Linux-Advocacy Digest #439, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Why is MS copying Sun??? (unicat)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin! ("ostracus")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Off-topic Idiot Olympics (Marty)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:30:42 -0400
The following are the opinions of the author, nothing more, nothing
less.
I saw a presentation of Microsoft's new ".net" strategy recently, and
their new logo should be a cartoon of Steve Balmer and Bill Gates
worshipping
a statue of Scott Mcneally.
Just as on the real internet the ".net" domain is a pale shadow of the
".com" domain, so now Microsoft's ".net" strategy is a pale shadow of
Sun's
dot in ".com" strategy.
The two biggest components of ".net" are the use of XML to replace HTML,
and then putting your applications on the server and using a thin client
to
get to them. The XML langauage lets web pages have "dynamic" content -
that
is you can run little programs in real time to produce the information
to
be displayed, and pull in data that is retireved from remote procedure
calls... which is pretty much what Java does already. And by going back
to server-centric computing, your data won't be stuck on your desktop
PC's
hard drive, so that you can retrieve it from the server from anywhere,
using
any access device -laptop, PDA, etc. - Just like you already could by
using
sendmail and Java apps on a Sun server with an IMAP client and a JVM
that could run
on any device(laptop, PDA) ....
.... Hmmmm,
in other words, MS has reinvented Java and Java clients.
Of course, given Microsofts history, this was probably inevitable....
(As seen in the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley")
They didn't write the original DOS, but conned some poor sucker out of
the code for $50K, without disclosing that IBM was willing to pay
millions
for it. They obtained the source code for the Mac OS by promising to
port MSWORD
to it, then used it to create the first commercial version of Windows
instead.
Some of us think that Internet Explorer is a rip-off of Netscape, and
that
the new MS directory services are an imitation of Novell Directory
services....
So it makes sense that when Microsoft figured out that the PC was dying,
they would copy their next-generation architecture from their most
successful competitor.
But why is MS doing this? Why abandon PC-centric computing?
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, It's the money, stupid!
MS stock started falling when Win2K was announced, and took a 10-point
nosedive when Win ME came out.
WHY?
Could be because people realized that Microsoft has run out of gas. They
can't
find any new bells and whistles to hang off of Windows to make people
buy new
versions. And MS makes exactly $0 from people who just continue to use
the old Windows OS. Remember, MS isn't in the business of helping your
business to prosper, they're in business to make MONEY. Think of the
last decade
or so. It used to take a 16Mhz 386 PC with 4MB of RAM and a 120MB hard
drive to allow you to run WORD, Excel, and a project planner, and to
send and
receive e-mail. Since then we've thrown out our hardware and replaced
our
software five or six times, and for what?
The same basic office functions!
And support staff demands have probably doubled at the same time. Some
people are fed up. They're tired of the MS churn-and-burn cycle that
pumpscash out of their wallets and delivers nothing but hype in return.
So now, in order to protect MS revenues, Redmond will have to switch to
a mode where people "rent" Windows instead of buying it. Of course, in
order to
do this, they'd have to kill off all those existing PCs that are working
just fine with the old windows. So.. just coincidentally, along comes
the MS
X-box. Which they "claim" is a game console. But with the reported
733Mhz pentIII, 64MB RAM and 8GBHD, and High-speed LAN CONNECTION, it
sounds
more like the box is designed to be a client machine for a network
centric
next generation Windows - which just by coincidence MS is also starting
to
hype now.
So the next gen windows may be an Xbox client, accessing applications on
an MSN server by subscription. With the buzz that MS has for eating its
own
children, if I worked for a PC manufacturer right now I would be hitting
the panic button!
Of course, If your users LIKE the PC centric model of computing, and you
don't want to have to rewrite all your business apps into a whole
new computing paradigm, and you don't want to pay, say, $50/user/month
in "software rent" to MS, you can always use Linux!
It has free office suites (like Star Office, and KOffice) which will let
you keep all your data in its CURRENT format, instead of the absurdly
difficult task of converting ALL your data to XML, and with the WINE
(www.winehq.com) windows environment it will even let you keep
running the office suites that you already OWN!
