Linux-Advocacy Digest #745, Volume #29 Thu, 19 Oct 00 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Astroturfing (2:1)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (2:1)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (2:1)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (2:1)
Re: Linus position in "Power List" (2:1)
Re: How to detect sensors using gameport? (2:1)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ("James")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Steve Mading)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (.)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ("Nathan Bell")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Haoyu Meng)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51???? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Distro 8.0 wish list... (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Haoyu Meng)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Haoyu Meng)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:21:31 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I've done that on the second of three installs, it still shows 66mb when the
> > > install is complete. I also have a pretty good feeling that just typing
> > > mem=256M will not magically work if it doesn't already see the maximum
> > > amount available.
> >
> > You have an awnser to your problem, but your not interested in it. Why
> > bother to ask?
>
> Are you penguinistas so devoid of common sense that you cannoy see the
> obvious?
>
> Who's the leading seller of buisiness PCs? Dell? If not, Compaq, right?
>
> Let's talk about Dell then...
>
> What's Dell's leading PC? The OptiPlex line And/Or the Dimension line?
>
> The Dimensions and the OptiPlexes range form Celerons at the low
> end to PIIIs at the high end.
>
> The Celeron boxes all use the 810 or 810e chipset, and the PIIIs use
> the 815 or 815e chipset, which isn't too much different.
>
> Shall I now explain to you why water is wet?
>
> -Chad
You are truly stupid.
If dell supply 10% of all office PCs, and everyone else supplies less,
then 90% of the desktop PCs could have a chipset other than the 810,
even though Dell supplies more than anyone else. Come on. Basic logic
here.
Secondly, the 810 chipset is not the 815. they are different, and you
have no evidence suggesting that the bug applies to that too (I don't
know if it does).
And, yes please, please explain why water is wet. I'd be interested in a
good explanation.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:23:43 +0100
> All the people I've worked with spend 90% of their time from
> the very beginning futzing with fonts and margins and
> backgrounds and colors and whatnot rather than actually
> producing content. It would almost be excusable if they ended
> up with something nice looking but vacuous. But the don't.
> They end up with something ugly and vacuous.
>
> With LaTeX, at least the output looks nice, even if it's drivel.
ROTFL. You can't really get worse than ugly drivel.
:-)
-Ed
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:32:17 +0100
chrisv wrote:
>
> 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > Have you always been a compulsive liar (hint a ow awnser will be funny)
> >>
> >> "a ow awnser"? Have you always had a 1st grade reading/writing comprehension
> >> level?
> >
> >
> >Typo flames are the lowest kind. I meant no. Use your brain (or do you
> >still have 1st grade intelligence?)
> Typos are ok if the meaning can still be discerned. "Hint a ow
> awnser" does not fall into this catagory.
Typo's may not be OK, but flaming them is always bad. 2 wrongs don't
make a right.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:35:09 +0100
> Gosh, linux supports a chip that NO ONE running Linux would(/could) afford.
1 If noone running linux can afford the chip, then how come people have
got linux running on it?
2 Is an IA64 based machione going to cost more than an S/390?
> And, IBM couldn't afford to buy MS - it's that simple. But Bill could buy
> IBM if he stopped donating CASH (not promises) to charities and non-profit
> foundations.
1 No he couldn't
2 What's wrong with him donating cash? Do you disagree with charities?
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus position in "Power List"
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:36:15 +0100
ne... wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2000 at 12:14, 2 eloquently wrote:
>
> >mopi wrote:
> >>
> >> Just caught the repeat of "The Power List" on UKs Channel 4 - Linus
> >> got a position in the top 100 for work on Linux.
> >>
> >> Zero mention of RMS or FSF but ibms promotion of Linux got a big plug.
> >
> >RMS and the FSF are more behind the scnes, despite providing the bulk of
> >the coed needed for an operating system.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Did anyone get the actual position - I must have blinked for that bit.
> >>
> >> fyi The Power List is drawn up anually and lists the 300 people who
> >> have the most power (influence?) over the lives of people living in
> >> the UK - prime minister of China came in at number 68, madonna at 96,
> >> head of Starbucks was well up there - never even see a starbucks!
