Linux-Advocacy Digest #208, Volume #26 Fri, 21 Apr 00 15:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Matthias Warkus)
Mozilla (was: Rumors ...) (Matthias Warkus)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Shell)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (abraxas)
Re: Sell Me On Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Elian ("Michiel Buddingh'")
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Brian Langenberger)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux vs. BSD (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (Shell)
Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Brian Langenberger)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: KDE is better than Gnome ("Bobby D. Bryant")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.os.qnx
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 20 Apr 2000 16:57:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Igor Kovalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote:
> > > In that flamewar Linus asserted that microkernels are just a fad,
> > > and they're going to be slower than monolithic kernels.
> > > Personally, I am not sure about this. Have any of you guys tried QNX demo
> > > disk at http://qnx.com/iat/index.html ?
> > Well QNX is realy nice ... but is not the same as an Unix.
> > I am thinking of virtual-memory etc. As Linux said Micro-kernels are
> > 'fad' he has a 'complete' (unix)system in mind.
> Huh. He sure meant Mach ;)
Calling Mach a microkernel is stretching it. It's got way too much
implemented at the kernel level.
The Amiga Exec is more of a microkernel than that.
> In some sense, yes, microkernels will always be slower because function
> call is inherently faster than a message pass.
I don't believe that is inherently true, especially when your function
calls in what is now considered a traditional OS end up checking the state
of multiple files and then open up sockets to other programs... UNIX systems
already do a lot of operations using microkernel-like interfaces.
See, there is no hard division between a microkernel and a monoloithic
kernel. You can implement functionality in the kernel or in external
programs. The more you use external programs, the lighter weight you
have to make context switching and message passing to get the same sort
of performance.
A real traditional OS like TOPS-20 puts a lot of functionality that UNIX
sticks in external programs and libraries into the "kernel" (monitor, exec).
UNIX moved stuff like the shell and terminal handling out of the kernel and
into separate programs. Now all of a sudden you had to create a new process
for every program you ran! A horrible slowdown, you would think... but no,
if you make the process creation quick enough you end up with an acceptable
level of performance... and now all sorts of other things become quicker
and easier, and the system as a whole is no slower.
Plan 9 and Mach moved this further, but in different ways. Mach is a very
heavy implementation of a microkernel style design. Plan 9 is a monolithic
kernel with more functionality moved out of the kernel in an evolutionary
manner.
Then you have system like AmigaOS and QNX, where the kernel does almost
nothing.
But when I sat my Amiga 1000 next to an AT&T 3b1, the 3b1 was clearly
slower and more sluggish. Even though the Amiga was passing millions of
messages around, the cost of message passing was low enough that the result
was still faster.
Now the Amiga had no MMU or MMU overhead, but then it didn't have a hard
disk either... but the principle is sound. Make message passing cheap enough
and your microkernel may be *faster* than your UNIX kernel. Especially if
you're doing microkernel-style message passing to run your GUI!
Even without Photon, I would be prepared to bet a small sum that an X
implementation that used QNX messages to communicate between the client and
the server would be way more responsive than traditional X + UNIX on the
same hardware.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "Hint for long-term survival: be tasty, and farmable." -- Tanuki
"And that's the real message of 'The Matrix'." -- Abigail
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:58:55 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 21 Apr 2000 13:04:02 GMT...
...and Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jerry Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : I feel Gnome + Enlightment will consume more system resource than KDE,
> : so I choose KDE.
> : However, the default window manager in Red Hat 6.0 is Gnome.
>
> I'm sure the responses to this will be numerous...
>
> Gnome is not a window manager, Gnome is a whole desktop environment
> like KDE. Enlightenment is a window manager, and a resource hog, and
> is being replaced by Sawfish (formerly Sawmill) AFAIK. Sawfish takes
> a lot less resources and is a lot more customizable than Enlightenment.
The main point is that Enlightenment aims at being / becoming a
desktop shell of its own. The Enlightenment people have a very clear
vision of what their window manager is to become, and they don't want
it to be just a perfect sidekick for GNOME or KDE. Enlightenment is
both GNOME and KDE compliant, but it is certainly not the ideal window
manager for GNOME.
As for Sawfish "replacing" Enlightenment, this can't be said that way.
There is no official GNOME window manager, Enlightenment has thus
never been official, and thus nothing can replace it in any such
position. It is however true that Sawfish is rapidly becoming the WM
of choice for many GNOME users, especially since Helix Code ship it
with their GNOME distribution.
> In either case, I don't think "better" is well enough defined to
> judge KDE or Gnome on the window manager alone.
