Linux-Advocacy Digest #205, Volume #30 Mon, 13 Nov 00 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Myers")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Les Mikesell")
Focus in Linux seems a bit cooky ("Mark Johnson")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Myers")
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Les
Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:02:45 +0200
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:27:43 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:yIKP5.86023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:06:13 +0200,
> >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Because notepad is about as simple as application can get and still be
> >> >useful?
> >>
> >>
> >> Notepad is not useful.
> >
> >Editting small text files in not useful?
>
> He clearly didn't say that.
That is the implication, as notepad is the primary tool for doing so in
windows.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:12:12 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 12 Nov 2000 01:21:04 -0700,
> Craig Kelley, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:QOgP5.18758$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8uj0kg$viv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >
> >> > > > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> >> > > > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any
files.
> >> > >
> >> > > Windows, in that regard, can allow much tighter control than linux.
> >> > > Check NTFS first.
> >> >
> >> > I think you mean 'more arbitrary' control, not tighter. Linux makes
> >> > you map permissions into 3 sets which turn out to match most
> >> > real-world situations very well.
> >>
> >> Really? How do you deny someone in an access group access to a single file
> >> that all others in that access group can access without creating an all new
> >> group to put everyone but that one person in?
> >>
> >> That's a pretty common real-world situation.
> >
> >Perhaps, but not in my real-world.
> >
> >ACLs would be nice, but they are not necessary, and in fact suid group
> >directories are much more useful (sticky -- somethine NT cannot do).
> >If I had to choose between the two, I'd take sticky bits over ACLs any
> >day.
> >
> >--
>
> Fortunately, with linux you have a choice, there are at least 3 diff ACL
> projects out there for linux.
None of which are near completion, would be considered anywhere near stable
and go completely against the grain of *nix style "security".
It's a hack-job on an antiquated and inadequate security model. Several Unix
vendors have implemented DAC on their platforms, but only for Government
jobs since the DOD requires it, but it's still a hack-job there, as well.
It's the design philosophy that counts, not the attempts of individuals
to correct the original poor design that matters.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:05:29 +0200
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:16:51 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >Let me see, of the top of my head, things that you *have* to remember in
> >order to handle linux.
>
> Wrong.
>
> >Lot of commands and their parameters.
>
> Again, you don't have to know a "lot of commands" to use Linux.
I don't want to refer to the man page every time I need to issue a command,
it slows productivity.
How hard to understand is that?
Therefor, I need to remember a lot of commands.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: 13 Nov 2000 06:09:04 GMT
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:40:01 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>Sounds like a great way to screw with your fellow employees.
It is. xhost is one of those things that security-conscious people
are supposed to avoid.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:08:01 +0200
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:01:55 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
>
> >You didn't understood the point.
> >Win9x is a *single* user OS, only one person can be logged on at a time,
> >that person is, as far as the system concerned, root.
> >Linux is a *multi* user OS, only one person can be logged on locally at a
> >time, that person is whatever the permissions declare him as such.
> >Win9x has no such concept.
> >Win2K & NT have taken this concept to much higher degree than in
linux/unix.
> >I can delegate rights to much finer degrees in 2k/nt than I can on *nix.
> >Despite all of this, ME offers some limited file protection, but I don't
> >like to play with an OS which was built for the AOL user.
>
> NT has a great access control system in theory, in practice it comes
shipped
> in a wide-open configuration, and most users leave it like that.
I can't recall what the configuration for NT is. However, it's not as if
it's *hard* to do so.
2000 comes with admin only access to system files, by default.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:11:59 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EJJP5.7861$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > And there are command line equivelants for ghostview?
> >
> > Of course. Ghostview is an unnecessary wrapper for ghostscript
> > whose only use is for viewing in graphics mode. If you don't have
> > graphics mode you can still use the underlying tool to manipulate
> > postscript.
>
> Viewing a pdf file or .ps file is "unnecessary"?
If you aren't on a device capable of displaying it, it is unnecessary
to view it in order to do whatever conversions you wanted to
do remotely. If the remote box is running a web server you
could render to a jpeg and view with a browser - or send the
parts you want to a nearby printer.
