Linux-Advocacy Digest #232, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 12:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) (spam)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Roberto Selbach Teixeira)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (sfcybear)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Stuart Fox)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:28:52 -0800
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:24:42 -0800, "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:KC4Q5.20465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9mWP5.126188$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/6/70.ASP
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > > Where does it say that what it considers as a transaction includes the
>> > > data? I question this because I have seen other sources that said it
>> > > didn't.
>> >
>> > When a user updates a file, the Log File Service records all redo and
>undo
>> > information for the transaction. For recoverability, redo information
>> allows
>> > NTFS to roll the transaction forward (repeat the transaction if
>> necessary),
>> > and undo allows NTFS to roll the transaction back if an error occurs.
>> >
>> You are extremely gullible if you take that statement as saying that the
>> data is considered part of the transaction. I always assume the worst
>> out of habit when I see any such omission of details in a warm-fuzzy
>> description, especially from a certain large company, but I see someone
>> else posted the link to the admission that it doesn't.
>
>From: http://www.executive.com/whats-new/whitepaper.asp#_Toc463769977
>NTFS is a recoverable file system. This means that operations in NTFS are
>transactions, as in a database. Either the entire operation completes or the
>operating system has the capability to roll back the unfinished portion,
>safeguarding the integrity of the existing data. NTFS also stores redundant
>copies of critical file system structures in the unlikely event that
>physical damage makes one copy of them inaccessible.
>
>Or: http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index.html
>
>Journalising
>
>NTFS is a fail-safe system which can correct itself at practically any real
>failure. Any modern file system is based on such concept as transaction -
>the action made wholly and correct or not made at all. NTFS just doesn't
>have intermediate (erratic or incorrect) conditions - the data variation
>quantum cannot be divided on before failure or after it bringing breakups
>and muddle - it is either accomplished or cancelled.
>
None of this talks about file content being journalled - its not in
NTFS.
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 14 Nov 2000 14:28:07 -0500
>>>>> "mlw" == mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mlw> The one problem I have with many of Open Source people is
mlw> this sort of emotional dislike for C++.
I don't know it there really is a general dislike of C++. Some people
like it, some don't. That is as simple as that.
mlw> This is not a troll! I am being serious and sincere. I am a
mlw> software engineer / architect professionally, and I have had
mlw> to argue this point many times with some of guys we hire. It
mlw> is my role to make sure the right decisions are made.
mlw> Under what circumstances is "C" a better choice than "C++?"
mlw> (excluding backward compatibility in an existing product)
C is better that C++ in the fact that C is more portable. C++ is not
yet implemented in (no so) many platforms while C is implemented
everywhere. Also, some implementations of C++ are not complete and
most are way behind in ANSI C++ compliance.
But that is it. Some will argue that C++ is bloated. Nonsense.
C++ is a great programming language and as I mentioned before I don't
think there is a general dislike of C++ in the open source/free
software community. Sure, RMS tells us to use C unless there is no
other way (read the GNU guidelines), but many free software projects
use C++ (QT, KDE, Blackbox, Lyx, to name a few famous ones).
--
Roberto Teixeira
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:31:42 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MP5Q5.20480$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:185Q5.126387$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > Isn't it still impossible to completely turn off active-x in IE?
> >
> > Of course it's possible. And easy. And you can turn it on and off for
> > trusted/untrusted sites so you can leave it on for internal corporate
> sites
> > and turn it off for all others.
>
> Has this been fixed?
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0%2C4586%2C2322425%2C00.html
>
> and is the problem mentioned here about anyone being able
> to redistribute a buggy applet signed by Microsoft true?
> http://archives.indenial.com/hypermail/ntbugtraq/1999/March1999/0057.html
Sure. But as I said, scripting can be turned off for unknown sites.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:37:05 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NF5Q5.20477$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:VM2Q5.126334$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > Create a shortcut with any command line flags you want in windows.
> > > >
> > > > Easy. Intuitive.
> > >
> > > Every script needs a shortcut? That's bad.
> >
> > Scripts don't NEED shortcuts.