After all, Linux is supported by virtually every computer maker -
IBM,.HP, Sun, Compaq, Dell, SGI, etc.etc. Which WON'T likely be true of
MS once
they enter the computer business themselves and start competing with
their
former allies.
But if you really want to convert your whole enterprise to the Sun
vision of "The network is the computer" network-server-centric
computing, why not
use the time-tested, standards-based, enterprise approved original from
Sun,
instead of being a guinea pig for MS as they struggle to survive into
the post-PC era???
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 03:35:34 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> I have developed to different OS APIs. So, I am in position to say what counts
> or doesn't count as an API, from a programmer point of view. What you are doing
> in this post is like saying that only construction workers know about walls.
> Stupid.
Wrong, moron. If anything, I'm saying that only people who build their own
homes know good design.
> >> > My implying that increasing the number
> >> >of APIs increases the complexity of the system is a simplification that
> >> >generally holds because Unix/C++/Java people can't even *conceive* of
> >> >transparent APIs.
> >>
> >> Opinion. A pretty popular thing to have.
> >
> >An "opinion" that is *widely* shared among Smalltalkers and anyone who
> >knows a pure OO language.
>
> Sectarism. Popular, too.
Wrong, imbecile. People who know pure OO languages well almost always know
crappy procedural languages like C++ and Java. You couldn't find an example
of the reverse if I gave you a century.
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:34:27 -0500
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rdeqt$hkhc6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I bet if MS tried to bundle any of these things, they'd be sued.
> >
>
>
> The difference is that microsoft try to force users into using one
product -
> one operating system, one web-browser, one wordprocessor, etc.
>
> Linux distro's include at least 4 or 5 web browsers ( netscape, kde
browser,
> gimp browser, lynx), several text editors, up to 10 window managers, etc
>
> MS tries to get users to use their applications and use this to kill off
the
> competitors,
Which is the same thing every producer of a PRODUCT wants.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:37:16 -0500
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> James Stutts wrote:
>
> > "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8r7b20$gsqu2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >Actually, Linux isn't an operating system. Just a kernel.
> > >
> > >
> > > On the other hand, Win2k is just an operating system but
> > > most linux distro's contain operating system, Graphics package
> > > (GIMP), at least 1 SQL server package (usually mysql), several
> > > word processors (all better than wordpad), etc and cost less
> > > than a fifth of the cost of just the win2k operating system and is
> > > more stable. Nobody can say that MS operating system distro's
> > > are more productive than buying a Linux distro without spending more
> >
> > I bet if MS tried to bundle any of these things, they'd be sued.
>
> Sued for bundling DJGPP (Windows version of gcc), emacs, TeX,
> Perl, Python, . . . ?
DJGPP is the DOS version of gcc. Gcc is the Win32 version of gcc....
My point was if they bundled a SQL or a better image editor, they would
be accused of bundling.
>
> Sure, it was sued for bundling IE, but IE was a Microsoft product.
Hotjava is a Sun product. Anyone sued them for that? If IE is an MS
product
and Windows is an MS product, then why can't IE + Windows be an MS product?
That's like saying the bundling of an OEM stereo with a car is illegal
because it hurts
the aftermarket stereo market.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:02:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>http://netscape.zdnet.com/framer/hud0022420/www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2635894,00.html
>
> claire
And what games are you expecting? Hmmm.
---
There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire
become a great writer.
When asked to define "great" he said, "I want to write stuff that
the whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a
truly emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl
in pain and anger!"
He now works for Microsoft, writing error messages.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:23:09 -0500
"unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The following are the opinions of the author, nothing more, nothing
> less.
Quite implausible opinions in most cases at that.
> The two biggest components of ".net" are the use of XML to replace HTML,
Sorry, but XML can't replace HTML. XML and HTML complement each other, not
replace each other. In any event, the use of XML is not central to the .net
platform, though it is a major piece.
