Linux-Advocacy Digest #211, Volume #26 Fri, 21 Apr 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that (Mike Marion)
Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux (David Rolfe)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (David Steuber)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (George Graves)
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (George Graves)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that (Mike Marion)
Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up' (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Mike Marion)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Mike Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.games.roguelike.nethack
Subject: Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:43:44 GMT
Raisse the Thaumaturge wrote:
> Also, it's sometimes nice to have one account for personal things,
> one for business things, one for mailing lists, etcetera, so (a)
> everything doesn't fall into one mailbox so important mail doesn't
> get snowed under, and (b) one can use a different name for a
Bah.. that's what procmail's for. :P
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Linux and other OSS advocates are making a progressively more credible
argument that OSS software is at least as robust -- if not more -- than
commercial alternatives." - Microsoft lamenting Open Source Software in the
"Halloween Document"
------------------------------
From: David Rolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:43:43 +0000
This may be way old news for everyone on this group, but I did not find
mention of it so here goes. I was just out on the Adobe web site, poking
around and found FrameMaker for free download to linux as a beta release
that will time out the end of this year. Well I think this is a very
nice developmnet as FrameMaker is used by some very serious document
production houses. So we don't have Word? Well how about Frame? HA HA!
If Adobe decides to actually put this out as a product, it will be
another proverbial nail in you know who.
I have downloaded the beast (around 20megs) and tried it out. It does
not appear too buggy (ie has not crashed, hung, or done other bad things
yet). Of course one only gets to use this until the end of the year. But
by then, if I am seriously using the program I will maybe buy it ...
especially if us beta folks get a good price .... dream a little dream
for me :-).
Dave
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:00:00 GMT
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
' 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!
KDE/QT and GNOME can co-exist on a single computer and run just fine.
So it seems unnecessary to eliminate redundancy that really just gives
users a choice of look and feel.
Anyway, we don't have to consciously make an effort to choose. If
there is to be one standard, the user and developer community will
naturally evolve in that direction. If there are to be multiple
standards, as there are now, then that is the direction evolution will
move.
I personally like the fact that QT, and by extension KDE, is C++.
GNOME is C. I am aware of the GTK-- package. I am also aware of the
problems of linkage introduced by C++ name mangling. Nevertheless,
C++ is my preferred compiled language. I don't want to throttle back
to C or to use some wrapper classes that cover up C.
I guess what I am saying is that I want choice too. Maybe I will
decide I still don't like the QT license and shift to GTK or to TK.
Who knows? I sure don't. I just want to keep my options open. With
the look of KDE 2.0, I find it hard to imagine that everyone will
reject it in favor of GNOME. GIMP will run in KDE just fine, as will
any other X Windows application.
If you want to argue about which Corba ORB to standardize on, that is
an entirely different ball of wax. I think that it would be good to
have either one ORB or have Corba servers and clients work with all
ORBs. Then you can drag a file from KFM and drop it on GIMP to edit
it or whatever. Maybe you can already do that. I haven't tried it.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
http://www.packetphone.org/
Baker's First Law of Federal Geometry:
A block grant is a solid mass of money surrounded on all sides
by governors.
------------------------------
From: George Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:00:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:41:23 GMT, George Graves
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >George Graves wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
>>>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >George Graves wrote:
>[deletia]
>>>> >It's called "software" I think.
>>>>
>>>> There just isn't enough of it for most people to get any work done.
>>>
>>>Let's leave that up to "most people" to decide for themselves.
>>
>>They have. "most people" chose Windows, the rest chose Mac.
>
> No, most people just gets what gets pushed to them in retail
> establishments and by advertisements. For the last decade that
> has been predominantly WinDOS.
Well, I use the word "Choose" advisedly. Yes, most people don't make any
platform choice at all, they just choose how much they are willing to
pay for a piece of Windows junk.
--
George Graves
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:09:02 -0500
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8dpp4h$2j5b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
I don't understand how that is supposed to counter my argument. I have
looked at them. And that's the crux of my point, but you seem too dense to
see that.