> That's the purpose of ghostview. I'm not talking about manipulating
> postscript, but rather viewing it. How do you view an eps file in text
> mode?
An eps file is text, and there are good reasons for that. But for what
you mean, you would typically send it to a postscript device - at
least I would. But, I think these examples are contrived. Why would
you try to do something you want to view remotely in graphics mode
through a non-graphic medium? Just ftp the thing over and look
at it on your own box.
> > > Netscape works in command line mode?
> >
> > That's called lynx.
>
> No it's not. Lynx doesn't support Java or DHTML (well, Netscape isn't so
> great at it either.. but how bout Mozilla then?)
And your point is? Lynx is very fast. But again, if the point is to
look at pictures, do it directly from your own machine. What's
the point of running someone else's Netscape. I do sometimes
telnet over a slow link to a better-connected machine and run
lynx there when the object is to download files to the remote machine.
Is there an equivalent windows program to run remotely like that?
> > But can you manage the machine itself?
>
> Yes. There is nothing you can do in the GUI that you can't do in a
command
> line as far as managing the machine.
Starting with win2k or does this apply to NT as well? How would I
add or remove an additional IP address to a network card through
the command line?
> > I have no trouble doing anything
> > short of pushing the reset button on a remote unix box through telnet,
> > including updating software, tweaking device driver settings and the
> > like.
>
> All can be done in Win2k via command line as well.
>
> > How do you deal with installshield/setup on a windows box?
>
> Well, if the setup program doesn't include a silent mode of operation
(many
> do, including such things as service packs), then I would install it first
> on another machine, monitoring the installed files and registry changes
with
> various utilities that are freely available. Then copy the files to the
> machine via ftp, and apply the registry changes.
Yow - that's your idea of adminsistering a machine via telnet?
> If that's too much work, then you could always write a WSH script to do it
> for you on 1000 machines.
And that isn't supposed to be work?
> > It is also very handy to have files containing some canned sets of
> > command line commands to do particular things that take a lot of input.
> > For unix systems I just save them in a file and paste the relevant lines
> > into a telnet window to get them done. I see windows guys saving
> > screen dumps of systems, then paging through a mess of them punching
> > all the same buttons again and again. Is there a better way than that?
>
> I'm not sure I follow you. What's wrong with a script?
Mostly just that I don't know how to script 'visual' things that depend
on something that may or may not appear in a certain place and need
to be moved to some other unknown-till-you-see-it place. Text
commands are much less sensitive to that sort of relative context.
When you do something once on a command line you can usually
paste the commands into a text file as you go. The next time you
need to do the same thing you can bring up the file and cut and
paste the same commands into some other machine. No scripting
language needed - just a windowing system capable of cut
and paste, and you don't have to worry about whether the target
supports the same version of a script language. This technique
works with everything that allows telnet connections for configuration,
like routers and similar equipment, but so far I haven't been able
to do it to a windows box.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:15:00 GMT
"James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VgKP5.2063$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I see windows guys saving
> > screen dumps of systems, then paging through a mess of them punching
> > all the same buttons again and again. Is there a better way than that?
>
> Yes, you can create scripts that will work with Install shield if the
company
> has set it up to do so. I was reading the documentation for SQL Server 7.0
and
> it tells you in detail of how to run through the install and answer all
the
> questions to create a script to install it over the network on a remote
> machine.
I take it that means every program instance is different?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Mark Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Focus in Linux seems a bit cooky
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:11:03 GMT
What am I doing wrong here or what am I miss understanding:
I click on an application, say a news client, do some work, then i click
on the terminal icon to get a command line. Up pops the term window
front and center with a blinking cursor so I start typing. But guess what
nothing appears in the term window cause the news client actually still
has focus behind the terminal window. What gives?
Or how about this. I'm using an application and I use the menu to bring
up a preference dialog. I need to type something into an edit field and
even though it is the first control on the dialog I have to press tab to get
the cursor to show in it. So now with the cursor displayed I start typing,
nothing shows up. So I actually use the mouse and click in the edit box.
Ok, now I can actually type something in it.