> >
> >I think I've seen 1 (it's quite good).
> Well if you shuld ever need a copy of your birth/marriage
> certificate and you travel to London, there is one but
> five minutes walk from the office at Angel.
Angel Islington, I presume?
I think there's one in Oxford too.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to detect sensors using gameport?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:41:26 +0100
Walter wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I was wondering if there are any utilities out there that can make use
> of the game port to read external sensors (such as switches being
> opened/closed, or electrical resistance being increased/decreased,
> similar to what a joystick does).
>
> I kinda know how I could detect a switch using a serial port (i.e.: the
> switch can short 2 of the rs/232 pins, therefore one could check for the
> status of the particular signal, or check for a loop condition). But the
> game port seems to be more versatile since it is made to be able to read
> multiple sensors simultaneously.
>
> Any information would be appreciated.
On another note, you might want to use the parallel port. If you only
want binary signals, it can handle either 4 or 12 inputs depending on
what hardware you have. If it's remotely modern, you can get 12 inputs
(8 data pins in input mode and 4 control signals).
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:06:11 +0200
Comparing Win2k to Gnome/KDE is really unfair. They are still playing
catchup to Win95/98. Hell, in some ways (ease of use, consistent interface,
available apps) they have yet to pass Win31 ...
"Haoyu Meng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Windows 2000 is rock solid. I have used it for almost half a year. Only
> had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly installed
> hardware devices.
>
> Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone see it
> as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
>
> Personally, I had been a Linux fan since Kernel version 1 with Slackware
> floppies downloaded over 28.8k modem. While in college I used Linux as
> my main workstation OS, with Win95/98 relegated to secondary role. But
> Win2k changed all of it. Right now, all the workstation frontends I use
> at home at work is win2k boxes with the headless Linux servers tucked
> away on a network link to do only number crunching and code comping.
>
> Any similar stories?
>
>
> Haoyu Meng
>
> Telpic Internet Solutions
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 19 Oct 2000 18:00:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I can remember for YEARS having to listen to people, fairly and accurately,
: tell me that Windows and SQL Server were lightweights and they would quote
: TPC-C (either when Windows simply wasn't there or during it's infancy when
: it was making a very poor showing). Touts of Sun is king and Oracle rules...
: there was no other benchmark to throw around. Oracle STILL has posters in
: it's main lobby (quite old now) that show all of the top 10 positions
: occupied by hardware that ran Oracle. Sun would put TPC figures (even
: price/performance figures) in their sales material. There was a time when
: even at the hyper inflated prices for IBM and Sun equipment and software
: they were kings and MS blew donkey dicks, compaq was a toy-maker.
I suppose it never occurred to you that the same people who dislike
TPC metrics for Windows might also not like them for UNIX either. Hint:
The set of all UNIX advocates is not a homogeneous set. As such, any
accusations of two-facedness by "the community" are total bullshit.
An individual can be two-faced if that one individual said things
that contradict, but only if it was the same individual who said them.
Saying that a private indivudual can't deride TPC merely because
some TOTALLY DIFFERENT marketting poeple made use of it is a bullshit
stance.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: 19 Oct 2000 18:18:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT101600000000
>>
>> That's the headlines once they fail to support this chip.
>>
>> Linux will be supporting it just like they currently have IA64 working!
>>
>> Microsoft doesn't even have the IA64 working!
>>
> oh, and p.s., MS HAS run windows on a IA64 system... but not on the power4
> cause IBM has never shared one with them, kinda hard to do. Of course, your
> "prediction" that linux will support it is as likely as MS supporting it. In
> other words, it's pure speculation and has NO facts supporting it - pure BS.
Actually, youre wrong again, dresden. Which is not surprising, since you continue
to prove over and over again that you have no idea at all about whats going on
at IBM, or what has been going on there over the past few years.
Linux will run on the power4, because the power4 is going into the next generation
S/* mainframes, under which linux is *officially* supported.
Idiot.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Nathan Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:28:05 -0400
:Nobody at my company in my department even considers doing any work on
:Linux.
You just defeated your whole argument. Both Linux and Windows 2000 have
their place. It is ridiculous to say that one is 'superior' to the other.