Netscape 4 was released almost 3 years ago. It has taken a complete rewrite
and over 3 years (since NS 4 really didn't add that much to 3, unlike IE4
over IE3) to get even close to releasing Netscape 6 (there was no 5)
------------------------------
From: George Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:06:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>George Graves wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >George Graves wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >George Graves wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >George Graves wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing that
>> >> >> >> Apple
>> >> >> >> could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on CSMA is to roll
>> >> >> >> over,
>> >> >> >> belly-up and die. With Apple gone, they wouldn't have that
>> >> >> >> little
>> >> >> >> nagging voice in their head that keeps saying "did I choose the
>> >> >> >> wrong
>> >> >> >> platform?" Because with no Apple, there would be only ONE
>> >> >> >> platform
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> the Wintrolls could sleep secure in their beds with no nasty
>> >> >> >> Apple
>> >> >> >> confusing them with that pesky Macintosh.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A common misconception. PC owners are becoming increasingly
>> >> >> >aware
>> >> >> >that
>> >> >> >there are alternatives to MS based products, thus there are far
>> >> >> >for
>> >> >> >than
>> >> >> >"one" platform available.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With what, pray tell, to run on them?
>> >> >
>> >> >It's called "software" I think.
>> >>
>> >> There just isn't enough of it for most people to get any work done.
>> >
>> >Let's leave that up to "most people" to decide for themselves.
>>
>> They have. "most people" chose Windows, the rest chose Mac.
>
>You've just called everyone using OS/2 and Linux and every other PC OS a
>"nobody". If this is your intention then we will file your opinion
>appropriately (that's what the "Shredder" on the OS/2 desktop is for,
>after
>all).
Not at all. I was talking about the TWO platforms who have the
preponderance of shrink-wrap productivity software available. Those two
are Windows and Mac. It isn't that the rest don't exist or that these
people are somehow inferior, its just that they fall outside the scope
of the conversation we were having in this thread. I.E. We're talking
about beef and potatoes, and you think we are damning broccoli by not
mentioning it when in reality, we just happen to be talking about steak
and potatoes, and the subject of broccoli just never came up.
--
George Graves
------------------------------
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 17:07:52 -0500
On 21 Apr 2000 13:31:46 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Does that mean you are able to do things like configuring a windows
>domain controller without reading anything? Hard to believe
>since the domain concept doesn't relate to the way anyone
>else has used the word.
Did I say domain controller? No - I said NFS and SMB sharing. And
for sharing in WinXX, click the device to be shared, click SHARING...,
and away you go. It's far simpler than Linux.
>I've installed both win2k and Mandrake Linux on several machines
>recently and win2k (server) takes longer and asks many more
>questions about things that do not relate to standard concepts.
Standard being the interpreted word here...
>I saw a ton of books about win2k at Comdex - odd for something
>that you claim doesn't require any reading. There was a
Some facets of any system require reading. But doing *what I
specified* requires far more work in Linux. That you can seriously
debate this suprises me.
>5 or 6 book set on active directory alone, and I'll bet it
>still doesn't tell how to update it through standard LDAP
>tools.
...which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, does it?
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.games.roguelike.nethack
Subject: Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:17:09 GMT
Karl Knechtel wrote:
> Because a) I don't know how b) there IS no menu. The only *n?x I'm using
> where I can get at any graphical experience (i.e. run Netscape) gives me,
> upon login, a screen with a grey background and an xterm window in the
> middle, and that's it.
Did you read even one man page, or maybe a HOWTO? It's not hard at all to get
any recent distro to give you gnome or kde by default.
If you're not using xdm/kdm/gdm for logins and you're using Redhat, just make a
~/.xinitrc file with one line in it:
gnome-session
and you'll run gnome if starting X using startx from a command line.
Or you could use startkde as the command in the .xinitrc file.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Clark [talking to Cousin Eddie] "Can I refill your eggnog for you? Get you
something to eat? Drive you out to the middle of nowhere and leave you for
dead?" -- Nat'l Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
------------------------------
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up'
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:14:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
> > I guess we are heading towards a future with no technical computer mags
> > at all. Only tabloids hyping whatever vendors want to sell today. :-(
>
> Um, no. It's just the number of "general-purpose" technical mags (c't,
> iX) that's shrinking. Specialised mags for certain platforms, certain
> software (e.g. Java) etc. still flourish.
