Linux-Advocacy Digest #548, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (phil hunt)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Open source won't protect you - how licensing is being perverted to strip you of
your own rights
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:17:27 +0100
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 07:17:34 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:05:38 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>
>>Some recent events:
>
>You realize for each one of these events are are probably 1,000 closed
>source programs being released?
Do you have figures for the number of closed source software packages
being released for general sale every week, or are you merely spewing empty
words?
As it happens, it is fairly easy to get figures for open source releases:
just go to Freshmeat or other directories of open source.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ]*****
** The RIAA want to ban Napster -- so boycott the music industry! **
** Don't buy CDs during August; see http://boycott-riaa.com/ **
** Spread the word: Put this message in your sig. **
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:39:26 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> The fact is, the claim that it is possible to have a legal monopoly is
> false.
Not true. See what the Supreme Court has to say in United States v.
Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) :
===============
The offense of monopoly under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1)
the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
acumen, or historic accident.
===============
If the first element--possession of monopoly power--is present but the
second element is missing, then there is no violation.
And let me add, for those others who have suggested that the standards
are too vague for Microsoft to have been able to guess that it has
monopoly power, this same case says:
===============
The existence of such [monopoly] power ordinarily may be inferred from
the predominant share of the market. In American Tobacco Co. v. United
States, we said that "over two-thirds of the entire domestic field of
cigarettes, and . . . over 80% of the field of comparable cigarettes"
constituted "a substantial monopoly." In United States v. Aluminum Co.
of America, 90% of the market constituted monopoly power. In the present
case, 87% of the accredited central station service business leaves no
doubt that the congeries of these defendants have monopoly power - power
which, as our discussion of the record indicates, they did not hesitate
to wield - if that business is the relevant market.
===============
In the face of such clear statements from the Supreme Court, the DOJ
need only present data showing that Microsoft has over 90% market share.
Such data creates a presumption that monopoly power exists. Legally,
the burden then falls on Microsoft to rebut the presumption.
U.S. v. Grinnell was an important antitrust decision, and Microsoft's
lawyers would have to be total idiots not to be aware of what it says
and what the implications are.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:50:51 +1000
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike Byrns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:02:36 GMT
> <MDJn5.11037$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8nk811$v1c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> > Nonsense. If you feel a need to throw an ad hominem at me,
> >> > I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
> >>
> >> Thank you, you have proven my point for me in this issue.
> >
> >Actually, he's proven his own point. You need to be more specific.
> >
> >Aren't you two nix people? Looks like the dissention in the ranks like
> >we've always heard doesn't happen. This has been and will continue to be
> >the thorn in the side of the various nix flavor advocates. Come
together,
> >you can't beat Windows divided.
>
> We already have, in the server arena. Mind you, Windows is trying
> to catch up -- and in some respects succeeding -- but the various
> Unices had the server market before NT was even born, AFAIK.
>
> Considering its late start, NT is doing rather well -- but I doubt
> that will last, especially in light of the sillier bugs or design
> deficiencies evidenced by Microsoft's crown jewel, Office, which
> allow for the exploitation of the address book and the destruction
> of data to spread email viruses. (Some of these aren't in
> Office itself, mind you, but in the graphical shell Office uses
> to fire off e-mailed executables -- or perhaps in the communication
> between the two.)
Nothing in the OS could have stopped those thing you're talking about not do
what they did. The attachments are executed, with the user's permission, at
the same privelege level as the user - just like they would be under *nix.
> And then there's the issue of a server requiring a video card.
> Unix can be put on a box with one serial port, or perhaps nowadays
> an Ethernet connection. This reduces hardware costs (albeit
> low-func video cards are very cheap nowadays) and even possible bugs
> caused by buggy video drivers (which might be more important).
Given a video card costs about $10, and the VGA driver is about as solid as
they get, I'd say this particular weakness is very, very theoretical.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Open source won't protect you - how licensing is being perverted to strip
you of your own rights
Reply-To: Steven Smolinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:41:25 GMT
Thermodynamic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Did you know that Microsoft, Corel, and others are trying to make it so
>that any document or spreadsheet or whatever that you make on their
>production software automatically becomes THEIR copyright?
