Linux-Advocacy Digest #481, Volume #30 Mon, 27 Nov 00 22:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Is design really that overrated? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things I have noticed................ (Jacques Guy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:00:20 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:59:57
> +0200;
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> This is why monopolies can chase profit quite happily, whilst
> >> completely avoiding providing what the customer *actually* wants.
> >
> >Do this, and you are no longer a monopoly, because other people will give
> >the customer what they actually want, and the customer will go with them.
>
> Well, if you presume that the monopoly does not do what monopolies do,
> which is control prices and exclude competition, perhaps. But actually,
> what you are presuming is simply that the monopoly is not a monopoly,
> but a competitive business. This is not the case.
IBM is a company comparable to Microsoft, if not larger.
IBM apperantly had a technically superior OS.
Why did IBM failed? IBM is more than powerful enough to break MS monopoly
(which it created, apperantly)
How did MS controled the price of OS/2?
> >> >> I believe that some Government pressure in the
> >> >> end caused them to change their minds.
> >> >
> >> >IIRC, it was that they were offered by Iceland goverment to get paid
for
> >> >doing the localization.
> >>
> >> *Exactly* Nothing pressurises a monopoly more than cash.
> >
> >No, if there is money in it, it will be done.
> >If there isn't money in it, it won't be done.
> >Basic rules of economics.
> >Localizing windows wasn't worth it.
> >Getting paid to localize windows was worth it.
> >Simple.
>
> You seem to want to discuss economics, but ignore commerce. How does
> that work? Companies do not produce because they've already gotten paid
> to do so. If a company has such power, then they are a monopoly, quite
> obviously. "First you pay, then maybe if we get around to it you might
> get some value for your money, if you're lucky." If there wasn't money
> in it, why would they offer to pay to have MS do it; there must have
> been a 'market demand' to provide such an offer. Yet, if there was
> money in it, then why wouldn't MS have merely localized Windows?
There wasn't enough money in it to return the invesment.
The reason they wanted an localise version wasn't market demand, it was
national pride.
> Could it be that they are unconcerned with whether the customer gets
> what they want, but merely need to ensure that no user can avoid
> Windows? After all, MS already had Iceland "locked in" with the English
> version, since most people speak English. The small minority which only
> spoke Icelandic were most probably not the ones complaining, I'll bet.
> It was those who wondered why localizing Windows wasn't worth it, when
> there was obviously a market demand that exceeded the cost of doing so.
No, because the localise version would've to compete with other OS & with
the english version.
If you've already have an OS which you've gotten to know, would you install
buy a new one just because it was localised?
The answer is mixed. I can testify that using english version and switching
to a localise version can be a PITA.
Do you know whatever Icelandians write in roman letters?
> If MS was motivated by profit-seeking, rather than profiteering, the
> issue would never have come up because; there's either a market demand,
> or there is not. The Iceland incident, contrary to your presumptions,
> Ayende, is a rather clear example of a profit opportunity being avoided,
> because it would not further the monopoly.
See above.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:01:34 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:34:51
> >IIRC, it was that they were offered by Iceland goverment to get paid for
> >doing the localization.
>
> It becomes pretty obvious that they're monopolizing rather than
> competing if they turn down an offer as guaranteed as this.
They *didn't* turn it down.
They were ready to localise windows when they were offer to get paid for the
cost of ti.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:37:16 -0500
the_blur wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm a designer...I recently installed Mandrake 7.2 and found it to be the
> only distro where everything set up as easily as Windows (with the exception
> of my cable modem connection, which still doesn't work...gotta figure out
> drakconf) more out of curiosity for an alternative to MS OSes than anything
> else.
>
> One thing I noticed is that when someone in another group
> (comp.sys.mac.advocacy) reviewed whistler, the fact that it had a nicely
> designed interface came under *vicious* attack. It's sad that for some
> reason, the Linux community doesn't believe in aesthetically pleasing
> design.
>
> Anyway, here's a rank Linux Newbie's review of mandrake 7's graphic design
> (and a few other things)...
>
> Installation:
> Although the graphics in the installer were (bad) amateur at best and
> obviosly designed by someone with a very rudimentary understanding of the
> fundamentals of color theory. The installation was (super) easy after I made
> an empty area of diskspace in my second drive. It was like popping in toast.
> This was good.
>
> The Startup Screen...
>
> I think the Linux Mandrake startup graphical screen has no class. The linux
> Mandrake Login penguins look stupid (and have no class).
>
> In the login screen, is it possible to change these graphics, maybe to
> pictures of the users? The different penguins all suck. Hard. The UI
> elements are doing it right though with the popular pillow emboss look.
>
> I think Corel got it right on with their classy low-contrast collages,
> They're easy on the eyes, and have a pleasant classic, stable, buisnesslike
> look (even though that stupid-looking penguin was still looking out at me
> from the corner of the startup screen).
