Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution (josco)
Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance... ("John W.
Stevens")
Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance... ("John W.
Stevens")
Re: Linux will remain immune (Eric Leblanc)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Andres Soolo)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Brent")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Alan Boyd)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Christopher Browne)
Re: CVS and Windows (Christopher Browne)
Re: What have you done? (Christopher Browne)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Grant Fischer)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:24:10 -0700
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Todd wrote:
>
> Challenge:
>
> Give me just *one* MS undocumented API call, that could not be done with
> their *free* downloadable SDK?
Give me just *one* reason it even matters.
There are no undocumented APIs - there are undocumented APIs BUT....
Credibility = 0.0
MS rocks - back and forth on a series of critical issues thus it has no
credibility SO who cares to keep track of the lie of the week. The story
will change and MS will defeat themselves again and again.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/11soft.html
"The public has reaped substantial benefits from
Microsoft's development of Windows and other
software products," the company said. "Many of these
benefits would not have been possible but for
Microsoft's unified structure, which enables Microsoft to
conceive and implement new ideas that span operating
systems and applications."
...
In the recent past, Microsoft's leaders have said there
there was a "church and state" separation within the
company between the Windows group and the others
that develop applications programs.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:18:12 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> That's not what the Linux Journal article this month says. It goes on
> for pages explaining how to share a printer. And BTW they give
> examples with SWAT also.
>
> No way is it as easy as WIndows...
> Not even close.
You say that, 'cause you don't understand that the contexts are
different.
> Stop attacking me and provide a step by step procedure.
1) Put CD into CD-ROM drive.
2) Run configuration tool (which reads machine configuration data from
CD).
Done!
Yeesh! Obviously, you don't understand that the difference here is:
canned configurations.
On a Linux box, using the supplied Linux documentation, you can create
your own configurations.
On a Windows box, you used the default ("canned") configuration, but you
can do the exact same thing under Linux . . . use a canned
configuration.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:21:14 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What kind of an idiotic answer is that?
>
> People want to share internet connections.
> People want to share resources (printers).
> People want some kind of security protection.
>
> And people would like it to be simple to set up.
>
> You are saying that this is not an important set of items?
Sure it is! Of course, until MS supplied this, Windows advocates used
to argue that this was simply not stuff that the "average computer user
wanted, or needed".
Suddenly, now it is . . . strange, eh?
> Windows makes this extremely easy and as of yet nobody has shown me
> precisely how Linux is at least as easy.
Linux is at least this easy. In many ways, it is even easier, since the
same process you use to install "canned" defaults, can be used to
regularly check those defaults.
> A half answer like "Samba comes installed" is not an answer.
>
> So again:
>
> How about an answer.
Already given in another reply to you. Look there.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Leblanc)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:47:06 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 15:49:04 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Fixed jeopardy style quoting]
>On Wed, 10 May 2000 15:19:33 GMT, Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 May 2000 13:57:40 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Ask any experienced programmer what their worst nightmare is and
>>>they'll tell you its debugging and maintaining someone else's code.
>>>This is why the "open source" argument fails.
>>
>>Nice strawman. And you don't work on someone else's code when
>>working on a closed source project?
>
>What do you exepect from a guy who can't even figure out how to change
>Agent's defualt config of "Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
I prefer to judge from the content of a post. Not that it makes that much
difference for this case.
E.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 10 May 2000 22:49:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bullshit. Some moron users' mousing hands may effectively be
> "auto-double-click", but Outlook doesn't automatically execute
> anything, unless you start redefining "automatically".
I wonder why it is so that most of the ordinary MSW users are
`some moron users'. Could it be they're just misinformed by the OS
or its makers?
>> It has to be 'easy' and 'secure'.
> You're forgetting "functional".
It's apparently included in `secure'.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:56:42 GMT
On 10 May 2000 18:47:50 GMT, Timothy J. Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>|Solaris is also *MUCH* more expensive than Linux for businesses or
>|otherwise. It's very expensive, as far as purchasing and licensing are
>|concerned, as well as for personnel salaries. :-)
>
>Solaris 8 isn't that much more expensive -- $75 for a media kit,
>register any number of licenses for computers of 1-8 processors
>with it. See http://www.sun.com/solaris .
