Linux-Advocacy Digest #555, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (2:1)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Desktop use, office apps (2:1)
Top 10 Reasons to use Linux (Full Name)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Keith T. Williams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 17 May 2000 10:35:34 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fskg0$1vqh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <YhkU4.69719$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Why does MS think it would be a bad idea to separate the apps division
> >> from the OS if they don't think they need the unfair advantage?
> >
> >Money. Big huge pots of money.
> >
> >Office is one of MS's best cash cows.
>
> The apps division won't disappear, and ownership isn't going to
> be stolen away if they are turned into two different companies
> with different management. The apps company would just have
> to compete with others for information from the OS company
> and make their own bundling deals in the future. But that's
> not a problem, right?
I beg your pardon; I was under the impression that the Plan
was to split the apps off into a separate company, and even to
prohibit Bill from owning stock in both this company and the one
with the OS.
That sure sounds like ownership *would* be stolen away.
I rather thought that was the *point* of breakup.
There is no particular reason to think the app company
would have to 'compete' for information; they would have
to make their own bundling deals, true, but there's no reason
to expect they'd be any worse at it than they are now.
However, right now Microsoft can use the considerable profits
from Office to fund other efforts. Microsoft has a plethora of
'other efforts' to fund, so the loss of this revenue source could
pose problems for them.
> >> What else do they have to lose by working openly with other
> >> companies? If they claim that the OS has gained something from
> >> suggestions from the apps group, why wouldn't it be even better
> >> to let other apps developers have the same input?
> >
> >You suppose they don't? That they turn down ideas from other
> >developers? For heavens sake, why?
>
> Perhaps because if they use them they end up buying the company?
It isn't like Microsoft is even slightly shy about doing exactly that, ya
know.
'Course, they might have to forgo that in this case; they wouldn't be
allowed
to remerge once broken up. But is that such a problem?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 17 May 2000 10:35:36 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ftc60$52g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <YhkU4.69718$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> By 'application' I assume you mean any product that Microsoft
themselves
> >> could write.
> >
> >That clearly includes OS components, for *any* definition of OS
> >that includes any part of Windows. After all, Microsoft makes
> >*all* of Windows.
>
> Yes, in particular any components that are extra cost, or talk
> over the network with a per client/connection fee should be
> considered a separate item open for competition.
Hmm. I can think of no example where this is absurt, but
I am not entirely confident of it in princinple. You seem
to be suggesting that MS should provide hooks for
everything they themselves do, if they change per-connection
or per-client for it or per-option. AFAIK, they do so- but they two
things seem unrelated to me, and I'm not sure why you link them.
You also seem to be singling out *network* stuff, and I'm
not sure why you do that.
> You should
> never be forced to buy something for the other end of your
> connection just because you have a bundled client for it,
> or to use a particular client because only the same vendor's
> software will accept your password.
Unfortunately, for this vision to become reality it is not sufficient
for Microsoft to support substitution competitors products in
these areas- which they do- but it is also necessary for there to be
demand- and there isn't.
Microsoft's stuff works quite well enough.
> >If you way Microsoft must make it possible to rewrite any
> >part of Windows, then you are demanding they open source
> >the fool thing, and thereafter not make changes (except additions).
>
> No, I am asking for well documented APIs and protocols.
They do document their APIs. I don't see why they should documents
their protocols; just because Unix protocols are treated as part
of the API, it does not follow that Microsoft must do likewise.
Doing so has the disadvantage that you can't change protocols
without breaking stuff. Since MS has clearly recognized the deficiecies
in the old LANMAN security system, It is hardly surprising that
they would want to keep their options open here.
> >> I don't think you can write a domain controller from
> >> the existing specs.
> >
> >But you can. You just can't replace *part* of Microsoft's domain
> >controller software, and keep part. If you want to provide your own
> >domain controllers, you must provide the client side as well- but
> >Windows provides the hooks to do this.
>
> Are you sure (that you actually can, not that they claim you can)?
I've read the docs, it sure *looks* like you can. I haven't
tried it, the docs might lie like a cheap rug I suppose.