Just for fun, what's your evidence? I'm not saying you're full of it,
but you must provide something convincing other than your say-so if you
expect people to believe you.
Steve
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:43:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Se�n � Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>>Perhaps you need to stop thinking so highly of yourself. Even with
>>>all your blowhard posturing and shithead attitude you can't hide the
>>>fact that you know squat about how IE works and how it's used by
>>>Windows and its applications.
>>
>>You are suggesting that a piece of software cannot be written
>>differently than it already is.
>
>Huh? Where did I say that?
Well, I can't recall precisely, as this is a response from a message
from some days ago, but it appears from the context that it would have
been when you said something about IE not being removable from Win98.
>>This is a ludicrous proposition,
>
>As it isn't *MY* proposition, it is most certainly a strawman.
I'm sure you wish it were.
>>self-evidently false if you understand the concept of *soft*ware.
>
>Since you admit that you're not a software developer, I'd say that I
>understand the concept much better than you do.[...]
And I would point out the emptiness of such a suggestion. You
understand the process of software development, I would figure, but of
the conceptual nature of software, you're probably too hung up on the
engineering issues to consider software from a broader conceptual
perspective.
>One of your
>misconceptions seems to be that software can be redesigned and
>reimplemented at no cost to its vendor, its users, and the vendors of
>dependent software. Another misconception seems to be that letting the
>government design software is somehow less undesirable than letting
>the government design cars or other "solidware" products.
I have no misconception that redesigning software is easy; only that it
is possible. Likewise, I have no misconception that the government is
in any way "designing software" as you do. They are only concerned with
products, and that only because it is necessary to identify products in
order to identify and observe markets so that they can determine if they
are being manipulated by criminal activity.
[...]
>>>Poor Max can't deal with reality.
>>
>>IE was not documented in the original Win95 "Windows Platform SDK",
>
>That's right. So what? Does the Java SDK of today look exactly like
>the original? The X Window System Programmer's Reference? Since when
>is it surprising that system software and middleware evolves, amassing
>more and more functionality?
I didn't say it is surprising that IE was not documented in the original
Win95 SDK. Your comment seems to indicate you are unaware that IE was
included in the original Win95 package. My comment was a response to
somebody's (yours?) contention that IE has been documented as part of
the Windows Platform SDK for "a long time". Since the question is
whether it is or is not part of Windows, it stands to reason that my
point might be relevant. Unconvincing to those who are more concerned
with quibbling, but there's nothing I can do about that.
>>if
>>that is the official name of whatever magical document provides what
>>both Microsoft and their competitors readily point out is not available
>>to anyone outside Microsoft.
>
>Oh, that's right. Microsoft doesn't document anything. It's just a
>miracle that any third party Windows software exists at all.
Where did I say they don't document "anything"? Find me a quote!
>>I would expect that "a long time" would
>>have to predate the Win98 tying in order to be a point worth considering
>>in suggesting that IE is some sort of "open" product.
>
>It does, but you'd have no point even if it didn't. You see, the world
>isn't always as you would expect. There's no rule anywhere requiring
>that middleware be documented before being released.
Pardon me, but IE isn't middleware. It would have to be interoperable
on multiple vendor's OSes and support multiple vendor's application in
order to be middleware. As it is, you can call it an application
(illegally tied to an OS) or an extension to an OS (used to illegally
monopolize the browser market), but it certainly isn't "middleware".
[...]
>You're not going to believe this, but after reading your comments
>about the design of software and the empty space between my ears, I
>was thinking exactly the same thing about you.
Why wouldn't I believe that? I'm well aware that any such inflammatory
comments can be turned around in that manner. I'm reminded of it every
time some troll insists that I'm "clueless" because I don't find their
arguments convincing, or when they say "your mind is made up and you
wont consider that you might be wrong" and all that.
You really think studiously being on firm ethical grounds on Usenet is a
simple and obvious thing?
>>Which
>>lack of substance accounts for the Findings of Fact. And is that the
>>same layer as the Conclusions of Law?
>
>Are you now taking credit for these documents?
No, and I don't know why you think I might, either. You claimed my
arguments have a lack of substance; I pointed out that you also believe
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law must share the same lack of
substance, since they reflect all of the same arguments, generally.