Exactly.
mawa
--
Q: What has four legs, is big, green, fuzzy, and if it fell out of a
tree would kill you?
A: A pool table.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Mozilla (was: Rumors ...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:45:17 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 21 Apr 2000 14:38:09 GMT...
...and abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We weren't talking specifically about Netscape. Even so, Netscape dropped
> > the ball by allowing their code base to become such a mess that it required
> > a complete rewrite (and 3 years) to achieve.
>
> You obviously havent looked at the source in the last few months and then
> looked at 'netscape six'. Ahem.
>
> But yet again, I am not surprised, since the entirety of your knowledge in
> this field comes from trade magazines.
In this verge: Has anyone gotten a recent CVS build of Mozilla to
actually work? Mine compiles and runs just fine, displays the
initialisation spew, gives a couple warnings and then just sits there,
without even opening a window.
mawa
--
Nickelallergiker!
Niederdrehzahlfahrer!
Omabesucher!
Opelh�ndler!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:29:59 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:43:21 GMT...
...and Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In either case, I don't think "better" is well enough defined to
> > judge KDE or Gnome on the window manager alone.
>
> I agree.
> How about this? I think the issue has been addressed before,
> but i think KDE and Gnome/Enlightenment already look a lot
> alike, and they generally work the same way too.
I disagree. At the surface, they're already rather different, and
under the hood, the differences are pretty extreme at times.
> Maybe these
> two groups should try and merge their GUI's to create one,
> hopefully superior, GUI for Linux.
Why?
> That, however, still leaves the question as whether you want
> a choice in GUI's for your desktop, or one standardized
> desktop. I think the latter should be the case so developers
> can concentrate on developing applications for that GUI.
>
> I think we, and i mean the entire Linux community, should
> try to eliminate redundancy in development as much as
> possible to be able to concentrate on creating an even more
> powerful OS for everyone. I think standardization is the key
> in this matter! Standardized GUI's and other API's would
> make it possible for commercial software companies to create
> powerful applications which run on *any* Linux-distribution,
> and not just KDE or Gnome!
First of all, some data to give you an impression of the scale of the
project's we're talking about. I just ran wc over all the core modules
of GNOME I've got checked out of CVS or downloaded as source.
I ended up with 1,219,726 lines of code in .c and .h files alone (not
counting assembler code, documentation, resource files, desktop links,
build control, non-C code etc.). Probably I forgot some modules. And
KDE is probably a lot larger. GNOME and KDE together must total about
three million lines of code.
(The same figure for the 2.2.14 Linux kernel is 1,971,114 lines of
code.)
Now for your argumentation. Choice has always been a key issue with
Linux. People use Linux because of the choices it gives them. It would
be bad to eliminate the healthy competition between KDE and GNOME by
merging the projects. Not to mention that such a merger would be
pretty impossible -- there are so many design decisions where massiv
compromises would have got to be made on both sides that most
developers on both sides would abandon the merged system.
A complete GNOME installation and a complete KDE installation (that
is, both runtime platforms and both suites of desktop applications)
take up far less than 100 MB. If you just want to run GNOME and KDE
application without their desktop accessories such as panels and file
managers, it should be possible to squeeze both platforms in less than
40 MB.
It is not a big effort to enable a system to run both KDE and GNOME
applications. And the advantages of having two competing desktop
environment projects are numerous enough to justify that little bit of
extra effort for a user who wants to use both. I for one would never
want to see KDE and GNOME be rolled into a huge, monopolistic lump of
a desktop environment full of compromises that would inevitably be
ruled by politic decisions to integrate the ex-GNOME and ex-KDE
factions to prevent it from splitting.
However, it would be interesting to poll the GNOME and KDE developers
what they would do if such a merger would occur. My guess is that
about half of them would abandon ship. Probably the percentage of
fleeing GNOME developers would be much higher since the KDE project,
being much large, would probably impose far more compromises on the
GNOME people than the other way around.
But all this is largely idle speculation anyway. Merging a project
that's based on C++ and another one that's committed to C, both of
them being of a scale that's comparable with whole operating systems,
is as good as impossible.
mawa
--
Yep, I've got a home page. Again. Have a look at:
<URL: http://dev.nullmodem.de/mawa/>
Now stop asking!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shell)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:27:49 GMT
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>TeX/LATeX does the job. As does emacs, gcc, etc.
So does Notepad. Doesn't mean I like to use it.