> I was fairly sure I had read about someone's attempt that failed,
> but can't recall the detail that was missing.
My read is that it is *difficult*; if you care to specify what is missing,
I'll go look for it.
> And of course win2k changes the rules again.
Win2K doesn't change anything about this; it provides a second
bundled security provider, one that implements MS's Kerberos
variant. As far as I can see, no changes were needed to the API
to do this.
> >> I don't think you can do client software that
> >> is capable of the 'one signon' trick on NT by transparently handling
> >> passwords for multiple services.
> >
> >You can. Look up "Security Support Interface", if I recall my
> >acronym correctly.
>
> This is pretty complicated stuff to wade through. Is there an
> instance of anything that is working with it?
Yes. Microsoft's new MS-Kerberos thing is done this way.
> That is some
> non-MS code interoperating with both a domain controller and
> something else?
No. This API does not make it possible to interoperate between an MS
domain controller and something else. It makes it possible to
integrate a Windows client and some other security provider
than an MS domain controller.
Thus, you can supply your own domain controllers that use
whatever protocol you like. But mixing MS domain controllers
with your own is not supported this way.
On the up side, this allows Microsoft to change their wire
protocols at will without breaking your software. And they
do so love changing wire protocols. :D
> >> I don't think Microsoft should
> >> be able to pick and choose what products a competitor is allowed
> >> to write that will interoperate correctly.
> >
> >Why not? They seem *very* open-minded about it. They
> >provides hooks for all sorts of things. Does, say, Linux provide
> >a similar way to plug your own security authentication system,
> >so that the standard security APIs all use it?
>
> Yes, the mechanism is there in the form of PAM (plugable authentication
> modules. Most, if not all Linux distributions are using it and
> you can authenticate against an NT domain, LDAP, etc. as well as
> normal password files and NIS. Solaris uses this approach too.
Ah. Okay, well, it was worth a shot. :D
> >If that's a problem then MS's withholding new APIs *isn't*- it takes
> >some time for a new API to filter out and become widespread.
>
> It takes exactly as long as MS wants it too.
No doubt. But if you can't *use* new APIs for a long time, then MS
would have to wait a long time for it to make a difference; do you
contend that they do so?
> >> Of course MS can just quit supporting the others any time they
> >> want, so it's fine for them. After they develop to the new
> >> api they can just push the customers there. Nobody else can
> >> consider that option.
> >
> >They can consider it; but like Microsoft they face the fact that it
> >is real hard to get users to switch like that. There is reason why
> >Microsoft bends over backwards for backwards compatibility, and
> >it is that they are afraid their users will not come along on the upgrade
> >ride if they don't.
>
> Backwards compatibility?
Yes.
> You mean like allowing hardware vendors
> their choice of continuing to bundle a Win 3.x package or ship Win95?
No. I mean allowing consumers to continue to use old hardware, software,
drivers, etc. And allowing them to use your new apps on their old OSes,
as well.
> Or providing dial-up TCP for Win3.x that meshed with win-for-workgroups
> networking? That would have been bending over backwards. No, that
> would have been just reasonable. They didn't do that.
You may well complain that Windows feature set is not all you'd hope
for; I'm quite sympathetic to that claim, especially when you are talking
about Win3. But it has nothing to do with this!
> >That argument applies to other developers as well, of course.
>
> No other developer gets to pick the time that the pre-win2k versions
> stop getting any support.
Sure they do. They don't get to decide when *Microsoft* will stop
supporting them, but then Microsoft doesn't get to decide when
*they* stop supporting them.
> If history repeats, it will happen
> as soon as that apps division has a version of Office that requires
> the new API.
Microsoft hasn't done that since they switched to Windows 95, and
dropped 16-bit Windows support in new versions of Office.
That history might repeat, but I see no reason to expect it to do so
*soon*; Win2000 is not that different; being compatiblty with Win2K and
earlier Windows as well isn't that hard.
