Linux-Advocacy Digest #460, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 19:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Re: Updated Steve/Mike List -- 38 Fake Names (was: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I
have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("KLH")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: post-installation SCSI setup?? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. ("Colin R.
Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:40:42 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We have to make attempt to discern the correctness of our values.
> > > > And what is wrong with acting contrary to one's values?
> > >
> > > It's unethical?
> >
> > But then why is it good to be ethical? Should people be ethical?
>
> I believe so.
>
> > > > > On a internally inconsistent value system, anything goes, so
> > > > > my position regarding ethics will still call it unethical, since
> > > > > both doing A and not doing it would be against my values.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > But why should one worry about being ethical by such a standard?
> > >
> > > You have to have SOME standard.
> > >
> >
> > But what if it's a different (and conflicting) standard?
>
> Then I will accept you have that standard and not bother arguing
> unless you try to convince me my standard is somehow evil.
>
Are you saying that there is no objective basis for a standard
of ethical judgment?
> > > >
> > > > Cognition.
> > >
> > > How does cognition lead to the decision that eating the dead is not
> > > right?
> >
> > Did I claim that cannibalism was wrong? I only remember claiming
> > not to be a cannibal.
>
> I said you were (ethically or morally, can't recall) equivalent to a
> cannibal, and you said you weren't. Are you saying you are inferior?
>
Don't know that it's totally ordered.
> > > and nice weather. Thus, by your argument, they may have needed to
> > > drop the inquisition and adopt slavery, while moving to the south.
> >
> > They needed to drop the Inquisition, but the Renaissance did not
> > need slavery, nor did it need to move north. The achievement of
> > some degree of liberty was one of the causes of the Renaissance.
>
> The renaissance, despite achievements in arts, was pretty much
> a very bad time to live.
>
Worse than the Middle Ages?
>
> > The Church gets some credit as a patron of the fine arts and
> > architecture, but the spending led to protests in Germany
> > under Luther.
>
> Cheap germans ;-)
>
But the loot went to adorning Italy, not Germany.
> > > > And who ran the educational system? None other than the Catholic
> > > > Church itself.
> > >
> > > And the persons who were members of the church's educational system
> > > were in the exact same situation. Oops.
> >
> > No oops, just more blame.
>
> So everyone was evil.
>
Someone was evil.
> > > >
> > > > And why did they "perceive" it that way?
> > >
> > > Education and the reigning morality of the age, again.
> >
> > Or more precisely, the lack of such.
>
> Which one, education or morality?
>
both
>
> > It only took the Church some 500 years to make her a saint.
>
> She is not a saint, AFAIK, although she was declared a "holy
> woman" in 1457, only 26 years after her death.
> (first reference I could find on a quick search:
> http://dc.smu.edu/ijas/pinzino.html )
American Heritage Dictionary (3rd Ed.) has her a saint. Granted,
that isn't the best reference. Wait! The Story of Civilization, Volume
VI, page 86 (1957 ed):
In 1920 Benedict XV numbered the Maid of Orleans among the saints
of the Church.
Will Durant
> > > > And why didn't they dispute it?
> > >
> > > Why should they? Consider that the scientific method had
> > > not been invented yet.
> >
> > Actually, Galileo had made contributions,
>
> Galileo's methods were nothing we would recognize as scientific.
> For one thing, he was not an experimentalist, except for some
> small things.
>
Odd, in dynamics, he actually timed the descent of falling objects,
though he only may relative measurements of times, it was enough
to show that distance fallen is proportional to the square of the
elapsed time.
>
> > and Roger Bacon before him. Hey, even Aristotle had some tips
> > in that direction.
>
> Sure, everyone had some remote clues. But the scientific method
> was not invented.
>
OK, more like developed.
>
> > > > > The (then considered) historical
> > > > > account of god's words expressed through his prophets?
> > > >
> > > > Credulity is not a substitute for history.