--
Steve Sheldon email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BSCS/MCSE url: http://www.sheldon.visi.com
BEEF! - Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 2000 17:40:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> :> Gnome is not a window manager, Gnome is a whole desktop environment
> :> like KDE. Enlightenment is a window manager, and a resource hog, and
> :> is being replaced by Sawfish (formerly Sawmill) AFAIK. Sawfish takes
> :> a lot less resources and is a lot more customizable than Enlightenment.
> : Aaaahhhahahahahooo thats funny...
> : Do rasterman/octoberx have anything to do with sawfish?
> No. I think it's pretty funny myself. I like a window manager
> that has twice the speed, twice the features and half the code as
> Enlightenment - and many times the configurability.
>
Hmmm...now youre making me want to try sawfish....
What can you tell me about it in comparison with windowmaker?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:42:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Why would you say this about the Alpha? What else would you suggest
>>running on it?
>Presumably, DEC OSF/1, or whatever it mutated into (I haven't
>kept track), Tru64 (which may be what it mutated into :-) ),
Yep, The Os Formerly Known As OSF/1 turned into DEC UNIX, and then
into Tru64.
>VMS (maybe?), or NT (if it's still supported; seems to me it got
>dropped some time ago).
There is a certain argument for running Tru64 --- they used to have much
better compilers abd math libraries. These days, the very same compilers
and libraries are available for linux (at least C and C++); However, some
feedback optimization is only available under Tru64.
However, in a commercial environment, Tru64's cost is still high enough
that you are likely to get better performance spending that money on
a faster machine, even if you get marginally less optimized executables.
NT dropped support for Alpha quite some time ago; NT/AXP is not an option,
and from everything I hear, it never really was, anyway.
VMS sounds interesting --- but I don't think our MS-advocating friend
was suggesting exposing yourself to *that* ;-)
Bernie "Someone want to sponsor me a 667MHz 21264?" Meyer
--
Seek the wisdom of the ages, but look at the world through the eyes
of a child.
Ron Wild
------------------------------
From: "Michiel Buddingh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:37:00 +0200
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Michiel Buddingh' wrote:
> >
> > >Oh dear. Does this mean we're going to have to start scalping our
> > >neighboring tribes and implement mass human sacrifice now? :)
Ehm.. I never wrote this.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 2000 17:56:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
: The main point is that Enlightenment aims at being / becoming a
: desktop shell of its own. The Enlightenment people have a very clear
: vision of what their window manager is to become, and they don't want
: it to be just a perfect sidekick for GNOME or KDE. Enlightenment is
: both GNOME and KDE compliant, but it is certainly not the ideal window
: manager for GNOME.
: As for Sawfish "replacing" Enlightenment, this can't be said that way.
: There is no official GNOME window manager, Enlightenment has thus
: never been official, and thus nothing can replace it in any such
: position. It is however true that Sawfish is rapidly becoming the WM
: of choice for many GNOME users, especially since Helix Code ship it
: with their GNOME distribution.
I think that's a fair enough assessment of Enlightenment.
Under Gnome it's a desktop environment functioning under another
desktop environment. But enlightenment.org still refers to it as
a window manager and there's little else written for Enlightenment
specifically (except, perhaps, for eterm and the ESD). Everything
else is advancing at a glacial pace. It's hard not to think of
it as a window manager with an identity crisis compared to the
much more advanced work of Gnome and KDE.
There's still room for improvement, I suppose. Perhaps the
next version will be quick-footed and feature-rich.
But when I look at how large it is and how many dependancies
it has compared to what it actually offers, I can't help
but think it the victim of poor design.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:03:02 -0500
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:02:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
> There's NO reason to consult a single manpage for the installation
Yes, there is if you want to do some pretty common things, which is
what I'm talking about. NFS sharing, SMB sharing, both as client and
server, require extensive MAN page reading.
> of Redhat 6.2 (or even Piglet). Infact, if you don't care about the
> data on a machine, the install is a one button process.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Sure, on many OSs the
button-press to kick off the install is a one button process, but to
get to that point takes a bit of time, and to configure it also takes
quite a bit of time.
It's much, much better than it once was!
>[deletia]
>
> It also helps if you bother to actually USE the gui present to
> fully explore the interface. I had to tell a senior programmer
> about the 'boot-to-kde' menu option in gdm. It never occured to
> him to poke around the interface of the gnome login screen.
That's then a problem with the interface if people can't figure it
out. There's so much -to- Linux that sometimes that can be a big
problem, even for otherwise intelligent people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. BSD
Date: 21 Apr 2000 13:06:21 -0500
In article <8dq0ub$kco$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matt Corey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Derek Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How is Linux better than (Free|Net|Open)BSD?