You might ask why Office 2000 should be able to run on Win95. It's
because many, many people have never upgraded their computers
from Win95, and despite MS's admonishions that Win2000 is The Next
Big Thing (tm), they don't want to.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 17 May 2000 10:35:36 GMT
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
[snip]
> > >Again, NO ONE cares. MS even says they innovate by changing/adding to
the
> > >APIs so your comments are pointless and contradict MS and its
detractors.
> >
> > No. Point me to where MS says this.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com
I think Todd's skeptecism is justified; so far the only
person who has posted a quote to defend this posted a quote
where MS didn't actually say this.
> > Also, give me some API calls that have *changed*.
>
> Why bother -- How can MS innovate with new OS features without adding
> and deleting APIs?
They can add without deleting. And they do.
MS is pretty good about supporting legacy APIs.
> > As for additions, developers had the entire set of new APIs for W2k more
> > than a year before those APIs became standard.
>
> External developers are at a disadvantage: MS's applications division
> authored some of these API services.
How do we know this?
And in any case, how much of a disadvantage can it be? 3d-party
developers had access to this information *well* in advance of the
launch of Windows 2000...
> If they are relased later to the
> external community the damage was already done. MS says they do this
> and it is called innovation.
MS doesn't appear to say they do this. They *do* say they innovate,
but it is far from clear that "innovation" means "withholding APIs"
when MS says it.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 17 May 2000 10:35:37 GMT
"josco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Then please quote the statement that MS innovates with undocumented
> > API's.
>
> > The words "undocumented" and "API" do not appear in that statement.
>
> They didn't have to appear. I'm talking about SEMANTICS, not SYNTAX.
>
> Now you go find your quotes for me.
I agree with 'josco'; that quote didn't say anything about APIs,
documented or otherwise. Wanting it to won't help.
> > > The concept of time confuses you. MS designs and uses a new API in
the
> > > OS, at a later date they document the API.
> >
> > How can MS use the API before they've written it? The SDK's are
available
> > to the public long before the API is complete.
>
> Q: How can a programmer use an API before it is part of the OS?
Very carefully? :D
> A: It's part of the application.
It's possible to have an API that isn't part of either, actually. Consider
how Crystal Reports provides a bunch of DLLs that implement
their API. You don't need their report-writer app to have them,
but they are installed separately from the OS.
MS does that *all the time*.
> MS's Apps group designs and implements the API and the OS group includes
> it into Windows.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence of this.
> MS's advantage begins when the app programmer is told
> he/she can add APIs to improve their product over the competitors.
How does this help the app programmers product? It would seem to me
that exposing neat technologies to once competitors is not a good
way to get an edge over them. Far better to implement whatever
is in the API as part of the app, and not share it with outsiders.
Seems like moving code from the apps to the OS *reduces* the
apps advantage by letting *other* app vendors use that same
code- even if belatedly.
If this is happening, then it is reducing the advantage Office has
over its competitors.
> Its so simple a child can understand the advantage. OLE is a good example
> but MS says there ar emany others - they scream they cannot be split least
> innovation be ruined.
These two things are not equivalent. MS is, not surpisingly, howling that
breaking them up would be the End of the World as we Know it, but
this claim does not necessarily have *any* basis in fact.
Still less does it necessarily have the *particular* basis in fact
you seem to suppose. Even if it is true, it's quite possible that the
reason they couldn't innovate is that they couldn't pay for it without
Office revenues, or something like that.
> > It's not an API when they design it, it's simply a function of their
app.
>
> And the Scarecrow didn't have a brain until he got his diploma.
The chief things that distinguishes an API from A Bunch of Random
Code it is that it is *stable*; the provider has undertaken to not change
it in incompatible ways so that other developers can safely use it.
This undertaking is, strictly speaking, merely a statement: "We will
not change X, Y or Z in future versions." A paper promise.
Yet it is very important; it is the difference between an API and
an implementation detail.
In this case, the Scarecrow really *doesn't* get his brain until
he gets his diploma- because without the diploma, it is just
so much straw.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:35:38 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ft423$s3b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
> > VMS might make a good core, just so long as the guts of it are
> > kept away from the end user. I has the necessary characteristic
> > of an appliance of being reliable.
