $30...
lame...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: 7 Oct 2000 21:50:10 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > You are right - you need the Server edition (not Pro) to create RAID
> > volumes. Sorry about that. I use server on just about everything (I
advocate
> > pro for end-users but I run server myself ("cause I want to") and didn't
> > think before typing.
>
> And how much extra does this cost?
what is your data worth? what is losing your data going to cost you?
now... wanna explain to that client that they shouldn't cry over lost data
and remind them of the few $'s they saved a few years ago...
------------------------------
From: Mark Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 22:48:43 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> knee-jerk altruism is the road to ruin.
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
Oh me. Another delusion paranoid flapping in the wind. And what a gem of
logic he has lobbed our way. He seems to enjoy hurling coiled and fetid
rantings of lunacy. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll eat his own head as
he walks on his breath.
Check out the link he left us with. Joy to the world.
If I did own a gun I'd have to swallow it after reading anymore of his
posts.
--The road to hell is paved by fools with long sig lines.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 7 Oct 2000 21:52:06 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rle1r$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:41:18 +1300, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> >Hi all,
> >> >
> >> >I've just set up two dual-processor Redhat GNU/Linux 7 computers both
> >> >booting with RAID1 for high reliability. I am also making use of the
> > newly
> >> >GPLed MySQL on both computers.
> >> >
> >> >One computer provides NAT and IPChains firewalling services. Both also
> >> >provide an Apache/PHP development environment.
> >> >
> >> >To set this all up has cost $0 for the software. Knowing that
Microsoft
> >> >provides a lower total cost of ownership ;-) I'd be interested to know
> > what it
> >> >would cost to move these computers to a full Microsoft solution.
> >> >
> >> >It appears I would need this software:
> >> >
> >> >1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both
> > computers.
> >> >2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
> >> >3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
> >> >4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Don't forget to include biyearly complete replacement of all your
software
> >> frequently necessitated to use MS's latest'n'greatest operating system.
> > Nobody
> >> would seriously consider using win31, win9x or even winNT software with
> > W2K
> >> production environment.
> >>
>
> > Not win3x or win9x for servers, duh. But NT/W2K for production? I can't
even
> > find the strength to type out my laughter and your pathetic stupidity
and
> > ignorance of the 10s of thousands who are doing just that very
successfully
> > and less expensively than oracle or ibm solutions.
>
> 9 million dollars for the compaq solution. 3 million dollars for the
equivalent
> IBM solution, and that comes with an engineer who will relocate to your
city and
> work for you for a year.
>
#1) where the fuck do these figures come from?
#2) you provide nothing to explain the IBM figure so ignoring that vaporware
#3) what makes you think compaq hasn't done the same? or unisys?
#4) we understand that IBM systems NEED vendor support on-site to get up,
running and stay running... how sweet...
> My god, you are a huge idiot.
funny, I was just thinking that of you
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: 08 Oct 2000 02:52:55 GMT
i so love linux but OpenBSD is much more secure and stable. If it will just be
a wrkstation you probaly wont notice any difference but if you are putting up
file/net server OpenBSD would be th way to go.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 8 Oct 2000 02:14:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Well, no, except in the sense that *everything* is an
>>illusion. Abstractions should be considered as such and
>>shouldn't be confused with their implementations. After
>>all, these paradigmatic distinctions generally don't
>>survive once they pass today's heavily optimizing
>>compilers. Then there's all this metal and silicon thing..
>This is the issue I wanted to discuss, and I think Richard might have
>some things to say on the subject which might be illuminating, if not
>necessarily useful. Presuming he can refrain from wasting time with
>vitriol and arrogant chest-beating, it might be worth the time to point
>out my concerns.
>I understand what you mean by 'everything is an illusion'. But I am of
>the opinion that a true abstraction should not be considered as such. A
>*metaphor*, on the other hand, is not quite the same level of
>abstraction.
I like your distinction here. In some sense, yes, the idea
of objects described in much of the OOX literature is more
of a metaphor than an abstraction, since it is designed to
help us understand, rather than giving us a concrete
interface to the language. There are other perfectly valid
ways to describe the language's operative semantics.
Just an interesting point here: I think the language that
comes *closest* to the "everything is an object" ideal is
Scheme. It, however, is generally not considered an OO
language, (nor is the term object frequently used) though
it would be trivial to build it on top of it without much
efforts.
>In the same way, an abstraction in software programming, if sufficiently
>'solid', can, and indeed *should* be treated as real, and not an
>illusion. Treating such an abstraction as an illusion simply
>deconstructs what should be an integrated set of rules about how the
>thing behaves. Meanwhile, a great number of things which might be
>considered 'abstractions' are actually (in the conceptual terminology
>I've had to devise to explain these things) metaphors.
Well yes, abstractions, if they are indeed to be
abstractions, should be concrete enough for one to rely
on them for the operative behavior of whatever they are
abstracting.
>In short (too late, eh?) I think you're mistaken. Valid abstractions
>*should* be "confused with their implementation", and the ability to do
>so reliably is what determines that they are 'valid' abstractions.
Yes, that was what I meant.
>Metaphors, however, should not be 'confused with their implementation',
>as the word in this context would be used to identify an abstraction
>which is not 'complete', requiring knowledge of the implementation in
>order to correctly model the thing.
Again, agreed. Metaphors are not necessarily full
abstractions.
>Presuming that an object in OO programming acts like an object might
>well be such a 'true abstraction', and thus my original statement might
>be incorrect. But I still suspect that modern OO systems are merely the
>implementation of an object oriented capability to what is, ultimately,
>something which is defined in text: software. Software, not being real,
>would only achieve the status of true 'virtual object' if it can
>literally be treated as an object by everybody. Since what is an
>'object' seems restricted to either imagination (Richard's "high level
>design") or a specific implementation (language), OO programming does
>not achieve the level of reality necessary to be considered a practical
>abstraction, and still remains at least partially a metaphor.
Well if you look across different languages, yes, the idea
of an object is ultimately a metaphor, but for any specific
language, it could be a full abstraction, though the *term*
"object" remains a metaphor. A language can define the term
"object" and define what sort of operations can be applied
to an "object." That's a valid abstraction. In other words,
the term "object" is a metaphor, but as a linguistic concept,
it is an abstraction, in the same sense "function," "type,"
"class," "inheritance," etc are.
Dan.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