> > >
> > > History in the modern sense had not quite been invented yet.
> >
> > Thucydides might disagree.
>
> Of course. He was doing history in HIS modern sense. He was
> modern ;-) I meant, of course, in OUR modern sense.
>
Thucydides was pretty objective.
>
> > > > > Pretty much the same proof we have now of the existence
> > > > > of Sumeria, in a way (yes, less scientifically assured).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > But I don't recall anyone being threatened with death or
> > > > torture for disbelieving claims about Sumerian culture.
> > > > And what historical evidence can there be for the
> > > > supernatural
> > >
> > > Sorry, does your statement end there?
> >
> > Yes. What evidence can there be for the supernatural?
> > (It's a question, not a statement.)
>
> Then it lacked the "?". Of course there can be evidence
> for the supernatural. Unless I'm failing at the meaning of the
> word evidence, evidence as accepted in a court of law, for example,
> is of several kinds: circunstancial, testimonial, and auto-optic.
>
> All three could exist for the supernatural.
>
I'm skeptical of this point.
>
> > > > > a) defending nazism
> > > > > b) helping genocide
> > > > > c) defending his homeland against communism
> > > >
> > > > Gee, maybe if Hitler hadn't backstabbed Stalin, that
> > > > would not have been necessary. The Soviet Union
> > > > was hardly a threat to the Weimar Republic. Also,
> > > > what basic distinction is there between nazism and
> > > > communism?
> > >
> > > Well, perhaps... the nazism's lack of state centralized
> > > ownership of everything?
> >
> > Ownership, yes. But the Nazis controlled the economy
> > almost as much.
>
> Ok. But it's a difference.
>
But is it a basic difference? How much does it matter whether
one is enslaved for the sake of the Aryan race, as opposed
to being enslaved for the sake of the proletariat.
>
> > > > Also, how does being a concentration-camp guard
> > > > protect the homeland?
> > >
> > > What concentration camp guard? "a 16 year old in 1944,
> > > sent to the eastern front" ain't no camp guard!
> > >
> > > > > d) protecting his own life
> > > >
> > > > Oh, yeah, we know how well those prisoners were armed.
> > >
> > > What prisoners?
> > >
> > > > > e) protecting his family
> > > >
> > > > From whom?
> > >
> > > Communist invaders?
> > >
> > > > > f) giving time for the western front to advance, thus
> > > > > saving a piece of western europe for democracy
> > > >
> > > > Oh, yeah, the Soviets were really slowed down by the
> > > > death camps.
> > >
> > > What death camps? Could you please read what I write???
> > >
> >
> > We started this off discussing the Holocaust, not World War II.
> > You said that the ethics of the Holocaust (not WWII) were complex,
> > and that is what I challenged.
>
> WWII is a thing that affects the holocaust. Everyone fighting on WWII
> had effects in the holocaust, and thus have a ethical link to it.
> I am just providing an example where you can appreciate the complexity.
> Of course other examples are way more trivial.
>
I was speaking of those directly involved with the camps. Those fighting
elsewhere may have had more suble effects.
>
> > > > Actually, the entire apparatus of mass extermination was
> > > > a negative for the German military, as it required resources
> > > > that could have been directed against the Soviets.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's why I didn't use a camp guard in the example.
> > > Please read more carefully.
> > >
> >
> > But we were discussing the holocaust, not WWII as a whole.
>
> We are discussing the ETHICS of the holocaust. This is just
> an example. Now, if you wanted to change my example to suit
> better what YOU want to say, go ahead, but do it clearly.
>
OK. Let's take your 16-year on the Eastern Front in 1944.
Also, let's have him in a regular military unit as opposed
to an extermination squad (the Germans had such groups
advance into the Soviet Union).
Some questions:
Were you thinking about the moral status of his actions
with respect to the camps? That is, does he bear some
responsibility for the camps because he helped defend
them (with the rest of the German holdings) from the
Allies?
