Linux-Advocacy Digest #271, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 05:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas)
Re: A Better Wintroll Than Wintrolls (was: Re: Desperately Seeking Intelligent
Windows Advocates...) (Ray Chason)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Windows, Easy to Use? (Martijn Bruns)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Re: Linux is awesome!
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh
Linux is easier now ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Processing data is bad!
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Martijn Bruns)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 23 Jun 2000 07:10:47 GMT
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> You snipped a lot of stuff. I assume your silence is from the foot in
> your mouth.
>
>
>>
>> >> > Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools
>> >> > its absolutely useless.
>> >>
>> >> Wow. Youd better run off and tell the good folks at Google this important
>> >> news. They run a 4000 node linux cluster RIGHT NOW, which theyre expanding
>> >> to 6000 nodes to handle their search engine.
>> >
>> >
>> > AMAZING!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!...So they have taken the Linux Kernel and added
>> > Database ability to it, an HTTP server, and other stuff need to run a
>> > search engine. OR, did they create "TOOLS" (see above) that run on top of
>> > the kernel that does that. If they did, my point still stands.
>> >
>
> I assume your silence is from the foot in your mouth.
>
Actually, I couldnt find anything coherent enough to which to respond.
>> >
>> >
>> >> It doesnt have a GUI! UH OH! HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY WORK?????
>> >>
>> >
>> > Never said that. Watch the stawman die.
>> >
>>
>> Actually you did:
>>
>
> Give the dejanews reference.
> I did not
>
You did---I quoted you, you snipped it. Clearly another sophomoric attempt to
obscure your own idiocy.
>> >> > Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools
>> >> > its absolutely useless.
>>
>> You used the operative 'or'. What youve said is that linux without a GUI
>> is useless, AND (exclusively) linux without tools is useless. If on the
>> otherhand, you had said 'GUI AND tools', you may have had a very, very
>> small point.
>
> Linux without GUI or Tools is useless. Seems to say something different
> from Linux without GUI is
> useless and Linux without Tools is useless.
>
You really need to take a class on logic and critical thinking.
>
>>
>> So now youre twisting your own words around in the face of argument, and
>> breaking rules of linear aristolian logic right and left.
>>
>> What was your point again?
>>
>
>
> That you don't you obviously 1) dont know what you are talking about.
You havent supported this conjecture at all.
> 2) you need to turn off your flame thrower
I do exactly as I wish.
> 3) and you are a jerk.
Thats a fair cop.
>> The part where you replaced your 'or' with an 'and', doubtlessly to obscure
>> your own error. Your point is invalidated by virtue [sic] of error of
>> argument.
>>
>
> The point stands. Respond to it after you take the foot from your mouth.
>
More obscurity through downright lying. The point doesnt stand, as I
demonstrated its enormous, gaping logical flaw.
>> You're not doing a very good job of diverting the crux of my focus away
>> from your horrific argument building skills and complete lack of logical
>> ability. But you can go ahead and keep trying if you like.
>>
>> You'll get better with practice.
>>
>
> Rather than using the "arguement by insult and agression" you should try the
> "arguement of logical response".
I did, but amazingly you missed it.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Better Wintroll Than Wintrolls (was: Re: Desperately Seeking
Intelligent Windows Advocates...)
Date: 23 Jun 2000 06:17:34 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I guess that stack of man pages and how-to files really does add up
>after a while.
Given your mindless habit of screaming "Linux sucks!" without justification,
it doesn't surprise me that you have to RTFM every time you need to copy a
file. The rest of us remember the tasks we do most often.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Jun 2000 02:38:25 +0500
>>>>> "tsm@palindrome" == tsm@palindrome org <([EMAIL PROTECTED])> writes:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:27:24 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I take it you think you are assuming that Microsoft just gives
>> away thier software? The software cost is about $100, or at
>> least that's the amount of money the OEM will usually nock off
>> of your purchase if you tell them you don't need Windows.
Didn't that come out in the trial? Please go and read the trial
transcripts.
> Proof please? Prepare a list of OEM's who stock low-end
> computers and offer both Windows and non-Windows, but otherwise
> equivalent, systems, and charges $100 more for the equivalently
> equipped computer with Windows. A URL will suffice as evidence.
Up until the trial you can't get a low end OEM machine with no
Windows. It is part of the agreement with OEM that they can't ship a
PC without Windows. There were many complaints in the US, Europe and
Australia.
> However, the price tag of Windows is almost completely
> transferable to Linux. As you know, the OEM, and not Microsoft,
> supports Windows. This is extremely costly. As a price point,
> Red Hat charges $80 for their offerring with three month's
> support, so the cost of putting Linux with three month's support
> is $80, which is barely less than the alleged $100 figure for
> Windows. The $20 difference may be a big deal if computers reach
> sub-$100 prices, but at the current prices of sub-$400 and up,
> it is irrelevant.
