Linux-Advocacy Digest #723, Volume #30 Thu, 7 Dec 00 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful ("Michael")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (James Lee)
Re: Christmas Virus Warning ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Windows review (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Walton Simons")
Re: Linux is awful (Cybe R. Wizard)
Re: linux on a 486 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows review (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: MSN and AOL-Time Warner: Is Microsoft being hypocritical? (kiwiunixman)
Re: MSN and AOL-Time Warner: Is Microsoft being hypocritical? (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:34:20 +1000
"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> | > Properly maintained has to be taken in context.
> | >
> |
> | Personally I don't feel maintanance should need to be as constant as it
is
> | with windows. Weekly scandisks and defrags, viruscans and registry
scans.
>
> The registry scans are largely unnecessary.
>
That all depends on who you ask.
> Scan disks and defrags I've never done since installing Win2k in
> January. My system runs very well.
>
> This is why I don't advocate Win9x. It can be kept running stably but
> it's just too much hassle.
>
This is my point.
> A good thing to do as well is to keep Win9x system files in it's own
> partition and creat another partition for temp filing and swapping. The
> bulk of the fragmentation will then be confined to the temp/swap
> partition.
>
> | This waste's too much time that could be used doing better and more
useful
> | things. My home box that I use linux on except for one problem (which
was
> | HW - dud mobo) has never given me a reason to comlain, once it was up
and
> | running.
>
> Same with Win2k for me here. This is why these testimonials on Linux
> don't really impress me. I need to hear about application support.
> Linux's application support is still in the yellow.
>
There are other reasons to run linux. Simply for me, I have never seen
linux crash. I have seen win2000 crash. At the moment linux supplies all
the apps that I need, and I can get them all GPL.
> | Windows usually takes me more time to get working properly. On install
they
> | take about the same. The big difference is that it takes me 2-3 hours
to
> | config, tweak, install extra, patch etc etc a new linux system to my
liking
> | (this is from recent seting up of my system). With windows, to set up,
> | install software, use windowsupdate, start to fix problems that arise
> | because of those programmes, and not to mention the endless reboot, this
> | figure is close to a day, not a quarter of one.
>
> That's a really gross exaggeration. <vbg>
>
No, no it's not.
I install a lot of apps, from word processors to toys and games and such,
this is not a dedicated business box I'm talking about, it's a home user
box. Installing all the extra apps takes a long time when all done at once.
With linux, 99% is done in a default installation. Barely takes any extra
time compared with windows.
> Do you reboot after each applications installation?? That's unnecessary.
> Install them all and then do one reboot. Same with drivers if you have
> to install them.
>
The endless reboots I'm talking about are the ones that you have no choice
on. All the times where it doesn't ask, it just reboots. Especially with
windowsupdate.
With the "optional" reboots, a lot of the time it is necessary. eg.
Windows doesn't detect my video card. It's plain tnt2 m64, nothing at all
flashy. Yet windows can't use it at until it's been set up, and rebooted.
It's difficult to do much else in windows in the low defualt resolutions,
have the windows live off screen, especially the "ok" button.
> | > There are a lot of lousy applications out there that cause nasty
> | > conflicts with other applications on the system, add inappropriate
> | > registry entries, or are just plain unstable themselves.
> | >
> |
> | And who created the registry?
> | Who designed the OS that it was so easy to create "lousy applications"?
>
> Easy to create lousy applications. It's just as easy to create lousy
> applications for Linux. When linux starts having the same amount and
> spectrum of developers then it will see it's similar share of lousy
> applications.
>
However with linux a lousy application wont effect the stability of the OS.
If it crashes, kill it. Done and done. No long term effects from a bad
install. The worst you can expect is a library incompatibility, and let's
face it, it's not exactly difficult to symlink a couple of library's.
> | I have never experience either problem with linux, even before updating
a
> | system. To be fair, I rarely use bleeding edge software on a system I
want
> | to be stable, on my play system I use newer (read beta versions,
development
> | release) software, and slightly more probs are encountered. But that is
my
> | choice, not so in windows.
