Linux-Advocacy Digest #412, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Yatima)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Yatima)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Yatima)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell ("MH")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:25 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 10 Jan 2001
23:13:38 +1100;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>On 9 Jan 2001 16:32:03 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>What "standard" is it you are talking about? What "standard" says that
>>>a PC from IBM, using an IBM VGA card and a 3COM NIC, is "nonstandard"?
>
>>It's a Microchannel based IBM PS/2
>
>Indeed. That is "nonstandard"? It strikes me as a very well defined standard.
No, "Microchannel" was an attempt to wrest back the PC platform from the
open market; it was a proprietary bus implemented only by IBM.
>>with non standard hardware.
>
>Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.
Microchannel boxes didn't use standard ISA cards; you had to buy
special-made peripheral cards (NIC, video, modem, etc.) It was a
nightmare.
[...]
>Of course, you have to buy cards that actually match the machine. So
>what?
So, this isn't really as acceptable as you seem to think.
>Have you tried recently to buy an ISA VGA card? How about a
>VLB EIDE controller? Does that mean these busses are "non-standard" all
>of a sudden?
You're over-stating the case. Mostly by ignoring the difference between
an enhancement in the 'standard PC architecture' and a proprietary
replacement for it.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:27 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 03:08:02
>Boy, way to totally miss the "big picture".
>
>The problems this person is having are truly "issues" under the Mandrake 7.2
>install. By reading this post, it looks clear that "flatfish++++" went
>totally out of their way to find faults WITH the installer, but the issue
>remains.
>
>Instead of poking holes in the minor details in the analysis (which by my
>experience with Mandrake 7.2 is somewhat accurate) why isn't there an
>outrage to correct the dumb mistakes IN the system?
>
>Because it's "free"?
>
>Bad answer.
Guffaw. I'm sorry; I must disagree on that. Its a quite unimpeachable
answer, given the circumstances. Although it is worth pointing out that
it wasn't the answer given; the answer given was and unstated
presumption, I think, that while the details of the analysis might seem
minor, they're far less trivial than the "dumb mistake" is, particularly
for anyone not using specifically the Mandrake 7.2 version of Linux,
which is hardly the only Linux available.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:27 GMT
Said MH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:47:29 -0500;
[...]
>Yikes! Ever try red hat 7? Makes buttcake 7.2 look like winME
Well, I'm glad to hear that, but I've just been told that Red Hat 7 is a
"piece of shit", because of some library bugs. What gives?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:29 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 07 Jan 2001
>On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:29:03 GMT, "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Well, kppp can't, as far as I know. You can, however, write a simple
>>script to do it, or use something like diald or an argument to pppd (
>>Although I foget which, pppd --help and man pppd describe it well )
>><snip sig>
>
>Yes that is indeed possible, but my point is that kppp is the default
>dialer installed under Mandrake 7.2 and ICS is there as well so why
>can't the 2 work together like ICS does under Windows? Checking a box
>enables the connection to dial on demand.
If you're lucky. This is one of those features that often fails to work
entirely.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:30 GMT
Said Yatima in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:28:46 GMT;
>On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:36:55 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <3a59915f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I prefer WindowMaker, myself. It seems like KDE has everything in
>>> it but the kitchen sink, and it IS a pretty nice desktop
>>> environment. Yet, it lacks the simple features I use most, such as
>>> the ability to switch virtual desktops with the keyboard.
>>
>>Ctrl+Tab
>
>You can also assign arbitrary keybindings to anything you want (just
>like windowmaker) so you can have different bindings for each desktop
><alt>-1 through 4 if you like.
>
>Not that I needed to tell *you* that :)
What's the keybinding for the 'Windows' key? Win-1, Win-2, Win-3 would
be really cool. But I think I'll still try GNOME.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:32 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 09 Jan 2001
>On 8 Jan 2001 21:08:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>wrote:
>
>>>1. It is the default Window manager for some distributions.
>>
>>KDE is not a window manager
>
>And this is EXACTLY why Linsux is failing so miserably on the
>desktop's of home users, because all the while you Penguinista's are
>playing your little semantic games, the fact remains that the
>gui,xserver,wm or whatever you choose to call the components today,
>suck.
