Linux-Advocacy Digest #343, Volume #26 Tue, 2 May 00 20:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is the PC era over? (Terry Sikes)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sofware paztents and Micro$oft history ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Sofware paztents and Micro$oft history ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("John Hill")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("John Hill")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("John Hill")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Sikes)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: 2 May 2000 23:17:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>[pearls of wisdom snipped]
>
>I sure hope you're right, Petilon. Like Scott and Larry, I don't think
>most people should have to bother with computing issues. Instead,
>almost everyone should have an NC connected to a central server which
>is managed by a team of white-lab-coat clad experts, who shall dole
>out computing power only to those deemed worthy, just like in the good
>ol' days.
>
>The massive democratization of computing power over the last two
>decades truly disgusts me. Windows98? Let them use a VT102!
>
>OTOH, as I suggested to you earlier, perhaps you should take a day
>trip to King City, or Fresno, or better yet Garberville (pick up a
>couple burls for me, please) and see how normal, everyday people use
>the computing power which you and your buds would love to take away.
Moving toward more headache-free computing doesn't necessarily entail
losing CPU power. Witness the success of the iMac. ;-)
"Dumb terminal" computing will never return - 3D games are too popular.
(For that matter, fast CPUs are too inexpensive.)
Terry
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Tue, 02 May 2000 18:24:10 -0500
On Tue, 02 May 2000 16:08:18 GMT, nospam (dakota) wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:33:52 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Having just come through a few Linux installs (notably LinuxPPC,
>>Mandrake 7, and most recently RedHat 6.2) I'd still have to disagree
>>here - NT (well, the current incarnation, Win2000) is easier. Face it
>>- going through a bunch of MAN pages to do common things just isn't
>>fun.
>I have never had to go through man pages for any Linux install from
>Caldera Openlinux 1.2 - 2.4, RedHat 5.1-6.0, or even TurboLinux, and
>Mandrake 7 is the easiest of all (that's what I've got at home).
Neither have I - because I know what to look for. But I didn't know
how to do other "common things" (networking, mostly) that I wanted to
do, which required the man pages.
>However, given the moronic nature of the average windows-user some
>reading may be required. If you think something's hard to do, try
>changing the TCP MTU settings in Win9x/NT without the use of a
>third-party registry interface.
Yes; low-level networking things require quite a bit of knowledge -
one to discover, and next, to change.
>>Try Win2k; I think you'll find it removes this (and other) NT4
>>problems. However, face it - how often do you need to redo the
>>network settings in NT? Once it's set up, you shouldn't need to
>>change anything.
>>
>>
>But for $300+ dollars I don't care what I should or shouldn't need I
>only care about what I want to do with it. There is always the
>possibility that I want to change DNS settings or ip address, etc.
>Try using NT4 as a PPP/SLIP server, HINT: It won't last long.... I
The very fact that you would suggest NT4 as a SLIP server suggests to
me that you've never tried it. Hint: There is no "last".
>thought about trying Win2k but that ip allocation problem (51 ip
>address limit) definantly puts a stop to that. Also, does Win2k
51 ip address limit of what?
>support IP masquarading or ipchains? Can I take Win2k and build a
>complete firewall using something similar to ipchains out of the box
>WITHOUT buying third-party software?
NAT is in the box of all Win2k versions.
>Can Win2k/NT/Win9x tell me what
>TCP or UDP ports are listening without using third-party software (use
>netstat -a in linux).
Type netstat -a in Win2k.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 02 May 2000 18:29:39 -0500
On 2 May 2000 11:37:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>>>It sounds like you managed to get a mismatch between the modules
>>>and the kernel. What happens if you try to 'insmod' the ones
>>>that aren't loading?
>>
>>How could I do that? The kernel source is the same as what was
>>included in RH6.2 - nothing's been updated; I want to just change a
>>few kernel options.
>
>Either you have old modules from before your recompile still in
>/lib/modules/kernel_rev and they are now incompatible because
>of a change you made, or you don't have all the new modules
>you need there.
How do I find out? I have no idea what to do. I exactly followed the
directions included in the kernel dir's readme.
>>>You can build there and copy over.