>
> There's not much software available for Linux. The type of users and
> application developers that Linux presently has will reduce this sort of
> thing. I'm not impressed because it's a two edged sword. No apps, no
> problems with apps.
>
There are many apps available for linux. Just look at freshmeat and you
will see. Just because there are not many commercial (this is changing
also) or "name brand" apps, doesn't mean there aren't many apps, and very
useful apps they are.
> | > Avoid bad applications and you can have a surprisingly smoothly
running
> | > system (not Unix or Win2k stability but a system eons away from one
that
> | > crashes 5times a day). The more applications and crap you install, the
> | > more likely you'll be bitten by a bad one.
> | >
> |
> | I feel I should be able to install any program, and as many as I like
> | without the fear of the application hosing my system. I see this as bad
> | design in the OS as it *lets* it happen in the first place.
>
> That's the case with Win2k. I don't fear my system being hosed by an
> application. In Win98, without DLL protection and the general fragility
> of the system to errant apps this is not so. I therefore don't advocate
> it.
>
I've not done myself the pleasure of running it on a full time basis,
however collueges and friends of mine have told me a couple of horror
stories with win2000, and a lot of these were caused by application
installers hosing some setting and the system is no longer stable. Again,
bad design, bad implementation.
> | > If you keep having to reinstall Win9x when a problem arises, note that
> | > you may be reinstalling the errant application or driver over and over
> | > again, leading to the same problem each time.
> |
> | Fair point. Can I have the source to try and find the problem? Oh, ok,
I
> | can't. Will tech support help me? No, I don't want to reinstall again.
> | Damn.... Back to linux!
>
> I move on and find an alternative because there's invariably a working
> one out there. That's the beauty of Win2k. I can run Win32 apps in a
> stable environment. There's a sea of apps out there. I can therefore get
> pretty much what I want to use.
>
>
When I can get windows under the GPL, have full control over it, and get as
many good and useful apps under the GPL and well, then I will consider it,
until then, I'm quite happy where I am. As by sounds of it are you.
-m
------------------------------
From: James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: 08 Dec 2000 02:58:06 GMT
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:24:22 GMT,
Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Would anyone but nerds be interested?
Yes they would.
>I doubt it.
I suspect that you doubt gravity as well.
>The only reason the big companies are jumping on the Linux bandwagon
Holy Cow there's a bandwagon? Here I just thought it was a group of
people that were interested in sharing knowledge to develop a rock
solid OS.
>is because they figure if it catches on (doubtful at best) they can
>make a buck selling hardware and services.>
>It has such a dismal market share amongst desktop users now, that if
>it were commercial it would be dead by now.
Then again, if people were all that smart we would have been driving
Tuckers since the late forties,,,
>Point is Linux can't even be given away because no desktop user in his
>right mind (programmers are not in their right minds) would want it.
What the heck are you saying? can't be given away? Please reference
the download statistics for Linux Distro sites.
>As Redhat and SuSE and Corel move toward commercializing Linux, and
>don't kid yourself that is their ultimate goal, to make money, Linux
>will be even deader than it is now.
deader? is that Latin for no clue?
>Swango
>"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
Swang? Damn get a spell checker!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Christmas Virus Warning
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 02:51:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Dorward wrote:
> >
> > Nigel wrote:
> >
> > > Our IT dept. have received a Virus warning this
> > > morning. The virus appears as a file attachment
> > > called Navidad which is part of an e-christmas card.
> > > If you receive such an e-mail please do not open it!
> >
> > Why? Does it affect Linux users?! :)
>
> It contains a message telling you to switch to Linux
> and how to undo the damage if you are smart enough.
I disagree. Windoze is a virus: it slows down your
computer, eats all your resources, gradually fills up
your hard drive without telling you, and infects your
brain so that you think that all these things are
"features that you want".
