Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Dave Martel)
ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer ("Harison Phinizy")
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees)
Re: ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer ("Harison Phinizy")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Terry Porter)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Linux Users...Why? ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Pesky lack of support (Mark Styles)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux Users...Why? ("Glitch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 20:58:30 -0400
On Tue, 8 May 2001, JD wrote:
> "Austin Ziegler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 8 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
>>> [...]
>>>> I think you meant to say that it's an irrelevancy. Especially since you
>>>> tried to claim that a program written that uses an API is derivative of
>>>> a particular implementation of that API ("a library"). Which is ...
>>>> well, let's just say that it's one of your sillier ideas, which is
>>>> something worth noting.
>>> Stop acting like a simpleton. Your metaphysical idea of "an API" as
>>> having anything to do with the matter is what is preventing you from
>>> acting like a reasonable person, knowledgable of the issue and balanced
>>> in your opinion. If you need to go study for a few years before you
>>> could possibly understand that statement, it wouldn't surprise me.
>>> Perhaps you're simply not bright enough to understand that it is
>>> perfectly reasonable and accurate.
>> One wonders, perchance, why Maxie feels it necessary to pretend that
>> everything is about metaphysics. Maybe he can't think of things in real
>> terms, so he has to resort to meta-discussions ... where he sounds just
>> as foolish as he does every other time.
> Your mind is too good to waste it in discussion with tmax.
You're right, of course, and he's long since exhausted his amusement
value. I only bang my head against walls for so long before realising
that this one really isn't going to budge from his unreality.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 01:01:18 GMT
On Mon 07 May 2001 08:10, Mad.Scientist wrote:
> This topic is about why you made the switch to Linux.
>
> I made the switch mostly because of what I learned about recent M$
> practices. I really resented their paranoia, and their need to control
> everything. Their statements against Open Source were very fraudulent,
> especially as I read upon it. I believed in the OS model, and that made
> me think about what M$ really did. So I became skeptical of them, and
> decided to research Linux and M$. The more I read upon it, the more I
> was interest. I am a geek to the core, so I really wanted to try it.
> The final straw came when I learned of M$ plans for WinXP, such as the
> uses of .NET, I lost all hope for them. Then came the news of their
> crackdown of casual copying. And then accusing Open Source as being
> "un-American". So I installed Linux. Now, M$ has fucked AOL over,
> starting a war, and the industry is turning against M$.
>
> My reason for switching is more ideological, as my WinME runs well, but
> does crash every few days still.
>
> What are your reasons?
>
My first introduction to non-toy computers came when my parents bought a
Packrat Bell for Christmas in 1993. It took quite a bit of scraping
together of cash, but they felt it would be useful for education and
schoolwork. No Internet access, since that hadn't come into fashion yet.
Even though I had no idea how to use it, I gravitated toward it. My mother
bought a book called _DOS 6 Secrets_, and I absorbed every page. I
stumbled quite a bit (I still remember the epiphany when I finally realized
why the "CTTY NUL" command from an example of a .BAT virus would lock up
the computer when typed at the command line), but I quickly became a fairly
proficient batch file writer. QBasic would have blown my mind had I known
how to use it.
I signed up for computer programming classes in high school as soon as they
were offered, and quickly snapped up both QBasic and Turbo Pascal.
Entranced by programming, I decided to leave behind my previous plan to
learn electronics. I read Windows Magazine (sadly, it only exists today in
online form at www.winmag.com), savoring every issue, and learned enough
about PC hardware to start doing my own upgrades. I asked my parents to
buy me a copy of Visual C++ for my birthday, then set about learning C/C++
over the summer.
As I became aware of Microsoft and their position in the PC industry, I
realized that they were the 800 lb gorilla of the industry and prone to
abuse their position; however, their products seemed, if not the best, at
least passable. It wasn't until I left for college that I began to hear
about Linux. Linux, the PC clone of UNIX, the OS that the _Secrets_ book
had called "The only operating system that makes MS-DOS look warm and
fuzzy," the OS that my computer teacher had spoken of in hushed and
reverent tones. It intrigued me. Within months of learning the PC, I had
been drawn away from the pretty pictures to the command-line interface of
DOS, and now the idea of something even more powerful was entrancing.