>>
>>Tried that. Got the same module errors, and that stopped me from
>>getting on the network, which put me in my current predicament (having
>>to compile on the 486 because I can't get on the net anymore). That
>>machine's running the exact same RH6.2.
>
>If you have any disk space to spare at all, I'd try to get the
>original system working again (maybe a forced rpm update of
>the kernel would work),
How? The network doesn't work.... I'm not terribly interested in
dragging all of it over via floppy; might as well just re-do the
entire thing.
>then change your lilo to dual boot
>a renamed copy. I think if you change the EXTRAVERSION = line
>at the top of the kernel Makefile you would be able to build
>a custom version of the same revision level kernel with modules
>kept in a separate directory from the originals. This should
>let you make mistakes without them being fatal.
I'd need a bit more detail than that...
>>>Do you get error messages?
>>
>>Sure; I listed them already; want me to e-mail you some logfiles? The
>>modules won't load, devfs won't load, /proc/pcmcia isn't found....
>
>I don't know enough about the pcmcia initialization process to
>be much help. The only install I've done on a laptop was with
>a Mandrake 7.0 and it just worked. But, if you can do a
>'dmesg' after booting a working configuration, the one from
>the failing configuration will probably give you a hint about
>what went wrong.
The errors happen after the dmesg - dmesg is kernel errors; these
errors happen after the rc.x inits start. dmesg was clean the next
time I looked at it.
>>> Do you have anything in /etc/modules.conf
>>>for things the install process detected but you removed from
>>>the configuration you built?
>>
>>Huh?
>
>Oops, make that /etc/conf.modules. Most config files are logical
>so I trip over the ones that aren't. The RedHat install process
>will auto-detect most of your hardware and builds a list
>of modules/options that the kernel tries to load at bootup. If
>you've changed something that breaks these, you need to
>edit it by hand or maybe run kudzu to autodetect again.
I'll try enabling kudzu again; thanks.
>>>Does your lilo load a ramdisk,
>>>and if so did you rebuild the image with your new modules (or
>>>stop using it if you don't need it to boot)?
>>
>>LILO doesn't use a ramdisk. There is no initrd = statement; I load
>>bzImage directly; this is purely an IDE workstation.
>
>That makes things easier, and if you were building a different
>kernel rev you would automatically have different module directories
>so dual-booting would work right. With the same rev you have
>to change something to keep your modules separate.
Why? They're just modules - if I need them, I load them, no? Anyway,
I'd need you to give me far more detail on that - how would I install
the initrd function?
------------------------------
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: Tue, 02 May 2000 18:30:17 -0500
On 2 May 2000 11:39:46 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Check out the linx router project (from memory, www.lrp.com a websearch would
>>>turn up their site if that is wrong.)
>>
>>Why would I want to do that?
>
>They have a minimal kernel with network drivers, small enough to
>boot from a floppy. If you are working to make a small kernel,
>this one is already done and might work for you.
But I want a *package* deal - the utilities and features, too. RH6.2
with less 'stuff' in it is a good start...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sofware paztents and Micro$oft history
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 18:53:32 -0500
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The Microsoft success story shows that patents are good for the
> > software industry
>
> Does Microsoft have that many software patents? And is its "success"
> something that we should want to extend?
I doubt that patents have much to do with Microsofts success. Most of their
success has been in Marketing. Microsoft didn't even start patenting
software techniques until 1998 as far as I can tell. This tends to be a
defensive mechanism more than an offensive one. I've never heard of
Microsoft sueing someone for patent infringement. But by patenting things,
they prevent others from patenting them and then conversely suing them.
But even so, Microsoft has 1,227 patents in the US. These patents are for
things such as:
US06055548 04/25/2000 Computerized spreadsheet with auto-calculator
US06055314 04/25/2000 System and method for secure purchase and delivery
of video content programs
US06054989 04/25/2000 Methods, apparatus and data structures for providing
a user interface, which exploits spatial memory in three-dimensions, to
objects and which provides spatialized audio
US05832225 11/03/1998 Method computer program product and system for
maintaining replication topology information
US05832514 11/03/1998 System and method for discovery based data recovery
in a store and forward replication process
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sofware paztents and Micro$oft history
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 18:55:49 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8NJP4.4157$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microsoft didn't even start patenting
> software techniques until 1998 as far as I can tell.