>
> The guts of VMS are the good part. I'm not sure if you mean the CLI or
> the API, but both are by far the best in the business (or at least
> substantially better than Winux and Lindows).
It may surprise you to learn that Windows NT's guts are very similar
to those of VMS; enough so that Digital took one look at the source
and sued, or so I hear. :D
The similarities abate onces you get out to Win32, though. They
are pretty much confined to the executive. So strictly speaking
the 'API' is like Windows 95, not like VMS.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:54:45 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8fsf91$map$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> If you think UNIX is safe from viruses and hacks, think again. Or has
> >> the sendmail virus been forgotten already?
> >
> >First it was not a virus but a worm just like the ILOVEYOU thing!
> >Second.. cant you find anything thats not from 1988???
> >Third.. What dows that worm have to do with Linux?
>
> It demonstrates my point. A bug in sendmail allowed that virus/worm to get
> in. Any bugs in Linux might allow the same sort of thing, or did you think
> Linux is completely immune.
>
> Pete
No-one is saying unix is immune. However, the security hole allowing
this worm was fixed, it has not been with outlook, despite several
worms. Since security holes are actually removed, it is much more
secure.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:01:04 GMT
"Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <CG9U4.12986$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > Nobody knows. They're not documented!
> >
> > Then how do we know they exist at all?
>
> Run an application in a debugger and have it flag you whenever it makes
> calls into system DLLs. When it makes calls no one has ever heard about
> or can find documentaiton for, you've got the evidence.
Sounds like a plan!
Have you done this? What have you found?
> <snip>
>
> > The things MS calls "common controls" shipped with Windows 95. There
> > are a bunch of *other*, more pedestrian controls that shipped with
> > Windows *1*.
> >
> > It isn't entirely obvious what is so uncommon about things like
> > the button control. But there you are.
>
> Standard buttons. Whoopeee. The Mac shiped with standard file-open,
> file-save, and print dialogs from the start. Windows did not.
True. They were really *lame* dialogs, but it had them. :D Windows got
its in Win3. Yet another reason nobody liked Windows until version 3.
Now, Apple failed to provide things like a standard slider control
until, what, System 8 was it?
> > > The Mac shipped with its Toolbox right from the start, and
> > > they openly documented the calls for that toolbox right from the
start.
> >
> > Not unlike Windows, that way. :D
>
> Well, Windows had a good model to copy ... the Mac.
:D
[snip]
> > Perhaps they should be. MacOS's application support is decidedly
> > inferior to Windows. Ferinstance, if Photoshop had been written
> > for Windows 95 or NT in the first place, I doubt they'd have rolled
their
> > own VM implementation.
> >
> > Now, it's true that Win95 and NT didn't exist back then, and MacOS did-
> > but it is the year 2000 now, and MacOS *still* doesn't have a VM
> > implementation adequate to Photoshop's needs.
>
> Windows VM doesn't meet many applications' needs. Smartheap is a set of
> libraries that takes care of all sorts of memory allocaiton and
> deallocation details for you that Windows dows not do that the Mac OS
> does.
SmartHeap? The one from MicroQuill?
This seems to be, ahem, not so relevant. This is not a substitue for
any part of an OS, but for a programming language allocator; these
are emphatically not the same thing. SmartHeap uses the
native memory manager of whatever OS it runs on.
It is supposed to be better than the allocators provided with MS VC++
and Borland C++, because (among other things) it greatly increases
locality of reference in the heap's internal data structures, thereby
reducing swapping.
For RAM-starved systems, this can be important. They do exaggerate
it; their system optimizes for the case of many small allocations and
deallocations, which is swell if that's what you are doing. 'Taint
my style; by some prefer it.
But making programs fast on 4 MB system is really not so important
these days.