Yes Redhat is 80 dollars for the deluxe version, which is really
expensive compared to other distros, but you can install it on as many
machines as you want. Linux distros have no Server or per seat
lisenses.
Charles
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows, Easy to Use?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:27:19 +0200
TimL schreef:
>
> Ah, another loveley afternoon dealing with a Windows Protection Fault.
A reboot didn't make it go away? :-)
> Does Windows give any indication as to why? No.
Yes, it does! There are lots of hex-addresses below it!
> Does Windows let you see what the OS is loading as it loads? No.
Try C:\bootlog.txt. Have fun. :-)
> If you do a logged boot does the log file ever get written? No. (Not w/ a
> protection error)
Aw, come on. Windows can't be that bad.
> I've posted about this before and someone said its usually bad hardware. BS.
> In every case I've seen its been corrupted *something*. Corrupted what?
> Who knows, windows never gives any indication. Damn, if it did we'd
> probably know more than MS wants us to know about how its OS works.
> Fortunately I did finally figure out it was a corrupt NIC driver. But windows was
> absolutely no help.
Yes, it was. It showed you a BSOD, remember? Right then you knew
something was wrong, didn't you?
> FSCK MS! :)
No, MS uses FAT. FAT as in Bloated.
--
It shows our files neatly in someone else's tree,
While our desktops show a BSOD,
Our home-made viruses can really run free.
It's made by our favorite monopoly!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:51:42 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:52:05 -0700, KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Okay, the subject line definitely sounded like flamebait, but its not.
>
>I don't consider GNU/Linux a great OS, just marginally better that
>everything else I have used, at least for my needs.
>
>A true advocate would have to admit:
>
> * that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
>interface
It was extended into that domain long before the current
"market leader" was really. The current "market leader"
is essentially just a lesser CLI that had a GUI bolted onto
it.
So the notion that a better CLI can't be similarly and
successfully extended is rather absurd.
> * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
>inconveniance to users for years.
What inconveniences would those be, exactly?
> * that perhaps we need to get rid of these middle-level C-like languages
>that make it easier for even great programmers to introduce memory leaks and
>core dumps into large applications that we depend on.
Oddly enough it is Unix that tends to have such languages
in abundance.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:55:46 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:01:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:15:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>> However, they benefit from the result assuming they are
>> capable of even exploiting a particular device due to
>> their own inability or unwillingess to learn to.
>
>huh?
>
>Sounds like you are advocating a Mac here. Certainly NOT Linux....
I have advocated Macintoshes in this very forum for those
consumers genuinely interested in this forum since long
before you started trolling it actually.
Although, even a Macintosh won't quite help the sort of user
I am refering to. For such a user, an embedded system/console
is really the only sensible option.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:57:48 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 03:03:26 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm ... you know, I don't recall any Ford dealer
>>> that sells new Chevys too. Could it be that MS
>>> was simply following a common business practice ?
>
>> These are computer *hardware* vendors being coerced, not
>> Microsoft Software stores.
>
>> That's illegal, and with good reason.
>
>What reason? What coercion? Being offered a discount is coercion?
>I'll remember that next time I'm at the grocery store.
"Do what we want or commit financial suicide" is indeed coercion.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux is easier now
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:07:48 +0200
I remember the first time we tried linux on our servers.. Sorry, but it
was hell on earth.. If you are
not a geek or a supernerd (no offence) Linux is difficult, at least for
common system operators
like me. After a while we did handle Linux rather good, but still it was
difficult to configurate the
system. It may be more secure than NT, but if you don't have complete
control , what is most
unsecure? Linux or NT? But, ok, no more NT talk. Theese days NT sucks,
at least for me.
Yesterday we tried a new Linux application, Xploy, on our servers. It is
brand new (v 1.1)
so it does have som buggs (yet), but is makes Linux easier than NT. The
Linux security and
stablility remains, it is only easier to configure. It remains me of
linuxconf, only much 'bigger'
and better. The clients can use windowbased op's (if you have a
linuxserver you can have
clients with windows NT etc.) XPloy is a product from Trustix
(trustix.com). check it out..
daxid
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:08:11 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 03:15:22 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>I know you think this an obvious fact, but I have yet to see anything
>>>that MS did that differs significantly from what every other
>>>successful business in the US does. Feel free to 'rehash' this
>>
>> Who else has been able to effect end user choice on such
>> a wide scale? Who else has such an "essential facility"
>
>Proctor & Gamble, Wal-Mart, Barne's & Noble, to name a few.
Kmart, Target, Media Play, Microcenter, Amazon.com &
Borders are just a few counterpoints that I can think
of off the top of my head.
As far as P&G in general go, they quite deserve some
FTC scrutiny as do Walmart for their practices in
rural areas.