Opps. This sould be 1996.
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 00:57:24 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 03:58:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 May 2000 03:02:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tue, 02 May 2000 02:32:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>> >>First off, Linux is a great operating system and given the proper
>>> >>venue it is a good choice.
>>> >>
>>> >>However, to believe for a moment that Linux could replace, or even
>>> >>co-exist with Windows in the home environment is a pipe dream
>>fantasy
>>> >>of the Linux zealots.
>>> >>
>>> >>As an example I offer up the home networking problem. The reality,
>>and
>>> >>it is a good one, is that home networking is becoming a big reality.
>>> >>Families with children are competing with each other for internet
>>> >>time, printers, scanners and so forth. Most new home construction
>>> >>includes pre-wired Cat 5 cable as an option.
>>> >>
>>> >>Anyway how is a home network with internet connection sharing,
>>printer
>>> >>sharing, scanner sharing and firewall set up easily under Linux?
>>> >>
>>> >>Answer; it isn't.
>>> >>
>>> >>Oh sure you can play with Samba if you happen to not have a
>>> >>Win-printer and assuming you are able to figure out how to set it up
>>> >>it might work ok. You can play with ip masquerading and ip-chains
>>and
>>> >
>>> > Samba comes out of the box sharing the local printers, so this
>>> > is PURE FUD. If a printer is supported in some fashion by the
>>> > server machine, a shiny happy gui applet will help you set it up.
>>>
>>> Right...As long as you get the password option correct (encrypted?)
>>> and you can figure out what workgroups and users should be allowed to
>>> use it. And figure out where to input all of this crap, even using
>>> swat, and Maybe, just maybe it might work.
>>>
>>> SUPPORTING printer sharing, and making it actually WORK are two
>>> different animals.
>>>
>>> >>so forth, entering all kinds of crap in text files and so forth.
>>> >
>>> > ...and this is fundementally different from wading through
>>> > dialog boxes and entering text then, just how? Besides,
>>> > samba comes with a shiny happy tool for the server side
>>> > configuration. So, the claim that one must dibble with text
>>> > files in order to configure samba is more PURE FUD. Others
>>> > gui configurators for samba abound as well.
>>>
>>> How is it different?
>>>
>>> YOU must be kidding...How about CHECKING ONE BOX...ONE FSKING BOX..
>>> The only place wading applies is under Linux...
>>
>>
>>User error is NOT a problem with Linux. I don't have any problem with
>>Samba passwords or the printing. In fact, Samba has just taken the place
>>of the Win2000 file server at a customer I support because Samba+Unix
>>makes for a FAR more flexable server than Win2000.
>
>I wasn't talking about a customer, I was referring to a home system.
>Don't change the subject to try and show Linux in a positive light.
Ahhhh...a home system.....doesn't matter that it crashes.......security
not an issue.......performance not relevant......Windoze should be fine...
>
>YOU know how to set all this shit up.
>GrandMa Windows user doesn't.
Yeah - and GrandMa Windows only wants a toy anyway...
>
>
>How about answering the other points like ZoneAlarm, firewalls and so
>forth under Linux..
You are truly pathetic. Take a look at the internet, check out the firewall
software actually in use on the internet, check out the security of Linux
servers...and wonder why Windoze, with billions of dollars of advertising,
can't manage to compete....
>
>I'll save you the time...Don't waste your time... Home users have so
>much ease of use software available for Windows that Linux is not even
>an option. Not even close. Only in your, hate Microsoft world.
Tell you what - don't waste our time. You are a brainless idiot with no
idea about Linux so your opinions are really worthless. Your limited
ability and knowledge is ideally suited to a home system - it doesn't
need to be economical to run - my time os far too valuable....
>
>I feel sorry for your family because they are missing out on an entire
>world of easy to use powerful software...Alas,they will learn someday
>and you will look foolish.
Oh - how sad - and what a total arse you are....
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> >>That is of course assuming you know what to enter. How many times in
>>> >>the Linux help system do you see "ask your system administrator"
>>> >>mentioned?
>>> >
>>> > That's the problem with home networking in general. The mother-
>>> > in-law that can't work with a fully preconfigured Windows scanning
>>> > solution will be equally as lost in either OS.
