Linux-Advocacy Digest #637, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Help with printer (David M. Cook)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: SPECweb99 results (Christopher Browne)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Ken Arromdee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:02:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>A choice between "don't do it" and "do it and die" is no choice.
It is when you are a business, not a person.
[...]
>Of course, for a publicly traded company, such a behaviour is perfectly
>ethical. After all, their main concern is shareholder profit.
Perfectly ethical as long as the corporation follows its charter. Which
is not, by the way "shareholder profits", whatever that is supposed to
mean. Consider; who is the 'they' in your 'their' in the sentence
above?
[...]
>> And here is where you go from thought experiment to second guessing
>> the market and prognosticating.
>
>Well, it's not much of a extrapolation. After all, we have been there
>before. TCP/IP used not to be the standard, and that is what we had.
Depends on what you mean be "used not to" and "standard", I'm afraid.
Too much to parse that sentence in any way that isn't a tautology, at
least.
>> Window's didn't invent the Internet. Did anybody ever mention that
>> before?
>
>Of course they didn't. They made it popular, though. They made it "big".
It made them popular. It made them "big". There is not a valid reason
that I can think of to indicate that the Internet wouldn't have been big
on its own, whether MS hitched onto it (after bombing with MSN) or not.
[...]
>Ok, I am guessing that a GPL implementation would not have been so
>popular because it would not have been free enough. I think it's
>not much of a guess, but sure, it's a guess.
And I can respect that. I understand your underlying issue, and I
agree. I think all reference implementations for public protocols
should automatically be public domain, though I can see value in making
them GPL, because I share RSM's vision.
[...]
>Or they would have fixed MSN over netbios. Who knows? It's not as if
>that was impossible :-)
:-) You don't want to get me started on that. I'll talk your ear of explaining quite
:precisely (though conceptually; technology is not the issue) why it was, and remains,
:and will continue to remain, effectively impossible. MSN *or* netbios AND the
:combination; they are all broke-dick.
[...]
>> Minus the universities (they're just too smart for that), you've
>> described exactly what I did: MSN over NetBIOS. That's what *you*
>> would have as the Internet.
>
>Erm, no. That is what someone who says the GPL is better for standard
>implementations would have.
I am someone who says the GPL is better for standard implementations,
and I would have the real Internet, as it worked perfectly well before
profiteering on software, and it would continue to do so while Microsoft
had you locked up on MSN.
>> Me? I'd have the Internet, connecting points all
>> over the globe with open access and not a banner ad to be seen for
>> miles.
>
>Well, me too. I just think that could never have happened, practically.
Nor would anyone have GPLed the TCP/IP stack, practically.
>> For me, you on MSN is useful, yes. Have fun.
>
>Ouch. You know, I am starting to feel misunderstood.
Thanks for the humor; sorry if I seem too down on you. It was a useful
exercise, for me anyway. Is it true that you work for someone who makes
money owning closed source libraries, like Jedi said? (oh yea, that's
right, KDE; its in your sig.) I know he meant it as a cut, but I think
it makes your opinion valuable, even when it isn't valid. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 13 Jul 2000 04:06:01 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:20:35 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The problem seems to be that the parallel port is not detected .
See http://www.redhat.com/support/docs/gotchas/6.1/gotchas-6.1-6.html#ss6.19
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:07:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>If a company spends money on R&D they expect that R&D to produce
>profitable products in the future. If they didn't they wouldn't.
Almost all of the major innovations in computer technology throughout
history have come from "skunk works". These are parts of an R&D program
where you might say the company *hopes* to make profitable, but to say
"expects" is overstating the case.
The fact is, they can afford to maintain their product or they go out of
business. If they can't stand the expense of clean-room, and they can't
tolerate the GPL, let them go out of business, they're getting to fat
and lazy.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:08:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
11:30:34 -0400
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>>>>> You know, MS is not in it for the computer theory implications.
>>>> They ain't in it for the benefit to the consumer, either.
>>> Of course not. You say it like they should be!
>>> MS is in it to make money.
>>> Red Hat is in it to make money.
>>> Conectiva (my employer) is in it to make money.
>>> The FSF is in it for politics.