>
>>>This is a new claim. Are you saying that Dell didn't know what
>>>Microsoft was offering? That their lawyers couldn't figure out
>>>the terms of the deal? Do you have evidence of this?
>
>> It would be more accurate to call what Microsoft did extortion.
>> They exploited the inherent qualities of software to pressure
>> those that did not act as they wanted. This makes Microsoft's
>> position rather unusual.
>
>When you go apply for a job, do you have a certain salary in mind,
>such that an offer below that will mean you turn down the job? Would
>you call that extortion? It's a similar issue: party 1 offers party 2
Actually, you just bumped into a nice juicy justification
for labor laws. Need we get into the state of working
conditions in capitalist nations before states and collections
of workers were allowed to counter the power of Robber Barons?
>a product/service at a certain price, party 2 is free to take it
>or leave it.
>
>>>Because it's not fraud. MS customer's knew exactly what they were
>>>getting. That's not fraud.
>
>> They did after enough people actually bought the product and were
>> able to communicate amongst themselves what it was that Microsoft
>> had actually produced. The fact remains that Microsoft quite often
>> promises and doesn't quite deliver.
>
>This is the nature of the software market. It is not unique to MS.
>Shall we prosecute all software companies?
If they violate a well established legal and philosophical
standard, quite certainly. Although, Microsoft is in a
unique position to tie one communications "standard" to
another.
>
>> Although, any of that is really PR after the fact to deflect attention
>> from the fact that for most users the purchase of Microsoft was never
>> a choice. It was either the only option available or one necessary to
>> ensure the ability to effectively compute due to network effects.
>
>It was a choice for EVERY purchaser. The product didn't even exist til
Sure, nice choice: Buy or PIRATE the Robber Baron's product
or be cut off from colleagues, customers or 99% of the
consumer market for hardware and software support.
>around 20 years ago, so NOT buying it is a choice. Or buying a Mac, or
>Linux, or a Sun, etc, etc. It is a choice. The propensity of buyers
>to not seriously consider all their options tells me two things:
>first, that the MS product is good enough that people don't feel
This is quite simply circular argumentation. There are other
factors in play that you conviently ignore.
>like looking any more, and second, that people tend to be lazy and
>settle for the easiest choice. Why this makes MS worthy of federal
>prosecution is the part I'm still trying to get explained to me.
It's not that part: it's the part where I have to suffer no
other choices in what should be a free and diverse marketplace.
The point of capitalism is not to replicate facism or despotism
in the guise of business.
Diverse consumer products do not belong in Stalin era museums
as your ecnomic policies would put them.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:13:40 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:49:58 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> >Equality requires slavery.
>>
>> Right-wing Libertarian bullshit. It's slavery to rob
>> employees of a large portion of the value they produce, and
>> thus pay them low salaries, while the wealthy owners and
>> executives are paid 1,000 or 500,000 times as much, for
>> the same number of hours work per day. Yet the alleged
>> "right" of business owners to do this is the central policy
>> of Libertarianism.
>>
>> That's why Libertarianism is anti-human.
>>
>> Belief in Libertarianism requires turning a blind eye to
>> the factual evidence of harm caused by grossly unequal
>> distribution of wealth among people who all work hard.
>>
>> The *actual result* of this maldistribution of wealth is
>> starvation, sickness, and death for many poor people under
>> Capitalism.
>>
>> Mark K, I don't mean to attack you personally, especially
>> seeing as you're posting from Poland. But in Russia they
>> are finding that unregulated Capitalism is worse for people
>> economically than Communism. Both of these systems are
>> coercive and cruel. Social Democracy is much better.
>
>I have been in Russia three times.
>
>What they have is NOT capitalism. It is the newest form of
...it would be more accurately described as mob rule where
mob refers to mobsters or mafia. Russia was subject to
pervasive institutionalized graft and corruption before the
fall of the communist government and still has to work
through that. Russia in general has a lot of catching up to
do. It only ceased being a feudal nation the last century.
>communis (perestroika means "restructuring"...and that is exactly
>what they did...the RESTRUCTURED COMMUNISM), wherein they pass out
>all of the economic goodies to a few party insiders (recall the
...nah, that has been going on since at least the beginning
of the postwar period.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:20:33 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:12:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:19:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:56:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>In relation to Windows or a Mac but you already knew that didn't you.
>>>Typical Linonut semantic games to diffuse the subject.
>>
>> Know he doesn't "know that". He knows better than that.
>>
>>>
>>>Linux gui looks like shit when displaying say Corel Office. Real boxy
>>>looking.
>>>
>>>Sure the themes look good but the applications look like shit.
>>
>> My Type 1 fonts work well enough. Corel Office is merely
>> a Win32 app that's been shoehorned onto Linux. It's hardly
>> a useful comparison.