> and then putting your applications on the server and using a thin client
> to get to them. The XML langauage lets web pages have "dynamic"
That's only a small piece of .net.
> content - that is you can run little programs in real time to produce the
> information to be displayed, and pull in data that is retireved from
> remote procedure calls... which is pretty much what Java does already.
> And by going back to server-centric computing, your data won't be
> stuck on your desktop PC's hard drive, so that you can retrieve it from
> the server from anywhere, using any access device -laptop, PDA, etc.
> - Just like you already could by using sendmail and Java apps on a Sun
> server with an IMAP client and a JVM that could run on any device
> (laptop, PDA) ....
> .... Hmmmm,
> in other words, MS has reinvented Java and Java clients.
Except that .NET isn't limited to one language. In fact, the Java language
could be implemented on .net itself. the CLR allows applications written in
C++, VB, C#, and probably FoxPro as well. Other languages could be adapted
to it as well.
On top of that, Microsoft is not allowed to update their Java implementation
anyways. So MS's only other choice is to write it's own multiplatform VM.
Sun is only screwing itself by being the hard ass that it is.
> Of course, given Microsofts history, this was probably inevitable....
> (As seen in the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley")
> They didn't write the original DOS, but conned some poor sucker out of
> the code for $50K, without disclosing that IBM was willing to pay
> millions for it.
Yeah, some poor sucker which MS hired with stock options and is now a
multi-billionaire because of it.
> They obtained the source code for the Mac OS by promising to
> port MSWORD to it, then used it to create the first commercial
> version of Windows instead.
That's a laugh. Ever seen some of the source to the original MacOS? It was
all written in Pascal. What good would that do MS, who write everything in
Assembler at the time. Besides, Windows 1.0 was absolutely nothing like
MacOS. If they had used the MacOS source, it would have been much much
better.
> Some of us think that Internet Explorer is a rip-off of Netscape, and
> that the new MS directory services are an imitation of Novell Directory
> services....
You're crazy if you think that. Internet Explorer was based on the Spyglass
NCSA Mosaic code base. Netscape also essentially sprouted from the same
code base (though they claim they didn't use any Mosaic code, the same
people wrote much of both applications). If anything, IE and Netscape are
brothers, rather than one copying the other.
> So it makes sense that when Microsoft figured out that the PC was dying,
If the PC is dying, why would they have just spent billions of dollars into
rewriting NT into Win2k?
> they would copy their next-generation architecture from their most
> successful competitor.
Sun is hardly MS's most successful competitor. In fact, they weren't even a
competitor (at least according to Judge Jackson). How about Novell? THAT
was MS's most successful competitor.
> But why is MS doing this? Why abandon PC-centric computing?
They're not.
> To paraphrase Bill Clinton, It's the money, stupid!
> MS stock started falling when Win2K was announced, and took a 10-point
> nosedive when Win ME came out.
> WHY?
Because a federal judge ordered them broken up.
> Could be because people realized that Microsoft has run out of gas.
And the legal judgement had nothing to do with it. Right.
> They can't find any new bells and whistles to hang off of Windows to
> make people buy new
> versions. And MS makes exactly $0 from people who just continue to use
> the old Windows OS. Remember, MS isn't in the business of helping your
> business to prosper, they're in business to make MONEY. Think of the
> last decade or so. It used to take a 16Mhz 386 PC with 4MB of RAM
> and a 120MB hard drive to allow you to run WORD, Excel, and a
> project planner, and to send and receive e-mail. Since then we've thrown
> out our hardware and replaced our software five or six times, and for
what?
> The same basic office functions!
And you can still run Word, Excel and a project planner on such a machine.
It's just that our expectations of what software should do and how fast it
should do it has risen since then. Go ahead, Crank up Windows 3.0 on a
16Mhz 386 with 4MB or RAM and run Word, then compare it to running Word on
computer today and tell me you don't find the old way virtually unuseable by
comparison.
> And support staff demands have probably doubled at the same time. Some
> people are fed up. They're tired of the MS churn-and-burn cycle that
> pumpscash out of their wallets and delivers nothing but hype in return.