>
>When I put exec kwm at the end of .xinitrc file I get kde.
No, you get kwm, I would think.
>Looks like
>a Windowmanager to me...It puts Windows that look different than if I
>put exec wmaker there instead.
>
>Hint:Stop making yourself look ridiculous by splitting bits and
>concentrate on the subject as a whole.
You haven't a clue of the subject as a whole. Then again, neither does
Roberto; he trumpets KDE because he's a big fan who stands to profit
from the deal. I'm not sure why Donovan's concerned that we not confuse
kwm with KDE. Me, I've still got a bad taste in my mouth from Windows,
and would just as soon avoid KDE, simply because it *is* the default, in
so many implementations. Maybe I'll just have to resign myself to being
the pain-in-the-ass who insists on running contrary to the trend. But
we'll see when we get there.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:33 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Jan 2001 21:10:41
GMT;
>On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:35:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>KDE, KDE, KDE. Its all I hear about any more. Why do I hear so much
>>about KDE?
>
>Because it's at the core of several Linux GUI applications (the only
>thing that comes close is GNOME which you probably hear even more about)
That's my point; I don't. All I hear about is KDE and Konquerer and
kthis and kthat. I haven't heard a single thing about GNOME for months.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:19:40 GMT
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:22:27 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Terry Porter wrote:
>> >I don't really agree that GUI apps are better for everything else. Of
>> >course, what would you expect from a someone who switched from windows
>> >and mac OS to linux :)
>>
>> Ditto.
>
>Going backwards?
>
How is it backwards? Just because GUI interfaces are more recent it does
not *automatically* make them better.
For writing structured documents that have to conform to specfic style
guidlines (this is very common in academia and in other areas) the best
way to go is still LaTeX + Bibtex. Word just doesn't cut it despite
being newer and GUI based (and much more expensive). On the other hand
if you want to write a letter to grandma and want flowers for borders
and butterflies everywhere than word is definitely the way to go.
If you prefer GUI apps that's totally cool but please don't confuse this
preference with some kind of objective evaluation.
If you were joking than "D'oh!"
Take care,
--
yatima
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:40:49 GMT
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:20:37 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The only way it could do this is if the install kernel was the same as the
>run kernel, which means the kernel couldn't be optimized for the machine
>you're running under.
So an unoptimized kernel is a problem for linux but not for windows
2000. Nice double standard.
BTW, ever here of autoloading kernel modules? A general kernel doesn't
need everything but the kitchen sink compiled in. Just modules that only
load if and when needed.
--
yatima
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:44:02 +0100
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Ketil Z Malde wrote:
> Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> 2) standardized package format (rpm is ok, but distro's should finally
>> adapt apt-get) [or for windows, the install/deinstall function, which is
>> nice]
>
>
> apt-get is vastly superior to anything else I've seen.
Yeah, I like it too. The point was just that it hasn't become a standard
yet.
>
>
>> 3) hardware support (apart from the fact that Linux better supports my
>> hardware, Windows has better hardware support overall)
>
>
> Which Windows would that be? Win95/98/ME probably has the advantage
> on Linux, but it is a piece of tripe, and support for NT is much sparser.
>
>
>> 4) ISDN configuration (isdn4k is just crap)
>
>
> Last time I looked (a couple of years ago) it took some setting up, I
> haven't tried YaST or whatever. But contrary to Win98 ISDN, it
> actually worked, and I no longer got random hangups or connection
> failures.
I don't have any problems in W98...
>
>
>> And now a flaw both OS's have:
>
>
>> Bloated GUI interface (where X is even more bloated [when running 3d
>> games with NVidia dirvers, 100 MB memory footprint, wtf?
>
>
> It includes the memory mapping of graphics card memory, as well as
> registers.
>
> X is not comparable to Explorer, btw, that's more like the window
> manager or "desktop environment". X is just the graphic abstraction,
> the rasterized canvas, or whatever. More like the GDI.
Partly true, but still, even when using LiteStep, great parts of
explorer are running, it could be considered like X libraries.
>
> -kzm
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:46:19 GMT
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:26:18 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 02:11:02 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> >You'll never be able to install Linux (or any other OS) without at least
>2
>> >reboots. Reboot 1 to boot from floppy or CD to start the installation
>> >process,
>>
>> Not if you boot as soon as you switch it on.