Toward the end of my freshman year, I picked up a book on programming for
Linux, but the experience was disappointing. A badly outdated copy of
Slackware 2.0 came with the book, and it couldn't recognize most of my
hardware or my FAT32 partition. Discouraged, I put it aside since I still
had schoolwork to do. That summer, I mail-ordered a copy of Slackware 4.0
from Walnut Creek CDROM, and never looked back except for the occasional
game of Duke Nukem, Populous: The Beginning, or StarCraft. I spent all
summer geeking out as I learned the ropes of the POSIX C API, Perl, and
Apache. I began to see all the little nuances of incompatibility and
brokenness in Windows and other Microsoft products, and the gilded and
sacharrin-sweet words Microsoft used to sell their overpriced and overhyped
products. I swore off Windows for my own computer, and purged my hard
drive of all Microsoft products. It means I have to do without StarCraft,
but it's a small price to pay to be rid of their lies and FUD.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:21:09 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote :
[snip, thread drift and pointless 'pissing contest']
>>The games are merely one very good example of this Linux problem.
>>
>
>games are the only thing you even have a hope of approaching a clue
>on, and you're a long way off on that too.
I can't think of a single person or survey or iota of evidence that
suggests people use Linux because it offers a quality games platform.
It doesn't.
Many Linux advocates find it difficult to concede the fact that Linux
is not a gaming OS.
--
"S+M is outta the question, have you got a better suggestion
I'm fed up of waving my right hand" - rat salad www.ratsalad.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 19:13:10 -0600
On Mon, 7 May 2001 20:10:21 -0500, "Mad.Scientist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This topic is about why you made the switch to Linux.
I'd been sick of Microsoft for over a decade but my job didn't leave
much choice. Then the economy got better, I pulled a career change,
and suddenly I was free to choose my own OS. I heard how great Windows
98SE was so I "upgraded" from Windows 95. What a waste of money. Next
I tried NT4, also a disappointment. I was determined to get a decent
system going no matter what it cost so Windows 2000 was next on the
list. On my way to the Windows aisle I passed a discount table
containing an opened copy of SuSE 6.4 Pro for $10, took it home, and
it got the job done.
I was still a bit undecided about linux a month later SuSE 7.0 Pro
came out. It shipped with defective NVidia video drivers. The problem
was easy to fix, but still at $69 for a "free" OS I felt the package
should have been better-tested. Also SuSE was talking about shipping
three revisions yearly, which would have meant $210 a year to stay on
top of the latest releases. Yikes!!! I could see where THIS was going.
So about a week after buying SuSE 7.0 I copied a friend's Slackware
CD's. Slackware was a little more work but I was happier with the end
result.
However.... I'm going to give FreeBSD a try as soon as the v4.3
packages hit the store shelves. Why? Believe it or not, because of
that stupid d*mn linux penguin logo. Tux looks like a Fisher-Price
toddler toy. I'd feel like an idiot wearing a Tux T-shirt, or
interviewing for a job with a Tux pin on my lapel or driving around
town with a Tux bumper sticker.
But the BSD Demon is really neat!
>I really resented their paranoia, and their need to control everything.
Could be they're getting a bit desperate.
<http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/nightmare.html>
<http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html>
In a nutshell, MS has been paying their employees in low wages and
making it up with stock options. According to the article, if you
total up what those options are worth it's more than Microsoft's net
worth. So MS is roughly in the position of a bank that has ample cash
for business-as-usual but can't pay off all their customers if there's
a run on the bank. Their continued survival may well depend on mere
*perceptions* among this relatively small group of people.
>Their statements against Open Source were very fraudulent, especially as I
>read upon it.
Their attempts to smear linux and the open-source movement are so
laughable it's hard to really take offense. Maybe I'll get infuriated
if they ever manage to hit home, but so far all they've done is to
publicly shoot themselves in both feet - repeatedly.
>try it. The final straw came when I learned of M$ plans for WinXP, such as
>the
>uses of .NET, I lost all hope for them. Then came the news of their
>crackdown of
>casual copying. And then accusing Open Source as being "un-American". So I
>installed
>Linux. Now, M$ has fucked AOL over, starting a war, and the industry is
>turning against M$.
XP also would have been the final straw for me, if I hadn't already
started the switch last summer. I didn't want a *NEW* OS, I just
wanted the one I'd already paid for (again, and again, and again) to
work right.
------------------------------
From: "Harison Phinizy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 01:26:00 GMT
If something is made for Linux doesn't it fall under the GPL... Therefore,
it must be made available for free (at least the source) then how does this
software avoid doing such?
Just curious...
------------------------------
From: Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:31:15 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
comp.os.linux.advocacy :
>>>You've actually got the nads to tell us that bundling software with
>>>the OS is worse for the consumer than forcing them to pay for it?