>
> Why is the Linux penguin used so much when it's so goddamned goofy-looking?
> This thing I see at boot (the scrolling list of things that load when you
> start Mandrake) assaults my sense of style. Why do you all have to put up
Who the fuck cares?
Does your computer
A)stay on the splash screen for the entire uptime?
or
B)display the splash screen for 1 to 2 seconds, and then go on to
doing real work.
GOD, you are SUCH An infantile person...What a splash screen looks
like has got to be about the most INSIGNIFICANT thing that anybody
could worry about...
And yet, you wrote an entire fucking PARAGRAPH about it.
Exactly WHO gets a computer for the purpose of displaying splash screens????
NO-FUCKING-BODY!
> with such a silly-looking mascot? It looks like a drawing someone scribbled
> on the back of a napkin! It's terrible that the aesthetic aspects of the
> linux OS take such a back seat to everything else! Linux logos, like the GNU
> bull (or whatever it is) look unpolished and unprofessional. The Xfree86
> logo would absolutely fail in any one of my corporate identity design
> projects, the globe is _the_ most clichéd element in corporate design, to
> the point where no self respecting designer would use it at this point, it
> conveys no idea of what the organization does.
>
> KDE classic's scrollbars look terrible, and are about 4 - 5 years behind the
> times design-wise. The flat (or pillow emboss) look is in people, time to
> adjust. KDE2 improves this quite a bit, but still foists these
> crappy-looking scrollbars on users. You may not think much of it, but the
> devil is in the details. At least on the window bars, they don't commit the
> capital UI offense of grouping destructive items with non-destructive items
> (like windows and MacOS X and KDE classic do). It's a very good useability
> feature borrowed from MacOS 9 to put close on the left upper corner and
> Iconify/Maximize in the right upper corner. Their intentions are good and
> they have clearly realized that the MacOS UI team had it right the first
> time..
Are they large enough to use? Yes
Are they functional? Yes
Is the code stable? Yes
Is windows code stable? NO
If you had to drive across the country, would you choose a car with
a perfectly tuned and refurbished drivetrain and electrical system, but
a less-than-"modern-looking" paint job?
Or would you go for something in a "contemporary" color scheme, even
though it's burning oil, the rings don't hold a seal, the clutch is
slipping, and the exhaust system has a hole which is leaking carbon
monoxide into the passenger compartment?
If you want to get your mission accomplished, then choose the 1st and go with linux.
If you want to make sure you die in style, then choose the 2nd and go with Microshaft.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:38:09 GMT
In article <RptU5.25410$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Tom Elam wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:30:51 +0200, Tom Elam wrote this reply to "Ayende
>> > Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> > >For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will be as good
>> > >from win2k as win2k was from NT.
>> >
>> > That would make it a pretty impressive piece of software.
>> >
>>
>> yep, only 2 crashes per day instead of 5, and only 5 employees angry for
>> their work being lost instead of 10 employees.
>
>You idiots are all the same. You used Windows back in the Win3.0 days,
>realized it was shit, and then never used another Windows again, but
>held every version to that standard.
>
>NT is far superior, Win2K even more, and Whistler just that much more.
>
>-Chad
>
Unique Chad but far from superior.
Even Whistler doesn't seem to sell with a built in web engine.
Or how about an FTP server or telnet? How about built in SSH?
How about the ability to be set up as either a server or a workstation
from the same install disk? How about the ability to act as
a server for several different types of PC operating system simultaneously?
How about the ability to give you a choice of several different kinds
of desktops, NOT JUST BACKGROUNDS.
How about the ability to have multiple desktops?
How about compilers for a dozen different kinds of languages?
How about a built in CVS system?
There are 6000 packages now in Debian and climbing. Before
Woody is release the figure will be close to 7000 packages
which anybody can download for free and use where ever they
like royalty free.
Crap! I'm still waiting for them to update their lousy screen
savers! Pipes is very old dude!
The UNIQUE thing about NT, W2K, and Whistler is they offer none
of these things and your going to pay $350 for the full install
of W2k! Whistler is been whistled at $550 base FULL install!
I have no idea why Bill Gates doesn't just put a 9MM to the base
of this throat and pull the trigger. The guy has a popcorn farm
for a company and Windows is going down the dumper!
Those are the UNIQUE facts Chad.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:40:52 GMT
In article <3a229563$0$14430$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><very large snip because Aaron doesn't understand the first thing about
>replying to posts or how to use usenet or even how to change underwear more
>than monthly 100+ lines to write unrelated stupidity at the bottom - a
>typical @yahoo.com user, almost as bad as an aol.com user>
>
>
> > For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will be as
>good
>> > from win2k as win2k was from NT.
>>
>>
>> Wow....look at this car
>>
>> It's great
>> It's fantastic.