>
>Yea but it's the only name brand Office suite you guys have to compete
>with MSOffice.
It's not as if there are that many of them to begin with.
>
>Applix? Most folks have never heard of it.
This should never matter in a free market.
You have likely never heard of Weinhard's. Yet that does not keep
me from freely buying and using that vendor's product without
other's consumer's choices (or my choices last year) intefering
with it.
>
>StarOffice? Bloat to the extreme....
So is any 'modern office suite'. Even office '97 runs much like
StarOffice 5.1 does under NT4 with meagre hardware.
>
>>[deletia]
>>>>> Linux gui looks like crap....
>>>>
>>>>Suppose I say that a Porsche looks like crap....
>>>>
>>>> What relevance is such a statement?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Answer: NONE.
>>
>> IOW: my view is the only valid view. I am a Lemming and you
>> will be assimilated.
>
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:28:04 +0200
KLH schreef:
>
> Okay, the subject line definitely sounded like flamebait, but its not.
Well, it would definitely attract attention in this Usenet-group,
so i guess it's a good subject line.
[snipped everything else for bandwidth saving, read the original
post instead]
If i'm correct, what you're trying to say is: throw away Linux
completely and make a new OS based on the OSC's previous
experiences.
I must say that although it definitely sounds like a good idea,
this is actually much easier said than done. It took Linux almost
10 years to get this far. Trying to create an entire OS is no
picknick, if you catch my drift.
A good way to start doing something like this, would be to open
several forums on how the new OS would have to be designed. For
instance, RT-issues, SMP, GUI-design, networking-design, security
and lots and lots more. This in itself would be an ongoing and
time-consuming matter, but it would really be very interesting.
Lots of feedback is needed for good results.
Then there would have to be programmers willing to actually DO
the writing of the OS from scratch. For maximum development speed
and quality, these would probably have to be the same experienced
OSC developers as for the various parts of the old OS's, like
Linux and the various BSD's. These would then have to include the
Gnome and KDE teams, the combined kernel development teams, the
Samba, Gimp and Wine teams, and the list goes on and on.
Everybody would have to agree.
You need a good base of hardware compatibility. Many of the old
drivers from Linux and the BSD's could rather easily be ported,
which would make this less of a problem. As you can see with
Linux right now, there will always be some degree of
incompatibility. Except of course, if you can get
hardware-manufacturer support after a while. The OS would truly
have to be superior for this. (Note: legacy market-share !=
superiority)
You would have to get hold of a steady and, more favorably,
growing application base. For maximum effect, the OS would have
to have a base of standards on which to build these applications.
No duplicate API's, like QT and Bonobo, is what i'm talking
about. You really want to make it as easy as possible on the
development community. Avoid redundant development. In my
opinion, you can make a better product if all development goes
into that one product.
To extend the previous point, you'd have to either get existing
apps ported to the new OS, or make the OS compatible with the
other OS's. For an OS to be truly clean, fast and stable, you
really would want to avoid lots of compatibility layers. This
would mean that a lot of effort would have to go into the porting
process. Don't confuse this with standards-compliance, though.
(POSIX should be taken out and shot, IMHO. It's old and unwieldy.
We should make a new one.)
More importantly, if you make an OS, you also need as large a
userbase as possible. Without a userbase, development of any OS
is basically a lost cause. The userbase would include new
developers and create lots of feedback. In the current
marketplace, unfortunately, the new OS would really have to be
VASTLY superior on all fronts for this. As you probably know, the
courts are having a field day with this right now.
There are lots of issues i haven't mentioned yet, but you get the
general idea. It's really not a good idea for a commercial
company to try and do something like this, but maybe the Open
Source Community could make it work. For an example of another
idea about OS's by a company, take a look at BeOS. It works
nicely in general, but it's missing several of the aforementioned
points, like drivers, apps and a userbase. Therefore it will
never be a success, and a business needs successes to stay in
business.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:26:04 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:29:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:59:38 GMT, Christopher Browne
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>That puts it in good company, when:
>>- Windows 9x is a pathetic clone of Motif that's ugly and slow;
>>- Windows NT is a pathetic clone of Motif that's ugly and slow.
>
>Huh? Motif was supposed to be look-and-feel clone of Windows 3. Windows 95
>was also derived from Windows 3 but that makes it a cousin, not a clone. I
Between the "tray", "taskbar", "root menu" and actually having
a desktop and a relatively Mac-ish file manager: Win9 is indeed
somewhat of a Motif rippoff.
>certainly cannot think of any feature UI feature, which WIndows 3.0 did
>not have, which Motif 1.1 did have, and which Windows 95 did have, as you
>imply.
Infact, I ran various utilities that made Win3.x more like Motif
and vaguely similar to Win9x in terms of the shell.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