[...]
>>>Look Max, your worthless skepticism is a joke compared to having used
>>>IE in my own projects (lopping man-years off the development times),
>>>and understanding the way it's used by so many other third-party
>>>products. Have you even bothered taking a look at IE's design and the
>>>way it's componentized? Nah, why bother when you find it so
>>>therapeutic to simply dismiss it. You're a phony, Mr. Devlin.
>>
>>What on earth ever gave you the impression that the internal design of
>>IE is at all of concern to either myself, the market, or the courts?
>
>Perhaps the fact that the majority of the evidence in this case was
>technical in nature?
Well, I'm not sure why you think that is a fact. From the Findings of
Fact, it appears that most of the evidence concerned business strategies
and tactics, and the Conclusions of Law makes very little reference to
any technical matters.
>>We
>>are examining its representation as a product, not a code base. If I
>>indicated I was a developer of software, you would certainly be right in
>>accusing me of being a phony, since I'm not. But that's probably why I
>>don't indicate or even suggest that I am.
>
>You could have fooled me, given your strong reaction to the claim that
>taking IE out of Windows at this point would severely damage the
>product.
Its a bullshit position. Not because of any technical reasons; you can
still get all of your 'API' benefits for your "projects" with a separate
IE product. It would only "damage" the product in marketing terms,
because it would make obvious the fact that the market prefers
(preferred) not to use Microsoft's web browser and related
'technologies'.
>>Merely that I'm not a
>>shrinking violet when it comes to differing with any developers
>>experience or knowledge, or the industry's conventional wisdom, in
>>believing that IE's "componentized design" is at all beneficial to IE's
>>consumers.
>
>I appreciate that you question the industry's conventional wisdom,
>although your kneejerk anti-Microsoft reactions make it look more like
>you're just following the current trend.
How would a consistent position which has been supported by facts
routinely over the course of more than a decade be a "knee jerk"
reaction? I was a Microsoft basher long before it became trendy. Since
back when you didn't have to post to Usenet to be called a flake for
pointing out that Microsoft is monopolizing and not competing on the
merits of their products.
>But how can you possibly
>evaluate the benefits of IE's componentized design if you don't
>understand it and wish to make no effort to do so?
Simple: benefiting from its design need not be (and can't be, from the
end-user's perspective, who's cause I champion to engineers just as
often as I champion the engineer's view to end-users) dependant on
understanding these things. If it isn't entirely removable, I can't
understand why you bother calling it a "componentized" design, anyway.
[...]
>>>IE certainly was a separate product - until it was redesigned from the
>>>ground up as a set of reusable components and integrated into the
>>>Windows desktop shell.
>>
>>And then, poof, like magic, huh?
>
>Not like magic. It took a lot of time and money.
Yes, and since the purpose of that investment was primarily to "cut off
their air supply", it was used as a grounds for conviction of Microsoft
that they spent so much time and money doing it. Perhaps MS should have
invested more in their technology and less in their anti-competitive
market manipulations. As for being able to tell easily which is which,
I'll admit it is often difficult, and occasionally impossible. Luckily,
Microsoft was good enough to document their illegal activities (and the
reasons for taking them which made them illegal) in their internal
email.
>>Answer me something, then. If they
>>entirely redesigned it from the ground up, and integrated a web browser
>>with a desktop shell, and this is so innovative and valuable, why didn't
>>they try to make a profit on the product?
>
>No offense, but that's a stupid question.
I'm almost reluctant to point out that it might sound stupid coming from
me, but it isn't a very stupid question when the Judge asked it:
"If the defendant with monopoly power consciously antagonized its
customers by making its products less attractive to them - or if it
incurred other costs, such as large outlays of development capital and
forfeited opportunities to derive revenue from it - with no prospect of
compensation other than the erection or preservation of barriers against
competition by equally efficient firms, the Court may deem the
defendant's conduct 'predatory.'"
>Platform components are
>designed specifically to add value to the platform, not to act as
>independent revenue sources. They're there to entice developers to
>target the platform when creating new applications.
But IE wasn't a platform component at the time; it was a separate
application. Now the question becomes "if MS wasn't having much success
with their browser application, why didn't they just build all of these
capabilities into Win98 *without* calling it 'IE'?"