Linux, by contrast, doesn't need to be a virus to spread
from computer to computer.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:01:26 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:25:09 +1300, kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Any what other versions/distro's have you used?
>
>kiwiunixman>
None.
Why should I have to?
Isn't Linux just the kernal?
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:04:28 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 02:35:01 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>You said it didn't support USB. If you loaded a version that does,
>then why did you lie about it?
You really DO HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO READ Les.
This is the second time.
I never said it didn't SUPPORT USB, I said NONE OF MY DEVICES WORKED.
Please, learn how to read before you post erroneously.
Swango
>I take it you own a lot of MS stock and are worried?
I don't own any stock.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:06:08 GMT
Curtis wrote:
>
> There's a lot to learn about a machine when running Windows, any
> flavour, without having to get cozy with a CLI. One can install their
> own OS, add hardware, set them up, install software of varying types and
> complexity and be very productive without getting acquainted with a CLI.
> Even for automating tasks, there are many alternatives to the CLI for
> Windows. I believe you genuinely know this.
>
> Therefore, that ridiculous statement you made must have been clearly
> intended to make you look good or something. People who feel insecure
> and wish to look good or feel superior tend to make these silly
> statements.
On the other hand, the CLI for Windozzzzzzz /is/ pretty lame.
> In Linux, I agree that if you don't know the CLI then you must be a
> Linux cripple. This is not so with Windows.
I agree. But even in Windows, the CLI can be quite useful, especially
with the tools available from the NT Resource Kit. Or with your
compilers.
For example, you can use "make" to compile and link rather larger
projects than an IDE can handle [even if, unlike Borland C++ Builder,
the IDE doesn't leak memory.]
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Walton Simons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:07:16 -0500
No, he's right. You are dancing to the wintroll's tune and filling this
group with worthless crap like a bunch of lobotomized monkeys.
JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:43:01 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Dennis Popov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >Looks like most of the Linux advocates are nothing but a bunch of
trollable
> >morons with shit in place of brains. You people disgust me.
>
> You really are queer.
>
------------------------------
From: Cybe R. Wizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 21:07:39 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Was it only Fri, 08 Dec 2000 02:43:48 GMT, when Steve Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> offered:
>"Cybe R. Wizard" wrote:
>
>> >> >Actually most of these posts are coming from experience, the vast majority of
>> >> >Linux people have Windows experience.
>> >>
>> >> In that case, the people who keep posting that Windows won't run for
>> >> more than a few days at a time are lying, instead of ignorant.
>
Before snipping your comments, Steve, I'd like to say that, not only
do I agree with what you have to say, but I'd gladly defend your right
to say it, no matter whether I agreed or not, BUT, I did not write
either of the comments above, nor did any comments of mine appear in
your post. Now, if you miss the actual post to which you wish to
respond I don't mind you piggybacking but don't you think it would be
nice to attribute properly?
Thanks ever so much,
Cybe
BTW, love the name . }
>OK, here's some hard evidence:
>
snip
Cybe R. Wizard
--
cyberwizard
@
cyberwizardstower.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:03:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with everything you say. My first install was on
> a 386 with 4meg ram and it worked fine. It was an Iggsydrsil
> (SP?) distribution.
Ahh, haven't heard anyone try to pronounce "Yggdrasil" in a
long time. The name comes from the Norse "Tree of Life".
Odin hung from it for awhile before losing his eye and gaining
all the wisdom in the Universe (it only sounds confusing).
> Adding another 4meg made it run great when compared with
> the 486s of the day with the same size ram. Micah will
> want to pare down the distribution and probably leave out
> all the source code, most of the games, all but one editor,
> etc. It is still possible to get a full Linux operational
> in under 50 Megs. But that is still a lot of disketts to
> install one at a time by hand.
You can do it with Slackware 7.1 in 18 floppies, including
the boot and root disks. The floppy install is not terribly
difficult or long, especially if you use the "menu" install
method and uncheck the "ide" and "scsi" kernels from the menu.