> >
> > The shortcut feature is wonderful. It allows the logical grouping of
> > executables and scripts and ducments.
>
> If the filesystem had general purpose links and symlinks as unix
> has had for eons, you wouldn't need the limited-function concept
> of shortcuts.
Limited function? Shortcuts are great!
>
> > > > Set your own icon if you want to make it easier to remember.
> > >
> > > I don't want icons, I want to connect them with pipes so
> > > each one can be used as a component of another.
> >
> > So what do you do? Type ls at the comand prompt to search for you the
> script
> > you want to run and then type in the name of the script with the command
> > line switches every time?
>
> No, that's the point of making the script able to invoke it's interpreter
> with the command line flags it needs.
How do you find you thousands of scripts? Through ls right? Archaic.
>
> > Sounds down right archaic.
>
> Downright handy. And any time the typing becomes cumbersome you
> just write a higher level script to invoke the frequently used
> combinations with a single command.
When typing gets cumbersome you type more. Yuck. Old fashioned. I can't see
this catching on for normal desktop users.
>
> > > > the"All Users" folder.
> > >
> > > Yech - you mean gunk shows up on your desktop whether you want
> > > it or not?
> >
> > No. Usable programs show up for other users when Administrators want it
> too.
> > Great feature. Doesn't Linux have that one? Pity.
>
> Programs are typically installed for all users.
For anyone? Even people you don't want using them? Yuck.
>
> > Features. Lots of features in Win2k. Great OS. Much more advanced than
> > Linux!
>
> Catching up, but slowly.
I don't think Linux will ever get there.
>
> > > The OS for people who think that a hundred is not a large number of
> > > programs. Or maybe a thousand - but I don't want to have to make a
> > > shortcut for each one.
> >
> > How do you list them and find them? ls ? Slow and archaic. How do you
> group
> > them logically by project or function and store them a different way?
>
> Why would I ever want to see them?
You've memorized the names of every script? How many do you have? 5?
> There is nothing inherently
> 'visible' about a program or useful about seeing them. Park them
> off in your PATH and execute them as desired.
How many script names have you memorized?
Or do you just type in scriptnames until you find the one you want and hope
the previous ones don't do anything bad?
>
> > Do you have a text file with a thousand script names?
>
> Huh? I am able to permute combinations and options, unlike
> a click-it-or-not icon. I could do a thousand different
> things to a text file with short, concise commands.
Sure. But how do you choose which script to run? ls?
>
> > Sounds positively archaic.
>
> I don't think so. It maps very well to the
> way we think and type.
A minority. Thats why Unix never made it to the desktop either.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:37:28 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rH5Q5.20478$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Jj4Q5.126368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Show me a machine without IE that's vulnerable to ILOVEYOU.
> >
> > Show me a copy of Linux on the store shelves without a root exploit.
>
> Or any Microsoft OS?
But so many more in Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:39:23 -0800
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ur02i$b54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Chad Myers wrote in message ...
> >
> >Claims were made that somehow because NT isn't shipping, in a box,
> >for PPC, that somehow NT doesn't support it or the technology isn't
> >there.
> >
> >I think any intelligent person (yourself included) would reasonably
> >conclude that NT certainly has the ABILITY and the TECHNOLOGY to
> >run on those platforms, or most any other, it's just that MS doesn't
> >have a financial incentive to do so.
> >
> >I was merely combating the unintelligent claims that somehow because
> >MS isn't shipping them, that NT has lost this ability.
> >
>
> Fair enough - the NT3.51 kernel has the ability to support a small range
of
> CPUs. NT4.0 kernel only ever supported x86 and Alpha,
And MIPS.
And embedded NT can run on other platforms.
> IIRC, while the NT5.0
> kernel (aka w2k) only supports x86. NT, as it is now, has lost the
ability
> to support non-x86 architectures.
IA-64 is not x86. But your are probably one of those penguinistas who
doesn't undertsand that.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:41:52 -0800
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only reasonable tool
> > > > > > > > > I've found to deal with remote windows is VNC installed as
a
> > > > service
> > > > > > > > > because you can run the java client in any browser if you
> > don't
> > > > happen
> > > > > > > > > to have the client loaded wherever you are.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > WTS has a browser-based ActiveX control client.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability.