>
>It is true, however, that Solaris x86's hardware compatibility
>list is much smaller than Linux'. So you may have to buy more
>expensive hardware in some cases because the less expensive stuff
>cannot be used with Solaris x86.
I tried solaris and wasn't impressed. In only a few days of use it
started immediately closing the file manager window or several other apps
the very instant they started. No error dialog. No log files. No nothing
to indicate why.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:06:53 -0600
david parsons wrote:
>
> In article <8enqcq$rh4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> You don't get out much, I suspect.
You can add me to that set of "don't get out much" people, then.
'Course, reliable is a symbol that standards for: "does what I want well
enough that I don't really care about it's failures", so every person
will have a different set of check points, as well as a different set of
metrics to go along with those check points.
>
> Windows is very very VERY picky about the hardware it runs on
You said it! I never did get Windows 95 to work with my Trident video
card and my AHA 2940 UW SCSI card . . . an unsolvable IRQ contention was
just the first problem.
> (the
> anti-Linux propaganda here by people who say that Windows supports
> Soooo Much Mooore Hardware runs contrary to my experience) but once
> I've got it set up >on hardware it likes< it tends to run reliably
> for a long long time.
That may be the problem: I've never found a set of hardware that Windows
truly likes.
'Course, I always end up trying to install Windows on hardware I already
own . . . trying to get Windows 95, for example, to run correctly in a
box that didn't have *ANY* IDE hard disk drives, was just about
impossible. . . or, at least, I never got it to work.
Does Windows 98 do better in that scenario?
> If it doesn't like the hardware, it's a complete nightmare, and even
> if it does like the hardware and you don't have a recovery disk from
> the box maker (a given if you build your machines from scratch)
> installation or reinstallation can take 10s of hours, but once you've
> got it on the machine and you've welded the case shut so that punters
> can't come in and add new hardware, you're set.
Do you know of a web page or resource that lists the "best" hardware for
the respective versions (and patch sets) of Windows OS'en? Even my
friend's Dell box was an unstable, unreliable beastie, and that was
built up and installed by Dell . . . and Dell's final reply to his cries
for help was: "Call Microsoft".
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Brent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:21:56 -0800
In article <l43S4.345$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fae5b$hv1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> This very quickly brings us back to the question you dodged: if the
>> display of this error message and the test that caused it were an
>> innocent, justifiable part of the beta process, why didn't Microsoft
>> want anyone to know about it?
>
> I could really care less. The point of the matter is that no such
> message occured in the retail product.
>
BULLSHIT!!!!
I had a retail copy of Win3.1` and it most certainly would not install
under DRDOS.
Brent
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:35:49 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8faj9d$2c7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It isn't an OS issue - it is a mailer issue because it is the mailer
> > starting the program.
>
> No, it's not. It's the mailer passing the file to shell saying "the user
> wants to open this, go dow hatever the default action is".
Actually it does whatever action is under the
"filetype\shell\open\command". In other words, if you change the
default to be "Edit", then that's what a double click in Explorer will
do. Double click in Outlook and you get a dialog to open or save. If
you select open, you get "Open" regardless of what the default is.
A pedantic point, but I thought someone might need to know the
difference.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:41:30 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Leslie Mikesell would say:
>In article <8F2S4.339$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:8f7v2f$2esn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Later??? I have always had a problem trying to view .bat files
>>> from the very first tools that made this mistaken guess about
>>> what to do when someone clicks on their name.
>>
>>Simply right click on the .bat file and choose the edit command.
>
>Is there any way to associate the left mouse button with a
>menu of a small number of choices for certain file types
>instead of only having one default or the cumbersome thing
>that happens with unregistered types?
That is known as "multiple dispatch," and, as a characteristic
capability of CLOS, is obviously so complex as to make peoples' heads
explode.
Any fool company that would implement such would be laughed out of the
marketplace for doing something so stupid as creating flexible
software...
--
Real Programmers are surprised when the odometers in their cars don't
turn from 99999 to A0000.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: CVS and Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:41:32 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Nico Coetzee would say:
>Q: Does Windows offer something like CVS?
>
>I asked one M$ person at a Technet session which then ignored the
>question and proceeded with other questions. After the session I went
>to him and it then became clear he did not have a clue. So, now I'm
>still wondering...
You can buy third-party products that somewhat resemble CVS, albeit at
considerably higher prices...
a) Microsoft sells a product called "Visual SourceSafe." Only $549.