>
>That's still a boot.
Yeah but we're talking about *reboots* (see above).
HTH, HAND.
--
yatima
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:52:45 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
>Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are interchangeable.
What about Word98?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:03:40 -0500
> > And yes, this was originally what Linux was trying to do. You can read
> > his original usenet post on my webpage.
Idols?
At your age?
Hmm...
You do realize that it's just an operating system... don't you?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:47:57 GMT
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93m071$fip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.interbase2000.org/
>
> InterBase was released as open source at the end of July 2000. A complete
> backdoor was discovered when examining the source. This backdoor has existed
> in the commercial versions of the code since 1994 and appears to have been
> known about for some time and used by at least one Borland/Inprise engineer.
>
> There's also a discussion on Slashdot :
> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/11/1318207.shtml
Ok, that's one example of one GOOD thing about Open Source. However,
unfortunately, it's not the norm. Especially on large projects like Linux.
Bugs are still being discovered in the kernel (not at as fast a rate,
granted, but they're there and still being discovered). Some are old bugs,
some are new bugs from new code.
Some of these bugs had existed for quite some time. Why weren't they discovered
immediately?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:04:40 GMT
Yes, this was my point, James. Not everything you want to casually slap
with the label "monopoly" matches the definition of the term, either the
casual 'no competitors in a market' to the more accurate 'power to
control prices or exclude competition'.
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 09 Jan 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Monopolizing is illegal, as is attempting to monopolize, so obviously
>> >> there are no monopolies that are legal. Coincidentally enough, there
>> >> are other terms for what is often, inaccurately, called a monopoly;
>> >> public utility and regulated market being the two most common.
>> >
>> >Those are other terms used when the government decides to protect a
>> >monopoly by law. It's also the only way monopolies exist for long
>> >periods of time in the market - naturally occurring monopolies are
>> >shortlived.
>>
>> That paragraph is nothing more than a repeated mis-use of the term
>> 'monopoly' to begin with. The government never protects any company
>> which is in unreasonable restraint of trade, nor provides the power to
>> control prices or exclude competition (in those cases where a free
>> market is not considered desirable, when resources are limited or the
>> necessity of the consumer makes fair pricing impossible, the government
>
>You obviously haven't met
You obviously haven't read the text of my response, or at least you
failed miserably to understand it. Yes, I am quite aware of...
>-- The US Postal Service (restricts the rights of other couriers)
which the US Government (not the US Postal Service) prevents other
couriers from competing with. Since they are a regulated corporation,
prevented from competing and from competition, they cannot be a
monopoly, though softheaded people might commonly use the term
inaccurately to refer to the US Postal Service.
>-- Local Utilities (prevents me from finding my own supplier)
No, they just prevent you from being able to get the commodity supplied
by "your own supplier" to your place of residence. Note that in some
parts of the US, the supplier-side of the electric business has become
"deregulated", resulting very quickly in huge increases in rates with no
increase in consumer benefits.
>-- Local RBOCS (prevents me from finding my own local provider)
Yes, a local RBOC, if they are doing anything to prevent alternative
local providers from using their equipment, are monopolizing.
>-- Local Cable providers (prevents me from finding my own supplier)
No, again, they merely happen to own their cable, and any other supplier
is going to have to run their own wire (or satellite connection, or
fiber, or whatever) to your house.
>These are all government created monopolies. They are wildly
>inefficient and couldn't stand on their own easily if given competition.
Sorry, you are mistaken. Only one of these could possibly qualify for
"monopoly", and that is the RBOC's, not the governments, doing.
>The postal service is particularly nasty - a company I worked for in the
>early 90's was sued by the postal service for using FedEx for all
>intra-office communication. They claimed that most of the letters
>weren't 'critical', and thus we weren't justified in avoiding the postal
>service.
>
>That all by itself is more harm than Microsoft has ever caused - the
>postal service does this routinely.
Wow, that sounds like it was very harmful. It is apparent you aren't
familiar with the thinking about the post office, which is considered a
national civil necessity. The government has instituted (not taking a
commercial monopolizer and 'regulating' them, as it did for AT&T) a
postal service. This service would become prohibitively expensive if it
could not rely on the economies of scale necessary for a reliable,
low-cost (despite your whining) letter carrier. I refuse to debate the
validity of this theory with you, however, since it would be a doomed
proposition, since we already know you don't understand it, but still
feel justified in disagreeing with it.