>>>
>>> Wrong..Put the CD in the drive and it works...Netgear, Linksys,
>>> HomeNetwork, Brown Box and so forth..They just simply work.
>>>
>>> Try it sometime, you'll be amazed.
>>> >>So who is the sys admin of a home network??
>>> >>
>>> >>Know how you do all of the above with Windows 98se or Win2k?
>>> >>Select internet connection sharing in help and the wizard does it
>>all
>>> >>for you.
>>> >
>>> > ...assuming you know what to look for. If you know that, then you
>>> > are likely saavy enough to deal with smb.conf. Of course you
>>> > wouldn't necessarily have to.
>>>
>>> How about help? It's in the main menue....
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>Download ZoneAlarm for free and it works without a single amount of
>>> >>input required by the user to configure it.
>>> >>
>>> >>It simply asks you if you want a particular task to be allowed to
>>take
>>> >>place (Realplayer accessing the internet as an example).
>>> >
>>> > ...assuming that the developer covered everything...
>>>
>>> Whats so hard to cover? A service tries to access a port and the
>>> program let's you know.
>>>
>>> BTW it is a real eye opener when you run it the first time. Most users
>>> will be horrified what ports are wide open and how many times they are
>>> being probed.
>>>
>>> Linux?
>>>
>>> If you can figure it out maybe, but don't count on it.
>>>
>>> ZoneAlarm is a great piece of software. It works, it is simple to use
>>> and it is free.
>>> Linux has NOTHING to compare. Nothing...
>>>
>>> > Otherwise, you're back to square 0.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>Resource sharing?
>>> >>
>>> >>Place a check in the sharing box...That's it..Wizard does it for you
>>> >>when you select "How do I share my printer"
>>> >>
>>> >>That's the way it should be.
>>> >>
>>> >>I spent 3 weeks trying to get a network working under Linux and
>>> >>finally gave up. And another thing, the default set up is a real
>>> >
>>> > I spent about 15 minutes my first time. Then again, I can
>>> > follow directions. Although, the net configurator in
>>> > Slackware did most of the work.
>>>
>>> Sure we believe you..
>>>
>>> Now why don't you wander over to the setup/network/hardware groups and
>>> help them all do the same. While your at it tell all those nice folks
>>> running websites dedicated to explaining how to do all this that it is
>>> so simple they are not necessary..
>>>
>>> I'm talking about all the above, not the basic ability to ping another
>>> ip address.
>>>
>>> >>security risk even selecting Medium security under Mandrake. FTP,
>>> >>Telnet and other ports were wide open.
>>> >>
>>> >>Sorry Linux Zealots but you should read more of the the Linux
>>> >>install/set up groups to see how many folks have had it up to their
>>> >>ears with Linux and more will follow.
>>> >>
>>> >>Take off the rose colored glasses and look into the world of reality
>>> >>for a change. Linux is certainly improving, but it isn't even close
>>to
>>> >>Windows.
>>> >>
>>> >>Windows is a much, much better choice.
>>> >
>>> > ...only if you want Ignoramuses in control of firewalls...
>>> The only ignoramuses are the "elite" idiots that believe their Linux
>>> software is better, easier to set up and more user friendly than the
>>> alternatives.
>>>
>>> You have proved nothing, as usual.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 01:03:29 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Not trying to assume anything, but if YOU go to any computer club,
>strike up a chat at Compusa, strike up at chat at any trade show,
>Computer show, ham fest etc, it will be YOU that is in the minority
>and YOU that will spend countless time explaining Linux and what it is
>about.
Never had that problem......almost everybody I talk to HATES
Windoze, agrees that it is a pathetic OS, and then sells Windoze
products to idiots like you....
>
>It will be YOUR kids that will have to go in circles trying to find
>software that conforms to their college standards. It will be YOUR
>kids that will have to explain Linux to all of the other kids as well
>as teachers in their school that will most likely be running Windows.
Why is that then ? Do they want to use Linux as well ? Seems to be
getting pretty popular.....
At my school I was judged on results - not OSes....
>
>
>So if YOU wish to run Linux, that is great but understand that YOU are
>in a small, very small in fact, minority that are excersising their
>choice in operating systems. If YOU are willing to assume all of the
>ablve, both plus and minus, that's great.
and YOU are an arse
>
>I prefer to ignore the os and get some work done that conforms to
>accepted standards, meaning what everyone else is using.