>>
>> --
>> /* Derek Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Programmer: CISC, LLC -- S@IRC */
>> char *sites[]={"http://www.freezersearch.com/index.cfm?aff=dhc",
>> "http://www.ciscllc.com","http://www.homeworkhelp.org",0};
>>
>
>Thats a bladder control problem --- Depends. ;-)
>They're more similar than they are different with different objectives.
>I use all three and just about every other Unix flavor out there and
>most of the time it isn't a matter of which is better, it's a matter of
>what do you want to accomplish. Play with them all.
I'd say it is more a matter of differences in setup and administration
these days. The capabilities have pretty much converged to a
point where you can accomplish all the same things with any of
them. Linux does have the mixed blessing of many different
distributions. You can load/test them in much less time
than it would take to build the same sets of applications
on your own, but it gives you a lot more ways to go wrong
too.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shell)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:11:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>These are really abysmal sales figures if you consider the market
>presence of the predecessor operating system. For two whole months,
>you're looking at single digit growth, i.e. at this rate it will be more
>than ten years before the existing NT base finishes upgrading to W2K.
>Looks like there's a lot of cautious consumers out there. Gotta ask,
>how come they're being so cautious this time around?
What do you mean this time around?
They were cautius with Win95, and WinNT as well.
Most of the NT deployments did not occur until well into 1997, with NT 4
releasing in summer of 1996.
--
Steve Sheldon email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BSCS/MCSE url: http://www.sheldon.visi.com
BEEF! - Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history
Date: 21 Apr 2000 13:17:56 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>This is a fundamental flaw in free software which has been identified
>years ago by the critics of free software. The advantage of a single
>vednor who defines standards is that they can control the standards.
You have one very strange concept of standards. When there is
only a single vendor, their main goal is to keep it that way
and make it as difficult as possible to interoperate with
anything else.
>You
>lose this when go to free software because the programmers are generally
>less professional and less experienced, and want to do things in their
>own, hackery way, instead of working of the fundamental problems.
Evidence please??? How are the 'standards body' standards less
professional than the things that lock you into a single
vendor?
>Superior,
>more robust systems such as Mac and Windows do not have such glaring
>limitations as the more fragile systems such as Linux and Unix have.
Speaking of lacking experience....
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 2000 18:24:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
: Hmmm...now youre making me want to try sawfish....
: What can you tell me about it in comparison with windowmaker?
Here's the short list, first the features that mirror WindowMaker
ones:
* Grouping windows. Iconify, destroy, etc. several windows for
a given application as a group. Add and remove windows
to that group on-the-fly. Send the group to a different
desktop. Very neat.
* "Docks" and such are provided through Gnome. Sawfish
specializes in managing windows only.
* Multiple workspaces ala CDE. Virtual desktops ala FVWM.
Use both simultaneously if you'd like. Have a given
application set to start up on a specific workspace.
* Strong theme support. Assign a single window theme to
all windows or give each window its own theme. The
menus are GTK widgets and support your current GTK theme.
* GUI-based configuration. No hand-editing required.
But you can do really neat stuff if you do.
* Keyboard menu traversal and animated menus in progress.
And now the list of features not listed on WindowMaker's
feature list:
* Rebind any mouse button to any window action anywhere
in the window. I have my up-wheel set to shade-window
and down-wheel set to unshade-window, for example.
Supports a great many keypresses also.
* Match windows to give them specialized borders,
stickyness, depth, focus rules, size, viewport,
grouping, or just about anything else via a
variety of matching criteria.
* Sound support.
* Tooltips for when your mouse passes over a window control.
Completely customizable.
* Pagers and iconboxes supported via external programs.
* Complete customizability via its own lisp-like language
interpreter giving near limitless expansion possibilities.
And there's quite a few other minor miscellaneous features
that most other window managers support. But these are the
biggies. Typically memory use while running is 5 megs total
on my system. Up-to-date binary and source RPMs always
available.
It doesn't cost you anything. Give it a try :)
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:09:27 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> Jerry Wong wrote:
>
> > I feel Gnome + Enlightment will consume more system resource than KDE,
> > so I choose KDE.However, the default window manager in Red Hat 6.0 is
> > Gnome.
>
> I like peanut butter better than ice cream, and anyone who disagrees
> with me is a fool with dubious morals.
But I forgot to ask: did you run MS Outlook Express under KDE to make that
post, troll-boy?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:06:39 -0500
Jerry Wong wrote:
> I feel Gnome + Enlightment will consume more system resource than KDE,
> so I choose KDE.However, the default window manager in Red Hat 6.0 is
> Gnome.
I like peanut butter better than ice cream, and anyone who disagrees
with me is a fool with dubious morals.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