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/ssafe/prodinfo/purchase/pricing.asp>
b) PVCS. They don't quote prices, which means it must be atrociously
expensive.
<http://www.merant.com/pvcs/>
You might also check:
<http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Configuration_Management/Tools/>
I find it somewhat surprising that the MSFT person didn't say, "Sure,
we have that! You just need to buy a site license to SourceSafe!"
--
If a person with multiple personalities threatens suicide, is that
considered a hostage situation?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:41:37 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Steve Harvey would say:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, an anonymous coward wrote:
>As for the evils of the smb.conf file, yeah, it's ugly sometimes, but
>it's just a text file. That means if you are an experienced admin and
>programmer, you should have no problem whatsoever writing a few
>scripts to dynamically generate and update said file.
Yes, indeed.
Whether it be Perl, Python, or Guile, autogenerating a text file is
not overly difficult.
>Similarly, I recently read an interview with one of the Samba
>maintainers (I think it was Andrew Tridgell), where he hinted about
>LDAP integration as a future feature of Samba, which would do a lot to
>make Samba work seamlessly with other systems (though I'll believe it
>when I see it working).
I'd expect this to work fairly well.
>>Over the last few years the lab I work for has had two major security
>>breaches. Both involved Unix operating systems.
>
>My experience has been exactly the opposite. Every security breach
>(there haven't been too many) I've ever seen on the job has involved
>NT.
Anecdotes are a dime a dozen, unfortunately.
>>Any standard system that transmits passwords on the wire as clear
>>text is a joke.
>
>Then use ssh. I'm pretty sure Samba supports some form of password
>encryption as well, but it's been a while since I've looked at that
>part of the documentation.
Any standard system that uses standards that are more than 15 years
old have some excuse for being "a tad creaky." FTP was first
implemented in RFC 141, back in _1971_. That's nearly 30 years old.
No, it doesn't offer password encryption; they didn't consider that
important 30 years ago.
There does indeed need to be a file transfer service that doesn't
transfer passwords in clear text; layering FTP atop SSH is a quite
appropriate way to cope with this.
And using SSH rather than telnet is a good replacement for telnet.
Standard policy should be to turn off port 80 altogether.
>>You want to secure an NT file/print server? Easy. Delete the TCP/IP
>>protocol and run a non-routable protocol such as IPX. To achieve the
>>same level of security with a Unix box you would need to spend a week
>>wrapping all the TCP ports.
>
>Or just turn off those ports altogether in /etc/services, no? I could
>hardly see spending "a week" at such a task in any case.
/etc/services is merely a local source of information regarding
(potentially) available Internet services. Eliminating ports from the
file doesn't buy you any security.
The appropriate way of dealing with it instead is to, as suggested,
wrap the ports using inetd. Of course, that should only take a week
to someone that is "competence-challenged."
>As far as IPX is concerned, I used to do a fair bit of Netware
>administration, and the last word I heard from Novell (about two years
>ago) is that IPX was on its way out, and they were advising people to
>run straight TCP/IP. My experiences with running mixed IPX and TCP/IP
>on the same network is that it's usually a nightmare (these
>experiences were typically in an environment with Win95 clients and
>Netware/NT servers).
I'm sure there are some mixed results there.
>>Any of you people done any programming? A novice programmer almost
>>always starts writing programs which read and write text files. As
>>their expertise increases they move on to binary files. Unix is a
>>novice operating system which reads and writes text files.
>
>No, actually Unix is an operating system which reads and writes files
>and doesn't much care whether they are text or binary files -- it
>leaves that decision up to the individual user or application. I can
>think of reasons where this might be a bad thing, but lots of people
>consider it a useful feature -- the "everything is a file" mindset of
>Unix has proved useful to me time and time again, making it easy to
>let data, applications, and devices all communicate freely with one
>another in configurations that the designers of those entities never
>would have conceived of.
>
>If your analogy above is supposed to attack the fact that Unix stores
>its configuration files as plain text, rather than in a centralized
>registry, then I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I admit that the Unix
>filesystem standard could use some cleaning up and standardization,
>but overall I think it's a much saner design than the NT registry.
Don't bother feeding the troll.
>>/etc/passwd is laughable.
>
>Then use /etc/shadow.
That would take a week, adding to the week required to configure
inetd.