In this case, I would say that the assignment/nonassignment
of blame to the soldier is not trivial. However, this does not
complexify the moral issues of the Holocaust itself.
Or was it something else?
>
> > > > > and maybe a hundred other things. How can you say that was
> > > > > not a complex situation?
> > > >
> > > > Well, mainly because none of that has much to do with the
> > > > death camps, does it?
> > >
> > > Uh?
> >
> > Read the previous posts.
>
> Please read, it has to do with the death camps. If noone fought the
> eastern front, death camps would have been closed what, 2 years earlier?
> How can it has not much to do with the death camps?
>
The prosecution of the war may have permitted the extermination, but
how does it affect the moral status of death camps? True, if the camps
had reflected military necessity, such necessity might mitigate the moral
condemnation. However, the camps served no military purpose, and
did not help Germany in the war. So how does the war affect the moral
status of the camp?
> > > Can you assign blame on someone who didn't knew better? Should car
> > > accident drivers be considered armed murderers?
> >
> > If they are accidents waiting to happen, yes. There is such a thing
> > (in American law at least) as criminal negligence.
>
> And criminal negligence is not armed murder, AFAIK.
>
Not first-degree murder. I don't know about second or third.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. They could just be more militant. Or younger.
> > > Or more fanatic, willing to do suicide bombings. Or less
> > > respectful of the law. They could just be a larger minority.
> > > Not always the side that imposes itself by force is a majority.
> > But without a second amendment, who gets to bear arms?
> > Just government officials?
>
> Hopefully, the delegates of a democratically elected power.
> That way, you would have the weapons backing the will of the
> majority as you wanted anyway.
>
Did I want that? I thought I was more responding to the claim
that the minority could use its control of weapons to coerce
the majority. I don't recall saying that the majority should get
to coerce the minority.
> > > > > It doesn't seem to be necessarily immoral to me.
> > > >
> > > > But if one isn't bound by awareness of facts (not omniscience), then
> > > > what is one bound by?
> > >
> > > It depends.
> >
> > On what?
>
> You asked "is it moral to be wrong?" and later modified it as
> (paraphrasing) "is it moral to be wrong when you can see facts that show
> you are wrong?".
>
> Well, it depends on what those facts are. If the nazis were winning WWII
> in 1940, and we knew for a fact that they would win even if the US
> joined
> the allieds, would it be moral for the US to join the other side?
>
No.
>
> > > Blah. The copernican model, as explained by Copernicus and Galileo
> > > (not to mention Bruno, who was just a mystic) was just as wrong,
> > > regarding astronomical observations, as the ptolemaic model was.
> >
> > Perhaps, but the rack is not a means of peer review.
>
> And Galileo was not tortured, AFAIK.
>
No, merely threatened with such. And Bruno, Hypatia, Hus, etc.
were dealt with much more harshly.
>
> > > As for the church's position, ok, you can believe if you want,
> > > that the church consisted of millions of evil monks bent on
> > > acting against their own belief of what was good. I just see it
> > > as unnecesarily contrived.
> > >
> >
> > Some of the clergy appreciated Galileo's early scientific efforts,
> > so they must have been at least partially aware of the value of
> > inquiry.
>
> Inquiry, believe it or not, is one of the main requirements for a
> teologist, so they better have!
Inquiry is usually better when there are actual objects about
which to inquire, as opposed to mere mythological constructs.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:45:44 -0400
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Doesn't "effectively computable" mean computable on a Turing Machine?
> > And Church's thesis is that the Turing computable functions are the
> > partial recursive functions.
>
> Church's Thesis predates Turing's work, so (by the laws of causality)
> cannot refer to it. It states that lambda calculus describes
> precisely the effectively computable functions. It has been shown
> that lambda calculus is equivalent to TMs and partial recursive
> functions (among many other things) but not that that describes the
> limit of what is effectively computable, particularly since that is a
> deeply nebulous concept.