You uncheck them because all you need is one kernel: the one
from the boot disk that has worked this long on the install
so you should be using it. Either the 7th or the 8th disk
is quicker using this method.
> The smallest I have ever done was three disketts. That was
> an "embedded" system that was just a data logger. A command
> line, couple of drivers, and a network connection.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Micah Higgs wrote:
> > > >
> > > > is it possibul to put linux on a 486/66mhz with
> > > > only a floppy drive?
> > >
> > > You do need 16 meg RAM. Perhaps "need" is too
> > > strong, but things slow down a lot.
> >
> > "Need" is too strong. Linux uses the hardware better
> > than DOS, so ironically even at 4MB or 8MB you will
> > see a speed increase when you switch from DOS to Linux.
> > Add a 1x or 2x physical memory swap partition, and
> > you're doing fine.
> >
> > > I recommend loading a minimum system from floppies,
> > > and downloading the rest over a network if possible.
> >
> > The problem may be that Micah doesn't have the hard
> > drive space for the full system, and possibly not even
> > a second desktop to "download from". One needs to
> > understand that not everyone has a full gig of hard
> > drive space, or even half that, and not everyone has a
> > second computer with a CDROM drive and/or network card.
> >
> > I installed my first Linux computer by floppy-installing
> > Slackware onto a 486/50 using floppies generated by a
> > desktop at my college. The lab monitors would have been
> > very annoyed had I plugged my first Linux computer into
> > their network to finish the install. :)
> >
> > Something to think about: a complete workstation install
> > of RedHat 5.2 (base system, development, X Windows, etc.)
> > only takes a little less than 500MB of hard drive space,
> > if you can borrow a CDROM drive from someone or have a
> > network card and an already-functional desktop computer.
> >
> > > I first ran Linux on a 33mhz 386 and just recently
> > > retired my last 486.
> >
> > I still run Slackware 7.1 on a 486/66 with 16MB of RAM
> > and an 800MB hard drive. I wasn't able to full install,
> > but I did manage to get nearly everything including
> > a base development, networking, and X-Window setup.
> >
> > Of course, that machine is only one of three Linux
> > systems on my home network, the other two being
> > a 100Mhz Pentium and a 200Mhz AMD-something (forget at
> > the moment).
...not to mention the laptop, a 486/75 with a 1GB hard
drive, 16MB of RAM, and some weird Western Digital video
at 256 color SVGA that can manage an X Window session
using virtual screen mode 800x600.
It has the A-series (base Slackware, 50MB), and bits of
the N-series, AP1, X1, XAP1, and very few bits of the
GTK1 (just enough for GNumeric and GIMP). 200MB left
over after a 64MB swap partition and some mysterious
use of hard drive space (960MB total minus 700MB used
space equals 200MB? huh?).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:14:57 GMT
Curtis wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) posted:
> |
> | mv *.txt ../newdir
>
> No I need to move four out of 25 text files within the same directory.
> Some of them have 30-40 character names, so I can't remember their exact
> names. Using a GUI file manager is at least as effective.
Well, you can shorten the job quite a bit by using the TAB key to do
file-name completion on the command-line.
> The CLI is very good for heavy file management and for those who
> *consistently* have to do heavy file management. Otherwise a GUI is the
> better choice.
I find myself switching back and forth quite a lot, depending on the task.
Changing a long filename is a bit easier with a GUI [though I often
accidentally engage the name-edit feature in Explorer, which irritates
the hell out of me.]
> This is definitely true. But this doesn't mean that most need to
> dedicate most of their computing time to a CLI. It's really unnecessary
> and less enjoyable. Not to mention the case sensitive nature of the UNIX
> CLI.
That's a good feature!
> | There's no reason why the command line should solely be the preserve of
> | programmers.
>
> At the level it's being pushed? I'd say yes, its heavy use should be
> reserved for programmers or those who need to do heavy file management
> often.