Of course, if you are doing something like Photoshop, heap
management is not the issues; you are going to be working
with memory is somewhat more, erm, detail than that. And
they did, even to the point of writing their own VMM system,
because Apple didn't have one then (and even now it isn't
adequate for Photoshop's needs; it cannot do file mapping)
> > If they aren't complaining, it's probably because they don't think the
> > Mac will survive, and so feel its not worth bellyaching about.
>
> This simply shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Both
> Macromedia and Adobe get about half of their income from Macintosh
> applications.
Then perhaps they do not complain because they do not think
Apple will listen. Apple has *not* been good about supporting
their developers; it has been bait-and-switch with them for *years*.
> (And which major software company did you work for as a
> software engineer?)
No major one; I work for a little one.
Absolut Solutions, out of Newton, MA.
We make a business management and accounting system
for Windows.
Which major software company do *you* work for as a
software engineer? :D
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:01:05 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >"R. Christopher Harshman" wrote:
> >>
> >> StarOffice
> >> Far too slow to load. We're using just the applications (launching
> >> `soffice staroffice.private:starwriter` for instance, to use just the
> >> word-processor without the desktop). Even on the fastest of our
> >> workstations, a Celeron 466 with a brand-new UDMA/66 hard drive, it
> >> takes almost a minute to load. Once loaded, it's more or less
> >> responsive enough to use, but the users we've had test the configuration
> >> have universally complained about the wait.
>
> SO takes less than 10 seconds to load on my system. Something is
> seriously messed up w/ your system. BTW I'm running on a 128MB 500mhz
> PIII system.
I have it on a /very/ cheap (& old) hard disk. Everything off that disk
is slow.
> On a 120mhz pentium w/ 32MB os/2 system, it didn't take a full minute;
> more like 25 seconds.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:01:49 GMT
10. You can't afford a real Unix system such as Solaris.
9. You have no friends and no life, so spending all day building
kernels is actually a step up.
8. The Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, so who cares
if I can't connect to my ISP.
7. You have a weird sexual fetish for pot bellied penguins.
6. Your father committed suicide during the 80's stock market crash
by leaping form the 15'Th story and the mere mention of the word
"window" causes you to break down and cry.
5. You secretly hate your friends and family for not recognising your
obvious genius and recommending Linux to them is your way of
extracting revenge.
4. You hate yourself and as a child you hated your mother.
3. Your one and only girlfriend became infatuated with Bill Gates and
ran away to Redmond.
2. The school bully who gave you a wedgy while you were making eyes at
the only female computer geek in your class is an avid Windows user.
And the number one reason for using Linux...
1. You actually enjoy having a pineapple shoved up your arse.
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 07:05:22 -0400
Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 15 May 2000 22:06:04 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
> Williams wrote:
>
> >Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> On Sun, 14 May 2000 22:54:46 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
> >> Williams wrote:
>
> >> >No it wasn't. There were major discussions as to whether it should be
> >> >patented or copyrighted prior to the changes in the copyright law.
>
> >> Proof?
>
> >go read some computer magazines from the 70's.
>
> Which specific "computer magazines" from the 70's had you in mind?
>
> IOW, "I have no proof of my contention."
IOW, I don't remember which magazines were around then. Certainly not PC
ones. The discussion at the time was centered around if software was
patentable, then any algorithms which included in the software were also
patented, which meant that no one else could use them without at least
paying a royalty fee. And since an algorithm is a technique, which may be
independantly discovered that would have been an inappropriate venue.
You can claim copyright on anything, by declaring a copyright in the body of
work. Until that right is tested in a court of law, or specifically granted
by an appropriate legislative body, it may or may not exist.
Even so, patents are still issued for software, witness U.S. Patent No.
4974159 (1985), issued to Hargrove, et al, and assigned to Microsoft, for a
"Method of transferring control in a multi-tasking computer system"
>
> >> >Television was always covered, since prior to a television program
being
> >> >made a script is written.
>
> >> I know that TV has always been covered -- that's what I said. But
> >> then language was added to specifically name the program itself as a
> >> protected expression, leading to that warning about not infringing the
> >> copyright that begins every movie sold on videotape.
>
> Just like software was later specifically mentioned.,while always
> having been covered.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