Sorry, I can't even copy from "Computability and Logic" correctly.
I replaced "intuitively computable" with "Turing computable".
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:16:39 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > There is pressure from some local politicians in this area to do just
that.
>
> Oh jesus! That's scary. I saw 2 dead monitors when I went on vacation
just
> this last month.. one was a blue screen and another was at a DOS prompt.
Yep,
> I sure as hell don't want something that can't handle flight departures
and
> arrivals on display controlling the ATC system.
That would sure help the demand for travel and accidental death insurance.
But I have a sneaky feeling that it would be difficult to find someone
willing to sell any. ;-)
In the news just yesterday there was a report of a massive failure of the
ATC system. A couple of the local politicians gave speechs televised on the
news, promoting the use of Windows for ATC.
The local news casters cited that the ATC system predates Windows and should
be replaced. I would argue with either of the points of that sentence;
however, speaking of both issues together like that? Point of fact, the
station is an NBC affiliate.
>
> Then again, I've done research into the ATC system for reports I did in
> college, and it's really scary as it is. There just now getting some
upgrades
> finally done.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Updated Steve/Mike List -- 38 Fake Names (was: So ya' wanna' run
Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:40:10 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ng0ld$okn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> * Bylaws of the Usenet Committee To Take Steve/Mike
> To Fire Island In Drag And Get Him Laid
Would that have to be done to she||he||it atleast 38 times just to make sure
that it did happen to Steve and Mike?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:50:13 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:05:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred) wrote:
> You are trying to reply to someone who thinks we have little green men
> from Mars walking on our planet....
Still spreading that lie? Provide verifiable proof that I have said that
"we have little green men from Mars walking on our planet"! Provide
verifiable proof that I have ever said the "little green men" exist at all.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP! AND DO IT NOW!
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:34:56 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I have see Jack of All Trades in the T.V. listings but have never tried
the
> >show since in this areas is stuck on teh same station and day as
Hercules,
> >Xexna, etc. Is it made by the same production company?
>
> Usually "Back 2 Back Action" (Cleopatra 2525 and Jack of All Trades, each
> a half-hour show) airs in time slots formerly reserved for Hercules, which
> is no longer being filmed. And yes, it comes from the same company.
Thanks for the warning.
Hercules has been cancelled? Great! Thanks for the heads up there. A few
years ago a sysop of a now defunt BBS who went by the handle Keymaster made
a claim the Hercules was such a great show that it would go on forever and
it would not be canceled until the actor died of old age. Some one
disagreed. One thing lead to another and they ended up with a flame war
over it. I poped in with the comment that while Hercules seems to be
typical of late 20th century entertainment, I didn't believe that the
program could not continue into the 21th century. That lead to the sysop
posting wanabet? wanabet? I said sure why not? That lead me to state, "I
bet The Hercules television series will be cancelled before the end of the
20th Century." He offered the prize of a lifetime membership in the BBS
with full access and no ratios.
Now if I can only locate him get him to restart the old BBS, locate the old
gang and get them to start calling in again, maybe my bet will pay off. ;-)
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:36:39 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Marion wrote:
> > I think Nathanial's was: Starship Invasions -
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0076760
>
> Actually that's not the one I was thinking of. But I can't seem to
> remember.
>
> I'll have to look at my vid collection later and see if I can spot it.
> I know i still have the tape somewhere, but it's buried pretty deep:-).
Like in Jack Benny's vault?
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:49:51 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Donal K. Fellows in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>> Use of goto statements, especially calculated goto statements,
> >>> is also a bit "unkosher". Again, these are bad habits that must
> >>> be later unlearned when supporting mulitple users, multiple windows,
> >>> and multiple threads.