>> has itself controlled prices or excluded competition; the producer does
>> not enjoy monopoly power.) Natural barriers to entry do not provide any
>> time period whatsoever in which unreasonable restraint of trade, be it
>> by engrossing, forestalling, regrating, or any other means, is not
>> illegal, nor do the rules of the free market allow any time period in
>> which a single producer or vendor has a large share of the commercial
>> trade to be an environment in which one can enjoy monopoly power without
>> illegally restraining trade.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:53:24 GMT
"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:00:52 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> |
> |"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> |news:93jbt6$iri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> |> Hi Chad,
> |>
> |> If this really necessary?
> |>
> |> > > "Linux performance and scalability is architecturally limited in the
2.2
> |> > > Kernel."
> |> > >
> |> > > Wouldn't want to mention the 2.4 kernel would we?
> |> >
> |> > Hmm, hasn't really changed much.
> |>
> |> Here's some information about the 2.4 kernel:
> |>
> |> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-01-05-007-04-NW-LF-KN
> |>
> |> A small quotation:
> |> "A number of changes in Linux 2.4 can be described as "enterprise level."
> |> That is, they may not be immediately useful to many desktop users but work
> |> to strengthen Linux as a whole. For the most part, the addition of these
> |> features does not degrade Linux in more "normal" environments. First, Linux
> |> 2.4 can handle many more simultaneous processes by being more scalable on
> |> multiprocessor systems and also by providing a configurable process limit.
> |> Second, the scheduler has been revised somewhat to be more efficient on
> |> systems with a larger number of concurrent processes. Third, the revised
> |> Linux kernel can now handle an amazing number of users and groups-- about
> |> 4.2 billion. (And that's a lot of users!) In addition, support for more
> |> powerful hardware is provided in the new kernel, which now supports up to
64
> |> gigabytes of RAM on Intel hardware, up to 16 Ethernet cards, 10 IDE
> |> controllers, multiple IO-APICs, and other pointless abuses of good
hardware.
> |> The 2-gigabyte file size restriction has also been lifted. With these
> |> changes and others, the Linux kernel development team is proving that Linux
> |> can be an option in many new environments."
> |
> |They claimed Linux 2.2 was "enterprise ready" which was a big pile of crap.
> |
> |2.4 is better, I'll agree, but it's still nowhere near the level of Win2K
> |DC, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc.
> |
> |As far as the "4.2 billion users and groups", it doesn't matter because
> |the security implementation in Linux is elementary. There is no support
> |for ACLs (without "unstable" add-ons), there's only the less-than-secure
> |permission bits option. There's no real directory service. NIS+ is about
> |the closest thing, but it's still no NDS or ADS level.
>
>
> You don't consider LDAP to be an acceptable directory service?
LDAP is really just a requesting protocol for a directory. You have to
have a directory behind it. Implementing an LDAP-compatible phone book
directory is really elementary. Implementing an enterprise-level multi-site
multi-organizational, partitioned, multi-master replicated, authentication
and reference directory is a-whole-nother process. There is no such directory
for Linux. ADS and NDS (and maybe StreetTalk) are the only two competitors
in that class. X.500 or later is the directory organizational, storage, and
replication protocol, LDAPv2 or 3 is the directory access and updating
protocol.
> |The 2gb file size has also NOT been lifted. There is still no "stable"
> |or "released" filesystem out there. RiserFS and ext3 are STILL in development
> |and both have caveats that may discourage their use.
>
>
> This *again*!
>
> Yes it *has* been lifted. Ext2 has *always* supported files >2Gb on 64bit
> *and* 32 bit architectures.
No, not on 32-bit, and not *always*. Only recently with a special *patch*
that doesn't work with all applications.
> The restriction on file sizes was in the kernel VFS (Virtual File System)
> layer on 32bit platforms.
I don't care, it's a poor design then, but the fact remains, the >2GB
limit on Ext2 remains for the most part. Reiser and Ext3 aren't stable yet,
let alone released.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