Just
> > > > > > > as warped as usual.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds pretty portable to me. Any machine with IE on it can be
used
> > to
> > > > > > administer a Win2K server.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm assuming an admin could also use Netscape if he so wished to
> > > > > administer a win2k server or is Netscape not included in
Microsoft's
> > Ten
> > > > > Commandments? "Thou shall not have no other browser before IE"
> > > >
> > > > Why would you want to use a slow buggy piece of crap like Netscape?
> > >
> > > Because IE is as slow as Netscape,
> >
> > Much much faster. Really, really snappy.
> >
> > > slightly more crappy then
> > > Netscape, slightly more buggy then Netscape,
> >
> > Netscape is a joke.
> >
>
> Well, MS underwent a big effort to undermine this joke,
> blackmailing OEM's and playing other nasty tricks.
> Can you tell why?
Microsft gave away IE because Netscape gave their product away for free you
twit.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:28:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phil 'Guido' Cava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jack,
>
> You are overlooking one fact in trying to evaluate the reliability of
NT:
> Microsoft did not design NT to _be_ reliable; hence the limit of 49.7
days of
> uptime, which MS obviously deemed an adequate measure of NT.
>
> ;) Guido
>
But all the NT folks told us that it WAS desinged to be reliable???? Are
you telling us the were wrong???
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:43:14 -0800
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jake Taense wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Giuliano Colla
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Because IE is as slow as Netscape, slightly more crappy then
> > > > >Netscape, slightly more buggy then Netscape, and moreover it
> > > > >is absolutely and intrinsically unsafe. Didn't I LOVE YOU
> > > > >teach anything?
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't that a virus that took advantage of a problem with OE, not
IE?
> > > >
> > > > I could be wrong.
> > >
> > > it exploited the same design flaw in both programs.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But in my experience, Netscape is both slower and buggier than IE in
any
> > > > version over 4.0 on either side.
> > > >
> > > > Netscape also routinely crashes on my linux box.
> > >
> > > better a crash than an ILOVEYOU attack.
> >
> > Aaron is a Sun "Engineer". He prefers machines that crash.
>
> Then he should select MS powered machines, which crash
> without need of hardware problems.
Not the one I works with. And Microsoft doesn't black mail Sun users with
non discosure agreements that essentially say: "We'll try harder to fix this
problem if you keep quiet about it. Talk about it and we won't."
What a bunch of scumbags.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:50:33 +1000
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ur02i$b54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Chad Myers wrote in message ...
> >
> >Claims were made that somehow because NT isn't shipping, in a box,
> >for PPC, that somehow NT doesn't support it or the technology isn't
> >there.
> >
> >I think any intelligent person (yourself included) would reasonably
> >conclude that NT certainly has the ABILITY and the TECHNOLOGY to
> >run on those platforms, or most any other, it's just that MS doesn't
> >have a financial incentive to do so.
> >
> >I was merely combating the unintelligent claims that somehow because
> >MS isn't shipping them, that NT has lost this ability.
> >
>
> Fair enough - the NT3.51 kernel has the ability to support a small range
of
> CPUs. NT4.0 kernel only ever supported x86 and Alpha, IIRC, while the
NT5.0
> kernel (aka w2k) only supports x86. NT, as it is now, has lost the
ability
> to support non-x86 architectures. I have little doubt that NT5 could be
> made to support these CPUs again if someone were willing to pay for it.
NT 3.51 and 4.0 were released on x86, Alpha, PPC and MIPS with internal
unreleased ports (probably not entirely completed) to SPARC and PA-RISC.
NT 5 is released on x86, was on Alpha until beta 3 (and if you have reason
to believe some huge fundamental architecture changes took place between
beta 3 and release, do speak up) and is under development (and booting) on
ia-64.
> In short, NT *has* lost the ability to run on other platforms.
False.
And there is a difference between losing an ability and not using it.