Hmm, that's true. I think it is a bad thing though. It means there will
in the end be no place to go for the big picture. You see, a mag
specialized in a certain platform or a certain language is in effect
kind of hyping what it is specialized in. It very likely won't present
the whole truth.
I'm not saying that e.g. a special Java mag is not a good thing to have,
it just would be bad to not also have a mag telling people that Java is
not the solution to all problems. And this can not be a C mag for
obvious reasons.
[BTW, lest a language war develops, Java is just an example here]
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
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 17:28:07 -0500
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:32:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:03:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
> Actually, either of those require very miniscule manpage reading.
Hah! Tell that to this 1200 page (no, I'm not kidding, and no, that's
not a typo) book I have on my desk right now called "Samba Unleashed".
Samba isn't terribly difficult, but it requires knowing how to do many
other things - how to use a text editor, how to edit files in what may
or may not be a GUI environment (the examples I've seen show pico;
will people know they can use gedit or kedit too?), how to search
through fairly large text files for obscure strings, how to navigate
and find files in the GUI, how to connect to remote machines - and how
to use /etc/fstab, kill, etc, etc. That may be miniscule compared to
the other man pages Linux forces you through, but compared to Windows,
it's fairly difficult.
> You've actually managed to cite one of the better examples of
> subsystems in Linux that have good manpages and/or configuration
> files well enough documented to make them uncessary.
manpages *are* documentation.
> Either sort of thing would simply confound a novice confronted
> with doing the same sort of thing under Windows. Whether or not
> Windows is any better in this regard is quite disputable.
Hah!
For the most common Win98 sharing, click dir to be shared, click
SHARING..., give it a name and a password. Done. Client computers
then find the machine in network neighborhood.
For the most common Samba sharing: Edit /etc/services with a string I
don't remember right now with a text editor of your choice...that will
allow swat to answer TCPIP port 901. Then edit /etc/inetd.conf and
modify a few more text strings. Then send a 'hup' signal to the inetd
process, ala "kill -1 'ps -c inetd | awk <deletia>". That gets swat
going. At this point you'll have completely lost all but the most
ardent people, but the advantage is that the normal person has a
prayer of configuring swat; forget about talking mom through
configuring /etc/smb.conf by hand.
Now, go into the WWW browser, put in your hostname/localaddress:901,
which shows swat. Log in as root. Click on Shares, click add share,
give it a name, give it a path to what you want to share. Now click
on Commit Changes, then click on General, then rename the SMB service
(ie give it a friendly netbios name), then turn on encrypted passwords
(novices won't know to do this, leading most to give up here, if they
haven't already, assuming the OS to share with is 95OSR2 or newer),
then realize that, without additional work, there's no easy way to
sync 98 and Linux passwords.
At this point, anyone but a system administrator or someone with a lot
of help will have given up.
Don't even get me started with configuring the *client* for samba.
God save you if SMB support isn't compiled into the kernel, as it
isn't with my LinuxPPC distribution.
NFS is similar to this, but it's another PITA when you start having to
f*ck with UIDs and GIDs because, bar NIS, there appears to be no
uniform way to authenticate users across multiple machines. Forget
about domains - just *machines*. So, off to set up a NIS server.
That's my project for the day, actually.
That's just the *beginning* of Samba/NFS. There's plenty more. If
you think that's easy, you've been using Linux too long and you've
been too far away from normal people for too long.
>>
>>> 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
>
> No it doesn't. Redhat will do everything for you, make all the
> decisions, narrow the options. This is essentially what a Windows
> installer does to make things 'easy'. They remove from you some
> very powerful options and boldly erase disks dedicated to other
> OSes.
Except that Windows doesn't format the disk for you, which can be good
or bad, depending... Anyhow, it's gotten better. It still doesn't
touch Win2k's ease of use.
>>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.