>>
>>I've got the nads to acknowledge that Linux is not *yet* a gaming OS.
>>
>Must be pretty small nads. Using your logic, you could say the same
>about Solaris and SGI systems, but you'd be way wrong. Just because
>lame game writers can't or won't produce games for an OS, doesn't
>mean it can't actually do it better.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this comp.os.linux.theoretical.advocacy ?
Can we please stick to the facts at hand : Linux is not a gaming OS.
--
"S+M is outta the question, have you got a better suggestion
I'm fed up of waving my right hand" - rat salad www.ratsalad.co.uk
------------------------------
From: "Harison Phinizy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 01:33:40 GMT
the software being:
ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer
"Harison Phinizy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:I01K6.3984$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If something is made for Linux doesn't it fall under the GPL... Therefore,
> it must be made available for free (at least the source) then how does
this
> software avoid doing such?
>
> Just curious...
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 09 May 2001 01:39:41 GMT
On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:50:10 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 08 May 2001 06:26:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Linux authors who release their code under the GPL, ****DON'T****
>> want any money.
>>
>>And we aren't working hard to support Linux, we are just giving something
>>back, as the Linux community has done so much for us.
>
>
> That's all well and good, and commendable as well, but will the answer
Thank you for your platitudes.
> still be the same when others are cashing in on their work?
Under the GPL, they must release any code based on our work, providing
they do that, I don't care what money they make. Good luck to them.
Hell, I've made plenty of money out of Linux, but it hasnt been
thru selling Linux or code, but rather devices that I've designed
*using* Linux, and the apps I got for free.
>
> Flatfish
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 09 May 2001 01:42:45 GMT
On Tue, 08 May 2001 22:31:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:38:07 GMT, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Unless of course, someone simply ignores the GPL.
>
> Jump on the Linux bandwagon and create your own disto and use it to
> sell tons of hardware.
>
> Watch IBM and see it happen......
>
>
This is no different to how I make money from Linux.
IBM actually have to make a physical product (hardware),
to make money, they can't sell Linux for any more than
the cost of the media.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 19:09:46 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Darren Wyn Rees quoth:
>>> They do NOT throw in the proverbial old kitchen sink - per Linux.
>>
>>No, they just make you pay for every piece of software that you get
>>over and above the barebones OS. [snip, rhetoric]
> So the people that package Windows are realists ?
No. They are blackguards whose only concern for their consumer base
centers around how to make said base pay for things that one can get
for free with Linux. My understanding is that they will also try to
put a 3 year usage limit on their software licenses which will
enforce a buying cycle on consumers. You might call that realism. I
call it profiteering.
> cf. Linux distro makers who think 'more is more'.
Makes sense to me. Pick and choose what you want to install on your
system when you install the system. It's pretty nice to have all the
applications you need at your fingertips when you may be installing a
workstations, servers, and development environments from the same cd
set.
>>You've actually got the nads to tell us that bundling software with
>>the OS is worse for the consumer than forcing them to pay for it?
>
> I've got the nads to acknowledge that Linux is not *yet* a gaming
> OS.
I don't really waste time playing video games, but I did give the
Demo of Myth II a try a year back just to see where games are on
Linux. Seemed fine to me.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 19:04:20 -0700
In article <O#Yc0s11AHA.278@cpmsnbbsa07>, "Mad.Scientist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This topic is about why you made the switch to Linux.
[snip]
> My reason for switching is more ideological, as my WinME runs well, but
> does crash every few
> days still.
>
> What are your reasons?
I used to promote Microsoft products, then one day my boss gets an e-mail
asking that I, by name, not be invited to attend any more Microsoft
product briefings. They told him that my presence "would dilute" their
executive level presentations. What did I do wrong? Nothing, really.
It's just that I was "technical staff".
I had a good rapport with this boss, and he did come back and ask my
opinions about what Microsoft had told him. Basically, Microsoft was
bullshitting everybody. Something they couldn't have gotten away with if
any technical staff, like me, had attended.
I did get to go to one last briefing, filling in for (and signing in as)
our purchasing manager. The topic of the presentation was essentially
"How to Fuck Novell out of their Rightful Dues by using an NT Server." I
mean, it wasn't even a thinly disguised NetWare interoperabilty seminar,
it was a "Fuck Novell - Step by Step" seminar.
That was it. I've hated them ever since.
------------------------------
From: Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pesky lack of support
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:03:24 -0400
I'm annoyed, so I might rant a bit.