I guess that's why people keep upgrading. They're so tired of it, they run
right out and do it some more.
> So now, in order to protect MS revenues, Redmond will have to switch to
> a mode where people "rent" Windows instead of buying it. Of course, in
> order to
> do this, they'd have to kill off all those existing PCs that are working
> just fine with the old windows. So.. just coincidentally, along comes
> the MS X-box. Which they "claim" is a game console. But with the reported
> 733Mhz pentIII, 64MB RAM and 8GBHD, and High-speed LAN CONNECTION, it
> sounds more like the box is designed to be a client machine for a network
> centric next generation Windows - which just by coincidence MS is also
starting
> to hype now.
Haven't seen the competition in the game console market have you? The
playstation 2 is roughly equivelant in processing power to a 733Mhz PIII and
also has Internet connectivity.
> So the next gen windows may be an Xbox client, accessing applications on
> an MSN server by subscription. With the buzz that MS has for eating its
> own
> children, if I worked for a PC manufacturer right now I would be hitting
> the panic button!
Good thing you don't. They'd go out of business.
> Of course, If your users LIKE the PC centric model of computing, and you
> don't want to have to rewrite all your business apps into a whole
> new computing paradigm, and you don't want to pay, say, $50/user/month
> in "software rent" to MS, you can always use Linux!
Or you can continue to use Windows 2000 and Windows ME. People certainly
did so after the introduction of Windows NT in 1993. People continued to do
so after IBM introduced OS/2 2.0, which contained Windows 3.0. The public
clearly doesn't buy something unless they want to.
> It has free office suites (like Star Office, and KOffice) which will let
> you keep all your data in its CURRENT format, instead of the absurdly
> difficult task of converting ALL your data to XML, and with the WINE
> (www.winehq.com) windows environment it will even let you keep
> running the office suites that you already OWN!
Wake me when Office 2000 runs on Wine.
> After all, Linux is supported by virtually every computer maker -
> IBM,.HP, Sun, Compaq, Dell, SGI, etc.etc. Which WON'T likely be true of
> MS once they enter the computer business themselves and start competing
with
> their former allies.
Oh, would those be the computer makers which claimed there was no
alternative to Windows?
> But if you really want to convert your whole enterprise to the Sun
> vision of "The network is the computer" network-server-centric
> computing, why not
> use the time-tested, standards-based, enterprise approved original from
> Sun,
> instead of being a guinea pig for MS as they struggle to survive into
> the post-PC era???
Standards based? Since when is Java a standard? Since when is sun's NFS a
standard?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:13:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Sensory perception exist in the physical realm. I would think you are
>
>Only in the same sense that data structures exist in the physical realm.
No, quite a different sense.
>Try to answer "do data structures exist?" and the more you actually think
>about the question, the more it will blow your mind.
My minds been blown for so long I wouldn't notice. I haven't found "do
[x] exist?" to be entertaining for quite a while.
>> yet know precisely *how* sensory perceptions work, in electromagentic
>
>You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't know what I'm
>talking about. Leave it at that.
Why on earth would I leave it at that? Particularly when you're so
wrong: I know what you're talking about. And you only know you're
talking about it. Think about the question "Does it really exist" for a
while; it will blow your mind. Then get a grip and come back here
prepared to support your silly ideas, or don't bother coming back at
all.
>> terms, but that they do exist and can be entirely and completely
>> explained, in a non-metaphorical way, in the physical realm.
>>
>> What you were no doubt referring to was the fact that there is a
>> philosophical gap between what can be empirically understood about
>> physical processes and what is subjectively considered 'experience'.
>
>No, that is not at all what I was referring to.
>
>I'm not referring to any kind of conceptual gap.
>
>
>Roberto claimed (implicitly) that there was a trivial mapping of visual
>sensory perceptions to the EM spectrum.
I don't recall any question of whether it was a 'trivial mapping'. What
he said was, in response to your statement that 'blue' doesn't exist
outside of perception, that 'blue' does exist as a well defined concept
in electromagnetic theory. I was here, and I know what you were
referring to.