>The dumbest thing you can do is design a piece of software as a
>platform component and then charge extra for it.
No, the dumbest thing you can do is try to pass off an application as a
platform component and then get caught at restraint of trade by trying
to force it onto the consumers through this method.
>If you do that,
>developers will have every incentive *NOT* to reuse your component. It
>will have added no value to the platform, and the effort to design and
>implement it will have been a total waste.
But application developers are not the majority of Windows consumers.
OEMs in the pre-load market are the bulk of Windows sales. It stands to
reason, of course, that you would see things from the perspective of an
app developer. But what about the OEMs, who actually pay *money*,
rather than merely invest time writing "to", Windows? When they
specifically say 'we want IE to remain an application, and have little
interest in your 'platform component' web browser', are they to be
ignored by the person selling them the products?
Yes, if there intent is to erect an application barrier, it sure it. If
they intend to monopolize, rather than compete in a free market, it
makes perfect sense. Its also illegal.
>>One might suggest that a large,
>>perhaps even overwhelming number, of Windows and/or IE consumers
>>welcomed the combination, but to say that there is no apparent and
>>persistent evidence of a desire to be able to continue to get IE or
>>Windows as their formerly separate and independent products is simply a
>>lie.
>
>OK, I'll bite. Where exactly is this "apparent and persistent
>evidence"?
You don't remember the whole "boot screen" thing? Or are you simply
pretending to be ignorant of it?
>From Para. 170 of the Findings of Fact:
"The omission of a browser removal function was particularly conspicuous
given that Windows 98 did give users the ability to uninstall numerous
features other than Internet Explorer � features that Microsoft also
held out as being integrated into Windows 98. Microsoft took this action
despite specific requests from Gateway that Microsoft provide a way to
uninstall Internet Explorer 4.0 from Windows 98. "
The remainder of the testimony provided by OEMs and even a casual
observation of the marketplace (along with the inevitably
self-referential fact that MS is being sued over it) provides evidence
that is "apparent and persistent" that OEMs and consumers wanted IE to
be available independently from Windows.
>By the way, where did I say that *NOBODY* wants Windows and IE to be
>separate? You're making another logic error here.
No I'm not, you're just playing games. Well, technically, right now
you're back-pedalling. But overall, it counts as "playing games".
>The claim that the
>integration carries benefits doesn't imply that everybody wants it.
>You can't please everybody, nor can you always get what you want.
Well, see, again, if only MS felt that way, and recognized the profit
opportunities inherent in *not* demanding that all Windows customers
accept IE whether they wanted it or not, they wouldn't stand convicted
as we speak. As it was, they figured they could please everyone with
one product, better than they could please everyone with two separate
products which can be accepted or rejected separately. That's why tying
is considered "restraint of trade", a federal crime, BTW. Because there
simply is no competitive reason why MS wouldn't have *tried* to please
everyone; their intent was obviously anti-competitive.
>From the Conclusions of Law:
"Moreover, over the past several years, Microsoft has comported itself
in a way that could only be consistent with rational behavior for a
profit-maximizing firm if the firm knew that it possessed monopoly
power, and if it was motivated by a desire to preserve the barrier to
entry protecting that power. Findings �� 67, 99, 136, 141, 215-16, 241,
261-62, 286, 291, 330, 355, 393, 407. "
>>The very fact that we're still discussing it, when Win98 is all
>>but anachronistic, is simple, if somewhat tentative, evidence of that.
>
>I disagree. We're discussing it because the DoJ and Judge Jackson
>believe that it's illegal, not because any significant portion of
>Microsoft's customers complained about it.
So now you have to be a "significant portion", or screw you, huh?
Sorry, that's monopolization, not business. In real business, if there
is an opportunity to make profit, you don't turn it down just because it
will promote competition at the same time you make money on it.
>>Feel free to speculate, as I have, why Microsoft called their great new
>>product "IE",
>
>Because it's a replacement for the old IE?
Well, yea, again, that's what makes it a criminal offense. Trying to
'replace' one product with "you'll have to accept *both* the product you
want and another" is called "restraint of trade".
If they'd only treated it like an extension to the platform, without
trying to say it was "IE", they wouldn't have been convicted. So why
didn't they?