I have a Spacewalker hot-555a motherboard, and I'm trying to install a
Western Digital 40Gb hard drive. The bios on the motherboard is too
stupid to recognise the large drive. The crappy installation guide
tells me this can be circumvented, but only with their special little
program, which will only operate on certain crappy operating systems
(I'm sure you can guess which ones).
So, how can I get this drive installed and ready for Linux??
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:06:34 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 12:10:27
>
> > >Can you answer the question, not as daniel, obviously, but still.
> >
> > Let me ask you a question, Ayende. If, just pretend, Microsoft were to
> > port Windows to the Mac, would that make the Mac a PC, and Apple no
> > different then Dell or Gateway? Why or why not?
> >
>
> No, a Mac wouldn't be a PC, and since Apple makes their own OS and plenty of
> software, no, I don't think that it would make Apple into an OEM.
> BTW, just for general education, there *was* a prot of Windows to the Mac.
> Apple killed it together with the clones, IIRC.
windows? On the Mac? Where, when?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 09 May 2001 02:03:50 GMT
On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:26:14 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> If you have problems with the same hardware on Linux, then I'd expect
>> you to feel as I do about Windows ?
>
> I'd feel Linux just makes a simple thing harder.
Yes exactly, and I feel that Windows just makes things harder.
>
>> Yet you have 2 degrees, and I have none.
>
> I have a degree in Electronics and another in Computer Science. I'm no
> expert in networks, yet Windows is dead easy, Linux is harder.
By the same token, I've done more Windows networking than
I'm comfortable remembering, and most of it was unpleseant.
I'm not talking about the easy bits, but about the complex installs.
( I'm the guy they always gave the problem installs to)
>
>> What conclusion can you draw from this ?
>
> That Windows is easy and Linux is hard. What other conclusion could I
> possibly come to?
Given your experiences, I wouldnt expect you to come to any other
conclusion.
>
> --
> Pete
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:14:28 -0400
> I was still a bit undecided about linux a month later SuSE 7.0 Pro came
> out. It shipped with defective NVidia video drivers. The problem was
> easy to fix, but still at $69 for a "free" OS I felt the package should
> have been better-tested. Also SuSE was talking about shipping three
> revisions yearly, which would have meant $210 a year to stay on top of
> the latest releases. Yikes!!! I could see where THIS was going.
>
No one forces you to upgrade.
Why upgrade to every single version they released? There is no point in
it. If they are using the same kernel u can't use that argument ("i want
to upgrade my kernel"). Even if you did wnat to upgrade the kernel you
dont need to spend $70 to do it. Download the 22 meg source tarball, or
even the rpm. The newer versions of Suse, and other distros, are just
repackaged upgrades of various programs. You could download the new
version of just the programs you use w/o having to pay $70 to get them
all, only some of which you may want.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:09:03 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > You may be right, but in all honesty Apple has had
> > > the *worst* trouble trying to deal with their software's
> > > backwards compatibility baggage.
> > >
> > > I hope they overcome it too, but history does not
> > > encourage me in this.
> >
> > What worst trouble? Oh, you mean runing 68k stuff on PPC. Nope, cant be
> > that. What do you mean?
>
> Oh I mean Taligent and Rhapsody and OpenDoc and
> QuickDraw GX and gawd only knows how many other
> initiatives to fix their OS.
Taligent - shared enterprise. Didnt work out. No OS was produced, so
there was any backward compatibility problems.
Rhapsody - direct descendant - MacOS X - hAs Carbon and classic. Very
few nbackwards compatibility problems.
Open Doc? What backward compatibility problems did that have?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:09:58 -0400
Steve Sheldon wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:DDZJ6.165$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:hAUJ6.11050
> > > > One day, in the near future, Apple will simply cease to support OS 9.
> AS
> > > > they dont support serial ports, ADB, etc. As they moved to the PPC
> from
> > > > the 68K family. Apple has a history of being able to move forward, and
> > > > drag the rest of the industry with it.
> > >
> > > You may be right, but in all honesty Apple has had
> > > the *worst* trouble trying to deal with their software's
> > > backwards compatibility baggage.
> >
> > And THEY control the hardware. Now think about what MS goes through.
>
> Macintosh also benefits in that they have a locked in market.
>
> The only people who buy Macs are people who are upgrading. They don't have
> to win these people over because they are locked into this upgrade cycle by
> their own fanaticism.
YOu may now explain why so many people that buy iMacs are first time
computer buyers.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