But wait, oops, I miss spelled a the directory path, so I use my mouse and
put the cursor on the letter I transposed, and mose the mouse cursor to the
side (off the dialog) and try to edit the error, but nothing is happening. I
finally manage to get this to work by moving my mouse cursor just a little
bit to the side of the place I'm editing and voila! it works....now this doesn't
happen all the time it happens intermittantly and it seems to affect a lot of
different applications not just the same ones.
What is up with this!?! I feel like an idiot...!
Is this the way things are suppose to work? Is this a window manager problem?
FYI, I'm using KDE at work and Helix Gnome at home.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:20:47 GMT
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Also, I'm not going to exclude windows 95/98 from this topic as Linux
> > > can act as a server and a workstation(desktop PC). Therefore if u
> > > compare it to NT (which acts as a desktop or server) you have to also
> > > compare Linux to WIndows 95/98 which obviously act as workstations and
> > > can technically act as servers. Because of this Linux can be compared
> > > to either NT or the dumbed down version of Windows.
> >
> > No, you can't.
> > Reason is, Linux is a multi user OS.
> > Win9x is a *single* user OS.
> > See the difference?
>
> That is indeed a difference but it doesn't mean it has to be separated
> security wise from Win95/98. Any OS needs security. Even if you aren't
> speaking strictly in terms of someone breaking into the system the OS
> should still allow some protection from people deleting things they
> shouldn't just b/c they don't use them or know what they are and
> therefore don't think the files are needed. 95/98 allows this to
> happen,
So does MacOS, BeOS, Amiga (I believe) and many other OSes. Win9x is
not alone in this, and MS certainly didn't set a precedent when designing
this single-user system that has many similar flaws as any other single-user
system.
In fact, MS has taken steps to make this single-user system as good as possible
in Windows Me by including S.F.P. which no other single-user system in this
category has.
We could debate the failings of single-user systems all day. I agree Win9x
sucks, WinMe is just the best of a sucky line of OSes, no one is debating this.
But lets compare apples to apples.
> Linux doesn't unless you are root.
Exactly. Trust me, you REALLY don't want to attempt to compare Linux to
Win9x, because then you are admitting that Linux serves in the same
category(ies)
as Win9x, which you certainly do not want to do.
<SNIP: more discussion as to why security is better than single-user>
Preaching to the choir =)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:23:56 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MGIP5.125975$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:6fIP5.19732$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:NQFP5.125933$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > > The thing you are missing is that journaling does not mean you won't
> > > > lose anything, it means that the operations are ordered so you can
> > > > always recover to a consistent state. Journaling metadata means that
> > > > the directory structure and free space tables are always consistent
> > > > or at least recoverable even though any particular file's contents
> > > > may not be correct. Journaling everything usually requires writing
> > > > changes to a log, performing the real update, then clearing the log
> > > > so that incomplete operations remain in the log and can be completed
> > > > during recovery. Making this set of steps come close to the speed
> > > > of non-journaled operations is non-trivial.
> > >
> > > Sounds like NTFS does it.
> > >
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/6/70.ASP
> >
> > There is really not enough information in that article to tell whether
> > the log is just metadata or not, and I doubt if the omissions were
> > accidental.
>
> It is exceptionally clear (and note this was NT 3.1 so it was in NT from the
> beginning)
>
> When a user updates a file, the Log File Service records all redo and undo
> information for the transaction. For recoverability, redo information allows
> NTFS to roll the transaction forward (repeat the transaction if necessary),
> and undo allows NTFS to roll the transaction back if an error occurs.
>
> If a transaction completes successfully, NTFS commits the file update to
> disk. If the transaction is not complete, NTFS ends or rolls back the
> transaction according to the undo information. If NTFS detects an error in
> the transaction, it rolls back the transaction. If NTFS cannot guarantee
> that a transaction completed successfully, it rolls the transaction back.
> Incomplete modifications to the volume are not allowed.