> It has the
> technological basis to regain that ability, and there are older versions
> that can run on other platforms, but the NT of today cannot.
False.
> >> There are older systems out there running NT on non-x86 platforms,
> >> but for all practical purposes (such as setting up a new system),
> >> NT is x86-only.
> >
> >But that doesn't mean that NT could only run on x86, wouldn't
> >you agree?
> >
>
> Yes, but "could" does not mean "does". It is a great shame, and I am sure
> the original NT designers are bitter about it.
I doubt they're bitter at all if NT isn't released on umpty-um platforms, as
long as it has retained the portability it was designed with. As there is
no reason to believe it has, and compelling evidence that it has not, I
sincerely doubt they care what platforms it gets sold for.
[chomp]
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:44:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Read the link again. It explains it quite clearly. NT4 simply
cannot, in
> > any circumstance, report an uptime longer than 49.7 days, even if
the server
> > has been up for 3 years straight. It can't make it into the top 50
if it is
> > incapable of reporting a time large enough to BE in the top 50, now
can it?
>
> So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> that what you're saying?
uptime.exe
>
> > > And you never explained the graph that shows Starbucks rebooting
their
> > > NT 4 server on a daily basis for months and months on end.
> >
> > Again:
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#whichos
> >
> > "NT4 SP5 sometimes gives unreliable data, appearing as a "swarm of
bees"
> > effect on a graph."
>
> So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> that what you're saying?
uptime.exe
>
> > Notice how the starbucks NT4 results show no trend. One day it's
an 18 day
> > uptime, the next day it's 40 days, the next day it's 0 days, the
next day
> > something else. There is no way from *ANY* NT4 uptime result to
know if
> > it's accurate or not.
>
> So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> that what you're saying?
>
uptime.exe
> > > I thought
> > > NT 4 was the end-all and be-all of server OS's, Eric? How can u
> > > explain this anomalous behavior?
> >
> > I explain it by pointing out netcrafts own explanation. NT4's
uptime
> > statistics are not valid in any condition. Ever.
>
> So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> that what you're saying?
>
uptime.exe. Of course, you can't run this over the net, but it's
a "real world" way to measure the "reliability", as long as you define
reliability to be uptime.
>
> Well, seeing as you're telling us that there's no reliable way of
> assessing NT's real-world performance on the internet, which facts
> are we supposed to get straight? I mean, why would anyone use a
> system that can't even track its own uptime properly? If one's going
> to use a server system, I would certainly hesitate to use one that
> is designed in such a way as to make gathering reliability
> information impossible to gather in any meaningful way.
>
Uptime is a completely bogus figure when talking about the performance
of a web server. The OS could be up, but the HTTP service could be
crashed/down etc. Performance of a web server can only really be
measured by how "available" a server is to users, not what the OS
uptime is. This applies to any OS you care to mention. Of course,
measuring availability is next to impossible, as too many other factors
come into it. A mere uptime measure doesn't take into account
operational procedures (e.g. a web site might have scheduled downtime
on each box in their cluster every x days).
FWIW, Starbastards managed to achieve something that many *nix heads
say is impossible and kept Windows 2000 for a reasonable length of time.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:05:50 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ug89q$e9l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > Saving to disk is worse. At that point you effectively own it.
> >
> > So let's get this straight:
> > 1. Executing directly from the email is Bad.
> > 2. Saving it to disk is Worse.
> >
> > JUST HOW THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH ATTACHMENTS ?
>
> I've said it over and over. The mailer should know the MIME types
> that it can display safely and either have the corresponding code
> internally or a list of programs that are safe. Safe operations are
> not a new concept - java applets deal with it pretty well.
>
> > > > Once again you confuse executing with opening. When making arguments
> > > > against Windows, use Windows terminology.
> > >
> > > I am making arguments about an email program. It does not have
> > > to inherit all of Windows problems in order to run there.
> >
> > It runs under Windows. Therefore it uses Windows' semantics and UI.
Thus demonstrating the DEFICIENCIES of Windows' semantics and UI.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