> >>
> >> But what if there is no later? An end user wants simple customization,
> >> automation, *control* of interface processing mechanisms. If there
> >> requirements extend to supporting other users than themselves, multiple
> >> windows, or threading, then obviously they should learn a "real"
> >> programming language. I'm just interested in how *accessible* it is,
> >> not how *capable* it might be.
> >
> >This is all very well, until the end-user rumbles on up in a year's
> >time, tells you that they're very happy with what you've done, but
> >could you just add a few more features? Like more users, windows and
> >performance on their new hardware (possibly implying threads.) That's
> >when gotos tend to bite.
> >
> >One of the biggest challenges in professional computer system design
>
> [...]
>
> I will re-iterate. I am not talking about professional computer system
> design, or even amateur application programming. I am talking about
> operator automation of professionally developed applications and
> systems. There is a large gulf between simple procedural automation and
> actual structured programming which the end-user simply doesn't need to
> cross in order to deal locally with their relatively trivial
> requirements.
>
> Visual Basic started out (sort of) as a 'meta macro language'. In the
> hands of Microsoft, however, it never even pretended to be usable at
> that level. It frustrates me, and millions of others, that you need to
> bother with classes and objects and many even more arcane 'real
> programming' concepts just to build a macro in a wordprocessor or
> spreadsheet.
Have you ever tried M4? That has much less functionality than BASIC...it
isn't even a programming language.
Perhaps it would be informative to see an example of the macros you are
speaking of. I really don't know what it means for macro processing and I
would be interested to know what one looks like in BASIC.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
>
>
Best Regards,
Kevin Holmes
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:52:26 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> >>
> >
> >There had been tunnels before then.
>
> Tunnels under the high rockies suitable for a railroad?? Not.
>
And how many were there in the original Transcontinental Railroad.
I thought they went through Wyoming instead of Colorado to avoid
the high Rockies.
Also, we made the Gadsden purchase to build a route that would
avoid such mountains altogether.
>
> >>
> >> >And yes, it would have taken longer for continental railroads to have been
> >> >built privately, but is this such a bad thing?
> >>
> >> It would have slowed the indusrtrial development of the U.S., possibly
> >> resulting in a weaker U.S. in WWI and WWII, and possibly even a less
> >> developed U.S today.
> >>
> >
> >It would have resulted in a different industrial development,
>
> It would have slowed it. The opening of the West provided a wealth of
> raw materials to the industries in the East and industrial products to
> people in the West. A winner all the way around.
>
But if there were sufficient raw materials to justify a railroad, then why
wouldn't a private firm do it?
>
> >but the
> >resources that were used by the government could have been
> >directed elsewhere,
>
> You have failed to show that it could have been to similar benefit.
>
People might have been more or less productive with them.
Hard to tell.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: post-installation SCSI setup??
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:54:22 -0400
Alan Murrell wrote:
> In article <539j5.20725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Alan Murrell"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote:
> >> Try the following as root.
> >>
> >> modprobe NCR53c406a
> >
> > Worked like a charm! fdisk even finds it no problem, but not I just got
> > to find a way to mount it. Guess I'll have to doa little editing of my
> > /dev/etc file...
>
> Oooops, that should have been /dev/fstab, of course :-)
>
maybe /etc/fstab?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:56:06 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >I concur with all of this. If Linux does fragment it will because of
> >> >outside influences. The problem is that the fragmentation may already be
> >> >starting. I have already seen some signs of it with Mandrake and Linux PPC.
> >>
> >> I think fragmentation is not only inevitable, it is optimal. As much as
> >
> >Quite true. That's why, technologically, the Unix-hoard runs FAR
> >ahead of M$-ware, and the gap is widening all the time.
>
> I agree. I wanted to say it at the time, but thought it might be too
> distracting. The fact that Unix "fragmented" is why it is so widely
> supported. Had it remained a single unified OS, it would be a
> pseudo-mainframe curiosity, not the de facto standard. ;-)
But Linux has an additional advantage as long as all the forks
remain open, which is what is important.
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