>> Why do people seem to have a tendency to repeat this over and over?
>> Don't they realize that is most of the reason why it is true?
>>
>> No, MS is not in "it" to make money. They (being a legal corporate
>> entity, not its stockholders) are in it to fulfil their charter filed
>> with the government to bring this entity into existence. That charter
>> was "to make software", not "to make money". The corporation is allowed
>> to sell stock in open auction in order to raise capital. It is also
>> allowed to make profit on the software it produces in order to grow and
>> provide a dividend to the investors. It is not a free-floating greed
>> which "is a 'natural person' according to the Supreme Court" and such
>> nonsense, which exists in order to accumulate wealth for itself.
>
>*snort*
>
>Just what are you smoking?
Pure uncut liberty; a smooth and civil blend.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 23:13:52 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>It seems reasonable to assume that no software would exist if it *had*
>>>>>to be GPL'd. Nevertheless, indications are strong that someday, almost
>>>>>all software will be voluntarily GPL'd.
>>>>
>>>>Do you mean after all patents expire?
>>>
>>>Patents don't cover the same IP as copyright.
>>
>>Theoretically they don't, but in practice they do and with
>>the serious problem of prohibiting clean-room reimplementations.
>
>No, you misunderstand. They *don't*. It is not a "practical" issue.
>It is a legal issue.
In what way is that not a practical issue as well.
>>Copyright law only applies if the specific thing is copied.
>
>Copyright law applies if the thing is a work of authorship fixed in
>tangible form.
>
>>Patents apply even if the second implementor knows nothing
>>about the first.
>
>Patents apply if the thing is a process or invention.
Patents apply if a patent is granted. Patents are being
granted to software.
>>But this is the thread about the problems of the GPL, and the
>>correct place for it.
>
>So you've lost too much ground already, and need to defuse the
>discussion, is that it? Threads are for convenience sake, dude. All
>you've accomplished is making this one even less attractive to those who
>might want to join in.
It is all the same issue, and "Richard Stallmans's politics"
describes it correctly. I don't see how I have lost any
ground in the discussion about how the GPL unecessarily restricts
the possibilities of re-use of covered software. You haven't
come up with a single real example to the contrary.
> [...]
>>OK, then describe how you would be able to use any GPL'd code
>>in a product that works with GIF files.
>
>Anybody producing GPL code would have to pay for a license from the
>patent holder, I would assume.
But that license would have to permit unlimited redistribution
and modification of the patented code (effectively a non-exclusive
re-licensing arrangement) and would likely be extremely expensive
or impossible to obtain.
>I'll bet it would make GIF get replaced
>real fast if that was the only reason you had to charge for a product
>that works with GIF files, huh? Sounds like a good thing to me.
It is, and it hasn't in spite of a lot of noise to that effect.
I assume IE and Netscape contain licensed code where someone
swallowed the cost, but those licenses only cover use in that
specific program - they didn't have to provide you with unlimited
modification and re-use rights.
>Patents are to spur development. If they don't spur development, they
>shouldn't be used. They are not there to trap the unwary (even if they
>sometimes do); they are there to "encourage the development of the
>useful arts and sciences".
The encouragement comes from the ability to make money from the
protected work.
>Again, the key is that you're supposed to make a profit off of a patent.
>Not that you're supposed to profiteer off of a patent.
What is the difference, and why do you consider yourself the authority
on that?
>>>When that does happen (and it truly seems inevitable), we will no longer
>>>need the developments from companies like Cisco and Sun, having found
>>>much more efficient methods of producing developments.
>>
>>Such as?
>
>Make something up, because it doesn't matter. Its for the market to
>figure out the most efficient method of producing goods, not me.
What market? If all software becomes freely copyable I'll wait
for someone else to get it and make it available by ftp. There
is no reason to pay for anything when copying is permitted.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: SPECweb99 results
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:17:24 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Steven W. Mentzer would say:
>>I don't believe I've seen the latest SPECweb99 results mentioned here yet.
>>They are truly spectacular. Three Dell servers with 1, 2 and 4 processors
>>and running a new open source Linux web server simply wiped the floor with
>>the competition: 1270, 2200 and 4200 simultaneous connections, respectively.