[...]
>>instead of just including the reusable components and
>>shell modifications you mentioned as a valuable enhancement of Windows?
>
>They do that now.
No, its still "IE". They have no browser product outside of the
reusable components, shell modifications, browser, and operating system
called Win98. That's taking two products and tying them without giving
customers the choice to buy them separate, in order to use the market
power of one product to monopolize the market for the other. Again,
'tying', otherwise known as restraint of trade.
>>Why furiously change all references to IE on their web sites so that it
>>is no longer identified as a web browser?
>
>Because it is no longer just a Web browser in the traditional sense.
Because they thought it would insulate them from accusations of
abandoning IE as a separate application solely to kill Netscapes market.
It didn't work, of course, partially, I think, because it was noticed
and widely reported. If it is no longer a web browser in the
traditional sense, then it is no longer IE, which was a web browser in
the traditional sense.
Are we beginning to get a hint of how unsubstantiated your arguments
are? At the same time you are trying to insist IE is the same thing as
Windows, your arguments highlight the fact that IE is not the same thing
as Windows, and support the tying conviction which you are attempting to
refute.
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm running you around in circles, but the
fact is your argument is based on circular logic. The conviction is
rather straight-forward. You would have an easier time (relatively
speaking) arguing that restraint of trade shouldn't be illegal than you
are trying to argue that tying of IE isn't restraint of trade. You've
managed yourself to show all of the major legal arguments concerning
such anti-trust convictions. What was formerly two separate products
are now offered only in combination in order to prevent a competitor
from making money on their product.
>>Why continue to internally
>>identify the web browser user application interface in Win98 as IE?
>
>I really don't understand your objection. Why *NOT* still call it IE?
>By the time they decided to redesign it as a system component, IE was
>already an established brand. Would it really make you happy if they'd
>called it something else? What difference would that have made,
>especially with respect to the legality of the integration?
Again, it wasn't an objection; it was a question. And your answer to it
might well come straight out of a future anti-trust textbook examining
this trial. Yes, it was because of the established branding of IE (as
little reputation that may have had in the industry at the time) that MS
decided that the "web" features of Win98 would be called IE. And that
might well be why it was illegal. There are some good reasons to
believe that if MS had simply maintained IE as a separate product, and
put all of the other "enhancements" you refer to in Win98 *without*
'bundling IE' and coercing OEMs and IAPs to exclude Netscape, the
competitor to IE, they never could have been convicted (on those
charges; the monopolization of pre-load OSes still stands on its own
merits).
>>Actually, I'm an incredibly gentle and generally nice person.
>
>Well, for an incredibly gentle and generally nice person, you seem to
>be extremely arrogant, presumptuous, self-righteous, sarcastic,
>closed-minded, and insulting.
I said I was gentle and generous, not modest. And I am anything but
close-minded, though you only have my assurance on the matter. It just
takes a really good argument to convince me, because I have really good
arguments supporting me to begin with. Many of them straight from
federal judges and other reputable sources, as in this case.
>>I just
>>have lost all patience with Usenet trolls of all persuasions, and
>>Microsoft trolls in particular. I'm sick of having to apologize for
>>your lack of intellectual capacity and make accommodations for your
>>refusal to accept facts which reveal your position to literally be
>>nothing but empty posturing.
>
>See what I mean?
What? The fact that you're a troll makes me arrogant and close minded?
Hardly. People who are open-minded are hardly immune from accusations
of being arrogant and close-minded. It is the standard response that
those who know what they are talking about get from those who are naive
or purposefully ignorant.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:03:44 +1000
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 15:21:31 +1000, Christopher Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >The "citizens", as you put it, are buying Windows because there is no
> >other viable alternative. It is not Microsoft's fault no-one else has
> >been able to develop an OS desirable to customers.
>
> Here we have a multi-billion dollar market and no one can come up with
> a competitive product?
It would appear so. Some have done well (IBM, Apple) but ultimately shot
themselves in the foot.
> That seems a bit hard to swallow.
Not really. Software development is still very much an inexact science.
Microsoft got lucky.
> But it must
> be true, because Microsoft is always right and everyone else is stupid.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you had something worthwhile to add.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