Naw... it is easy to type "ee filename.jpq" to view a JPEG file.
In fact, "ee *.jpg" brings up a GUI with all the files ready for
easy selection.
Or "play audio.wav" to play a wave file. Of course, using a GUI to do
these tasks can be more fun.
> Average people cannot and will not learn everything. If they have a
> choice between two interfaces that will get most or all of what they
> wish to do done, in the most intuitive and enjoyable way, then they'll
> choose one and that will usually be the GUI. Simple.
I wonder if there's any psychophysical data to verify your contention.
> The more advanced, interested user will learn some of the CLI and rarely
> go on to master it, unless he/she has some professional pursuit that
> demands it. This then brings on what I find to be an unfair trait among
> the CLI pushers. They were either brought up on it, hence forced to use
> it, or have to use it professionally. They take this advantage or
> convenience for granted.
I dunno, I kind of like it (CLI) for general usage, too. It's so fast!
Chris
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog. Or use the command-line.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MSN and AOL-Time Warner: Is Microsoft being hypocritical?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:14:51 GMT
If you take away investment revenue's they would have made a loss.
However, if you look at the trend, most of the money they have coming in
(which allows them to make a profit) are from investments, hence the
reason for a annual profit growth rate of only 7%, compared to sun,
which is around 40% (maybe higher).
kiwiunixman
jtnews wrote:
> sfcybear wrote:
>
>> Rumor has it that MS needs to sell of investments to show a profit. If
>> it were just on revinues from Sales, service, training, etc. MS would
>> show a loss. You can check the numbers in MS's anual report. Or watch
>> the papers, I've seen a couple of snips that hint about this as well.
>
>
> Where did you hear this? As of the quarter ending Sept 30, 2000,
> their operating margin is still 47%, with an operating income of
> $2.77 billion and net income of $2.206 billion on sales of $5.8 billion.
>
> Goto www.sec.gov and find the 10-Q for Sept. 30, 2000.
>
> Three
> Months Ended
>
> Sept. 30
>
> 1999 2000
> -
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <S>
> <C> <C>
> Revenue
> $5,384 $5,800
> Operating expenses:
> Cost of revenue
> 712 859
> Research and development
> 813 956
> Sales and marketing
> 922 1,038
> General and administrative
> 148 170
> -
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Total operating expenses
> 2,595 3,023
> -
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Operating income
> 2,789 2,777
> Losses on equity investees and other
> (19) (52)
> Investment income
> 550 1,127
> -
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Income before income taxes
> 3,320 3,852
> Provision for income taxes
> 1,129 1,271
> -
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Income before accounting change
> 2,191 2,581
> Cumulative effect of accounting change (net of
> income taxes of $185)
> - (375)
> -
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Net income
> $2,191 $2,206
>
>========================================================================================
>
> Basic earnings per share:
> Before accounting change $
> 0.43 $ 0.49
> Cumulative effect of accounting change
> - (0.07)
> -
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> $
> 0.43 $ 0.42
>
>========================================================================================
>
> Diluted earnings per share:
> Before accounting change $
> 0.40 $ 0.46
> Cumulative effect of accounting change
> - (0.06)
> -
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> $
> 0.40 $ 0.40
>
>========================================================================================
>
> Average shares outstanding:
> Basic
> 5,129 5,299
> -
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Diluted
> 5,527 5,557
>
>========================================================================================
>
>
> -----= 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: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MSN and AOL-Time Warner: Is Microsoft being hypocritical?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:17:50 +1300
In New Zealand, there is a company called walkerwireless, that provides
bandwidth up to 25Mbits/persecond via normal television frequency (which
is carried via the TVNZ television network) both ways.
kiwiunixman
jtnews wrote:
> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>> Microsoft has the cash, why don't they setup a wireless broadband service?
>
>
> Right now wireless is too slow, still only 128kbits/sec at best. We
> must
> wait for 3G.
>
>
> -----= 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
******************************