>>For comparison, similar Dell boxes running IIS with 1 and 4 processors
>>managed just 732 and 1598 connections, respectively. The only
>>configuration that came close was an IBM RS/6000 with *8* processors;
>>it managed 3216 connections. And one can't help noting the Netcraft
>>result; on a ProLiant DL360 with 2 processors running IIS, just 1020,
>>less than the Linux result with a single processor!
>>
>>Full details at
>>
>>http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
>
>Amazing....
>
>redhat wraps in a kernel-mode web server and no-one sees the potential for
>security issues and panics.
>
>microsoft wraps the GDI in the kernel and everyone flames them...
>
>i give up.
My _first_ concern was with whether or not this approach would be
manageable.
I expect that the only place for it to be viable would be in the context
of applications where one is serving up large quantities of static
web pages, in which case the security concerns are different than they
would be with, oh, say, a commerce app.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
"Besides a mathematical inclination, an exceptionally good mastery of
one's native tongue is the most vital asset of a competent
programmer." -- Edsger W.Dijkstra
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:17:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>If you are a for profit legal persona, your only goal in the world
>is to make a profit. If you are a public company you are legally
>FORCED to try to make a profit.
"You" can't be a "for profit legal persona". Corporations aren't that
kind of "legal person"; they have no self-motivation or general liberty.
>The charter of the company is simply the means by which that company
>intends to make that profit.
The charter of the corporation (if you can't tell the difference between
a company and a corporation, you are debating the wrong argument) is the
means by which the government allows the corporation to come into
existence. I feel strongly (and have heard plenty of derision, but not
a single hint of a valid argument) that we would all be better off if we
recognized that corporations are chartered for *real purpose*, and
allowed their limited status as "legal persons" in order to provide for
the public good, not merely to make profit for the stockholders. In
fact, the only reason there are stock holders, and the only reason they
are allowed to profit (through dividends, in law, not through
speculation) is to induce them to capitalize the organization which the
government has chartered for providing the public services.
This is the entirety of the reality. Everything else is just stuff
drummed into your head by repetition through media messages and common,
but false, assumptions.
>It is non-effectual in that it's not IMHO cause-effect. Often a company
>does something that helps the consumers, and they don't give the company
>money, after all :-)
See what I mean? No, Rob, it is cause and effect. The public's desire
for services to be provided in the most efficient (i.e. competitive)
manner is the cause, and corporations are the effect.
>I believe you are na�ve. Companies produce product to make money.
I believe you are a fool. Corporations (all companies, actually, this
time) exist to make products for consumers; consumers don't exist to
provide profit for corporations. I don't understand why people are so
willing to subjugate their value to merely a source of revenue for
free-floating greed.
>So, the motivation for companies' actions is profit. What else did I
>say?
You said it was their purpose for existence.
>> >BTW: I can say, that for example, some of us KDE people are in it
>> >to benefit the consumers, but not even all of us.
>>
>> Good for all of you, because it makes no difference to me whatsoever
>> what your motivations are, as long as you provide benefit to the
>> consumer and conduct your business ethically. :-)
>
>Honestly, I was in it for fun. People like you make me doubt it's worth
>the trouble.
Why is that? Is free inquiry a bit too scary for you?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 04:28:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If I wrote a program which used libraries, and there are many
>> essentially equivalent (for my purposes) libraries available, but the
>> *only one* that my code will work with is a GPL library, then it is
>> safe, and indeed proper, to reasonably believe that my software is
>> "based on" (and thus a derivative intellectual work) of that GPL
>> library.
>Except that the law seems to state otherwise. You are allowed to
>manufacture a video game which runs on a console game system
>without permission, license, or payment to the maker of the
>console, even when this game can run only on this system.
You're also allowed to manufacture a product which runs only using Microsoft
libraries under Microsoft Windows. That is not considered a derivative work
of Microsoft's libraries, even though it runs under nothing else. (RMS
seems to think otherwise on this, too.)