>
> If the system crashes (due to power failure or other cause), NTFS performs
> three passes through the data on the disk: an analysis pass, a redo pass,
> and an undo pass. During the analysis pass, NTFS appraises the damage, if
> any, and determines which clusters it must update using the information in
> the log file. The redo pass performs any steps logged from the last
> checkpoint. Then the undo pass rolls back any incomplete (uncommitted)
> transactions.
It's also poignant to note that this takes only a few minutes on a large
drive as opposed to the lengthy and seemingly unending fsck on a large
ext2 drive. The journaling of NTFS facilitates a speedy recovery.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:35:09 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5dKP5.7867$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:g0KP5.19757$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Where does it say that what it considers as a transaction includes the
> > data? I question this because I have seen other sources that said it
> > didn't.
>
> What point is there in doing a re-do transaction if you have no data to
> apply to it?
You still have to do that to protect the consistency of the directories
and freespace (metadata only).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:50:05 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > You don't have to remember anything - it is logical enough that you can
> > make it up as you go along.
>
> Let me see, of the top of my head, things that you *have* to remember in
> order to handle linux.
> Lot of commands and their parameters.
> Sure, you can man <command>, but you need to remember those commands,
> otherwise, you don't have an option to find them. The command's name is
> rarely useful.
"man -k something"
Maybe you do have to remember just that one or "man man"
in case you forget the option.
> cp vs copy
> rm vs del/delete/erase
The left side is no harder to think of than the right side, and
more obvious that right-mousing anything - and of course
man -k will find them.
> You need to remember the meanings of a lot of file names, /etc ring a
bell?
Generally 'program.conf' where 'program' is the thing you want
to change, but the man page tells you. Most of those files
are commented, unlike the registry, and most of the programs
involved will take an alternate file as a command line option
if you want to test your changes with another instance before
clobbering the program running in production.
> You've a *lot* to learn before you can "make it up as you go along"
Sometimes you need to know how to read a man page. Where do
you find the equivalent concise, fairly complete reference for
everything under windows without having to wade through an
intermingled tutorial about all the stuff you don't want to change?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:57:52 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iDJP5.126087$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > Nothing on *nix platform comes even close
> > > in the ease of use and the selection of languages.
> >
> > Huh? On unix if my executable file starts with:
> > #!/usr/bin/perl
> > it will be executed by perl without the user needing
> > to know what interpreter is running. Or it can say:
> > #!/bin/sh
> > for a shell script, or
> > #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> > to run with perl but with the warning flag set. How
> > do you allow any file to specify it's own interpreter
> > and command line flags
>
> Create a shortcut with any command line flags you want in windows.
>
> Easy. Intuitive.
Every script needs a shortcut? That's bad.
> Set your own icon if you want to make it easier to remember.
I don't want icons, I want to connect them with pipes so
each one can be used as a component of another.
> Put it on the desktop if you want.
> Or in the quick launch toolbar so its always visible.>
> In Win2k you can also set the security.
Is there something unique here?
> And you can distribute it to every user of the machine by dropping it in
> the"All Users" folder.
Yech - you mean gunk shows up on your desktop whether you want
it or not?
> With Win2K you can also run it as a different user by checking a flag and
> specifying the userid and password.
>
> Powerful stuff.
None of that needs special case handling under unix/linux.
> Coming soon to the Windows 9x crowd as Whistler. Linux? Whats a Linux? Oh
> yeah. That OS for geeks that no one ever used on the desktop.
The OS for people who think that a hundred is not a large number of
programs. Or maybe a thousand - but I don't want to have to make a
shortcut for each one.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:59:38 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > I'm assuming an admin could also use Netscape if he so wished to
> > administer a win2k server or is Netscape not included in Microsoft's Ten
> > Commandments? "Thou shall not have no other browser before IE"
>
> Make moziila support activex, and other such standards, and I don't see a
> reason why you can't.
>
Why do you think that some proprietary thing sold only by one vendor
and 'standard' belong in the same sentence?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 13 Nov 2000 07:07:59 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:05:29 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> Again, you don't have to know a "lot of commands" to use Linux.
>
>I don't want to refer to the man page every time I need to issue a command,
>it slows productivity.
You don't need to "issue commands", for the most part. Redhat ships with
a 'control panel' as far back as 4.x.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