>
> That's true of GUI's in general. It's not merely limited to Linux.
But it's far more true of Linux than of other GUIs.
------------------------------
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 17:30:12 -0500
On 21 Apr 2000 14:09:59 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>As a point of order, both SMB and NFS can be configured with the
>graphical linuxconf tool. People who use linuxconf are best advised
>to not touch their configuration files otherwise, but those that
>manually edit files probably know what they're doing anyway...
>
>There is certainly no *need* to consult a man page to use these tools.
I'll beg to differ. How many millions of chips would have to work at
a keyboard for how many millions of years before one randomly typed
"linuxconf"? WinXX's sharing is far, far easier.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:35:59 GMT
SeaDragon wrote:
> Linux runs on more _architectures_ than Windows, but that is irrelevant:
> people are interested in what more vendors offer solutions, and clearly,
> Windows users have a _much_ bigger choice for hardware vendor.
That's incorrect logic. Linux runs on probably 90% of the hardware that windows
does nowadays (taking some away for win-products that don't work), and even a
higher percentage when compared to NT/2K. Not only do you have a ton of PC
hardware to choose from, you also have other complete architectures as well.
Being able to run Linux on something like an older Sun, which might not have as
much raw CPU power, but is rock solid compared to a PC is a good thing.
BTW, you imply that if a vendor doesn't actively support Linux, that you can't
choose it. That's far from the truth.
> 4. Linux training locks you into Linux; I have met many a person
> who learned Linux and was mystified when using a Sun or HP machine
> (so moving from Unix flavor to Linux to Unix flavor costs mega-bucks
> in retraining).
As one who learned on Linux, and now admins hundreds of Solaris boxes for a
living... I can say your statement is total crap. Yes there are differences,
but they're not extremely different, and man pages are your friend.
> Yes - sendmail - the application which singlehandedly brought down
> the internet in 1987. A program which I REALLY want running on
> my servers. I am so jealous...
As if it's the same code base now as it was in '87. Get real. Sendmail has
been improved and worked on continually since then. That actually gives it
somewhat of an edge as it's been tested over time.
> even though almost every OS built since 1970 (including Windows) does the
> former. Another example of Linux slipping further and further behind the
> technology curve.
Windows only does this if you have WTS servers. Otherwise you get new copies of
the programs open.
Oh, and you can have reconnective sessions on Unix if you want, just install vnc
(which is free) and you can do that.
> Ah, yes. Today everybody is running 1 BIPS machines with 1 GB RAM,
> and you are concerned about the entire 1 MIPS and 2 MB RAM of overhead
> that the GUI costs? Come back and play when you solve the more
On a server doing heavy network activity and mission critical stuff.. it's does
make a difference. The biggest difference being that a glitch in the GUI on an
NT server can bring down the whole box.. on a Unix box.. your X session would
die.. not the whole machine.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
ZMODEM: Big bits, Soft blocks, Tighter ASCII...
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:43:13 GMT
mlw wrote:
> Speaking as a software engineer that has been working on Windows since
> version 1.x, this is irrelevant. MS changes the OS on a regular basis
> with service packs and IE upgrades. Core OS components are changed, and
> new APIs are added regularly. Just look at the poor Windows 95 users
> that upgraded to new IE. Many did not know it would change their desktop
> dramatically.
I had an interesting conversation with a Creative Labs tech support person back
when their Dxr2 DVD decoder product first came out a few years ago. Turns out
that when you installed IE4 back then, it upgraded (without asking or warning)
Activemovie to 1.1 (or some other new version). Creative had written the
drivers on the previous version.. and several of the API calls were changed out
from under them with this new upgrade! The support person said the developers
at CL were none to happy about this problem, as they weren't warned by MS that
this change was coming. Not only that, but the company had to then pay the
man-hours to update the drivers ASAP to use the new API calls.
It also turned out that the upgraded activemovie had absolutely no uninstall
option! IOW, you _had_ to re-install win95 if you wanted to get the old API
back to use the DVD player until the new drivers were done.
Now that's horrible.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
A polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate transform.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