>His conception of visual perception
>was the equivalent of the data structure "ByteArray" to the physical realm.
Says who? You?
>In fact, there is no such mapping and the equivalent is more like that
>between HashedDictionary and the physical realm.
Listen, I don't care if you want to be an arrogant geek. Just do it on
your own time, and stop pretending you are "out-thinking" anyone when
you post this sort of tripe.
>There *is* a way to understand, say, 'red' in electromagnetic terms but
>it's not *simple*. The function between the two is *anything* but simple
>and so it doesn't make any sense to claim that 'red' exists physically
>instead of as being imposed on the physical realm by something outside it.
This is where I'm pointing out to you that you are wrong. Yes, all the
stuff up to then, that malarkey about byte arrays and hash dictionaries,
I followed that. I won't argue whether 'red' in electromagnetic terms
is 'simple'. I have to point out, though, that in perceptual terms it
is simple. Its very simple. We don't know everything about how it
works, or even any bit of it precisely. What we do know is that it is a
direct mapping; electromagnetic 'red' hits the back of your eyeball, and
your brain thinks "red". Thoughts do physically exist. You seem to
keep getting confused on this point.
>It would be exactly like claiming that perceptual tricks (where your brain
>interpolates stuff that doesn't exist, for example) exist visually.
"Exist visually". Of course they do. "Exist physically"? Of course
they don't. "Exist conceptually"? Now there we've got an argument.
>It would be like saying that the property "the first light blinks unless
>the second is on, then the third light blinks twice unless it's already
>on in which case the 7th light ...." is a property of an array of 100 LEDs.
>It may actually behave that way, but this property is not simple, coherent
>and *self-contained* enough to be thought of as a property *of* the array;
>it is clearly a property *imposed* on the array. Similarly, the "property"
>of light that corresponds to 'red' cannot be thought of as a single
>property *of* light; it's a property *imposed* on light by the human
>sensory system.
I follow you. But in this particular case, it is a particular
hard-wired array, and we've already determined that its property is what
we have discovered it to be. Any ideas that some other array may have
some other property is just fantasizing.
The human sensory system is every bit as deterministic (if much less
understood and complex) as the frequency of the light.
>> But then, a two hundred years ago, there was a philosophical gap between
>> sensory perception and why the moon didn't fall out of the sky.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiot Olympics
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 04:11:24 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:18:55 GMT, Marty wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:05:33 GMT, Marty wrote:
> >> >> Now that's what I call a Tholen-war.
> >> >
> >> >On what basis do you make this claim?
> >>
> >> On the basis that it satisfies the definition of the term previously
> >> posted.
> >
> >Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>
> It's logical
Classic pontification.
> unless you object to either the aforementioned definition
What alleged "aforementioned definition"?
> or the assertion that this discussion satisfies the criteria for that
> definition.
You're presupposing an "aforementioned definition", Donovan.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:17:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> The reason explanatory power is important is because only through
>> empirical predictions can the truth of a hypothesis be tested. Science
>> is empirical discovery, not a narrative.
>
>You are *so* wrong. Einstein would never have agreed with what you said
>and if you look at the thoeries cherished by the scientists who hold your
>view, you'll find out that nobody likes them (and also that they are
>nonsense, but one thing at a time).
>
>Btw,
Initially, I was just going to break after your first sentence, and
point out that your post would have been far more convincing without it.
Then I realized the whole first paragraph could go. So here we begin
your actual response:
>saying "the reason for A is B" after someone says "the reason for B
>is A" doesn't always make sense. In your case, my ordering of things made
>perfect sense to me while I see your ordering as nonsense. In what way is
>explanatory power necessary for predictive power, exactly?
Anything can be predicted, and be right through chance. It is the
ability to explain why you predicted it which is the only reason science
makes predictions. Science isn't the ability to make predictions [that
is theorizing, a component of science], but the ability to explain how
you predicted it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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
******************************