>>Unix's ugo - rwx permissions are simply inadequate for a modern
>>computing environment.
>
>As I stated above, my mileage varies.
Indeed.
I'm not sure that there is much _useful_ difference between ACLs and
GECOS fields.
One _problem_ with UNIX GECOS fields is that ordinary users tend
to require "root assistance" in order to set owner/group ID values to
other than the user's defaults.
The other problem with GECOS fields is that competent use of them
requires that the gentle user have a modicum of confidence in
understanding set theory. (In contrast, competent use of ACLs has a
similar requirement of competence in set theory, but as the "syntax"
appears a tad more concrete, it provides a somewhat higher degree of
_confidence_ that things have been done right.)
Of course, we could get snarled up in fighting over the minutae of the
respective permission schemes and miss the larger point that a
competent security infrastructure requires a competent understanding
of the security goals, security tools, and the basic mathematics of
set theory.
Given those areas of competence, either UNIX- or Windows NT-based
systems can be made _reasonably_ secure.
Without such competence, any attempt at security will be severely
flawed by design.
>In reading your post, two things came across very clearly: that you
>have a chip on your shoulder against Unix that this post isn't going
>to change, and that you don't know as much about Unix as you think you
>do.
>
>To be fair, I will admit there are plenty of holes in my own
>experience -- I've never worked at a site with more than about 500
>users, so I don't have the best grasp on the issues of
>enterprise-level computing, large scale directory services, and
>soforth. I do know enough to know that Unix isn't always the best
>OS for those tasks -- but it's pretty harsh criticism to label it
>"rubbish" based on that one point of functionality.
>
>I do know that, in my experience, Unix/Linux is generally more stable,
>easier to set up, and easier to customize then the alternatives (which
>in my case, means mostly NT and Netware). It just works for me.
Security isn't something you add to a system; it is an emergent
property.
"An emergent property is an attribute of the aggregate model that is
not obviously a result of the intentioned behavior of the
individual agents." -- "An Agent-Based Model of the Exchange
Theory of Interest Groups", Paul E. Johnson
Further, emergent properties only have meaning in the specific
contexts to which they relate.
UNIX is _not_, in general, a secure system. Nor is Windows NT. Nor,
for that matter, is the Gemini Trusted Network Processor, or MLS LAN
(the two Network Components rated "A1" by the TPEP program).
They are not secure outside the context of representing components in
some larger system, such as "The Computing Environment for Corrections
Canada," or "Lab XYZ at Fort Meade."
--
"Perfection is reached, not when is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing more to take away." -- Antoine de Sainte Exupery.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:24:10 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Again, you're asking that the email program KNOWS it's a script. It
> > > doesn't.
> >
> > It should be coded so that it does. If it isn't now, then it is wrong.
> > If the e-mail client can not tell the difference between a script and
> > harmless data, it has no business being used for e-mail.
>
> Which Unix email clients can tell the difference between a script and text
> file?
I have actually tested this on netscape, it it complains. I have setup
two application accociations in netscape, one a pdf file and another a
shell script. The pdf opens up without a single question, the script
pops a windows, "This is an executable "sh" script..." and goes on to
warn me what could happen if I run it. There is NO way to get rid of the
warning.
One of the few things Netscape does right. One of the numerous things
netscape does better than MS.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 10 May 2000 23:50:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 10 May 2000 17:29:04 -0400,
Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>No. Sean was shown to be posting under a pseudonym, and that's all.
>>
>
>Yes. Also shown was the fact that I work for an ISV on the US east
>coast. I do not and have never worked for Microsoft in any capacity.
>The opinions I post are my own.
Yep -- I should have mentioned that the evidence was actually
against any theory that you're affiliated with MS.
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:50:49 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Salvador Peralta would say:
>Unfortunately, the article had nothing to do with m$ being a security
>risk from the software standpoint and everything to do with m$
>incorporating some of scientology's philosophies into their corporate
>model. The german government has already given us enough intolerance
>for the next 2 centuries, IMHO. Let's not applaud them for giving us
>more.
Unfortunately, anything I can see of Scientology's behaviour seems to
me to be Rather Frightening.
It is not at all obvious that being unwilling to tolerate Scientology
connections represents a move towards evil.
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #84. "I will not have captives of one sex
gnuarded by members of the opposite sex."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