I will agree that 2000 is stable and for the average user a few crashes a
year is more than acceptable ( especially if you changed from Win 9x ).
However, in my own personal experience Linux is far more stable and better
suited to any serious/critical task, ie web/mail servers. I agree that
Linux lags as a desktop OS ( just look at USB support ) but that is to be
expected.
In short both OSs have their place. For many with limited resources Linux
is a better alternative ( ie Apache on Linux comapred to IIS on NT/2000 ).
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:45:05 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT101600000000
>
> That's the headlines once they fail to support this chip.
>
> Linux will be supporting it just like they currently have IA64 working!
>
> Microsoft doesn't even have the IA64 working!
>
Amazing, it sure seemed to work great with Win2K at the Comdex many moons
ago.
BTW I tried it at the Comdex, before I went to the Linux area.
------------------------------
From: Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:53:49 GMT
I do not like Microsoft. I am just pointing out some strong points of one of
its flagship products and the challenges they inevitablly pose to the Linux
platform, which I so very much would like to advocate.
Haoyu Meng
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:34:54 GMT, Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> |Windows 2000 is rock solid. I have used it for almost half a year. Only
> |had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly installed
> |hardware devices.
> |
> |Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone see it
> |as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
> |
> |Personally, I had been a Linux fan since Kernel version 1 with Slackware
> |floppies downloaded over 28.8k modem. While in college I used Linux as
> |my main workstation OS, with Win95/98 relegated to secondary role. But
> |Win2k changed all of it. Right now, all the workstation frontends I use
> |at home at work is win2k boxes with the headless Linux servers tucked
> |away on a network link to do only number crunching and code comping.
> |
> |Any similar stories?
>
> This looks like it was intended for the windows advocacy group.
>
> Please be more carefull where you post, as you may attract many
> angry retorts with misplaced messages.
>
> --
> Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
> -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
> xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
> a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:35:36 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:06:11 +0200...
...and James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Comparing Win2k to Gnome/KDE is really unfair. They are still playing
> catchup to Win95/98. Hell, in some ways (ease of use, consistent interface,
> available apps) they have yet to pass Win31 ...
Interface consistency with the rest of X applications is impossible to
achieve, applications are coming; what puzzles me is your third point:
How is Windows 3.1 more user-friendly than either GNOME or KDE?
mawa
--
Brigitte-Leser!
Brillenputzer!
Briefmarkensammler!
Brockhaus-Abonnent!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51????
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:34:03 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:14:24 +0800...
...and Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It was the Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:09:08 -0700...
> > ...and Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One annoyance I have with the windows explorer vs KDE's Konqueror, is
> that
> > > Konqueror lets you "drill down" the dirtree, just grab a file, and drag
> it
> > > over a dir, and after a half second, the dir opens and you can drop down
> > > another level. This is a lot more convenient that with windows.
> >
> > This idea is called "spring-loaded folders" in recent versions of the
> > MacOS Finder. Would be fun if it is originally a KDE idea ;)
>
> In the words of Linux/UNIX fanatics, Linux *stole* the idea from the Mac.
User interface ideas are not property and can thus not be stolen. Your
point is moot.
> Isn't this the same sort of thing that everybody here accuses MS of?
No, it isn't, since that would obviously mean that I, too, would
accuse MS of stealing user interface ideas, and I don't. Microsoft
have copied many UI ideas, a lot of them, alas, rather bad ones, but
they certainly couldn't have stolen any.
mawa
--
Rechtsfahrer!
Regenfl�chter!
Rehstreichler!
Rinnenbowler!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Distro 8.0 wish list...
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:38:57 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:43:19 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey kids,
>
> Alright, seeing as how many of the major distributors are in their 7.x
> releases, I just thought I'd put out my 8.0 release wish list.
>
> Linux kernel 2.4
> gcc 3.0
> KDE 2
> GNOME 2
That'll take a while. What about GNOME 1.4?
> GTK+ 2.0
> KOffice
> GNOMEOffice
> OpenOffice
These two will probably overlap a lot, enough to say they're the same.
> WP 8.0 lite
> Mozilla 1
> Netscape 6
These two are the same (Netscape with proprietary additions).