Ignore the OS ???? How do you do that then ? Every Windoze
system I've ever seen crashes when used for long - how do you
ignore that then ?
With Linux I can ignore it - it just sits there and helps me....
>
>
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 03:21:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> First off, Linux is a great operating system and given the proper
>>> venue it is a good choice.
>>>
>>> However, to believe for a moment that Linux could replace, or even
>>> co-exist with Windows in the home environment is a pipe dream fantasy
>>> of the Linux zealots.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Buzz, wrong answer. Windows has been replaced at my home. You, Like most
>>WinTrolls(tm) seem to think that one size fits all. Well MS products DO
>>NOT FIT MY NEEDS. Linux does. Please do NOT tell me what will work best
>>on *MY* home computer.
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 01:11:49 +0100
Full Name wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>On Tue, 2 May 2000 10:28:41 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff
>Lane) wrote:
>
>>
>>The ideal personal computer system has yet to appear. All we know at the
>>moment is the current systems suck. The only way to discover the best is
>>try the rest.
>
>By "we" I assume you mean Lunix advocates who refuse to learn how to
>set up and maintain a reliable Win95/98 system.
Never met ANYBODY who could set up a reliable Win95/98 system.
I bet you can't....
>
>At my last job all of the clients ran Win95/98 (with the exception of
>two NT boxes). There were more than 70 client PC's.
poor you....
>
>Each day we processed students, marked exams, organised lectures and
>performed important research. Each year PhD students completed their
>theses and honours students met their deadlines. All on Win95/98
>clients.
Must have been hard work
>
>Our user down time across the 70 machines was negligible. When
>clients did fail it was simply a matter of hot swapping with a fresh
>PC and the user was back on line within minutes. This was made
>possible by the tight integration of NT with Win95/98 clients via the
>use of network drives, logon scripts and roaming profiles. Most times
>when I exchanged a PC the user did not even realise I had given them a
>different machine. Their drives reconnected automatically, their
>desktop was restored and their files were immediately available from
>the NT file server. Packages such as Office97 and Outlook were
>automatically configured to suit the user through their roaming
>profile. Even their IE5 favourites were sitting there waiting for
>them.
You do talk some bollocks don't you ? WAKE UP - stop dreaming.
I don't beleive ANY of this crap - you are simply making it up....
NOBODY achieves anything like a reliable system using Windoze..
>
>The clients rarely locked up or crashed. When they did it was
>invariable due to inadequate memory or disk space, poor quality
>hardware or rabid users who insisted on down loading and installing
>every half-baked software package they could find on the net. This is
>one of the down sides of using an exceedingly popular OS for which
>novice programmers can very easily produce attractive utilities.
>
>We also had a total of eight NT servers across two domains.
poor sod...
>
>During the eighteen months I worked in the department (as the sole
>network administrator) we had four server crashes. Over a six-month
>period our e-mail and WWW server BSOD'd twice. This was due to a bad
>SCSI hard disk. After disconcerting this disk the machine has
>operated without a single second of down time for well over six
>months.
>
>A remote NT server stopped on two other occasions. The first was due
>to a faulty UPS which simply stopped supplying power to the system.
>The other was a main board failure. Exchanging the main board fixed
>the problem.
>
>Outside of those instances I described above we never had another
>second of unplanned down time.
>
>Our four main NT servers performed the following functions:
>
>WWW & E-mail Server
>Modem Bank Server (8 modems)
>Exchange Server
>File, Print, DHCP and Backup Server
Why do you need 4 ???
>
>The other four servers performed simple file, print and DHCP serving
>at remote sites.
>
>Over the eighteen months I worked in the department we would have
>experienced a total of at most 6 hours unplanned down time across the
>8 servers (all due to hardware faults). Most of this down time was in
>travelling to the remote site.
>
>In the six months since I have left and the new administrator has
>taken over they have experienced zero unplanned down time across all
>eight servers.
>
>If you think such a system sucks then you are simply clueless.
Thats right folks........the rest of the world is clueless....only this
pratt
can run a reliable Windoze network......the rest of the world hasn't
found out how to yet.....
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