>>
>> They painted it at the factory!!!!
>>
>> No, I don't know anything about whether the engine is any good,
>> or how it handles in turns....or even going in a straight line
>> down a highway at a mere 60 km/h (US 40 mph)...i only got to
>> drive it 5 feet forwards and back..
>>
>> Yeah...I know there's no locks on the doors...and you can't
>> roll up the windows...and...you know...it doesn't have any
>> rear view mirrors...or seat belts...and that hand-crank in
>> place of the usual steering wheel is gonna take some getting
>> used to...and...yeah, it's kinda strange how they put the
>> radio upside down mounted on the floor...it's got a really
>> leaky fuel system...but...it's got a custom paint job...and
>> when I crack up on the highway, and die in a ball of fire...
>> well, it's gonna look really cool!
>>
>> And...looking cool THAT's what's REALLY important...
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's a hint, Ayende....GROW THE FUCK UP
>> --
>
>
>Hey Aaron, want YOUR hint?
>
>Hey, look at this car.
>Well, it's not really a car yet, it's just a bunch of parts made all over
>the world by different people and one guy stored them all over the place and
>you can get them from here and there and none of them are supported by the
>other parts but you could assemble them together yourself or pay someone
>else to put it together their way and then you can have the fun of making it
>work and figuring it out and then maybe you'll have a cheap car.
>
>One that looks like it came out of a bad 60s sci-fi movie. Sure it doesn't
>have power steering, power brakes, power windows, cruise control but you any
>have it in any color you'd like as long as it's black. Oh, and if you want
>to you can take it apart and put it back together as often as you'd like.
>And if it blows up it's all your fault and no one elses. If it doesn't even
>start, it's your problem. The steering wheel can go on any side you want,
>and so can the pedals. Fuck anyone else who wants to drive it - they will
>have to get in and crash a few times until they figure it out.
>
>And it's not even cool looking but it's l33t with the under 18 crowd and
>costs what they can afford. Sure, no one races them. Sure, no companies will
>stock their garage with them. Sure they look like ups trucks and run as long
>and are as fast as a corvette (think: corvette speed, ups truck handling -
>get the picture?).
>
>Oh yes, this is what I want - a supertanker that goes as fast as a
>powerboat... and turns on a small country sized piece of land IF you can
>figure out the controls. Oh, and the controls are two sticks that you pull
>one way one day and the other way another day and they are completely
>different in every model you see.
>
>You want the truth...you can't handle the truth. Linux is a university
>drop-out hobby. It's been taken over by hippies who don't know the 60s free
>love and free drugs are over. It's promoted by anyone who wants to ride the
>Anti-MS wave thats popular with the underground. it'll be there until the
>next thing comes along and replaces it as the Ultimate-Anti-MS-OS(tm).
>
>You sound like some kind of robotic soldier boy. I would bet dimes to
>dollars you are some deskpusher army brat.
>
>
Oh,
Hi Claire. Shave those leggs buddy.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:42:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen Cornell wrote:
>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Wow....look at this car
>> >
>> > It's great
>> > It's fantastic.
>> >
>> > They painted it at the factory!!!!
>> > etc.
>
>
>"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Hey Aaron, want YOUR hint?
>
>I certainly don't wish to speak for Aaron Kulkis, but I would have
>though that it was pretty obvious that his point was that the review
>of Whistler only touched on the look and feel of the desktop, whereas
>the underlying OS was very unfinished.
>
Yeah, It sucked just like all the rest.
>> You want the truth...you can't handle the truth. Linux is a university
>> drop-out hobby. It's been taken over by hippies who don't know the 60s free
>> love and free drugs are over. It's promoted by anyone who wants to ride the
>> Anti-MS wave thats popular with the underground. it'll be there until the
>> next thing comes along and replaces it as the Ultimate-Anti-MS-OS(tm).
>
>Don't judge all Linux advocates by the more extreme members of this
>group. Many of us like it because it's an affordable, capable
>alternative to Unix, which happens to run rather well on cheap
>commodity hardware. It has all the kind of software that I need
>(mostly for free), and, being a Unix-like OS, it's easy to adapt it
>for my own purposes. I'm only anti-Microsoft inasmuch as I resent the
>way that that corporation is doing its best to make my prefered way of
>working unviable, by flooding the market with proprietry `standards'.
>
>--
>Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
>University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:45:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> <very large snip because Aaron doesn't understand the first thing about
>> replying to posts or how to use usenet or even how to change underwear more
>> than monthly 100+ lines to write unrelated stupidity at the bottom - a
>> typical @yahoo.com user, almost as bad as an aol.com user>
>>
>> > For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will be as
>> good
>> > > from win2k as win2k was from NT.
>> >
>> >
>> > Wow....look at this car
>> >
>> > It's great
>> > It's fantastic.