> XFree86 4
> Borland's Kylix
> Sawfish & Enlightenment (would like to compare...)
> Good OpenGL drivers for Voodoo cards (NVidia needs competition)
> At least one good desktop publishing program (Quark preferably)
Is there Quark for any Unix?
> More Themes & Iconsets & Propaganda Art
>
> Lesse, if 6.0 came out in the summer of 1999 and 7.0 came out in the
> summer of 2000, looks like I'll be right on time cursing the Mandrake
> 8.0 release by... next July?
>
> Aw man, can't wait can't wait can't wait...
>
> And yes, I have to buy this stuff because I don't have a cable modem.
>
> Seriously, I think all that stuff should be ready by then. Doable? Yea
> or nay? (totally kick-ASS collection of software if yea, imho) Anything
> missing? Don't really use Samba, Apache, Perl, etc. so I don't know
> what stage they'll be at...
GNOME 2.0 is definitely out of the question, they're still working on
revamping the core. GNOME 1.4 will probably be in it, it's supposed to
be released this year.
mawa
--
Hartschalenkoffertr�ger!
Vibrationsalarmierer!
Heckscheibenheizer!
Hallenhalmaspieler!
------------------------------
From: Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:58:52 GMT
Read my message carefully: both reboots on win2k were made so I could tweak with
configurations of newly installed hardware devices. They were not lock-ups, simply
change of configuration and reboot to verify the configuration.
Linux is stable, but I wouldn't say more or less stable than Win2k. Having to
reboot once a year is the same as having to reboot twice a year on the DESKTOP
(not server obviously) as far as usability is concerned.
Terry Porter wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:34:54 GMT, Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Windows 2000 is rock solid.
>
> > I have used it for almost half a year. Only
> >had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly installed
> Then you need to revise your understanding of "rock solid" !
>
> >hardware devices.
> My Linux pc has been running for 3 years, and apart from power outages (no
> ups) it has locked up *3* times. Thats once per year, not 4 times a year like
> your "rock solid win2k" , and two of those times were when this box was nuked,
> this is a OLD kernel, 2.0.36.
>
> >
> >Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone see it
> >as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
> Not me.
>
> >
> >Personally, I had been a Linux fan since Kernel version 1 with Slackware
> >floppies downloaded over 28.8k modem. While in college I used Linux as
> >my main workstation OS, with Win95/98 relegated to secondary role. But
> >Win2k changed all of it. Right now, all the workstation frontends I use
> >at home at work is win2k boxes with the headless Linux servers tucked
> >away on a network link to do only number crunching and code comping.
> Lotsa Linux fans about, some never get to the Linux Desktop.
>
> >
> >Any similar stories?
> I doubt you'll find them here, I think you need a Windows advocacy group.
>
> >
> >
> >Haoyu Meng
> >
> >Telpic Internet Solutions
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 4 days 10 hours 22 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:06:31 GMT
Win2k cannot compete with Linux or any UNIX box as a server platform. I think
this point is rather obvious. And a desktop OS does not need the same *proven*
stability as a server OS. As far as most users are concerned, if the desktop
does not lock up for 6 months, it might as well be the same as assuming it
never locks up.
I agree Linux is very easy to use, only if u know how. That's what CLI is all
about.
Linux offers excellent integration of small comand line applications via
pipes. Each app does a little job, and use pipe and scripts to glue them
together to do more complicated things. Whereas Windows offers the easy
integration of full-scale business applications through ActiveX and COM. I
haven't seen this capability replicated in any other *NIX environment. That's
a key reason they had not been found popular in the vast business desktop
environment.
2:1 wrote:
> Haoyu Meng wrote:
> >
> > Windows 2000 is rock solid. I have used it for almost half a year. Only
> > had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly installed
> > hardware devices.
> >
> > Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone see it
> > as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
>
> Windows 2000 is only easy to use (if indeed it is) when you know how to
> use it. Personally, I find Linux a whole lot easier to use than Windows
> 2000.
>
> If you've only been using Win2K for half a year. Many Other OS boxes
> have had uptimes ov years in length. Win2K has not been around long
> enough yet to prove its stability.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
> binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
> first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
> commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