--
Ken Arromdee / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"Eventually all companies are replaced." --Bill Gates, October 1999
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:29:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>> I hate to seem to trump your self-avowed expert on the language, but my
>> web-based dictionary disagrees with you:
>
>Which one is that?
www.infoplease.com
>Consider this (www.m-w.com):
>
> metaphor [Middle French or Latin; Middle French metaphore, from Latin
> metaphora, from Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- +
> pherein to bear -- more at BEAR, 1533]
> 1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting
> one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to
> suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in
> money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE
> 2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : SYMBOL 2
>
>Note that: 'kind of *object or idea*'; in the exmample given ('drowning
>in money'), two objects are swapped for the metaphor, but they are both
>of the same animate/inanimate class. You cannot make such an animate/
>inanimate swap as you and Mike pretend are possible, and have a
>meaningful metaphor. At best, it's a mixed metaphor.
Sorry; linguistic tyranny doesn't seem to do it for me. There wasn't
anything in your definition about "animate/inanimate", and you seem to
be resting your case on the assumption that because the two objects were
of the same class, that all metaphors must be. A "mixed metaphor",
IIANMAPCMIAM, is when you take two metaphors, and try to treat them like
an analogy. "Drowning in money is like saying water is the root of all
evil". That kind of thing. But I don't have a good reference for this
sort, perhaps you could more clearly define "mixed metaphor", or
identify where "class" being relevant to metaphor is. As far as I can
see, "figurative language" equates to "if you don't understand how
software can be free, go figure it out."
>> I don't see anything in there about some method of determining whether
>> it is "meaningless", apart from the implied "whether you agree with it".
>
>Mixed metaphors are meaningless. Attempting to do an animate/inanimate
>metaphor (or even worse, an object-person metaphor) is mixed, and is
>therefore meaningless.
I don't understand what you mean. As far as I can tell, there is no
"meaning" in a metaphor; that is an analogy. A metaphor is a metaphor.
Anything can be a metaphor for anything else.
>Not that you apparently understand this, fool.
No, I don't understand this, fool. I'm not an English Major, or
anything, but I have a fair grasp of the vernacular. I don't recall
hearing about any "metaphor police", and I've never even considered the
phrase "invalid metaphor" before this conversation. As far as I can
tell, it is an oxymoron.
>Which makes it mixed, and therefore meaningless. Because software *is
>not* animate, it cannot be enslaved, and any attempt at pretending that
>it can is doomed to failure.
We're not pretending software can be enslaved. We're pretending it can
be exploited. And "free" is just as much the opposite of "exploited" as
it is of "enslavement".
>(Not that you have a fucking clue about this, fool.)
Apparently I did insult you by countering your arguments after you
proclaimed yourself an expert in language. Sorry. Didn't mean to step
on your toes, Officer.
If you can't calmly explain your knowledge of why animate/inanimate
metaphors are somehow "not allowed", then I don't believe your argument
is going to carry much weight, whether it is true or not.
>Except that the metaphor is mixed, and therefore utterly useless. Like your
>own fevered rantings.
>
>Stop pretending you have a clue. You don't.
So give me one, you moron.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:33:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Hyman Rosen from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> If I wrote a program which used libraries, and there are many
>> essentially equivalent (for my purposes) libraries available, but the
>> *only one* that my code will work with is a GPL library, then it is
>> safe, and indeed proper, to reasonably believe that my software is
>> "based on" (and thus a derivative intellectual work) of that GPL
>> library.
>
>Except that the law seems to state otherwise. You are allowed to
>manufacture a video game which runs on a console game system
>without permission, license, or payment to the maker of the
>console, even when this game can run only on this system.
That's because they published their API. You're not using their
intellectual property. You're benefiting from it, certainly. But
you're not using it. Besides, your example isn't even very valid; yes,
game console companies can and do have licenses agreed to by developers.
It is simply an inappropriate comparison, Hyman, that doesn't have any
relevance to libraries on a general purpose system.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:37:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>Assume in the example above that libB is buggy and libC is not.
>Now it fits the criteria you describe. Is now progA a derived
>work of libC? That breaks causality. Thus, your argument must be
>broken somewhere.
There is no causality requirements in intellectual property; prior art
is the closest you get. "Derivative work" simply doesn't have the
physical analogy in relationship that you expect from being a software
developer. In many ways "derivative" in IP might even mean simply
"similar".
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