>> >
>> > They painted it at the factory!!!!
>> >
>> > No, I don't know anything about whether the engine is any good,
>> > or how it handles in turns....or even going in a straight line
>> > down a highway at a mere 60 km/h (US 40 mph)...i only got to
>> > drive it 5 feet forwards and back..
>> >
>> > Yeah...I know there's no locks on the doors...and you can't
>> > roll up the windows...and...you know...it doesn't have any
>> > rear view mirrors...or seat belts...and that hand-crank in
>> > place of the usual steering wheel is gonna take some getting
>> > used to...and...yeah, it's kinda strange how they put the
>> > radio upside down mounted on the floor...it's got a really
>> > leaky fuel system...but...it's got a custom paint job...and
>> > when I crack up on the highway, and die in a ball of fire...
>> > well, it's gonna look really cool!
>> >
>> > And...looking cool THAT's what's REALLY important...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Here's a hint, Ayende....GROW THE FUCK UP
>> > --
>>
>> Hey Aaron, want YOUR hint?
>>
>> Hey, look at this car.
>> Well, it's not really a car yet, it's just a bunch of parts made all over
>
>Really?
>
>I've done full-installs of Linux from various makers.
>
>ONE reboot, and the system is up and running...with ALL hardware drivers
>installed, and ALL applications available immediately.
>
>
>Getting the same hardware configuration to work on a Windows machine takes
>MANY reboots (1 for the sound card, one for the graphics card, one for
>the monitor, one for the printer, one for the mouse, one for the scanner,
>one for the network card, another for the network configuration.....
>
>And then...installing the software...
>
>Lets see...If you installed 1,500 apps on a windows machine....how long
>would it take?
>
>A day? don't be foolish!
>
>2 weeks?
>3 weeks?
>
>Just exactly how many WEEKS would it take to install 1500 apps on a windows box?
>
>
>
>> the world by different people and one guy stored them all over the place and
>> you can get them from here and there and none of them are supported by the
>> other parts but you could assemble them together yourself or pay someone
>> else to put it together their way and then you can have the fun of making it
>> work and figuring it out and then maybe you'll have a cheap car.
>
>
>Wrong....use Network Install, and install directly off the internet right
>from a RedHat, SuSE, etc. server with the latest updates and patches...
>
>
>
>>
>> One that looks like it came out of a bad 60s sci-fi movie. Sure it doesn't
>
>So does an F-117A, but it's THE MOST FEARED TACTICAL SUPPORT AIRCRAFT on earth.
>
>
>> have power steering, power brakes, power windows, cruise control but you any
>> have it in any color you'd like as long as it's black. Oh, and if you want
>> to you can take it apart and put it back together as often as you'd like.
>> And if it blows up it's all your fault and no one elses. If it doesn't even
>> start, it's your problem. The steering wheel can go on any side you want,
>> and so can the pedals. Fuck anyone else who wants to drive it - they will
>> have to get in and crash a few times until they figure it out.
>
>You are insane. Windows has been playing catch-up to the various UNIX
>GUI's for years.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> And it's not even cool looking but it's l33t with the under 18 crowd and
>> costs what they can afford. Sure, no one races them. Sure, no companies will
>> stock their garage with them. Sure they look like ups trucks and run as long
>> and are as fast as a corvette (think: corvette speed, ups truck handling -
>> get the picture?).
>>
>> Oh yes, this is what I want - a supertanker that goes as fast as a
>> powerboat... and turns on a small country sized piece of land IF you can
>> figure out the controls. Oh, and the controls are two sticks that you pull
>> one way one day and the other way another day and they are completely
>> different in every model you see.
>>
>> You want the truth...you can't handle the truth. Linux is a university
>> drop-out hobby. It's been taken over by hippies who don't know the 60s free
>> love and free drugs are over. It's promoted by anyone who wants to ride the
>> Anti-MS wave thats popular with the underground. it'll be there until the
>> next thing comes along and replaces it as the Ultimate-Anti-MS-OS(tm).
>>
>> You sound like some kind of robotic soldier boy. I would bet dimes to
>> dollars you are some deskpusher army brat.
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>
My experience installing NT on a modern Pentium III with a
new Ultra 66 dme hard drive and modern soundcard...
It's such a pancake process of loading things then re-booting
that it reminds me of that PBS series on how to become
a drag queen.
It's really that disgusting and horrible!
NT with hair!
HA!!!! NT was truely designed for computer operators
of the last century! And that's no shit! HA HA HA...
OK AK! HA HA HA...
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:57:59 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things I have noticed................
mlw wrote:
> Flowers? I was thinking of using the rock. ;-)
Stoning? What's wrong with crucifixion?
Crucifixion's a doddle, you know. Look,
I'll supply the cross, you supply the
nails (only one cross each, please).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
